BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1148
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 9, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 1148 (Brownley) - As Amended: January 4, 2012
AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED
SUBJECT : Political Reform Act of 1974: advertisements:
disclosure.
SUMMARY : Makes significant changes to required disclosures on
campaign advertisements and slate mailers. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Defines the following terms, for the purposes of this bill:
a) "Advertisement" to mean any general or public
advertisement which is authorized and paid for by a person
or committee for the purpose of supporting or opposing a
candidate for elective office or a ballot measure or
measures. Provides that the term "advertisement" does not
include a communication from an organization other than a
political party to its members, a campaign button smaller
than 10 inches in diameter, a bumper sticker smaller than
60 square inches, or any other advertisement as determined
by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
b) "Committee disclosure Internet Web site" to mean the
Internet Web site for a committee identifying the top
identifiable contributors to that committee.
c) "Cumulative contributions" to mean the cumulative amount
of contributions received by a committee during a period of
time determined by the FPPC by regulation, but in no event
less than the period commencing 18 months prior to the date
the committee made its first expenditure to qualify,
support, or oppose a candidate for elective office or a
ballot measure or measures and ending seven days after the
advertisement is sent to the printer or broadcast station
or uploaded to the Internet.
d) "Identifiable contributor" to mean a person or committee
that has made cumulative contributions of at least $10,000
to a committee.
AB 1148
Page 2
2)Requires the FPPC to adopt regulations that establish the time
used to calculate cumulative contributions for the purposes of
this bill. Provides that a regulation adopted pursuant to
this provision shall be adopted as an emergency regulation.
3)Requires a radio advertisement that supports or opposes a
candidate or ballot measure or solicits contributions in
support of that purpose, to include the following:
a) If the advertisement is authorized by a candidate or an
agent of the candidate, an audio statement in which the
candidate identifies himself or herself and states that the
candidate has approved the message; or,
b) If the advertisement is not authorized by a candidate or
agent of a candidate, a disclosure at the end of the ad
read in a clearly spoken manner in a pitch and tone
substantially similar to the rest of the advertisement that
reads as follows:
"Top three funders are Ýnames in descending order of
identifiable contributors who made the three largest
cumulative contributions to the committee that paid for the
advertisement]. Full funding details at ÝInternet Web site
address of the committee disclosure Internet Web site]."
4)Requires a television or video advertisement that supports or
opposes a candidate or ballot measure or solicits
contributions in support of that purpose, to include the
following:
a) If the advertisement is authorized by a candidate or an
agent of the candidate, a statement in which the candidate
identifies himself or herself and states that the candidate
has approved the message; or,
b) If the advertisement is not authorized by a candidate or
agent of a candidate, a full-screen disclosure without
audio on black background for a minimum of three seconds
that includes all of the following:
i) The text "Top Funders for This Ad" located on the
top of the screen and centered horizontally. Requires
the text to be white in color and the font size to be at
AB 1148
Page 3
least 5 percent of the height of the screen.
ii) Immediately below the text detailed above, the
logos, if any, as they appear on the Internet Web site
homepage of the identifiable contributor, for the
identifiable contributors who have made the three largest
cumulative contributions to the committee that paid for
the advertisement. Requires each logo to occupy at least
15 percent of the width or height of the screen, and to
be displayed from left to right in descending order
beginning with the largest identifiable contributor.
iii) Immediately below the logos, if any, the names of
the identifiable contributors who made the three largest
cumulative contributions to the committee that paid for
the advertisement. Requires each contributor to be
disclosed on a separate vertical line, in descending
order, beginning with the identifiable contributor who
made the largest cumulative contribution on the first
line. Requires the names of the identifiable
contributors to be centered horizontally, the text to be
white in color, and the font size to be at least 5
percent of the height of the screen.
iv) The text "Full Funding Details At ÝInternet Web site
address of the committee disclosure Internet Web site]."
Requires the text to be white in color, the font size to
be equivalent to 4 percent of the height of the screen,
and to be located in a position that is at vertically 4
percent above the bottom of the screen.
