BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1648
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 27, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 1648 (Brownley) - As Introduced: February 13, 2012
SUBJECT : Political Reform Act of 1974: advertisements:
disclosure.
SUMMARY : Makes significant changes to required disclosures on
campaign advertisements and slate mailers. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Defines the following terms, for the purposes of this bill:
a) "Advertisement" to mean any general or public
advertisement which is authorized and paid for by a person
or committee for the purpose of supporting or opposing a
candidate for elective office or a ballot measure or
measures. Provides that the term "advertisement" does not
include a communication from an organization other than a
political party to its members, a campaign button smaller
than 10 inches in diameter, a bumper sticker smaller than
60 square inches, or any other advertisement as determined
by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
b) "Committee disclosure Internet Web site" to mean the
Internet Web site for a committee identifying the top
identifiable contributors to that committee.
c) "Cumulative contributions" to mean the cumulative amount
of contributions received by a committee beginning 18
months prior to the date the committee made its first
expenditure to qualify, support, or oppose a candidate for
elective office or a ballot measure or measures and ending
seven days before the advertisement is sent to the printer
or broadcast station or uploaded to the Internet.
d) "Identifiable contributor" to mean a person or committee
that has made cumulative contributions of at least $10,000
to a committee.
2)Requires a radio advertisement that supports or opposes a
candidate or ballot measure or solicits contributions in
support of that purpose, to include the following:
AB 1648
Page 2
a) If the advertisement is authorized by a candidate or an
agent of the candidate, an audio statement in which the
candidate identifies himself or herself and states that the
candidate has approved the message; or,
b) If the advertisement is not authorized by a candidate or
agent of a candidate, a disclosure at the end of the ad
read in a clearly spoken manner in a pitch and tone
substantially similar to the rest of the advertisement that
reads as follows:
"Top funders of this ad are �names in descending order of
identifiable contributors who made the three largest
cumulative contributions to the committee that paid for the
advertisement]. Full funding details at �Internet Web site
address of the committee disclosure Internet Web site]."
3)Requires a television or video advertisement that supports or
opposes a candidate or ballot measure or solicits
contributions in support of that purpose, to include the
following:
a) If the advertisement is authorized by a candidate or an
agent of the candidate, a statement in which the candidate
identifies himself or herself and states that the candidate
has approved the message; or,
b) If the advertisement is not authorized by a candidate or
agent of a candidate, a full-screen disclosure without
audio on black background for a minimum of three seconds
that includes all of the following:
i) The text "Top Funders for This Ad" located on the
top of the screen and centered horizontally. Requires
the text to be white in color and the font size to be at
least 5 percent of the height of the screen.
ii) Immediately below the text detailed above, the
logos, if any, as they appear on the Internet Web site
homepage of the identifiable contributor, for the
identifiable contributors who have made the three largest
cumulative contributions to the committee that paid for
the advertisement. Requires each logo to occupy at least
15 percent of the width or height of the screen, and to
AB 1648
Page 3
be displayed from left to right in descending order
beginning with the largest identifiable contributor.
iii) Immediately below the logos, if any, the names of
the identifiable contributors who made the three largest
cumulative contributions to the committee that paid for
the advertisement. Requires each contributor to be
disclosed on a separate vertical line, in descending
order, beginning with the identifiable contributor who
made the largest cumulative contribution on the first
line. Requires the names of the identifiable
contributors to be centered horizontally, the text to be
white in color, and the font size to be at least 5
percent of the height of the screen.
iv) The text "Full Funding Details At �Internet Web site
address of the committee disclosure Internet Web site]."
Requires the text to be white in color, the font size to
be equivalent to 4 percent of the height of the screen,
and to be located in a position that is vertically 4
percent above the bottom of the screen.
