BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 700
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, Chair
AB 700
(Gomez and Levine) - As Amended April 14, 2015
SUBJECT: Political Reform Act of 1974: advertisement
disclosures.
SUMMARY: Provides that a specified disclaimer, if it is
required to appear in a video advertisement concerning a ballot
measure, must appear continuously during the advertisement.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires a disclaimer that "(spokesperson's name) is being
paid by this campaign or its donors," when it is required to
appear in an advertisement concerning a ballot measure, to be
shown continuously if the advertisement is a video
advertisement.
2)Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation
that would implement a California Disclose Act to ensure that
advertisements that seek to persuade voters to cast a vote in
favor or against ballot measures do not mislead voters as to
who is funding the campaign that paid for the advertisement.
AB 700
Page 2
EXISTING LAW:
1)Creates the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), and
makes it responsible for the impartial, effective
administration and implementation of the Political Reform Act
(PRA).
2)Requires a committee that makes an expenditure of $5,000 or
more to an individual for his or her appearance in an
advertisement to support or oppose the qualification, passage,
or defeat of a ballot measure, to do both of the following:
a) File a report within 10 days of the expenditure
identifying the measure, date of the expenditure, name of
the recipient, and amount expended; and,
b) Include the following statement in the advertisement in
highly visible roman font shown continuously if the
advertisement consists of printed or televised material, or
spoken in a clearly audible format if the advertisement is
a radio broadcast or telephone message:
"[Spokesperson's name] is being paid by this campaign or its
donors."
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
a crimes and infractions disclaimer.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:
The amendments to AB 700 reflect the changing methods
AB 700
Page 3
in the ways Californians communicate with one another
and receive their information relevant to their lives.
The internet continues to grow in its use as an
information and news medium. Campaigns have taken
note of the changes in the media used by voters and
have taken to the net with ever increasing financial
resources.
AB 700 addresses the growing use of videos for
purposes of campaign messaging on the internet, and
extends the same disclosure requirements for those
messages as those campaign messages on television.
2)"Paid Spokesperson" Requirements: In 2000, the Legislature
passed and the Governor signed SB 1223 (Burton), Chapter 102,
Statutes of 2000, which became Proposition 34 on the November
2000 general election ballot. The proposition, which passed
with 60 percent of the vote, made numerous substantive changes
to the PRA, including enacting new campaign disclosure
requirements and establishing new campaign contribution
limits.
One of the provisions of Proposition 34 established new
reporting and disclaimer requirements for ballot measure
advertisements that featured paid spokespeople. Under those
provisions, if a committee makes an expenditure of $5,000 or
more to an individual appearing in the advertisement, the
advertisement is required to include a disclosure statement
that the spokesperson is being paid by the campaign or its
donors. The committee is also required to file a specified
AB 700
Page 4
report in connection with any such advertisement.
It appears, however, that these requirements have only rarely
been triggered for ballot measure advertisements. While these
"paid spokesperson" requirements have been in place for more
than 14 years, no report has ever been filed with the
Secretary of State in accordance with those requirements,
though committee staff is aware of at least one instance in
which a "paid spokesperson" report was filed in connection
with a local election. The lack of reports filed pursuant to
those provisions could indicate that it is relatively rare for
ballot measure campaigns to pay individuals for their
appearances in advertisements.
3)"Disclose Act": As detailed above, the first section of this
bill declares the intent of the Legislature to implement a
"California Disclose Act." The provisions of this bill as it
was most recently amended, however, do not contain any of the
major provisions that have been included in previous
legislation that has been referred to as the California
Disclose Act. Furthermore, the bill declares the intent of
the Legislature to enact legislation that is wholly unrelated
to the current substantive contents of this bill. In light of
those facts, and given the letters that have been submitted in
support of and in opposition to this bill, it appears likely
that the current provisions of this bill are nothing more than
placeholder language, and are unrelated to the bill's ultimate
objective.
Specifically, the Legislature has considered three measures in
the last two legislative sessions that were titled or
otherwise commonly referred to as the California Disclose Act.
AB 1148 (Brownley) and AB 1648 (Brownley) of the 2011-2012
legislative session were both commonly referred to as the
California Disclose Act, while SB 52 (Leno) of the 2013-2014
legislative session was titled the California Disclose Act.
AB 700
Page 5
All three measures broadly sought to change the content and
format of disclosure statements that are required to appear on
political advertisements in a manner that would require the
largest contributors to the committee funding the
advertisement to be more prominently displayed. Additionally,
all three measures sought to establish extensive new rules for
determining which contributors would be required to be
disclosed as contributors on a campaign advertisement.
Moreover, the language that appeared in the introduced version
of this bill was similar to language that has appeared in
prior bills that were referred to as the California Disclose
Act, and in fact, the introduced version of this bill declared
the intention of the Legislature to enact legislation to
implement a California Disclose Act that is "consistent with
the provisions of [SB] 52 of the 2013-14" legislative session.
Because this bill does not currently contain substantive
provisions similar to those in SB 52 or other prior attempts
to enact a "California Disclose Act," this analysis does not
examine the policy questions or considerations presented by
such proposals. Nonetheless, both the supporters and
opponents of this bill (as detailed below) seem to believe
that this bill subsequently will be amended to include
provisions similar to those in previous versions of the
California Disclose Act. In fact, a letter in support of this
bill from the sponsor of the bill acknowledges that the
current version of the bill makes only "technical changes
relative to disclosure under the Political Reform Act," but
also notes that if the bill's "intent is implemented, it will
significantly strengthen disclosure requirements for ballot
measure ads." If it is the author's intent to amend this bill
at some point in the future to more closely resemble previous
legislation that has been referred to as the California
Disclose Act, those amendments would be considerably broader
than, and inconsistent with, the substantive provisions of the
current version of this bill.
