.
“Let the sunshine in…”
Good news this week for Californians who care about clean fair elections and transparency: SB 52, the California DISCLOSE Act, authored by Mark Leno and Jerry Hill and pushed by the California Clean Money Campaign, passed out of the Elections Committee which is chaired by our own Democratic Senator Lou Correa. Already passed by the Assembly, it will now go to the Appropriations Committee and then have to pass the full Senate, where it will need every single Democratic vote. (What’s going on with Republicans? We’ll look at that below.)
It’s kind of ridiculous that there was even a question whether or not this worthy bill would pass through Lou’s committee, but he had been playing coy as to whether he would support it or not (as had the other “moderate Dem” on the committee, Alex Padilla.) And he doesn’t seem to want to talk to me any more since I helped blow his marijuana/driving bill out of the water.
But like I always said, Lou is responsive to public pressure – generally the times he sides with oppressive corporate interests is when nobody’s paying attention. And after weeks of phone calls and letters from clean election supporters, 120 disclosure warriors from all over the state filled his hearing room Tuesday with enthusiastic calls for support. Since this comes on the heels of two other great election reform bills that he wrote himself – SB 26 and 27 – we can now give Lou the title Titan of Transparency, Duke of Disclosure.
Oh, right – what IS the California DISCLOSE Act, anyway?
You know how, in the months leading up to an election, we’re inundated with political ads on TV, radio, papers, etc., telling us all the reasons we should vote yes or no on some measure or other?
You’re right, generally, as a rule, to take those ads with a grain of salt. I mean, often there’s millions or billions of dollars at stake in these measures, so people will say anything, it’s only natural.
And in such cases, it’s important to know who’s actually doing the saying – is this a group or person or company you personally trust? Do they have a track record of lying through their teeth? How much do they have to gain or lose by saying what they’re saying, and is that likely impacting their truthiness?
Up until now, the forces funding all these ads have been able to hide and channel their funding through entities with cute innocuous names like “Californians for a Better World” or “Citizens for Great Government and Hardly Any Taxes.”
The California DISCLOSE Act will put an end to that charade:
- It’ll require the three largest funders of political ads to be clearly identified for six seconds at the beginning of the ads, so voters know who is actually paying for them.
- It’ll apply to all television ads, radio ads, print ads, mass mailers, online ads, billboards, and websites for or against state and local ballot measures, to third party ads for and against state and local candidates, and to issue advocacy advertisements. It applies whether ads are paid for by corporations, unions, or millionaires.
- It’ll tell voters where to find the details — Requires ads to list a website that prominently lists the ten largest funders and a link to all funders of $10,000 or more (for state races).
- Proposed Follow-the-Money Disclosure will require organizations that spend or transfer politically-available funds to report the actual original corporate, union, or individual contributors — not misleading committee and non-profit names.
- And it’ll require candidates to appear and say they “approve this message”, just like federal candidates.
CHECK OUT what “disclosure” looked like BEFORE this reform, versus what it’ll look like AFTER the Act passes:
**********
NOW…
What the Hell is wrong with the Republicans?
I mean, seriously. NO Republicans in the legislature are backing the DISCLOSE Act at this point, and of course we hope that changes, but that’s why we need every single Democrat to get the needed 2/3. But … WHY are all Sacramento Republicans against disclosure and transparency? I mean, seriously, how do they explain themselves? When “84% of California voters said they favored legislation to ‘increase the public disclosure requirements of initiative sponsors to more clearly identify who are its major funders’ (October 13, 2011 Field Poll) including 86% of Democrats, 88% of Independents, and 78% of Republicans?”
Of course the REAL reason is that every single Sacramento Republican marches in lockstep to the tune of the California Chamber of Commerce, which is the lobbying arm for all the big corporate interests who don’t WANT you to know they’re funding ads because you probably HATE them – your big oil, tobacco, insurance, banks, and so on.
