BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Lou Correa, Chair
BILL NO: SB 334 HEARING DATE:
4/5/11
AUTHOR: DeSAULNIER ANALYSIS BY:
Darren Chesin
AMENDED: AS INTRODUCED
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Statewide ballot pamphlet: measures: contributor disclosure
DESCRIPTION
Existing law specifies what information must be included in
the statewide ballot pamphlet, including, but not limited
to:
A complete copy of each measure.
A copy of the arguments and rebuttals for and against
each state measure.
A copy of the analysis of each state measure by the
Legislative Analyst.
Tables of contents, indexes, art work, graphics, and
other materials that the Secretary of State (SOS)
determines will make the ballot pamphlet easier to
understand or more useful for the average voter.
This bill additionally requires the state ballot pamphlet
to contain information about the largest contributors in
support of each ballot measure that will appear on the
ballot. Specifically, this bill:
Requires the state ballot pamphlet to include,
immediately below the analysis of a state ballot
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.
Requires the list to be followed by a statement that
the list reflects only the highest contributors of
$50,000 or more as of 110 days before Election Day.
Provides that if a contributor is a committee
controlled by a candidate, the name of the candidate
shall be listed.
Provides that if a contributor is a sponsored
committee, the name of the sponsor shall be listed.
Contains technical and conforming changes.
BACKGROUND
All Measures? All Contributions ? This bill would require
disclosure in the statewide ballot pamphlet of the top five
contributors to each primarily formed committee supporting
each state ballot measure. These measures include both
initiative measures placed on the ballot through voter
petitions as well as measures placed on the ballot by the
Legislature. The 110 day cut-off period accommodates the
schedule by which the statewide ballot pamphlet must be
finalized prior to printing. Since the expenses associated
with qualifying a statewide initiative usually exceed $1
million, the ballot pamphlet would disclose, among others,
those entities responsible for funding the qualification
effort.
What is a Primarily Formed Committee ? A primarily formed
committee means a committee which is formed or exists
primarily to support or oppose any of the following:
A single candidate.
A single measure.
A group of specific candidates being voted upon in the
same city, county, or multicounty election.
Two or more measures being voted upon in the same city,
county, multicounty, or state election.
What are Controlled and Sponsored Committees ? A candidate
or state measure proponent controls a committee if he or
she, his or her agent, or any other committee he or she
controls has a significant influence on the actions or
decisions of the committee. Any entity, except a candidate
or other individual, may be the sponsor of a committee. An
entity sponsors a committee if any of the following apply:
SB 334 (DeSAULNIER) Page
2
The committee receives 80 percent or more of its
contributions from the entity or its members, officers,
employees, or shareholders.
The entity collects contributions for the committee by
use of payroll deductions of dues from its members,
officers, or employees.
The entity, alone or in combination with other
organizations, provides all or nearly all of the
administrative services for the committee.
The entity, alone or in combination with other
organizations, sets the policies for soliciting
contributions or making expenditures of committee funds.
COMMENTS
1. According to the author , SB 334 requires the Secretary
of State (SOS) to add a list of the five highest
contributors (as of 110 days prior to Election Day)
supporting each ballot measure in the ballot pamphlet.
In recent years, observers noted that interests have
increasingly turned to California's initiative system to
amend the California Constitution or state statutes to
benefit themselves. Because SB 334 requires information
to be gathered and disclosed as of 110 days before
Election Day, the bill will help voters determine the
interests behind the qualification efforts of ballot
measures.
2. Prior Legislation . This bill is identical to SB 1202
(DeSaulnier) of 2010 which was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger. In his veto message the Governor
stated, in part:
"I have consistently advocated for transparency in
campaign contributions and signed legislation that
furthers that goal. This bill would instead 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."
This bill is also similar in the intent to AB 680
(Mazzoni) of 1995, which was eventually gutted and used
SB 334 (DeSAULNIER) Page
3
for a different purpose and SB 734 (Roberti) of 1991
which failed passage in the Assembly Elections,
Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee.
3. Will Information Be Timely and Accurate ? Because the
SOS can begin sending the state ballot pamphlet out to
voters on the 40th day before an election, and due to
the large amount of lead-time necessary to produce the
state ballot pamphlet and to have that pamphlet on
public display prior to final production, this bill
would include information about contributors to
primarily formed committees supporting state ballot
measures only as of 110 days prior to the election.
While the 110-day cutoff period accommodates the schedule
by which the state ballot pamphlet must be finalized
prior to printing, it also means that most, if not all
spending intended to influence voters after a measure
has qualified for the ballot will not be disclosed in
the state ballot pamphlet. As a result, the information
contained in the ballot pamphlet could be outdated, or
could give voters a misleading picture of the true
supporters of a state ballot measure.
On the other hand, because the expenses associated with
qualifying a statewide initiative for the ballot usually
exceed $1 million, this bill could 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.
4. Proponents, Not Opponents : This bill requires that the
state ballot pamphlet contain information about
contributors to primarily formed committees that are
supporting state ballot measures, but does not similarly
require that the state ballot pamphlet contain
information about contributors to committees that are
opposing state ballot measures.
Is it appropriate to have the state ballot pamphlet list
contributors on one side of a ballot measure, but not
list contributors on the other side of the ballot
measure? On the other hand, as noted above, because the
state ballot pamphlet is sent to print well before
Election Day, and before mail ballots are sent to
SB 334 (DeSAULNIER) Page
4
voters, it is possible that relatively little money will
be raised or spent on a campaign opposing a state ballot
measure by the 110th day prior to the election. While
proponents of a measure may have spent substantial
amounts to gather signatures to qualify an initiative
for the ballot, it is relatively uncommon for initiative
opponents to spend large amounts of money to attempt to
prevent something from qualifying for the ballot.
As a result, it seems unlikely that requiring the state
ballot pamphlet to contain information about
contributors to committees opposing a state ballot
measure as of the 110th day before an election would
result in much information being provided to the voters.
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: None received
Oppose: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
SB 334 (DeSAULNIER) Page
5