4)Requires a mass mailing or print advertisement, other than a
slate mailer or an advertisement that is authorized by a
candidate or an agent of a candidate, that supports or opposes
a candidate or ballot measure or solicits contributions in
support of that purpose, and that is paid for by a committee
or by any person who is not a committee but who spends over
$1,000 on mass mailing or print advertising cumulatively in
the period beginning 18 months prior to the date the person
made his or her first expenditure to qualify, support, or
oppose the candidate or measure and ending seven days before
the mailing or advertisement is sent to the printer, to
include a disclosure area on the largest page of the mass
mailing or print advertisement that meets all of the following
criteria:
a) Requires the disclosure area to be set apart from the
rest of the page on which it is located by a line framing
the disclosure area in the shape of a square or rectangle
and in a color that is darker than the background color of
the remainder of the disclosure area. Requires the
disclosure area within the border line to have a solid
background color that establishes a contrast to the color
of the disclosure text that is equivalent to or greater
AB 1648
Page 4
than the text and background color contrast in other areas
of the mass mailing or print advertisement.
b) In the case of a mass mailing or print advertisement
that is paid for by a committee, requires the disclosure to
contain all of the following:
i) The text "Top Funders for This Ad" located at the
top of the disclosure area and centered horizontally in
the disclosure area. Requires the text to be in a font
size of at least 14-point for pages smaller than 8.5
inches by 11 inches and at least 16-point for pages that
are equal to or larger than 8.5 inches by 11 inches.
ii) Immediately below the text detailed above, the
logos, if any, as they appear on the Internet Web site
homepage of the identifiable contributor, for the
identifiable contributors who have made the three largest
cumulative contributions to the committee that paid for
the advertisement. Requires each logo to occupy at least
8 percent of the width or height of the page on which the
disclosure area is located, and to be displayed from left
to right in descending order beginning with the largest
identifiable contributor.
iii) Immediately below the logos, if any, the names of
the identifiable contributors who made the three largest
cumulative contributions to the committee that paid for
the advertisement. Requires each contributor to be
disclosed on a separate vertical line, in descending
order, beginning with the identifiable contributor who
made the largest cumulative contribution on the first
line. Requires the names of the identifiable
contributors to be centered horizontally, and requires
the text to be in a font size of at least 10-point for
pages smaller than 8.5 inches by 11 inches and at least
12-point for pages that are equal to or larger than 8.5
inches by 11 inches.
iv) The text "Full Funding Details At �Internet Web site
address of the committee disclosure Internet Web site]."
Requires the text to be located at the bottom of the
disclosure area, and to be in a font size of at least
10-point for pages smaller than 8.5 inches by 11 inches
and at least 12-point for pages that are equal to or
AB 1648
Page 5
larger than 8.5 inches by 11 inches.
c) In the case of a mass mailing or print advertisement
that is paid for by a person who is not a committee,
requires the disclosure to include the text "This
advertisement funded by �name of the person who paid for
the mass mailing or print advertisement]." Requires the
text to be centered within the disclosure area, and to be
in a font size of at least 14-point for pages smaller than
8.5 inches by 11 inches and at least 16-point for pages
that are equal to or larger than 8.5 inches by 11 inches.
5)Requires a committee that pays for an advertisement for which
a disclaimer would have to be included under this bill to
establish and maintain a committee disclosure Internet Web
site. Provides that if the committee has an Internet Web site
home page, that Internet Web site may also serve as the
committee disclosure site. Requires the committee disclosure
Internet Web site and any other Web sites maintained by the
committee to include a disclosure statement area that complies
with all of the following:
a) The disclosure statement area is at least 250 pixels
wide, with a white background and a border that is dark in
color.
b) A title that reads "Top Funders of This Committee" in
black text of at least 10-point font size.
c) Immediately below the text identified above, the names
of the identifiable contributors who made the ten largest
cumulative contributions to the committee that paid for the
advertisement. Requires each contributor to be disclosed
on a separate vertical line, in descending order, beginning
with the identifiable contributor who made the largest
cumulative contribution on the first line. Requires the
text to be black in color, and the font size to be at least
9-point.
d) Immediately below the text detailed above, the logos, if
any, as they appear on the Internet Web site homepage of
the identifiable contributor, for the identifiable
contributors who have made the ten largest cumulative
contributions to the committee. Requires each logo to
occupy at least 75 horizontal or vertical pixels, and to be
AB 1648
Page 6
displayed from left to right in descending order beginning
with the largest identifiable contributor.
e) A link to the Internet Web site maintained by the
Secretary of State that contains campaign finance
disclosures made by the committee pursuant to existing law.