But Republican politicians can’t just come out and say they oppose honesty and disclosure in politics because the Chamber orders them to – what you’ll hear them say when you ask them why they oppose the DISCLOSE Act is instead basically “hummina-hummina.” Still – what exact verbal form does that “Hummina-hummina” take? We need to know so that we can laugh, ridicule it, and maybe shame a FEW Republicans into doing the right thing and backing transparency over dishonesty.
Well, okay, you probably WILL laugh at this one, but Republicans and the Chamber claim that forcing the funders of ads to reveal who they are is a VIOLATION OF THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Right. The sacred First Amendment has now become, in their minds, the right to be a secret, hidden ventriloquist.
It gets sillier. Listen for the phrase “chilling effect.” Billionaires and corporations and unions will now, to hear Republicans tell it, be AFRAID to fund ads and make their positions known. WHY? Well… because these positions may be unpopular! They may even lead to one of those dread BOYCOTTS! Oh, cry me a river, and just disclose yourselves, you worms.
Then there’s the old chestnut “What’s the use of passing one more law, they’ll just find another way around it. Now let’s all just get along and trust each other.” The same non-logic that would lead one to ask “Why have ANY laws? Someone will figure out a way to break it or get around it anyway.”
This is all they’ve got? Sure looks that way.
So, do any of you know our other OC Senators, Bob Huff, Mimi Walters, Mark Wyland? If you do, please ask them where they stand on the DISCLOSE Act, and if you hear “Hummina-hummina,” just tell them, “At long last, Senator, have you no … oh, never mind.”
Damn Vern. This is a good read. So do you think this is set up to fail.
No, I think we can make ’em see it through. I mean, really, it’s only minor reform, it’s a shame that even this takes so much work. But baby steps… until we can repeal Citizens United!
Q: What is wrong with the R’s?
A: “But baby steps…until we can repeal Citizens United!”.
My gut tells me that R’s may think that this bill is part of the larger plan to repeal CU and there are many who do not think that is good policy. Since this may be viewed as the first step, it may be hard for some to support it overall…much more difficult to take the 2nd step if the 1st has not been taken.
Hm. Repealing CU is like scaling that mountain way over there. DISCLOSE Act is more like cleaning our room.
How do you climb that mountain way over there? One step at a time. That one step may scare many who are in favor of CU…I was just pointing out that my gut tells me you answered your own question and probably did not even know it.
Well… that could conceivably be another new excuse for them – thanks for coming up with it! But slippery slopes are pretty weak arguments. Making funders disclose themselves doesn’t seem to be one step closer to making corporations not people or making money not speech.
What I was really saying to Debbie was, “Now THAT would really be reform!”
I did not come up with it…you did.
Well, I guess it would help to get everyone out there to put pressure on their congresscritters. You don’t think Brown will just veto it? It will take a lot of pressure after a move like that to get them to overturn the veto, because it will take many more votes right?
I have no reason to think this isn’t something Brown would sign in a heartbeat! Although when Trent Lange or someone else knowledgeable comes around, they can let us know if that’s a concern at all.
Overall, I am in favor of disclosure. Sure there are times when publicity is not wanted, but we are talking about forming public policy with votes.
Vern, I am sure that there are going to be many ways “around” this (not that it is a reason for a “no” vote necessarily). I am curious about the actual naming “rules” for the funding disclosure. For example, Chevron likely has thousands of entities in its corporate umbrella. Is it the ultimate parent company that is put as the funding entity or the actual funding entity (possibly some unknown LLC out there).
Additionally, if Chevron contributes $1MM to the Chamber of Commerce and then the CoC funds a campaign, is the named funder on the add the CoC or is it Chevron?
Or, if when the CTA contributes major money to a campaign, do they have to report all members who have contributed union dues to the CTA under the “proposed follow the money” bullet point above where one has to disclose the original individual contributor?