5)Requires a mass mailing or print advertisement, other than a
slate mailer or an advertisement that is authorized by a
candidate or an agent of a candidate, that supports or opposes
a candidate or ballot measure or solicits contributions in
support of that purpose, and that is paid for by a committee
or by any person spending over $1,000 cumulatively on mass
mailing or print advertising during an election, to include a
disclosure area on the largest page of the mass mailing or
print advertisement that meets all of the following criteria:
a) Requires the disclosure area to be set apart from the
rest of the page on which it is located by a line framing
the disclosure area in the shape of a square or rectangle
and in a color that is darker than the background color of
AB 1148
Page 4
the remainder of the disclosure area. Requires the
disclosure area within the border line to have a solid
background color that establishes a contrast to the color
of the disclosure text that is equivalent to or greater
than the text and background color contrast in other areas
of the mass mailing or print advertisement.
b) The text "Top Funders for This Ad" located at the top of
the disclosure area and centered horizontally in the
disclosure area. Requires the text to be in a font size of
at least 14-point for pages smaller than 8.5 inches by 11
inches and at least 16-point for pages that are equal to or
larger than 8.5 inches by 11 inches.
c) Immediately below the text detailed above, the logos, if
any, as they appear on the Internet Web site homepage of
the identifiable contributor, for the identifiable
contributors who have made the three largest cumulative
contributions to the committee that paid for the
advertisement. Requires each logo to occupy at least 8
percent of the width or height of the page on which the
disclosure area is located, and to be displayed from left
to right in descending order beginning with the largest
identifiable contributor.
d) Immediately below the logos, if any, the names of the
identifiable contributors who made the three largest
cumulative contributions to the committee that paid for the
advertisement. Requires each contributor to be disclosed
on a separate vertical line, in descending order, beginning
with the identifiable contributor who made the largest
cumulative contribution on the first line. Requires the
names of the identifiable contributors to be centered
horizontally, and requires the text to be in a font size of
at least 10-point for pages smaller than 8.5 inches by 11
inches and at least 12-point for pages that are equal to or
larger than 8.5 inches by 11 inches.
e) The text "Full Funding Details At ÝInternet Web site
address of the committee disclosure Internet Web site]."
Requires the text to be located at the bottom of the
disclosure area, and to be in a font size of at least
10-point for pages smaller than 8.5 inches by 11 inches and
at least 12-point for pages that are equal to or larger
than 8.5 inches by 11 inches.
AB 1148
Page 5
6)Requires a committee that pays for an advertisement for which
a disclaimer would have to be included under this bill to
establish and maintain a committee disclosure Internet Web
site. Provides that if the committee has an Internet Web site
home page, that Internet Web site may also serve as the
committee disclosure site. Requires the committee disclosure
Internet Web site and any other Web sites maintained by the
committee to include a disclosure statement area that complies
with all of the following:
a) The disclosure statement area is at least 250 pixels
wide, with a white background and a border that is dark in
color.
b) A title that reads "Top Funders of This Committee" in
black text of at least 10-point font size.
c) Immediately below the text identified above, the names
of the identifiable contributors who made the five largest
cumulative contributions to the committee that paid for the
advertisement. Requires each contributor to be disclosed
on a separate vertical line, in descending order, beginning
with the identifiable contributor who made the largest
cumulative contribution on the first line. Requires the
text to be black in color, and the font size to be at least
10-point.
d) Immediately below the text detailed above, the logos, if
any, as they appear on the Internet Web site homepage of
the identifiable contributor, for the identifiable
contributors who have made the five largest cumulative
contributions to the committee. Requires each logo to
occupy at least 75 horizontal or vertical pixels, and to be
displayed from left to right in descending order beginning
with the largest identifiable contributor.
e) A link to the Internet Web site maintained by the
Secretary of State that contains campaign finance
disclosures made by the committee pursuant to existing law.
Requires the link to be labeled "Full Funding info at the
Secretary of State's Internet Web site." Requires the link
to be a standard hyperlink that is displayed as blue
underline text in Arial equivalent font in at least 9-point
size.
AB 1148
Page 6
7)Requires, if an entity that is disclosed as an identifiable
contributor pursuant to this bill is an individual, that the
disclosure of that individual also include the occupation and
employer of the contributor in addition to the contributor's
name if the committee receiving the contribution is supporting
or opposing a candidate.
8)Requires, if an entity that is disclosed as an identifiable
contributor pursuant to this bill is an individual, that the
disclosure of that individual also include the occupation and
employer of the contributor in addition to the contributor's
name if the committee receiving the contribution is supporting
or opposing a ballot measure and the passage or defeat of the
ballot measure directly benefits or harms the employer of the
identifiable contributor. Provides that if an employer of an
identifiable contributor is also an identifiable contributor,
that the contributions of the employee shall be deemed to be
contributions by the employer for the purposes of determining
the total cumulative contributions made by the employer in
order to determine which identifiable contributors are
disclosed.