Requires the link to be labeled "Full Funding info at the
Secretary of State's Internet Web site." Requires the link
to be a standard hyperlink that is displayed as blue
underlined text in Arial equivalent font in at least
9-point size.
6)Requires, if an entity that is disclosed as an identifiable
contributor pursuant to this bill is an individual, that the
disclosure of that individual also include the occupation and
employer of the contributor in addition to the contributor's
name if the committee receiving the contribution is supporting
or opposing a candidate.
7)Requires, if an entity that is disclosed as an identifiable
contributor pursuant to this bill is an individual, that the
disclosure of that individual also include the occupation and
employer of the contributor in addition to the contributor's
name if the committee receiving the contribution is supporting
or opposing a ballot measure and the passage or defeat of the
ballot measure directly benefits or harms the employer of the
identifiable contributor. Provides that if an employer of an
identifiable contributor is also an identifiable contributor,
that the contributions of the employee shall be deemed to be
contributions by the employer for the purposes of determining
the total cumulative contributions made by the employer in
order to determine which identifiable contributors are
disclosed.
8)Provides that if a committee does not have any identifiable
contributors, as defined by the bill, the name of that
committee shall be included in the advertisement in the place
of the identifiable contributors if the committee has received
cumulative contributions of at least $10,000.
9)Requires a slate mailer to include an asterisk (*) next to
each candidate and ballot measure if the appearance of that
candidate or ballot measure in the slate mailer has been paid
for.
AB 1648
Page 7
10)Repeals a requirement that an advertisement for or against a
ballot measure include a disclosure statement identifying the
two highest cumulative contributors of $50,000 or more to the
committee funding the advertisement. Repeals a requirement
that a broadcast or mass mailing advertisement supporting or
opposing a candidate or ballot measure that is paid for by an
independent expenditure (IE) must include a disclosure
statement identifying the name of the committee making the
expenditure and the names of the persons from whom the
committee making the IE received its two highest cumulative
contributions of $50,000 or more during the 12-month period
prior to the expenditure. Repeals a requirement that an
advertisement supporting or opposing a candidate that is paid
for by an IE must include a statement that it was not
authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a
candidate.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires an advertisement for or against any ballot measure to
include a disclosure statement identifying any person whose
cumulative contributions are $50,000 or more. Provides that
if there are more than two donors of $50,000 or more, the
disclosure only needs to include the highest and second
highest donors in that order.
2)Requires a committee that supports or opposes one or more
ballot measures to name itself using a name or phrase that
identifies the economic or other special interest of its major
donors of $50,000 or more. Provides that if the major donors
of $50,000 or more share a common employer, the identity of
the employer must also be disclosed.
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 identifying the name
of the committee making the expenditure and the names of the
persons from whom the committee making the IE received its two
highest cumulative contributions of $50,000 or more during the
12-month period prior to the expenditure.
4)Provides that when a disclosure of the top two donors is
required on an advertisement pursuant to either of the above
provisions, only the largest donor needs to be disclosed on an
advertisement that is an electronic broadcast of 15 seconds or
AB 1648
Page 8
less or a print advertisement of 20 square inches or less.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
a crimes and infractions disclaimer.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
Campaign spending has reached unprecedented levels in
recent years. Over $200 million was spent on ballot
measures alone during the November 2010 election in
California, and even greater amounts of spending are
expected for this upcoming election cycle. Although
there are limits on the amount of direct contributions
candidates can receive, funders can make unlimited
contributions to candidates through independent
expenditure committees and to ballot measure
committees that have significantly shaped the way
California is governed. Furthermore, many of these
committees are purposely established to disguise who
exactly is funding the campaign messages that voters
see and hear, hiding behind vague names such as
"Californians for Progress." As a result, it is no
surprise that an October 2011 Field Poll found that
Californians believe reforms must be made to weaken
the influence special interests have asserted over
direct democracy intended to empower the average
citizen: 84% of all voters, across political
ideology, want public disclosure requirements of
initiative sponsors to more clearly identify who are
its major funders.