I’ll have some of the bill’s authors/backers visit here and answer your fine questions.
That’s actually a damn good question Boutwell.
Good questions. The general rule would be that the parent company would be listed as the contributing entity, which is how it works in current law, just usually buried on the Secretary of State website instead of shown clearly and prominently on the ads.
Dues from individual union members would not have to be disclosed separately, which wouldn’t help anybody. Instead, their union would be.
In fact, for state races, no contributor that contributes less than $10,000 would be disclosed on ads — instead, the organization they gave them money to would be. The goal is to show voters the major donors that are paying for the campaigns, not smaller donors.
When a contributor gives large amounts to another organization that then funds a campaign, like your example of Chevron giving $1 million to the Chamber of Commerce or a millionaire giving money to a SuperPAC, the funder reported on the ads would be the original contributor, not the organization the money was transferred through.
Some of these details to make that happen without causing undue burdens are still being worked out, but that’s the intent of SB 52.
– Trent Lange
President, California Clean Money Campaign
http://www.CAdisclose.org
Thanks Trent for the responses. The devil will always be in the details unfortunately which is where it is hard to create “rules” for it, again, not something that should derail more knowledge for the voters though. For example, there are likely plenty of more well known companies that are owned by lesser known entities.
I still don’t quite understand how it would work in the case of Chevron and the CoC (hypothetical btw, I have no idea if they contribute $ to the CoC). So, will the largest contributor to the CoC always be listed as the original contributor…for every ad? That does not seem right to me. If Chevron gives $1MM and is the largest contributor, they would be listed as the contributor on each add that the Chamber supports (assuming that the CoC is one of the top 3 supporters). It will be next to impossible to trace the original $1MM contribution from Chevron and where it went once it gets commingled with all of the other money inside of the CoC.
None of these details are written in stone yet, but the idea is that organizations like the CoC or SuperPACs that spend money on multiple different political campaigns would have to keep a separate accounting of the original contributions that were spent on each campaign.
Money can be commingled but accounting can’t be, especially since we’ll require that whenever an organization spends significant political money they have to show, in their accounting, which original contribution was used and that each can only be “used” once.
So if Chevron and Apple each gave $10 million to the CoC, and then the CoC spent $10 million on an oil-related ballot measure and $10 million on an internet-related ballot measure, then most likely Chevron’s money would be reported on the oil measure and Apple’s money would be spent on the internet measure.
That’s the idea. How do we make sure that happens? Those are indeed devilish details. In our proposal, it happens in two ways:
First, politically-available funds may have instructions as to their use. So Chevron may say “use our $10 million on the oil measure” and Apple may say “use our $10 million on the internet measure”. If they do, then that’s what’s reported.
If they don’t, then the organization would have to use a standard accounting procedure like last-in, first-out to decide whose money to use, as done in current law in analogous cases. This is generally reasonable because generally big donors give political money right before they want it to be spent.
Might they try to play games with the timing of donations to manipulate which donor shows up on which campaign? Sure. But in this example, if they’re going to use the money from Chevron, it’s going to be reported somewhere, because they only have $10 million from Apple to use.
And if Apple cares about that internet measure and doesn’t want its name on an oil measure, then it will give explicit instructions as to where the money it gives is spent (and hence reported).
Note that these rules are only for large contributions (of e.g. $2,000 or more), so that no organizations have to bother with tracking a bunch of small contributors whose disclosure wouldn’t mean anything to voters, anyway.
– Trent
Since most of the feeder groups take a “handling charge” on the donation cycle, and the real contributor is going to be published anyway, won’t this make the use of “charity faces” obsolete? This should also reduce the amount of funds available to those charitable organizations as well. Right?
If Packard shows up on the commercial, why donate it to Monterrey Bay Aquarium anyway, other than to give Julie Packard a place to hang her hat and a nice title…? If Chevron or BP shows up why give it to Sierra Club?