9)Provides that if a committee does not have any identifiable
contributors, as defined by the bill, the name of that
committee shall be included in the advertisement in the place
of the identifiable contributors if the committee has received
cumulative contributions of at least $10,000.
10)Requires a slate mailer to include an asterisk (*) next to
each candidate and ballot measure for which the slate mailer
organization or committee primarily formed to support or
oppose one or more ballot measures has received payment to
include the candidate or ballot measure in the slate.
11)Repeals a requirement that an advertisement for or against a
ballot measure include a disclosure statement identifying the
two highest cumulative contributors of $50,000 or more to the
committee funding the advertisement. Repeals a requirement
that a broadcast or mass mailing advertisement supporting or
opposing a candidate or ballot measure that is paid for by an
independent expenditure (IE) must include a disclosure
statement identifying the name of the committee making the
expenditure and the names of the persons from whom the
committee making the IE received its two highest cumulative
AB 1148
Page 7
contributions of $50,000 or more during the 12-month period
prior to the expenditure. Repeals a requirement that an
advertisement supporting or opposing a candidate that is paid
for by an IE must include a statement that it was not
authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a
candidate.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires an advertisement for or against any ballot measure to
include a disclosure statement identifying any person whose
cumulative contributions are $50,000 or more. Provides that
if there are more than two donors of $50,000 or more, the
disclosure only needs to include the highest and second
highest donors in that order.
2)Requires a committee that supports or opposes one or more
ballot measures to name itself using a name or phrase that
identifies the economic or other special interest of its major
donors of $50,000 or more. Provides that if the major donors
of $50,000 or more share a common employer, the identity of
the employer must also be disclosed.
3)Requires a broadcast or mass mailing advertisement supporting
or opposing a candidate or ballot measure that is paid for by
an IE to include a disclosure statement identifying the name
of the committee making the expenditure and the names of the
persons from whom the committee making the IE received its two
highest cumulative contributions of $50,000 or more during the
12-month period prior to the expenditure.
4)Provides that when a disclosure of the top two donors is
required on an advertisement pursuant to either of the above
provisions, only the largest donor needs to be disclosed on an
advertisement that is an electronic broadcast of 15 seconds or
less or a print advertisement of 20 square inches or less.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program;
contains a crimes and infractions disclaimer.
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Amendments : The author has proposed a number of
amendments to address drafting errors in the current version
of the bill and to make other changes. This analysis reflects
AB 1148
Page 8
those proposed author's amendments. The proposed author's
amendments are as follows:
a) The current version of the bill proposes to repeal
Sections 84504, 84505, 84509, 84510, and 84511 of the
Government Code. This is a drafting error, and it was not
the author's intent to repeal these sections of code. The
author's amendments reinstate these code sections.
Additionally, it is the author's intent that the provisions
of subdivision (c) of Section 84504 apply only to
advertisements that are not subject to other disclaimer
requirements under this bill. The author's amendments make
that change.
b) The current version of the bill requires a "Top Funder"
disclosure to be included on certain radio, television,
video, mass mailing, and print advertisements. Similarly,
the bill requires certain committees that must include "Top
Funder" disclosures on advertisements to have a "committee
disclosure Internet Web site." It is the author's intent
that these requirements only apply to advertisements that
are not authorized by candidates, and to committees that
are not controlled by candidates. Additionally, it is the
author's intent that the "Top Funder" disclosure
requirement apply only to mass mailing and print
advertisements if the committee that is paying for the ad
has spent over $1,000 cumulatively on mass mailings or
print advertising during the election. The author's
amendments make those changes.
c) Delete the requirement that a candidate state that his
or her contributions helped pay for a broadcast
advertisement if the candidate would be considered an
"identifiable contributor" under this bill.
d) Provide that if a committee does not have any
identifiable contributors, as defined by the bill, the name
of that committee shall be included in the advertisement in
the place of the identifiable contributors if the committee
has received cumulative contributions of at least $10,000.
e) Make the following technical changes:
i) On page 18, line 19, strike out "on the page" and
insert "in the disclosure area";
AB 1148
Page 9
ii) On page 19, line 18, strike out "committee
disclosure Internet", strike out line 19, on line 20,
strike out "Web site" and insert: "home page of the
committee disclosure Internet Web site and any other Web
sites maintained by the committee shall include a
disclosure statement area".