While it is essential in a democracy for individuals
and organizations to be able to communicate
effectively and efficiently with voters, it is equally
important that voters are not intentionally deceived
and elections are not decided upon misinformation. AB
1148 will help cast light on spending in elections by
requiring the disclosure of top funding sources
directly on all mediums of political advertisements,
and requiring campaign committees to maintain a
website with a list of its largest funders so voters
are able to easily access this important information
at all times. At a time when public confidence in its
AB 1648
Page 9
elected officials is unequivocally low, strengthening
disclosure requirements on political advertisements is
necessary to help Californians be better informed and
feel more represented by their government.
2)Constitutional Issues : This measure could be interpreted as a
violation of the United States and California Constitutions'
guarantees to free speech. While the right to freedom of
speech is not absolute, when a law burdens core political
speech, the restrictions on speech generally must be "narrowly
tailored to serve an overriding state interest," McIntyre v.
Ohio Elections Commission (1995), 514 US 334.
In Talley v. California (1960), 362 US 60, the United States
Supreme Court struck down a Los Angeles City ordinance that
required any handbill that was distributed in the city to
contain the name and address of the person who printed, wrote,
compiled, or manufactured the handbill. The Court found the
ordinance to be void on its face, because it believed that the
ordinance would restrict freedom of expression, in violation
of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In
its opinion, the Court wrote that there could be "no doubt"
that the Los Angeles ordinance requiring disclosure on a
handbill "would tend to restrict the freedom to distribute
information and thereby freedom of expression." The court
continued to note that "�a]nonymous pamphlets, leaflets,
brochures and even books have played an important role in the
progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to
time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive
practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The
obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also
enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that
exposure of the names of printers, writers, and distributors
would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the
government. . . . Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor
of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under
fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes
been assumed for the most constructive purposes."
Building on its holding in Talley , the Court more recently
considered, in McIntyre , an Ohio law that prohibited the
distribution of campaign literature that did not contain the
name and address of the person or campaign official issuing
the literature. The United States Supreme Court, in reviewing
the case, found that the Ohio law unconstitutionally
AB 1648
Page 10
restricted the freedom of speech in violation of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. In attempting to
justify the Ohio law in light of the Court's decision in
Talley , the Ohio Elections Commission argued that the two laws
were distinguishable because the Ohio law applied only to
documents designed to influence voters in an election, whereas
the law in question in Talley applied to all handbills. While
the Court recognized that the two laws were different in this
respect, it nonetheless found that "the category of speech
regulated by the Ohio statute occupies the core of the
protection offered by the First Amendment," and concluded that
"the speech in which Mrs. McIntyre engaged - handing out
leaflets in the advocacy of a politically controversial
viewpoint - is the essence of First Amendment expression."
Nonetheless, the State of Ohio argued that even under the
strictest standard of review, the statute should have been
upheld in recognition of two important state
interests-preventing fraudulent and libelous statements, and
providing the electorate with relevant information. The Court
found that neither interest was sufficient to justify the
restrictions that the Ohio law imposed on the freedom of
expression.
With respect to the interest in preventing fraudulent and
libelous statements, the court noted that Ohio already had
prohibitions against making or disseminating false statements
during political campaigns, and as such, "Ohio's prohibition
of anonymous leaflets plainly is not its principal weapon
against fraud." The second state interest offered by Ohio was
the interest of "providing the electorate with relevant
information" - an interest that is similar to the author's
stated reason for seeking to require disclosure on
advertisements as required by this bill. Here too, however,
the McIntyre court found that such an interest was not
sufficient to justify the restrictions that the Ohio statute
placed on freedom of speech and expression, stating that
"�i]nsofar as the interest in informing the electorate means
nothing more than the provision of additional information that
may either buttress or undermine the argument in a document,
we think the identity of the speaker is no different from
other components of the document's content that the author is
free to include or exclude. . . . The simple interest in
providing voters with additional relevant information does not
justify a state requirement that a writer make statements or
AB 1648
Page 11
disclosures she would otherwise omit."
