BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1322
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 1322 (Huffman) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
SUBJECT : Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign disclosures.
SUMMARY : Specifies the text and format in which a disclosure
must appear when such disclosures are required on certain
independent expenditures (IEs). Specifically, this bill
requires, when an advertisement supporting or opposing a
candidate that is paid for by an IE is required to contain a
statement that the IE was not authorized by a candidate or
committee controlled by a candidate, that the statement identify
the name of the IE committee that purchased the advertisement.
Requires, in the case of an IE that is a printed advertisement,
that the statement be in boldface type, be prominently
displayed, and be in substantially the following form:
NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE: This communication is
neither approved nor authorized by _____ (ANY CANDIDATE IN
THE ____ DISTRICT). It is paid for by COMMITTEE NAME, an
independent expenditure committee. The donors to this
committee are listed at www._____.
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 an advertisement supporting or opposing a candidate
that is paid for by an IE to include a statement that it was
not authorized by a candidate or committee controlled by a
candidate.
3)Requires a broadcast or mass mailing advertisement supporting
or opposing a candidate or ballot measure that is paid for by
an IE to include a disclosure statement that identifies both
of the following:
a) The name of the committee making the IE; and,
AB 1322
Page 2
b) The names of the persons from whom the committee making
the IE has received its two highest cumulative
contributions of $50,000 or more during the 12-month period
prior to the expenditure.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
a crimes and infractions disclaimer.
AB 1322
Page 3
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
An independent expenditure is a political activity
intended to assist or oppose a specific candidate for
office which is made without their cooperation,
approval, or direct knowledge. Most commonly, this
takes the form of advertising. In some cases,
independent expenditures (IE) may far exceed direct
spending by the candidates' campaigns. The easy
availability of powerful financial resources has
encouraged many private interests to sway elections
outcomes through independent expenditures.
According to the Center for Governmental Studies,
California voters rely heavily, if not exclusively, on
paid campaign advertisements for ballot information.
These paid ads, crafted to influence voter opinion,
are often misleading or deceptive. Campaign ads are
often imbalanced and skewed heavily toward the side
with the most money. Voters are not always aware of
who supports or opposes a campaign message. By
mandating prominent disclosure with clearer messages
for campaign ads, voters can be better informed about
the interests behind the advertisement.
According to the June 2008 FPPC report on Independent
Expenditures, there is a growing trend toward
concealing the identity of contributors to IE
committees from the public. IE committees make it
easier to hide the true source of contributions. For
the average voter, it involves far too much detective
work to figure out who is really behind a particular
IE committee or effort.
Current law requires (Government Code section 84503) .
. . a broadcast or mass mailing advertisement
supporting or opposing a candidate or ballot measure
that is paid for by an independent expenditure to
include a disclosure statement that identifies the IE
committee and the names of the two highest
contributions of $50,000 or more to the IE. Current
law also requires an advertisement supporting or
opposing a candidate that is paid for by an IE to
AB 1322
Page 4
include a statement that it was not authorized by a
candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate
(Government Code section 84506.5).
This bill expands upon existing disclosure
requirements to better inform voters through the
disclosure statements on campaign communications about
who is funding the campaign advertisement. It is
needed in light of the growing use of independent
expenditures and the common, though erroneous, belief
that independent expenditures are approved by the
candidate. It is particularly troublesome when
independent expenditures promote a candidate by
ascribing to that candidate views actually at variance
with his/her beliefs; or create the false impression
that negative ads were approved by a particular
candidate. Full disclosure allows voters to make
informed decisions before casting their ballots.
2)Federal Disclosure Requirements : Existing federal law
requires all federal campaign communications which are not
authorized by a candidate for federal office to include a
disclaimer indicating that the "communication is not
authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee" (2
U.S.C. 441d(a)(3)). In Federal Election Commission v. Public
Citizen (2001) 268 F.3d 1283, the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld this requirement, ruling that the requirement
strikes an "appropriate balance" between "the governmental
interest in protecting the overall integrity of the election
process and the right . . . to engage in protected political
speech."
In upholding the requirement, the court enumerated three
governmental interests that are served by requiring campaign
communications that are not authorized by candidates to
contain a disclaimer indicating that fact. First, by
immediately informing voters that the campaign communication
was not authorized by a candidate, the disclaimer may assist
voters in understanding that such a communication may not
accurately present that candidate's views on an issue.
Second, the disclaimer may prevent voters from "mistakenly
concluding that a particular candidate will be especially
responsive to the interests advanced in that communication."
Third, because "a number of voters evaluate candidates based
upon a candidate's character and integrity," and because
AB 1322
Page 5
candidates have no control over the content or tone of IEs,
the disclaimer "prevents the voting public from mistakenly
attributing an advertisement that makes a personal attack on a
candidate to an opposing candidate who had nothing to do with
such tactics."
3)Prior Opposition : The committee received an opposition letter
to this bill from the California Broadcasters Association.
However, that opposition letter refers to the prior version of
this bill, and is dated before the most recent amendments to
this bill. The committee has not received any communications
from the California Broadcasters Association since the most
recent amendments to this bill. With this bill's most recent
amendments, its effect on broadcast advertisements is minimal.
4)Previous Legislation : AB 404 (Ruskin), Chapter 495, Statutes
of 2007, requires an advertisement supporting or opposing a
candidate that is paid for by an IE to include a statement
that the expenditure was not authorized by a candidate or a
committee controlled by a candidate.
5)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 :
Support
League of Women Voters of California
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094