2)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
Campaign spending has reached unprecedented levels in
recent years. During the November 2010 election in
California, nearly $200 million was spent on ballot
measures alone. Although there are limits on the amount of
direct contributions candidates can receive, funders can
make unlimited contributions to candidates through
independent expenditure committees and to ballot measure
committees that have significantly shaped the way
California is governed. However, many of these committees
are purposely established to hide who exactly is funding
the campaign messages that voters see and hear. For
example, Field Poll recently conducted a survey that found
that while Californians are still supportive of statewide
ballot proposition elections, they believe reforms can be
made to weaken the influence special interests have
asserted over direct democracy intended to empower the
average citizen. It found that 84% of voters believe that
public disclosure requirements of initiative sponsors must
more clearly identify who are its major funders.
While it is essential in a democracy for individuals and
organizations to be able to communicate effectively and
efficiently with voters, it is equally important that
voters are not intentionally deceived and elections are not
decided upon misinformation. AB 1148 will help cast light
on spending in elections by disclosing major funding
sources directly on advertisements. At a time when public
confidence in its elected officials is unequivocally low,
strengthening disclosure requirements on political
advertisements is necessary to help Californians be better
informed and feel more represented by their government.
3)Constitutional Issues : This measure could be interpreted as a
violation of the United States and California Constitutions'
guarantees to free speech. While the right to freedom of
AB 1148
Page 10
speech is not absolute, when a law burdens core political
speech, the restrictions on speech generally must be "narrowly
tailored to serve an overriding state interest," McIntyre v.
Ohio Elections Commission (1995), 514 US 334.
In Talley v. California (1960), 362 US 60, the United States
Supreme Court struck down a Los Angeles City ordinance that
required any handbill that was distributed in the city to
contain the name and address of the person who printed, wrote,
compiled, or manufactured the handbill. The Court found the
ordinance to be void on its face, because it believed that the
ordinance would restrict freedom of expression, in violation
of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In
its opinion, the Court wrote that there could be "no doubt"
that the Los Angeles ordinance requiring disclosure on a
handbill "would tend to restrict the freedom to distribute
information and thereby freedom of expression." The court
continued to note that "Ýa]nonymous pamphlets, leaflets,
brochures and even books have played an important role in the
progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to
time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive
practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The
obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also
enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that
exposure of the names of printers, writers, and distributors
would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the
government. . . . Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor
of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under
fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes
been assumed for the most constructive purposes."
Building on its holding in Talley , the Court more recently
considered, in McIntyre , an Ohio law that prohibited the
distribution of campaign literature that did not contain the
name and address of the person or campaign official issuing
the literature. The United States Supreme Court, in reviewing
the case, found that the Ohio law unconstitutionally
restricted the freedom of speech in violation of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. In attempting to
justify the Ohio law in light of the Court's decision in
Talley , the Ohio Elections Commission argued that the two laws
were distinguishable because the Ohio law applied only to
documents designed to influence voters in an election, whereas
the law in question in Talley applied to all handbills. While
the Court recognized that the two laws were different in this
AB 1148
Page 11
respect, it nonetheless found that "the category of speech
regulated by the Ohio statute occupies the core of the
protection offered by the First Amendment," and concluded that
"the speech in which Mrs. McIntyre engaged - handing out
leaflets in the advocacy of a politically controversial
viewpoint - is the essence of First Amendment expression."
Nonetheless, the State of Ohio argued that even under the
strictest standard of review, the statute should have been
upheld in recognition of two important state
interests-preventing fraudulent and libelous statements, and
providing the electorate with relevant information. The Court
found that neither interest was sufficient to justify the
restrictions that the Ohio law imposed on the freedom of
expression.
With respect to the interest in preventing fraudulent and
libelous statements, the court noted that Ohio already had
prohibitions against making or disseminating false statements
during political campaigns, and as such, "Ohio's prohibition
of anonymous leaflets plainly is not its principal weapon
against fraud." The second state interest offered by Ohio was
the interest of "providing the electorate with relevant
information" - an interest that is similar to the author's
stated reason for seeking to require disclosure on
advertisements as required by this bill. Here too, however,
the McIntyre court found that such an interest was not
sufficient to justify the restrictions that the Ohio statute
placed on freedom of speech and expression, stating that
"Ýi]nsofar as the interest in informing the electorate means
nothing more than the provision of additional information that
may either buttress or undermine the argument in a document,
we think the identity of the speaker is no different from
other components of the document's content that the author is
free to include or exclude. . . . The simple interest in
providing voters with additional relevant information does not
justify a state requirement that a writer make statements or
disclosures she would otherwise omit."