Finally, the McIntyre court made an important distinction
between a requirement that a person file a report with a
government agency to disclose money expended for a campaign
advertisement and a requirement that a person must disclose
his or her identity on the advertisement itself, noting that
while requiring a report to be filed with a government agency
"undeniably impedes protected First Amendment activity, the
intrusion is a far cry from compelled self-identification on
all election-related writings." The court continued, "�a]
written election-related document-particularly a leaflet-is
often a personally crafted statement of a political viewpoint.
. . . As such, identification of the author against her will
is particularly intrusive; it reveals unmistakably the content
of her thoughts on a controversial issue. Disclosure of an
expenditure and its use, without more, reveals far less
information. It may be information that a person prefers to
keep secret, and undoubtedly it often gives away something
about the spender's political views. Nonetheless, even though
money may 'talk,' its speech is less specific, less personal,
and less provocative than a handbill - and as a result, when
money supports an unpopular viewpoint it is less likely to
precipitate retaliation."
Subsequent to the Talley and McIntyre rulings, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals has rejected arguments that the Supreme
Court's holdings in those two cases apply only to materials
created and distributed by individuals who are acting alone.
In ACLU v. Heller (2004), 378 F.3d 979, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals struck down a Nevada law that required any
published material concerning a campaign to identify the
person paying for the publication. In an effort to save the
law after the Supreme Court's decision in McIntyre , Nevada
amended its law to include an exception for campaign materials
that were paid for by "a natural person who acts independently
and not in cooperation with or pursuant to any direction from
a business or social organization, nongovernmental legal
entity, or governmental entity." The Court rejected the
state's argument that this amendment was sufficient to save
the statute in light of McIntyre . In its decision, the Court
wrote, "�t]he Court in McIntyre did stress the particular
harshness of Ohio's punishment of McIntyre as the sole
advocate for her cause. But nothing in the decision indicates
that if she had been allied with other individuals, or with a
AB 1648
Page 12
'business or social organization,' the result would have been
different. The anonymity protected by McIntyre is not that of
a single cloak." The Court continued to note that all of the
concerns that applied to an advertisement distributed or paid
for by an individual also applied to an advertisement that was
distributed or paid for by an organization. Citing McIntyre ,
the court wrote, "�s]imilarly, just as a lone 'advocate may
believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are
unaware of her identity,' because readers may otherwise
'prejudge her message simply because they do not like its
proponent,' so, too, groups or individuals working in
cooperation with groups may be concerned about readers
prejudging the substance of a message by associating their
names with the message. In fact, groups are more likely to be
associated with a certain viewpoint than are individuals
(e.g., Greenpeace, ACLU, the National Rifle Association). So
a particular group's concern that its message may be prejudged
based on its association with the group could be even more
well-founded than an individual's similar concern. Anonymity
may allow speakers to communicate their message when
preconceived prejudices concerning the message-bearer, if
identified, would alter the reader's receptiveness to the
substance of the message. Like other choice-of-word and
format decisions, the presence or absence of information
identifying the speaker is no less a content choice for a
group or an individual cooperating with a group than it is for
an individual speaking alone" (Internal citations omitted).
Supporters of this bill have argued that, notwithstanding the
decisions in the three cases discussed above, the provisions
of this bill nonetheless are constitutional, particularly in
light of disclosure requirements that were upheld by the
United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission (2010), 130 S.Ct. 876. While the Citizens
United case is probably best known as the case in which the
United States Supreme Court struck down a 63 year old law that
prohibited corporations and unions from using their general
treasury funds to make independent expenditures in federal
elections, in the same case, the Court also upheld certain
disclaimer and disclosure provisions of the federal Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also sometimes called
"McCain-Feingold" for its Senate authors.