4)Television vs. Video and Technical Amendments: As noted above,
AB 700
Page 6
existing law already requires the "paid spokesperson"
disclosure statement, when it is required to be included in an
advertisement, to be shown continuously if the advertisement
consists of televised material. This bill further provides
that "[i]f the advertisement is a television or video
advertisement, the statement shall be shown continuously."
While existing law does not explicitly address the duration
for which the disclosure statement is required to appear in a
video advertisement that is not televised (for example, a
video advertisement on the Internet), televised advertisements
are already covered by existing law. As a result, the
language added by this bill relating to television
advertisements seems to be duplicative. If it is the
committee's desire to approve this bill, committee staff
recommends a technical amendment to eliminate that
duplication.
5)Arguments in Support: The sponsor of this bill, the California
Clean Money Campaign, writes in support:
The California Clean Money Campaign is pleased to
sponsor AB 700, the California DISCLOSE Act. If its
intent is implemented, it will significantly
strengthen disclosure requirements for ballot measure
ads. Just as a lobbyist looking for your vote on a
bill would never mislead you as to who his client is,
neither should the voters be misled as to who is
asking for our votes when we cast them on ballot
measures.
Campaign spending on ballot measures has reached
AB 700
Page 7
unprecedented levels. More than $640 million was spent
in California on ballot measures in 2012 and 2014,
almost all of it by donors obscured by misleading
names and buried in fine print. Although it is
essential for individuals and organizations to be able
to communicate effectively with voters, it's equally
important that voters not be deceived about who paid
for the ads they see.
AB 700 currently makes technical changes relative to
disclosure under the Political Reform Act, but also
provides the following:
It is the intent of the Legislature to enact
legislation that would implement a California Disclose
Act to ensure that advertisements that seek to
persuade voters to cast a vote in favor or against
ballot measures do not mislead voters as to who is
funding the campaign that paid for the advertisement.
Achieving this goal is essential to everything we care
about in the era of Citizens United in which
billionaires and other special interests can pass or
kill ballot measures by drowning the electorate in
deceptive advertisements while hiding who really paid
for them. Even duly passed and signed laws are subject
to referenda that can be put on the ballot and passed
by Dark Money groups whose misleading ads fool voters
into voting against their best interests.
6)Arguments in Opposition: In opposition to this bill, the
AB 700
Page 8
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California State
Council, writes:
The original and contemplated premise of [this] bill
was to enact language consistent with Senate Bill 52
(Leno), also called the Disclose Act, which failed
during the 2013-14 Regular Session of the legislature.
That proposal sought to increase reporting
requirements for political advertising disclaimers
while adding devastating accounting requirements that
would severely hinder the ability to engage in
fundraising and the political process?.
During the 2013-14 Regular Session of the legislature,
the Governor enacted Chapter 16, Statutes of 2014 (SB
27/Correa) and Chapter 9, Statutes of 2014 (AB
800/Gordon), that created new requirements to prevent
individuals, organizations, or other[s], from hiding
behind a veil of secrecy when engaging in political
activity in California, and allows detailed audits of
campaign committees during an election cycle,
respectively. Each of these statutes have worked as
intended?
AB 700 would propose to impose new and untenable
restrictions that are so one-sided on their effect
among specific groups engaged in political activity
that they might be deemed unconstitutional, as noted
in the Committee's analysis of SB 52. In addition, AB
700 would significantly interfere, or upend the
success of the new statutory requirements imposed by
SB 27 and AB 800, that have remedied the lack of
disclosure in political advertisements.
AB 700
Page 9
Although AB 700 has recently been amended, the
underlying intent of the bill remains the same as to a
likely continuous, successive, and unending reporting
scheme that would have a devastating effect on
political committees wanting to engage in political
activity.
7)Previous Legislation: SB 27 (Correa), Chapter 16, Statutes of
2014, established conditions under which a multipurpose
organization that makes campaign contributions or expenditures
is required to disclose names of its donors.
AB 800 (Gordon), Chapter 9, Statutes of 2014, made numerous
significant changes to the PRA, including permitting the FPPC
to audit any record required to be maintained under the PRA to
ensure compliance with the PRA prior to an election, even if
the record or statement has not yet been filed.
AB 510 (Ammiano), Chapter 868, Statutes of 2014, requires an
advertisement relating to a ballot measure to include a
specified disclaimer if it includes an appearance by an
individual who is paid to appear in the advertisement and it
communicates that the individual is a member of an occupation
that requires licensure or specialized training.
8)Political Reform Act of 1974: California voters passed an
initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974 that created the FPPC and
codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on
candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. That initiative is
commonly known as the PRA. Amendments to the PRA that are not
submitted to the voters, such as those contained in this bill,
must further the purposes of the initiative and require a
two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
AB 700
Page 10
Support
California Clean Money Campaign (sponsor)
In addition, the California Clean Money Campaign submitted
copies of petitions signed by approximately 2,000 individuals
in support of AB 700. However, those petitions urge support
for a bill that "mandates clear and prominent disclosure of
the true funders behind ballot measure?ads," which the current
version of this bill does not do. As a result, it is unclear
whether those signatures reflect support for the current
version of the bill.
California Church Impact
California Common Cause
LabelGMOs.org
Lutheran Office of Public Policy - California
MapLight
Money Out Voters In
National Council of Jewish Women California
Public Citizen
Redwood Empire Business Association
Opposition
California School Employees Association, AFL-CIO
AB 700
Page 11
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (prior version)
Service Employees International Union, California State Council
Analysis Prepared by:Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094