Willem van Bergen/Flickr
Last week was a busy one for state legislators, who scrambled to act on hundreds of bills before the midterm deadline to pare back their list of legislation to act on this summer.
It was also a busy week for campaign finance and government ethics watchdogs. Buried amid the flurry of votes cast last week were at least five bills that could change the state's ethics and disclosure requirements in subtle but meaningful ways.
If the bills ultimately are approved by the Legislature, they could lead to clearer and more robust rules for lobbying disclosure and enforce clarity and transparency in the murky world of slate mailers. They also could raise the giving limits required for campaign donors to disclose their activities and exempt elected officials from certain conflict-of-interest requirements.
Below are each of the bills that passed last week, along with their sponsors, and what they could mean for California government going forward:
Help us do more.
Bill number: AB 1146
Sponsor: Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton
Sponsor contact information: 916-319-2072 (Capitol office)
What it would do: This bill would raise the threshold required for disclosure of a campaign contribution from the current $100 to $200.
Rationale: From the bill analysis: "According to the author, 'AB 1146 seeks to amend the Political Reform Act of 1974 to raise the minimum campaign contribution and expenditure reporting threshold from $100 to $200 conforming it to federal election law. The current state threshold of $100 was established more than 30 years ago. By 2010 estimates, $100 indexed to reflect inflation is approximately $440. AB 1146 is a common-sense measure which eliminates confusion and will garner greater participation by small donors in future elections.'"
Bill number: AB 1241
Sponsor: Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton
Sponsor contact information: 916-319-2072 (Capitol office)
What it would do: From the bill analysis: "Exempts officials who are elected to local and state agencies from provisions of state law limiting contributions to those officials from entities with business before the agency involving a license, permit or other entitlement for use."
Rationale: From the bill analysis: "According to the author, 'This bill would amend the Levine Act of 1982, to clarify that officers directly elected to local agencies are not held to two standards if the agency includes appointed members. By striking the words 'elected or' from the Code, it would ensure that additional campaign contribution disclosure and conflict of interest requirements originally intended for appointed members of local agencies do not extend to directly elected members. For example, under current law, if a local water district is made up of both directly elected members and appointed members, the entire membership is subject to the Levine Act. AB 1241 would clarify that if a person is a directly elected member of the water district, they are exempt from the Levine Act (but still subject to the many other provisions of the Political Reform Act of 1974), but if a person is appointed to the water district, they are not. This would further the intent of the Political Reform Act of 1974 (which targeted elected officials) and the intent of the Levine Act of 1982 (which targeted appointed officials).'"
A similar but competing bill, sponsored by West Covina Democrat Roger Hernandez, would prohibit officials from voting on any issue in which they have a financial interest. Norby was the only Assembly member to vote against the bill.
Bill number: SB 415
Sponsor: Sen. Roderick Wright, D-Inglewood
Sponsor contact information: 916-651-4025 (Capitol office)
What it would do: The bill would require the state's Fair Political Practices Commission to notify the subject of an investigation at least one day before making the investigation public.
Rationale: According to the Sacramento Bee, the stated purpose of the bill is to provide fair due process to anyone accused of Political Reform Act violations. Consistent with the bill, the commission itself is considering whether to wait five days before notifying the public about investigations or enforcement actions.
Bill Number: AB 71
Sponsor: Assemblywoman Alyson Huber, D-El Dorado Hills
Sponsor contact information: 916-319-2010 (Capitol office)
What it would do: This bill would require the secretary of state to produce reports each quarter showing the specific bills lobbied by any given lobbyist. Current disclosure laws require similar information to be listed in lobbying reports, but requirements are somewhat unclear and the formats in which that information is disclosed are inconsistent. The bill also would require lobbyists to disclose a position for or against a bill, which is not currently required.
Rationale: From the bill analysis: "During the 2007-2008 Legislative Session, special interests spent $558 million to influence the legislative process. While existing law requires disclosure, the way the state provides this information makes it difficult for the public to identify what legislation lobbyists are trying to influence. Currently, lobbying records listed online are not linked to an issue. The only way to determine which lobbyists are working for or against specific legislation is to spend hours viewing or photocopying hundreds of lobbying disclosure reports, search each report and build a list cross-referenced with over 3,000 to 4,000 bills introduced in the Legislature every two years. AB 71 would require the Secretary of State to create an issue-by-issue list that details online all lobbying interests that tried to influence the decisions made on a specific piece of legislation."
Bill Number: SB 488
Sponsor: Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana
Sponsor contact information: 916-651-4034 (Capitol office)
What it would do: This bill would require that slate mailers that adopt a logo similar to an existing government agency or nonprofit get consent from that agency before running the logo. Some slate mailers adopt logos and names similar to established groups, such as political parties, in a way that suggests those groups are behind the mailer when in fact they are not.
Rationale: From the bill analysis: "In recent years, certain slate mailer organizations sending political slate mail or other mass mailings have used public safety governmental and organizational logos, insignias and emblems on mail pieces in a creative effort to suggest to the voting public that these public safety entities support or endorse the issue(s) or candidate(s) represented in the mail piece. The unauthorized use of such identifiers by slate mail organizations creates the very real potential for our state's citizens to be misled and become confused as they attempt to distinguish between legitimate public safety communications and political propaganda."
Comments
via Twitter