The Citizens United case involved a nonprofit corporation
(Citizens United) that sought to run television commercials
AB 1648
Page 13
promoting a film it produced that was critical of then-Senator
and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Because federal
law prohibited corporations and unions from using their
general treasury funds to make expenditures for
"electioneering communications" or for communications that
expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate,
Citizens United was concerned that the television commercials
promoting its film could subject the corporation to criminal
and civil penalties. Under BCRA, the film produced by
Citizens United and the television commercials promoting that
movie were subject to certain disclaimer and disclosure
requirements-specifically, a requirement that televised
electioneering communications must include a disclaimer
indicating the name of the person or organization that was
"responsible for the content" of the advertising.
Additionally, each communication was required to include a
statement that the communication was "not authorized by any
candidate or candidate's committee," and was required to
display the name and address of the person or group that
funded the advertisement. Finally, under a different
provision of BCRA, any person who spent more than $10,000 in a
calendar year is required to file a disclosure statement with
the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) identifying the person
making the expenditure, the amount of the expenditure, the
election to which the communication was directed, and the
names of contributors in certain circumstances.
Citizens United (the corporation) challenged these disclaimer
and disclosure requirements as applied to the film and the
television advertisements promoting that film. Specifically,
Citizens United argued that the disclaimer and disclosure
requirements were unconstitutional on the grounds the
governmental interest in providing information to the
electorate did not justify requiring disclaimers for
commercial advertisements. The court disagreed, finding that
the disclaimers provided the electorate with important
information, helping to ensure that voters were informed, and
"avoid�ed] confusion by making clear that the ads are not
funded by a candidate or political party."
While some of the requirements of this bill are comparable to
provisions of federal law that were at issue in Citizens
United (for instance, certain disclaimer requirements included
in this bill are very similar to those required under federal
law that were upheld by the court in Citizens United ), other
AB 1648
Page 14
requirements in this bill go beyond what is required by
federal law, and beyond what was considered by the court in
Citizens United . Specifically, the provisions of this bill
that require the identities of certain campaign
contributors-entities that were not individually responsible
for the content or the production of the advertising-to be
included in campaign advertising go beyond what is required by
federal law. In light of that fact, while the court in
Citizens United did uphold certain federal disclaimer
requirements, it is unclear whether the broader requirements
in this bill would similarly be upheld against a
constitutional challenge on the grounds that those
requirements violate the First Amendment. It is also
possible, however, that the disclaimers and disclosures that
are required under existing state law could be susceptible to
challenge as well on the same grounds.
3)Third Party Payment for Slate Mailer Placement : Under
existing law, a slate mailer must have an asterisk next to a
ballot measure or candidate that appears in the slate mailer
if that candidate or ballot measure has paid to appear in the
slate mailer. However, if someone other than the candidate or
ballot measure committee pays to include a candidate or ballot
measure committee in the slate mailer, no asterisk or other
designation is included in the mailer. So, for instance, if a
general purpose committee makes an independent expenditure by
paying a slate mailer to include a candidate that the general
purpose committee has endorsed, the slate mailer itself would
have no indication that the appearance of that candidate was
paid for by the general purpose committee.
This bill would require a slate mailer to include an asterisk
next to a candidate or ballot measure if a payment was made to
the publisher of that slate mailer for the appearance of that
candidate or measure, regardless of whether the payment was
made by the candidate or ballot measure committee or by a
third party.
4)Arguments in Support : The sponsor of this bill, the
California Clean Money Campaign, writes:
Full and complete disclosure in political advertising
is needed now more than ever. The Supreme Court's 5-4
Citizens United v. FEC decision unleashed the
floodgates of anonymous spending on campaigns by
AB 1648
Page 15
ruling there could be no limits on outside spending by
corporations, unions, or individuals. At the same
time, the Court in Citizens United specifically noted
the problems that result when groups run ads "while
hiding behind dubious and misleading names". Over $235
million was spent on California ballot measures in
2010 alone, almost all of it by veiled actors hiding
behind innocuous sounding names that hide their real
funders.
AB 1648 addresses these problems by requiring the
three largest funders of political ads to be clearly
identified with their names and logos on the ads
themselves, so voters know who is actually paying for
them. It applies to all television ads, radio ads,
print ads, mass mailers, and websites for or against
state and local ballot measures, and to independent
expenditures for and against candidates. It applies
whether ads are paid for by corporations, unions,
millionaires, or anybody else.
