A typical political ad for a ballot measure in California
might include something like this: "Paid for by Yes on
Proposition 99 -- Good Jobs and Safe Streets, with major
funding by People for Good Jobs and Safe Streets."
This meets the legal requirement of disclosure under
current rules, but it doesn't give voters any help at all
identifying the real people, organizations and industries
propping up this fictional initiative. In fact, it may even
be misleading. And in this post-Citizens United world,
where campaign spending has soared, clear disclosure of who
is funding measures and candidates is more important than
ever.
Granted, California's campaign finance filings can help
voters track down the people and organizations spending on
campaigns. But most voters don't have the time or
inclination to vet every political ad they see. That's why
it makes sense to update the requirements for disclosure as
proposed by AB 249, which would require that the top three
funders of ads supporting or opposing a ballot measure be
identified transparently and prominently in the ad. The
same would apply to ads about a candidate, if the ads
weren't paid for by the candidate or a political party. The
bill would put California at the forefront of campaign
finance disclosure.
Vaguely named campaign committees exist to obscure the role
of special interests. Here's just one example: Proposition
37 in 2012 would have required the labeling of food
products containing genetically modified organisms. The
main opponent to the measure was something called the
"Coalition against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition,"
which spent $44 million on political ads to defeat to
measure. The top donor to that coalition was Monsanto, an
agribusiness company and the biggest supplier of GMO seeds.
Other donors included Dupont, Pepsico and a host of food
and beverage companies that would have been forced to
change their labels. The top opponents might not have been
a surprise in this case, but they weren't obvious, and they
should have been.
The bill is now awaiting action by Gov. Jerry Brown. And
although it passed with bipartisan support in the
Legislature and is supported by prominent good-government
groups, including the California Clean Money Campaign,
California Common Cause, League of Women Voters of
California and Maplight, the governor's appointed
chairwoman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Jodi
Remke, has voiced concern that the bill might make it
harder to stop special interests from circumventing
contribution limits. Other campaign experts disagree with
her assessment, however. And in any case, the potential
problem she identified is minor in comparison to California
taking the lead in shining a light on dark money.
