May 16, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Campaign Finance Disclosure Should Be Top Legislative Priority:

Democrats are feeling their oats this month, enjoying a sense they are unstoppable because they now enjoy one-party rule in Sacramento, including two-thirds majorities in both houses of the Legislature and a Democrat securely in the governor’s office, looking like a lock for reelection if he chooses to run in 2014.

But as they contemplate restoring some programs they’ve reluctantly helped cut over the last four years of deep budget deficits, they should not lose sight of the rare opportunity their majorities give them to make California politics the most transparent in the nation.

One thing they will do if they’re as reform-minded as they claim is revive some form of an idea that failed when proposed as a ballot initiative in 2002: Require all advertisements for propositions to list the three largest donors behind those ads in type as large as the biggest anywhere else in the ad.

That measure would pass constitutional muster because it doesn’t restrict anyone’s free speech rights, but it would also make voters who often don’t read the fine print at the end of political TV commercials aware of who’s behind the messages they’re seeing and hearing.

Some Democrats clearly want to do this. They were stung last fall by an October-surprise $11 million in donations from an Arizona non-profit that paid for scores of commercials opposing Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax increase measure and backing another that could have greatly reduced the political clout of labor unions.

The state Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) quickly sued to compel disclosure of the true sources of that money, but was ultimately stymied when the nonprofit, Americans for Responsible Leadership, revealed only that it got the money from another Arizona nonprofit, which in turn got it from a nonprofit in Virginia. Even now, no one is sure whose money it was, as the secondary groups’ names – Americans for Job Security and the Center to Protect Patient Rights – are bland titles signifying little.

The furor, of course, ultimately helped Brown’s measure win and did nothing for the anti-union proposition. But for anyone interested in electoral openness, it’s vital to identify the sources of this type so-called “dark money.”

Because over the last 40 years Democrats have been far more active than Republicans in seeking to identify real campaign donors – Brown sponsored and helped write a landmark initiative on the subject in 1974 – their new supermajorities give some hope for progress here.

One measure proposed in the Legislature’s short December meeting would revive the essence of the 2002 proposition, forcing the top funders behind all political ads to list themselves in those ads. Passing this requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of the Legislature, as it amounts to a revision of Brown’s 39-year-old Political Reform Act.

Even with Democrats in charge, two-thirds support is far from

assured. Plenty of Democrats are just as interested as Republicans in disguising their donors. It remains to be seen whether they’ll rise above those selfish interests.

But if Democrats are smart and if they can stay unified (something they’ve rarely managed in either Sacramento or Washington, D.C.), they’ll pass campaign reform quickly, making sure new rules are in effect long before the next primary election in June 2014.

“Without disclosure, voters are easily fooled,” says the California Clean Money Campaign. That group names as particularly deceptive the ads for last fall’s Proposition 33 insurance rate measure, which listed neither of its primary sponsors, Mercury Insurance and its chairman George Joseph, on its website, in TV commercials or even in its ballot argument.

Yet, when a disclosure measure came up in the last legislative session, Republicans voted against it unanimously. One GOP assemblyman, Don Wagner of Irvine, objected to the bill’s requiring sponsoring company logos to appear on advertisements, agreeing with businesses that this might somehow dilute their brand image.

The answer to that complaint: If public knowledge that a company backs a political measure could hurt sales, maybe that company ought to think twice about what it’s backing.

Even without legislative action, the FPPC has already voted to require groups that spend more than $100,000 for an initiative petition to reveal their backing on the measure’s organization papers. That falls far short of forcing any group to list itself on actual petitions, the only place most signers would see any listing. But at least it’s something.

The commission will also require candidates and committees to identify themselves when sending out mass emails. But those IDs can be meaningless committee names.

Taken together, it’s clear that without a major upgrade to the Political Reform Act, big donors will continue trying to pull the wool over voters’ eyes. For any legislature at any time, preventing this kind of dishonesty through omission or evasion should be a top priority.

in Opinion
Related Posts

Column From Santa Monica Mayor Himmelrich: We Walk the Talk

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

By Sue Himmelrich, Santa Moncia Mayor  I like the SMa.r.t. architects. I often agree with them. But in allowing Mark...

Is Gelson’s Our Future? Bigger Is Not Better!

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

It’s appalling to see what’s happening in our city – projects recently built or about to be approved – in...

Renting Your Second Home

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

If you are among the many Americans who own a second home that you occasionally use as a vacation getaway,...

Column: Cities Fight to Maintain Distinctive Characters

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist Anyone who knows California well will realize that Palo Alto does not look much like nearby...

SMa.r.t. Column: Gelson’s, Boxed-In

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

This week we are re-visiting an article from 2018 regarding the Miramar project, by simply replacing the word “Miramar” with...

Column: Are You Talking Yourself Out of Saving for Retirement? Here’s How to Break the Habit

May 5, 2022

May 5, 2022

Saving for retirement can be an abstract concept. It’s something we all know we should do, but the farther away...

SMa.r.t. Column: Failure to Plan…

April 30, 2022

April 30, 2022

Over the last approximately two years your City has been busy trying to respond to new California laws that are...

Letter to Editor: Your “Standing Firm With Santa Monica” Initiative

April 25, 2022

April 25, 2022

The following is an open letter to Councilmember Sue Himmelrich from Santa Monica resident Arthur Jeon regarding a proposed transfer...

SMa.r.t. Column: Planning The Real Future

April 24, 2022

April 24, 2022

In the 1970s, renowned USC architecture professor Ralph Knowles developed a method for planning and designing cities that would dramatically...

SMa.r.t. Column: New City Financial Plan: The Resident Homeowner Bank

April 15, 2022

April 15, 2022

Part II: Who pays the proposed transfer tax and where does the money go? Last week, we introduced the proposed...

Column: NIMBYs Getting a Bad Rap

April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

By Tom Elias Rarely has a major group of Californians suffered a less deserved rash of insults and attacks than...

SMa.r.t. Column: New City Financial Plan – The Resident Homeowner Bank

April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

Part 1 of 2 In this two-part article, we will discuss both the proposed transfer tax ballot initiative and the...

Column: Tackling Childcare Costs

April 7, 2022

April 7, 2022

Finding affordable, quality childcare is essential for many working parents. The current shortage of care options is helping drive up...

SMa.r.t. Column: Tunneling for Mobility

April 1, 2022

April 1, 2022

Editor’s note: this is an April Fools Day column and is intended to be satire.  Starting this year permits from...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Value of Our Boulevards

March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

Following is a composite of past articles dealing with the accelerated demise of our beachfront environment together with the increasing...