TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Kim Alexander, California Voter Foundation
DATE: July 15, 1997
RE: Electronic Filing: What some lawmakers don't want you to knowHi Folks,
On a vote of 5-1 the California State Assembly's Elections Committee yesterday passed SB 49/Karnette, a bill that would mandate electronic filing of, and online access to political disclosure records. Below are the committee votes:
Chairman Edward Vincent (D-Inglewood) - YES
Vice-Chairman Peter Frusetta (R-Tres Pinos) - YES
Tom Bordonaro (R-Paso Robles) - NOT VOTING
Lou Papan (D- Millbrae) - YES
Kevin Shelley (D-San Francisco) - YES
Bruce Thompson (R-Fallbrook) - NO
Roderick Wright (D-So. Central L.A.) - YESThe bill now moves to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. However, there is an effort underway in the Capitol to severely limit the amount of information about donors that would be available on the Internet - specifically, some members of the Assembly Republican Caucus are pushing for an amendment to the bill that would, in addition to restricting a donor's street address from online records, also omit a donor's city from being published online, as an additional measure to protect donors' privacy. Given the fact that currently the FPPC doesn't instruct candidates to file donors' zip codes, an amendment to restrict a donor's city from Internet publication would mean that the only remaining data that would be published online is a donor's name, state, and occupation/employer.
We are really getting down to the wire on this bill, and I strongly suggest that those of you who want to access online campaign finance data start getting involved. If you're a reporter, it would be a good time to write about this and find out how your local Assembly members are going to vote on this bill, and where they stand on the question of how much data should be published online about their contributors. If you are an interested citizen, now is the time to begin contacting your Assembly members in writing and sharing your opinions with them. I cannot stress enough how crucial it is at this moment for the Legislature to appreciate the public's interest in this issue - if it is not demonstrated, it is likely that this bill will be watered down and the system that comes online will be much less meaningful than it could be.
We have prepared a scorecard of Assembly votes taken on electronic filing legislation since 1996, which I am happy to fax to anyone who wants it, as well as additional background material on the donor address issue. The next stop for SB 49 is the Assembly Appropriations Committee; assuming it passes, it will head to the Assembly floor for a vote most likely sometime in August.
Yesterday's Assembly Elections Committee Hearing
SB 49 was the first bill taken up by the committee, and the bill's author, Senator Betty Karnette (D-Long Beach) opened the discussion by saying that the current system is antiquated and in need of an overhaul, and that SB 49 will provide the average voter with meaningful access to disclosure data. Karnette also stated that she was aware of the fact that some members are concerned about privacy issues, and that was why she amended her bill so that the Secretary of State would not publish donor's street addresses on the Internet. Karnette also stated that she was aware that some members also wanted donors' city data to be omitted from the online records, but she felt that to do so would severely limit the public's access.
Assemblyman Peter Frusetta then asked to have his name added to the bill as a principal co-author, and stated that in the past he has resisted partisan efforts to kill electronic filing bills, and that he would continue to do so. He also voiced his strong support for electronic filing and online disclosure, and moved to pass SB 49. Committee Chairman Ed Vincent also asked to be added as a co-author, and seconded Frusetta's motion.
Tom Bordonaro said that he wants to support SB 49, that "it's time", but that he was worried about address information for donors being available online. He said that if Karnette took the city data out, he would support her bill and lobby the Governor to sign it.
Bruce Thompson then asked if political parties' disclosure reports were included in SB 49. Karnette said they were covered under the phrase "general purpose committees", but Thompson asked for an amendment to specify that political parties are covered. Karnette agreed to take the amendment.
Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies testified, stating that 15 other states and two cities already require some kind of electronic filing. Stern also noted that he contacted the Federal Elections Commission about the privacy concerns, and found that the FEC, which has for years published donors' city, state and zip code data online, has never received any complaints about this practice.
The committee next heard testimony from David Jefferson of Digital Equipment Corporation, who addressed several concerns that have arisen in the past regarding the security of online data. Committee member Roderick Wright stated that his only concern was that we don't create an environment where one must own a computer in order to run for office, and that he viewed the current $50,000 threshold for mandatory electronic filing as sufficient to address this concern.
Alex Alanis, lobbyist for the FPPC, stated that they still have one concern with the bill, but are working with the author on it. Dick Ratcliffe, representing Capitol lobbyists, stated that he was concerned about the availability of affordable software, and wanted Senator Karnette to consider amending her bill to direct the Secretary of State to look into cost-efficient, web-based filing alternatives. Karnette stated that Ratcliffe had a legitimate concern.
Rob Lapsely presented testimony on behalf of Secretary of State Bill Jones. Lapsely noted that SB 49 represents the culmination of a three-year effort, and that if the bill is enacted it will bring California into a position of national leadership on this issue.
Committee member Tom Bordonaro then spoke to his concern about donors' city data being available on the Internet. He said that while taking out the street address is a good step, in his district, where there are a lot of small towns, city data is often very identifying. Committee Member Wright then pointed out that all of this information is public anyway, so what difference did it make what was available on the Internet? Bordonaro replied that omitting city data from the online records makes it "a little more difficult" to access. Karnette noted at that point that no other state is taking city data out of their online records.
A parade of witnesses then came forward to state their support of the bill for the record, including representatives from Consumers Union, Common Cause, California Newspaper Publishers Association, League of Women Voters of California, AARP, and CalPIRG. (The committee's analysis listed additional support from California Association of Licensed Investigators, Californians for Political Reform, California League of Conservation Voters, California Teachers Association, Center for Civic Literacy and MALDEF).
The vote was then taken, with aye votes from Vincent, Frusetta, and Wright. Kevin Shelley was absent during the SB 49 discussion, but later added his vote in support of the bill. Lou Papan was absent for most of the discussion, but later added his vote in support as well. Bruce Thompson cast the sole vote in opposition, despite the fact that Karnette agreed to amend her bill as Thompson requested. Tom Bordonaro abstained from voting.
That's the latest news....remember that past updates and much more information than you ever cared to know about electronic filing is available at CVF's Digital Sunlight Web site, at
http://www.digitalsunlight.org
Kim Alexander, Executive Director, California Voter Foundation
cvf@netcom.com
916/325-2120Home | Legislative Updates | Publications | News Stories | Search