Political Reform Laws Face Sacramento Attacks in Three Stealth Bills

Everyone wants good government, but at what price? Portraying these bills as "stealthy" attempts to undermine a healthy democracy is a caricaturization of what, in reality, are three straightforward attempts to address real problems with the incredibly complex and convoluted campaign finance and disclosure requirements that candidates and elected officials must navigate in this state.

Let's start with SB 381 - which has been in print for almost 6 months, but at the time of last month's Assembly Elections hearing had NO record of any opposition. What devious deeds doth it propose? You see, one of those important "reforms" propping up our democracy requires legislators to file reports for ANY event they attend where contributions are made. So if my boss spends 15 minutes at a chicken dinner for the local Boys and Girls Club, every significant donation made that night must be reported to the state, the presumption being that folks opened up their pocketbooks at his "behest" rather than because they care about the kids. So now our taxpayer funded staff has to contact the club, track down a complete list of all those donations, and report detailed info about the donors within 30 days. Nevermind that he might go to 5 such events in a week, or easily 15 in a month. Nevermind that the fundraiser might be for Planned Parenthood or a religious organization that will go to court before they'll betray the anonymity of those donors. SB 381, by raising the major donor threshold and giving legislators more time to meet reporting requirements, is "whittling away at the laws meant to deny special interests a stranglehold on California politics."

SB 298, sponsored by the Fair Political Practices Commission, which also had NO opposition on file when it passed out of its last policy committee, strikes another blow at the heart of our democracy by giving this overburdened and underfunded department a little less busywork. It's hard to believe that the FPPC would be so brash to propose an increase a reporting threshold that hasn't been raised in over 20 years, but there it is in black in white! No matter that these reports are usually duplicative of those that already must be filed by candidates or campaign committees, and that if the FPPC just used an Excel Spreadsheet it could generate the information themselves.

Finally, we arrive at AB 1430, which is at least a little controversial on its face - read under a certain light, it appears to undermine the ability of local government to pass its own campaign finance reforms. Yet again, however, its actual intent is far less nefarious. In response to a raff of corruption and malfeasance throughout city government, the San Diego Ethics Commission got a little carried away, riding the bandwagon of high-minded reform right over the first amendment. New rules the commission has passed have hamstrung the ability of organizations - unions, chambers of commerce, and even the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights - from effectively communicating with their own members. AB 1430, supported by both the state Labor Fed and the California Pro Life Council, ensures that organizations have the same rights to get their message out as self-funded millionaire candidates. How is that a bad thing?

I understand things are a little slow around Sacramento, and we all have to beat the drum lest people stop paying attention, but there are far more effective ways to protect consumers and taxpayers than by screaming bloody murder over a whole lot of nuthin'.

Capitol Staffer is correct. But the "good governmen" organizations need to show their sponsors that they're working.

"working" involves ginning up a newspaper story RR

Post a comment