Finally, the McIntyre court made an important distinction
between a requirement that a person file a report with a
government agency to disclose money expended for a campaign
advertisement and a requirement that a person must disclose
his or her identity on the advertisement itself, noting that
while requiring a report to be filed with a government agency
AB 1148
Page 12
"undeniably impedes protected First Amendment activity, the
intrusion is a far cry from compelled self-identification on
all election-related writings." The court continued, "Ýa]
written election-related document-particularly a leaflet-is
often a personally crafted statement of a political viewpoint.
. . . As such, identification of the author against her will
is particularly intrusive; it reveals unmistakably the content
of her thoughts on a controversial issue. Disclosure of an
expenditure and its use, without more, reveals far less
information. It may be information that a person prefers to
keep secret, and undoubtedly it often gives away something
about the spender's political views. Nonetheless, even though
money may 'talk,' its speech is less specific, less personal,
and less provocative than a handbill - and as a result, when
money supports an unpopular viewpoint it is less likely to
precipitate retaliation."
Subsequent to the Tally and McIntyre rulings, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals has rejected arguments that the Supreme
Court's holdings in those two cases apply only to materials
created and distributed by individuals who are acting alone.
In ACLU v. Heller (2004), No. 01-15462, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals struck down a Nevada law that required any
published material concerning a campaign to identify the
person paying for the publication. In an effort to save the
law after the Supreme Court's decision in McIntyre , Nevada
amended its law to include an exception for campaign materials
that were paid for by "a natural person who acts independently
and not in cooperation with or pursuant to any direction from
a business or social organization, nongovernmental legal
entity, or governmental entity." The Court rejected the
state's argument that this amendment was sufficient to save
the statute in light of McIntyre . In its decision, the Court
wrote, "Ýt]he Court in McIntyre did stress the particular
harshness of Ohio's punishment of McIntyre as the sole
advocate for her cause. But nothing in the decision indicates
that if she had been allied with other individuals, or with a
'business or social organization,' the result would have been
different. The anonymity protected by McIntyre is not that of
a single cloak." The Court continued to note that all of the
concerns that applied to an advertisement distributed or paid
for by an individual also applied to an advertisement that was
distributed or paid for by an organization. Citing McIntyre ,
the court wrote, "Ýs]imilarly, just as a lone 'advocate may
believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are
AB 1148
Page 13
unaware of her identity,' because readers may otherwise
'prejudge her message simply because they do not like its
proponent,' so, too, groups or individuals working in
cooperation with groups may be concerned about readers
prejudging the substance of a message by associating their
names with the message. In fact, groups are more likely to be
associated with a certain viewpoint than are individuals
(e.g., Greenpeace, ACLU, the National Rifle Association). So
a particular group's concern that its message may be prejudged
based on its association with the group could be even more
well-founded than an individual's similar concern. Anonymity
may allow speakers to communicate their message when
preconceived prejudices concerning the message-bearer, if
identified, would alter the reader's receptiveness to the
substance of the message. Like other choice-of-word and
format decisions, the presence or absence of information
identifying the speaker is no less a content choice for a
group or an individual cooperating with a group than it is for
an individual speaking alone." (Internal citations omitted)
In light of the Talley , McIntyre , and ACLU cases, this bill
could be susceptible to challenge on the grounds that it
violates the First Amendment's rights to freedom of speech and
freedom of expression by compelling a person to include speech
in an advertisement that he or she may otherwise choose to
omit. It is also possible, however, that existing state law
that requires certain disclosure statements to be included in
political advertisements could be equally susceptible to
challenge.
4)Legislative Authority & Emergency Regulations : One provision
of this bill requires the FPPC to adopt regulations that
establish the time used to calculate cumulative contributions
for the purposes of this bill, and requires those regulations
to be adopted as emergency regulations. The committee may
wish to consider whether it is appropriate to remove the
discretion of setting the standard for determining the
timeline for calculating cumulative contributions from the
Legislature, and to give that authority to the FPPC. If this
bill becomes law, and the Legislature subsequently decides
that the timeline for calculating cumulative contributions
established by this bill was insufficient, nothing in this
bill or in existing law would prevent the Legislature from
revisiting that policy decision.
AB 1148
Page 14
Furthermore, the rationale for requiring the FPPC to adopt these
regulations as emergency regulations is unclear. In fact,
allowing the FPPC to adopt these regulations as emergency
regulations could create problems if the FPPC amended
regulations or adopted new regulations in the middle of a
campaign.
