BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 65
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 15, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 65 (Gatto) - As Amended: February 2, 2011
SUBJECT : Elections: statewide ballot pamphlet.
SUMMARY : Requires the state ballot pamphlet to contain
information about the largest contributors supporting each state
measure that will appear on the ballot. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires the state ballot pamphlet, for each state measure to
be voted upon, to include, immediately below the analysis of
that measure prepared by the Legislative Analyst, a list of
the five highest contributors of $50,000 or more to each
primarily formed committee supporting the measure and the
total amount of each of their contributions as of 110 days
before the election.
2)Requires the list to be followed by a statement that the list
only reflects the highest contributors of $50,000 or more as
of 110 days before election day.
3)Provides that if a contributor is a committee controlled by a
candidate, the name of the candidate shall be listed.
4)Provides that if a contributor is a sponsored committee, the
name of the sponsor shall be listed.
5)Makes technical and corresponding changes.
EXISTING LAW requires the statewide ballot pamphlet to include
information, in a specific order, for each state measure to be
voted upon including, but not limited to:
1)A complete copy of each state measure;
2)A copy of the specific constitutional or statutory provision,
if any, that each state measure would repeal or revise;
3)A copy of the arguments and rebuttals for and against each
state measure; and,
AB 65
Page 2
4)A copy of the analysis of each state measure prepared by the
Legislative Analyst.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
It has been said that an informed citizenry is the bulwark
of democracy. AB 65 seeks to help create a better informed
citizenry by giving voters more information when
considering initiatives on the ballot. The measure would
require the Secretary of State to include in the ballot
pamphlet a list of the 5 highest contributors of $50,000 or
more to each primarily formed committee supporting each
state measure, as well as the total amount of their
contributions, as of 110 days before Election Day.
With more groups opting to bypass the legislative process
and use initiatives to shape public policy, it becomes more
important to provide the decision makers, voters, with the
most information possible. When a measure goes through the
legislative process, there is disclosure at nearly every
place in the process, be it lobbyists who state what
group(s) they are testifying on behalf of, or letters on
the record from groups who are trying to influence the
legislative process. It becomes clear to legislators where
the real support for measures facing them is coming from.
This knowledge leads to better informed decisions on votes.
Unfortunately, the level of openness and transparency does
not exist with initiatives. Voters are asked to make
decisions at the ballot without the benefit of the openness
provided by the deliberative, legislative process. This
lack of transparency allows interests to spend sometimes
millions of dollars to influence voters, often without the
voters realization who the groups are that seek to convince
them to vote for, or against, a certain initiative measure.
This sunshine measure seeks to make the electorate better
informed as they consider ballot propositions, by allowing
them to "follow the money" and see what interests are
AB 65
Page 3
driving the electoral process. Voters deserve to know
whether a ballot initiative is being funded by out-of-state
interests or anyone else who donates millions to affect the
laws we live by. This ballot measure would result in a
better-informed citizenry.
2)Accurate Information ? This bill requires that the state
ballot pamphlet contain information about contributors to
primarily formed committees that support state measures, but
does not similarly require that the state ballot pamphlet
contain information about contributors to committees that are
opposing state ballot measures. If the author's intent is to
provide more transparency for voters on special interests that
are driving initiatives, then the author may wish to consider
requiring the disclosure of opponents as well. In addition,
this bill could result in larger contributions to an
initiative being held off until after the 110-day cutoff
proposed by this bill to avoid publication in the ballot
pamphlet.
On the other hand, the proposed 110-day cutoff period
accommodates the schedule by which the Secretary of State must
finalize the state ballot pamphlet and have it on public
display prior to final production. While proponents of a
measure may have spent substantial amounts of money to gather
signatures to qualify an initiative for the ballot, it is
relatively uncommon for initiative opponents to spend large
amounts on an initiative that far in advance of an election.
As a result, it seems unlikely that including the disclosure
of opponents to an initiative measure would result in more
information provided to voters. This bill could, however,
result in voters being given greater information in the state
ballot pamphlet about those entities responsible for funding
the effort to qualify a measure for the ballot.
3)Previous Legislation : SB 1202 (DeSaulnier) of 2010 was
substantially similar to this bill. SB 1202 was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger, who wrote in his veto message:
This bill would?create confusion for voters and encourage
late contributions. Large donors could avoid being included
on the list by limiting contributions until the deadline
had passed. This would undermine the intent of this bill
and could instead mislead voters as to the identity of the
major contributors.
AB 65
Page 4
Additionally, this measure creates significant cost
pressure to print information that is already available at
the Secretary of State website, www.sos.ca.gov . Voters
have access to an online database that is up-to-date and
includes contributors in support and opposition of a
measure. Printing a limited list is expensive and
unnecessary.
4)Related Legislation : SB 334 (DeSaulnier) is substantially
similar to this bill. SB 334 is pending in the Senate
Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments.
5)Political Reform Act of 1974 : California voters passed an
initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974 that created the Fair
Political Practices Commission and codified significant
restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders,
and lobbyists. That initiative is commonly known as the
Political Reform Act (PRA). Amendments to the PRA that are
not submitted to the voters must further the purposes of the
initiative and require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the
Legislature, unless the amendments are to specified provisions
to add information to the ballot pamphlet. This bill would
require additional information to be included in the ballot
pamphlet, and therefore requires a majority vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Common Cause
Fair Political Practices Commission
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Maria Garcia / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094