AB 1648 is constitutional and reasonable. It in fact
reduces the time required for disclosure in typical
radio ads from 10-14 seconds in many cases under
current law down to only 6-7 seconds in most cases,
while at the same time being far clearer about who is
actually paying for the ads. Required disclosure for
television ads is only 3 seconds, enough to clearly
get across to the viewers who the top three funders of
the ad are, without imposing an undue burden on
political advertisers.
5)Arguments in Opposition : In opposition to this bill, the
California Chamber of Commerce writes:
At a time when California voters have no higher
priority than jobs, this bill is bad public policy.
California employers have a track record of supporting
those candidates who will help bring more jobs to our
state. AB 1648 is clearly written with the goal of
curtailing the voice of employers and their
participation in the election process. Without
business community participation in the election
process, voters will have less access to vital
information about where candidates stand on job
AB 1648
Page 16
creation and the elements needed for our state to
begin and sustain an economic recovery.
Stifling any voice in an election is bad for
democracy. In these times, particularly, silencing the
voice of those who can help California recover so we
can fund essential and necessary programs like
education and health care is even more troublesome.
Contrary to the proponent's assertion, campaign
disclosure information is already public and readily
available. This information is easily accessible on
the Secretary of State's website.
6)Technical Issues : One provision of this bill specifies the
manner in which a disclaimer must appear on a television or
video advertisement that supports a candidate and that is
authorized by that candidate. According to the author, this
requirement is intended to mirror a provision of federal law
that requires a candidate to include a statement in his or her
television advertisements indicating that he or she has
approved the communication. However, as currently written,
this bill is actually somewhat broader than existing federal
law, which was not the intent of the author. In order to make
the provisions of this bill consistent with what is required
under existing federal law, committee staff recommends the
following amendments: On page 9, line 13, strike out
"candidate, alone," and insert: "candidate" and on page 9,
line 15, strike out "candidate, alone," and insert
"candidate."
Additionally, committee staff recommends the following amendment
to correct a typographical error in this bill: On page 11,
line 9, strike out "Fenders" and insert "Funders."
7)Previous Legislation : This bill is substantially similar to
AB 1148 (Brownley) from the current Legislative session. AB
1148 was approved by this committee by a 5-0 vote, but failed
passage on the Assembly Floor on a 52-26 vote. Because AB
1148 was introduced in 2011 and failed to pass out of the
Assembly prior to January 31, 2012, it is no longer eligible
to be acted on by the Assembly pursuant to Article IV, Section
10 (c) of the California Constitution.
8)Political Reform Act of 1974 : California voters passed an
AB 1648
Page 17
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. Most amendments to the PRA that
are not submitted to the voters, including those contained in
this bill, must further the purposes of the initiative and
require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature.
AB 1648
Page 18
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Clean Money Campaign (sponsor)
In addition, the California Clean Money Campaign submitted
copies of petitions signed by approximately 750 individuals
in support of AB 1648
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Church IMPACT
California Common Cause
California League of Conservation Voters
California National Organization for Women
California State Retirees
CALPIRG
City of Santa Monica
City of Sunnyvale
Consumer Federation of California
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Green Chamber of Commerce
Greenlining Institute
JERICHO: A Voice for Justice
League of Women Voters of California
Lutheran Office of Public Policy - California
MapLight
Moms for Clean Air
National Council of Jewish Women
National Women's Political Caucus-Fresno County
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
Southwest California Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America
Opposition
California Chamber of Commerce. In its letter of opposition,
the California Chamber of Commerce indicated that the following
groups are also opposed to this bill:
Air Conditioning Trade Association
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
Associated General Contractors
Association of California Life and Health Insurance
Companies
Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
California Apartment Association
AB 1648
Page 19
California Broadcasters Association
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Business Roundtable
California Grocers Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Restaurant Association
Chambers of Commerce Alliance of Ventura & Santa Barbara
Counties
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce
Personal Insurance Federation of California
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of
California
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Western Electrical Contractors Association, Inc.
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Southwest Riverside County Legislative Council
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094