TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Kim Alexander, California Voter Foundation
DATE: August 1, 1997
RE: News, SB 49 update, Chicago conference

Hi Folks,

This edition of CVF-NEWS includes:

Brief Review of the Chicago Roundtable on Electronic Filing

I recently returned from a trip to Chicago where I participated in a two-day conference with people from all over the country who are involved in implementing digital disclosure systems. The Chicago Roundtable on Electronic Filing was organized by Bob Watada, the director of Hawaii's Campaign Spending Commission, and Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies. The conference was underwritten by the Joyce Foundation of Chicago, and was attended by disclosure agency officials representing the states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.

It was exciting and inspiring to meet election officials from all over the country who are working hard to make the move from a paper to digital disclosure system. But while I was impressed by the agency officials' clear commitment to better serving the public, it also seems apparent that these agencies are not getting the support they need from the public in order to make the transition from paper to computerized records. As we know from our experience here in California, these new systems take time, money and most of all, public support. Many states said that they simply do not have the resources - particularly staff, money and computer equipment - to bring about a digital disclosure system.

While many are moving forward despite the lack of resources, I left the conference feeling that we, the public, need to provide much more moral and political support for their efforts. I also left feeling very inspired that there is a strong commitment for agencies to work together across jurisdictional lines to learn from each others' successes and failures. The Chicago Roundtable was a first step in what may be the emergence of a national working group on electronic filing and Internet disclosure and many of us will be meeting again at the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws' annual conference this September in Edmonton, Alberta.

I also surveyed the conferees to find out what, if anything, other states were doing about privacy concerns. The answer is that no other state has really dealt with the privacy issue yet. In fact, several people indicated that they felt Californians were excessively worrying about privacy issues. In fact, no other state legislature has put language in an electronic filing bill to restrict which data will be published online - only California's SB 49 has addressed this issue, by directing the Secretary of State to omit street addresses from being published in the online records. Most felt that if that issue needed to be addressed, it would be best addressed by the filing agency rather than in legislation.

SB 49/Karnette Update

The clock is ticking away on the 1997 legislative year, and SB 49 is nearing the end of its journey through the Legislature. The bill, which would mandate electronic filing of, and Internet access to campaign finance and lobbying disclosure records in California, has passed the Senate and the Assembly Elections Committee, and will next be heard on August 20th in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. If it passes there it will go to the Assembly floor where it will need a two-thirds vote (54 votes) to pass. If the Assembly succeeds in passing the bill, it will go to the Senate for concurrence in Assembly amendments before heading to Governor Pete Wilson's desk for his signature or veto.

Many people have asked whether the governor will sign or veto the bill. The answer is: that's a good question! He has never considered an electronic filing bill, so it's difficult to predict. Some Capitol observers are fearful that the whole electronic filing program could be scrapped if the governor makes good on his promise/threat to reject all new programs that appropriate new funds. Although SB 49's appropriation is a relatively small $1.1 million, no one's sure if the Governor's so-called "neutron budget bomb" dropped on the Capitol this week is for a real or a bluff.

In the meantime, the bill's supporters - including Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, Consumers Union, CalPIRG, AARP, the California League of Conservation Voters, and the California Newspaper Publishers Association are beginning a major lobbying and grassroots mobilization effort directed at the 80 members of the California Assembly.

The good news is that is appears Senator Karnette, the author of SB 49, has no intention of amending her bill to require that a donor's city data, in addition to street address info, be withheld from online publication, as some members of the Assembly Republican Caucus had suggested. But whether the votes are there in the Assembly to pass SB 49 without that weakening amendment remains to be seen.

San Jose Mercury News' July 31st Editorial

Kudos to the San Jose Mercury News for its continuous editorial coverage of SB 49! The Merc has already published several editorials on SB 49 this year, which have greatly aided in fostering more informed discussion and debate over the finer points of the bill. Yesterday's editorial is no exception; it takes aim at the behind-the-scenes effort in the Capitol to prevent a donor's city data from being published on the Internet. A copy of the editorial is attached.

The New York Times also recently weighed in with another electronic filing editorial on July 24 - this time directed at the New York State legislature, when electronic filing legislation is also pending. That editorial, along with much more info about electronic filing and online disclosure, is available at CVFUs Digital Sunlight Web site, at http://www.digitalsunlight.org.

Have a great weekend!

Kim Alexander, Executive Director, California Voter Foundation
cvf@netcom.com
916/325-2120

Home | Legislative Updates | Publications | News Stories | Search