TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Kim Alexander, Executive Director, California Voter Foundation
DATE: April 10, 1996
RE: AB 2546/Speier: Electronic filing of political disclosure records
A Post-Mortem on AB 2546's First Hearing
I'm happy to tell you all that Assembly Bill 2546 passed out of its first committee on April 8th. The bill, authored by Assemblywoman Jackie Speier (D-Burlingame) and sponsored by Secretary of State Bill Jones, will require California legislative and statewide political candidates, committees and lobbyists to file their financial disclosure reports electronically, rather than on paper. The bill was heard by the Assembly Elections Committee, which is chaired by Assemblyman Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz) who is also a principal co-author of AB 2546.
The bill passed out of committee on a vote of 5 to 1, with one abstention. Here is the committee roll call:
Dick Ackerman (R-Fullerton, AD 72) No
Keith Olberg (R-Victorville, AD 34) Abstain
Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz, AD 27) Yes
Barbara Lee (D-Oakland, AD 16) Yes
Dom Cortese (Ref-San Jose, AD 23) Yes
Phil Hawkins (R-Cerritos, AD 56) Yes
Pete Knight (R-Palmdale, AD 36) YesAckerman expressed doubt at the hearing that there is really a strong demand for easier access to political disclosure information. If you would like to share your opinion on this matter with him, you can write to him at the State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814, or call his office at (916) 445-7448. He is most likely to be interested in hearing from constituents - his district is in Orange County, and includes the cities of Brea, Fullerton, La Habra, Placentia, and Yorba Linda.
Testifying in support of AB 2546 were:
Secretary of State Bill Jones
Assemblywoman Jackie Speier
Ruth Holton, California Common Cause
David Jefferson, Digital Equipment Corporation
Kim Alexander, California Voter Foundation
Ernie Hawkins, County Clerks' Association
Jim Ewert, California Newspaper Publishers' AssociationPhil Whalen's testimony was the most compelling of all - he spoke on behalf of himself, as a concerned citizen trying to find out who was contributing to his local candidates' campaigns. He told the committee about how he drove to Sacramento, spent eight hours at the Secretary of State's office researching just two candidates, and discovered he'd have to spend $300 to copy the rest of the material he still wanted to research at the end of the day. These kinds of personal testimonials are often persuasive with lawmakers, particularly if they come from constituents, and can be offered in person at a committee hearing or in writing.
Opposition: So far there is no formal opposition to the idea of electronic filing; there is, however, strong opposition to one specific provision of the bill. AB 2546 currently provides that the Secretary of State create software that will allow candidates to file electronically. While this provision survived the bill's first hearing, it is in serious jeapordy: one campaign finance software vendor, Statecraft, is opposing this provision on the grounds that it is a threat to their business. Cheryl White, who owns Statecraft, and her lobbyist, Mary Griffin, testified in opposition of the free software provision, while emphasizing the fact that they do not oppose electronic filing.
The parties involved in AB 2546 have been discussing what to do with this provision, and a meeting is expected to take place to discuss the software issue prior to the bill's next hearing in Assembly Appropriations later this month. My feeling on this issue is that if the state is going to mandate electronic filing, then the state has an obligation to provide filers with electronic forms, just as the state now provides filers with paper forms. However, campaign finance software is available from private vendors for as low as $99, and since the electronic filing threshhold was raised to $50,000, it is expected that requiring candidates to buy their own software may not pose a financial hardship.
It is not the intent of the bill's sponsors or supporters to threaten free-market enterprises. The free state software would not provide any of the bells and whistles most candidates would want in a campaign finance software package, such as a way to sort the data, generate thank-you letters or create personalized solicitation letters. But these assurances may not be sufficient to appease Statecraft and other software vendors that may feel threatened by the free software provision.
In any event, I think this is an important public policy issue, and one that deserves careful attention. Imagine if/when the IRS requires all taxpayers to file their taxes electronically: would/should the IRS provide free software to filers, or should filers be required to purchase their own programs, such as Macintax?
The committee did make some minor technical amendments and one substantive amendment. Originally, the bill required candidates who raise or spend $30,000 or more in a calendar year to file their disclosure statements electronically. The bill was amended to raise that threshhold to $50,000, but all incumbents will be required to file electronically, regardless of the amount they raise or spend. This higher threshold, however, will not capture many candidates running in open primary seats.
Your thoughts on this bill, and specifically the threshold and free software issue, are welcome and encouraged. Position letters can be sent to:
Assemblywoman Jackie Speier
State Capitol, Room 3151
Sacramento, CA 95814
fax: (916) 445-0511
email: Jackie.Speier@assembly.ca.govPlease cc me copies of your letters at cvf@netcom.com, and we can post the best examples on the forthcoming Political Disclosure Reform web site.
Kim Alexander, Executive Director, California Voter Foundation
cvf@netcom.com
916/325-2120
Home | Legislative Updates | Publications | News Stories | Search