Thanks Vern…another one:
(from the link above) SB 52’s “Follow-the-Money Disclosure” language requires:
(1) Organizations may only pay for political advertisements using funds that contributors were given the opportunity to either opt out of or opt into being used for political advertisement…
If I read this correctly it seems to mean that a union member will have the ability to say that they do not want any of their contributions to be used for political advertising…is that correct? Although, it likely will just mean that a larger portion of dues from members who do not opt out would be used for political adverts while those who do opt out would have a larger portion of their dues used for non-political adverts.
Sorry for the multiple questions, but this does intrigue me…almost as much as taxes.
Only if the union member’s political union dues were over $1,000 a year, which is almost never. As described in the overview you read, “Contributions from contributors giving less than $1,000 in a year are automatically available for political purposes and disclosed under the name of their original recipient” (i.e. the union in the case of a union member, or Sierra Club in the case of a small-donor Sierra Club member, etc.)
We’re still looking at exactly what the thresholds should be and how the follow-the-money disclosure should work to as accurately-as-possible track the original contributors while not imposing unnecessary burdens and closing as many loopholes as possible.
But the intent of SB 52 is to show the reveal the largest donors of $10,000 and up who pay for political ads, not union members, small non-profit members, or mom-and-pop members of local chambers of commerce.
– Trent Lange
President, California Clean Money Campaign
http://www.CAdisclose.org
what is a “political union due”? Don’t members (and non-members who ahve to pay fees) just pay union dues? Are they separated out- political vs non-political? Would a member even know the difference without searching and hiring an accountant/attorney to dig through records (or do it themselves, or course).
I know for sure that some union members do in fact pay more than $1K/yr.
I am not quite sure why you would give the member who pays $1100/yr to the union more say in the use of their money than someone who pays $950/yr. It seems to me that you would want everyone to be able to have a direct say where their money would go or no one have a direct say (other than voting for the board I suppose).
I should have said that the question of what such thresholds should be is exactly what we’re trying to work out now. The example you give is one of the reasons that $1,000 is probably too low a threshold.
It’s a balancing act to make sure that on one hand large contributors can’t get away with giving large total contributions by giving $9,999 to multiple different organizations, but on the other hand making sure that smaller-donating individuals like union members and mom-and-pop businesses aren’t unnecessarily caught up in rules that are meant to make sure the large contributors can’t play games to hide.
We know that whatever details as to who gets shown on the ads that we finally work out won’t be perfect. But whatever we work out will be a heck of a lot better than the current rules for political ads — which don’t tell voters essentially anything of value that they can see.
I am not opposed to a low threshhold, nor would a lot of union members, I believe in allowing choice as to what their dues are used for. I don’t think that you should make it so that only those who make contributions to a union or other organization in large amounts can have a say in what the money is used for. It seems like two separate issues to me:
1. Disclosure- do you have to disclose each contributor no matter how small, and
2. Use of Funds- should only large contributors (> $1K as currently stated) have a say in what their money is used for?
To me, $1K seems fine on the Disclosure while the Use of Funds should have a lower floor or a presumptive yet able to be changed use. Essentially, if you contribute less than $1K, we assume that you are fine with the use and won’t be disclosed but if you tell us, then we will not use your money for political advert’s (actually, that may be what is available right now to > $1K donors…). It just seems that just as we want disclosure, we should also have choice.
that is why i never buy politicians, i simply lease them for the session..cheaper and a better return on my investment. and besides, nobody can figure out which offshore account comes from anyway
hey Vern,
Now hat Lou has done this can you stop pussy footing around with this ass clown and take him out to the woodshed for that Bullshit attack on patients called SB 289 please. I never understood why you play nice with Republicans like Lou Correa.
Does SB stand for State Bill or Senate Bill?
Does this mean it is going to the people or just the State Congress?
Senate Bill, if it’s an assembly bill is an AB xxx, that way you know the house of origin. HR/SR in the Fed.