BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2357|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2357
Author: Saldana (D)
Amended: 4/8/10 in Assembly
Vote: 27
SENATE ELECTIONS, REAP. & CONST. AMEND. COM : 4-1, 6/15/10
AYES: Hancock, Denham, DeSaulnier, Liu
NOES: Strickland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR : 23-9, 8/2/10 (FAIL)
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Cogdill, Corbett, Correa, Denham,
DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Florez, Hancock, Kehoe, Leno, Liu,
Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Pavley, Price, Romero,
Simitian, Steinberg, Wolk, Wyland, Yee
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Dutton, Emmerson, Harman,
Hollingsworth, Huff, Strickland, Wright
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cedillo, Oropeza, Padilla, Runner,
Walters, Wiggins, Vacancy, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 66-5, 5/6/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Political Reform Act of 1974
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill amends the Political Reform Act to
require a committee primarily formed for the qualification
or support of, or opposition to, an initiative or ballot
CONTINUED
AB 2357
Page
2
measure, to include in its filed campaign statements the
amount of each expenditure made in connection with a poll
or survey used to influence voters regarding an initiative
or ballot measure, or used to gauge the public's opinion on
the ballot title and summary of an initiative or ballot
measure.
ANALYSIS : Existing law requires periodic campaign
reports that are filed pursuant to the Political Reform Act
(PRA) to include details about expenditures made by the
committee filing the report.
This bill additionally requires a committee that is
primarily formed for the qualification or support of, or
opposition to, an initiative or ballot measure, to include
the following information in campaign statements filed by
the committee:
1.The amount of each expenditure made in connection with a
poll or survey used in a communication to influence
voters regarding the qualification or passage of an
initiative or ballot measure.
2.The amount of each expenditure made in connection with a
poll or survey used to gauge the public's opinion on the
ballot title and summary of an initiative or ballot
measure.
Background
Expenditures for Polls . The Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC) has long held that an initiative,
referendum, or recall does not become a "measure" for the
purposes of the PRA until the proponents begin to circulate
petitions to qualify the proposal for the ballot. However,
it is also the longstanding position of the FPPC that once
a proposal becomes a measure, campaign statements filed by
committees supporting or opposing the measure must include
contributions received and expenditures made in
anticipation of the proposal being placed on the ballot,
even if those contributions and expenditures were made
before the proposal became a "measure." As such,
expenditures for a poll or survey conducted by the
proponents or opponents of a potential ballot measure are
CONTINUED
AB 2357
Page
3
not necessarily exempt from disclosure simply because those
expenditures were made prior to petitions being circulated
to qualify that measure for the ballot.
The determination of whether such expenditures are required
to be reported under existing law depends on the manner in
which the poll results are used.
In requests for advice, the FPPC has distinguished between
payments made by an entity other than a committee that are
exploratory in nature from payments that are used to
expressly advocate for the qualification or passage of a
ballot measure. Given that general policy, an FPPC
campaign manual indicates that the cost of a poll or survey
is a reportable expenditure under the PRA if the results of
that poll or survey are used in a communication to
influence voters regarding the qualification or passage of
a measure. However, the same manual indicates that the
costs of a poll or survey to determine the feasibility of
drafting a measure are not reportable as long as the
results from the poll or survey are not used in a
communication to influence voters.
Initiatives with Multiple Versions . While it is not clear
how often the proponents of an initiative measure submit
multiple versions of the same initiative measure for a
title and summary with the intent of "ballot title
shopping," as described by the author below, it has become
increasingly common for proponents of state initiative
measures to submit multiple similar versions of a proposal
to the Attorney General (AG). In a nine day period in
November of last year, two attorneys from the same law firm
filed seven different versions of an initiative dealing
with taxation of community hospitals, including four
different versions of the initiative filed by a single
attorney on a single day. The author also provided
examples from 2009 and 2010 of an initiative measure where
five versions were submitted for title and summary, another
with four versions, another with three versions, and three
others with two versions. Oftentimes, the different
versions of the measure had the same proponent or
proponents, and the different versions were filed within
days of each other or on the same day. In 2005, when a
record of 152 measures were submitted to the AG for title
CONTINUED
AB 2357
Page
4
and summary, more than a dozen initiative proponents
submitted multiple versions of their measures to the AG for
title and summary. By comparison, the practice of
initiative proponents submitting multiple versions of the
same measure to the AG for title and summary was relatively
rare a decade ago.
According to the author's office, in the 1960s, there were
47 initiative proposals submitted for review. That number
increased to 391 in the 1990's, and then jumped to 647 in
the 2000-2009 decade. One contributing factor for this
drastic increase is that initiative proponents frequently
choose to submit numerous, largely duplicative, measures to
the State to have their ballot titles and summaries
drafted, with the intent of ultimately pursuing signatures
for only one of them. In one particularly egregious
example this year, a total of seven similarly-worded
initiative proposals were filed. In this practice,
sometimes referred to as "ballot-title shopping,"
proponents will then commission polls or surveys to gauge
the public's opinion of the nuanced ballot titles and
summaries in order to determine which version might fare
the best in a petition drive, or raise the most money from
potential contributors. While it is not the intent of this
bill to alter that practice, it is clear that these polling
activities are on par with other communication efforts to
qualify and pass an initiative, and therefore should adhere
to the same disclosure requirements.
The FPPC has found on numerous occasions that when results
of a poll or survey are used in a communication to advocate
the qualification or passage of a ballot measure, the cost
of conducting the poll or survey constitutes a reportable
expenditure. While records of this determination can be
found in FPPC Advice Letters, it is not clearly stated in
code. This bill will codify those findings.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Tom
Berryhill, Blakeslee, Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley,
Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
CONTINUED
AB 2357
Page
5
Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore,
Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes,
Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez,
Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Norby,
V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana,
Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland,
Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines,
Yamada, John A. Perez
NOES: Anderson, Fuller, Gaines, Jeffries, Logue
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bass, Block, Conway, Garrick, Gilmore,
Hagman, Knight, Mendoza
DLW:nlk 8/17/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: NONE RECEIVED
**** END ****
CONTINUED