The committee may wish to consider removing this provision of
the bill and retaining the authority of the Legislature to
revise this timeline as it sees fit.
5)Third Party Payment for Slate Mailer Placement : Under
existing law, a slate mailer must have an asterisk next to a
ballot measure or candidate that appears in the slate mailer
if that candidate or ballot measure has paid to appear in the
slate mailer. However, if someone other than the candidate or
ballot measure committee pays the slate mailer organization to
include a candidate or ballot measure committee in the slate
mailer, no asterisk or other designation is included in the
mailer. So, for instance, if a general purpose committee
makes an independent expenditure by paying a slate mailer to
include a candidate that the general purpose committee has
endorsed, the slate mailer itself would have no indication
that the slate mailer organization had been paid to include
that candidate in the mailer.
This bill would require a slate mailer to include an asterisk
next to a candidate or ballot measure if the slate mailer
received payment to include that candidate or measure,
regardless of who paid the slate mailer organization.
6)Technical Issue : The definition of the term "cumulative
contributions" that currently appears in the bill includes a
drafting error. To correct this drafting error, committee
staff recommends the following technical amendment: On page
16, line 1, strike out "after" and insert: "before".
7)Arguments in Support : The sponsor of the bill, the California
Clean Money Campaign, writes the following in support of the
bill:
Full and complete disclosure in political advertising is
needed now more than ever. The Supreme Court's 5-4 Citizens
United v. FEC decision unleashed the floodgates of
anonymous spending on campaigns by ruling there could be no
AB 1148
Page 15
limits on outside spending by corporations, unions, or
individuals. At the same time, the Court in Citizens United
specifically noted the problems that result when groups run
ads "while hiding behind dubious and misleading names".
Over $235 million was spent on California ballot measures
in 2010 alone, almost all of it by veiled actors hiding
behind innocuous sounding names that hide their real
funders.
AB 1148 addresses these problems by requiring the three
largest funders of political ads to be clearly identified
with their names and logos on the ads themselves, so voters
know who is actually paying for them. It applies to all
television ads, radio ads, print ads, mass mailers, and
websites for or against state and local ballot measures,
and to independent expenditures for and against candidates.
It applies whether ads are paid for by corporations,
unions, millionaires, or anybody else.
AB 1148 is constitutional and reasonable. It in fact
reduces the time required for disclosure in typical radio
ads from 10-14 seconds in many cases under current law down
to only 6-7 seconds in most cases, while at the same time
being far clearer about who is actually paying for the ads.
Required disclosure for television ads is only 3 seconds,
enough to clearly get across to the viewers who the top
three funders of the ad are, without imposing an undue
burden on political advertisers.
8)Arguments in Opposition : In opposition to this bill, the
California Broadcasters Association writes:
We have been working with the ÝFPPC] staff and the FPPC
Chairman's Task Force for the past year in an effort to
resolve the already burdensome disclosure regulations. One
of the stated aims of the Task Force was that "Disclaimer
rules should reflect the First Amendment and practical
limitations on the amount of space disclaimers take up on
political ads." The ÝFPPC] has already recognized that
Internet disclaimers must be sensitive to reasonable
guidelines for space and can be placed outside the
advertisement.
AB 1148
Page 16
The time constraints in broadcast advertising pose similar
problems. Current disclosures can now require up to 50% of
a 30-second radio spot. If we try to add lengthy spoken
disclosures like a web site address, it will discourage
consultants from using the medium-costing your local
stations revenue and jobs.
It was appropriate to ask all media to place disclosures
inside an ad when they took up little time and space. That
is no longer the case. ÝThis] bill will impose more
disclosure requirements on political ads than are currently
required in less protected speech such as commercial ads.
We have been working with the ÝFPPC] to move these lengthy
disclosures to where listeners and viewers tell us they
want them: on a web site or toll free number.
9)Political Reform Act of 1974 : California voters passed an
initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974 that created the FPPC and
codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on
candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. That initiative is
commonly known as the PRA. Amendments to the PRA that are not
submitted to the voters, such as those contained in this bill,
must further the purposes of the initiative and require a
two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Clean Money Campaign (sponsor)
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Church IMPACT
California Common Cause
California National Organization for Women
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo
Democratic Club of the Conejo Valley (prior version)
Environmental Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Greenlining Institute
League of Women Voters of California
Lutheran Office of Public Policy - California
Planning and Conservation League
Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Southwest California Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America
AB 1148
Page 17
One individual
Opposition
California Broadcasters Association
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094