Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
California Voters' Right to Know Act (2016)
| California Voter’s Right to Know Act | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Campaign finance | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
| Voting on elections and campaigns | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
| Ballot measures | ||||
| By state | ||||
| By year | ||||
| Not on ballot | ||||
|
The Voters' Right to Know Act (#15-00068A2) was not put on the November 8, 2016 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment.
The measure would have reformed campaign finance disclosure regulations and added the right to campaign finance disclosure to the state constitution.[1][2]
Introduction
According to the initiative's sponsor Jim Heerwagen, the amendment was meant to reform campaign finance disclosure regulations to help the public better track special interest donations and expenditures. Some of the comprehensive measure's components included:[3][4]
- Requiring political ads to display their top three donors over $50,000
- Revising the state's campaign finance disclosure database to make it easier for users to track contributions and expenditures
- Requiring that $10,000 donors be disclosed when at least $50,000 is transferred between individuals or groups for political purposes
- Doubling penalties for violations of the Political Reform Act
- Prohibiting gifts from lobbyists and businesses or organizations that employ those lobbyists
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title was as follows:[2]
| “ | Campaign Finance. Donor Disclosure. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.[5] | ” |
Ballot summary
The official ballot summary was as follows:[2]
| “ | Creates a constitutional right to public disclosure of money used to finance campaign activity and influence government actions. Requires corporations and nonprofit organizations that spend $50,000 or more on political activities in California to disclose their $10,000 donors, including where donations passed through other entities. Requires that a political campaign’s advertisements disclose its top three donors contributing $50,000 or more. Expands Secretary of State’s online campaign finance database. Extends bar against former legislators lobbying Legislature or state agencies to 24 months. Requires disclosure of lobbying for government contracts. Increases penalties for Political Reform Act violations.[5] | ” |
Full text
The full text of the measure could be found here.
Fiscal impact
Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance. The statement was as follows:[2]
| “ | Increased costs to state and local governments to administer state campaign finance and disclosure laws. These costs include (1) one-time costs—possibly tens of millions of dollars—to state and local governments to develop new information technology systems and (2) ongoing costs to state and local governments of possibly millions of dollars each year. These costs would be offset to some extent by higher fines.[5] | ” |
Support
The Voters' Right to Know group, which drafted and submitted the petition, was leading the support for the initiative.[6]
Supporters
- Jim Heerwagen, advisor to startups[7]
- David Lawee, head of Google Capital
- Gary Briggs, Facebook's chief marketing officer
- Jim Whims, partner at Alsop Louie Partners
- Frederic Woocher, partner at Strumwasser & Woocher
- Laura Lauder, partner at Lauder Partners
- Gary Winuk, former chief of the enforcement division at the Fair Political Practices Commission
- Bob Stern, co-author of the Political Reform Act of 1974
- Tony Miller, former California Secretary of State
Arguments in favor
The Voters' Right to Know website listed the following arguments:[4]
| “ | First in the nation enactment of a constitutional right to know the source of political money and regulate special interest influence. This is both a legal precedent and a model for other states. California will be a leader.
- A systemic approach to tracking campaign money comprising: - A schema for tracing political contributions that will be the most effective approach to election money disclosure in the country, at any level of government. - A rebooted public database of donors that includes a unique ID for donors, also a first in the nation approach. Disclosure of “true funders” on campaign ads, a proposal that has failed to be enacted legislatively on numerous occasions. Disclosure, for the first time, of lobbying for the over $11 billion in state contracts given out annually. Limits on special interest influence by increasing the revolving door restriction for legislators to 2 years and banning gifts from lobbyists and their clients[5] |
” |
Edwin Bender, executive director of the National Institute on Money In State Politics, said:[4]
| “ | The Institute applauds the efforts to significantly advance the disclosure of political spending in California. If the state adopts the entity identification system that is part of this measure, California will lead the country in ensuring the public has ready access to the complete picture of the influence exerted by large political spenders.[5] | ” |
Former California Secretary of State Tony Miller stated:[4]
| “ | A reliable, timely, online, accurate, and convenient system of disclosing and tracking campaign contributions and expenditures and lobbying spending is the very essence of keeping corruption out of government. It is shocking that California lacks such a system! Updating the electronic filing system must certainly be a priority with any new political reform initiative.[5] | ” |
Lou Paulson, president of the California Professional Firefighters, argued:[4]
| “ | California Professional Firefighters has always supported more transparency and disclosure in California’s political process, while we're still in the process of analyzing all of the prospective ballot measures and thus have no formal position at this time, we applaud the proponents’ effort to improve disclosure and make California a leader in giving its voters the right to know.[5] | ” |
Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California, said:[4]
| “ | This measure will allow California to send a message to the rest of the country that we will not tolerate unlimited sums of undisclosed special interest money to pollute our elections. We can lead the way in shining the necessary light of disclosure on campaign contributions to make sure that our voters are armed with the information they deserve before casting their ballots.[5] | ” |
Opposition
Arguments against
Charles H. Bell, Jr., a California election lawyer, argued:[8]
| “ | The media fawn over get-tough campaign finance rules without considering that these rules also sweep up the little guys and volunteer-run committees, who might now face personally bankrupting government fines and penalties. This misguided measure is likely to drive such participants out of the political process, leaving only the big guys who have resources and advisers to cope with the new restrictions and even to pay punitive fines for even technical errors.
The voters have the right to know more about the “Voters’ Right to Know Act” before they sign the proponents’ initiative petitions. The measure isn’t good medicine but a poison pill for the political process.[5] |
” |
Ballotpedia did not find more arguments against the measure. If you are aware of opposition, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
- Jim Heerwagen submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on September 16, 2015.
- The Attorney General of California is expected to issue a title and summary around November 20, 2015.[9]
- 585,407 valid signatures are required for qualification purposes.
- On February 9, 2016, petitioners reached the 25 percent mark in their signature gathering effort, collecting more than 146,352 signatures.[10]
- Supporters had until May 18, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
Related Measures
- California Non-Profit Donor Disclosure Initiative (2014)
- California Proposition 15, Biennial Lobbyist Fee and Public Campaign Funding Measure (June 2010)
- California Proposition 89, Public Campaign Finance Program, Campaign Finance Limits, and Increased Corporate Tax Initiative (2006)
- California Proposition 25, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (March 2000)
- California Proposition 34, Limits on Campaign Contributions (2000)
- California Proposition 15, Biennial Lobbyist Fee and Public Campaign Funding Measure (June 2010)
- California Proposition 208, Campaign Contribution and Spending Limits Initiative (1996)
- California Proposition 212, Campaign Spending and Contribution Limits Initiative (1996)
- California Proposition 131, Term Limits and Campaign Finance Limits Initiative (1990)
State profile
| Demographic data for California | ||
|---|---|---|
| California | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 38,993,940 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 155,779 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 61.8% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 5.9% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 13.7% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.7% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 4.5% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 38.4% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 81.8% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 31.4% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $61,818 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 18.2% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in California
California voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
More California coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in California
- United States congressional delegations from California
- Public policy in California
- Endorsers in California
- California fact checks
- More...
Footnotes
- ↑ California Attorney General, "Voters' Right to Know Act," accessed November 18, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed December 29, 2015
- ↑ Washington Post, "Will California guarantee the right to know the names of political donors?" September 16, 2015
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Voters Right to Know, "FAQs," accessed November 18, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Voters Right to Know, "About," accessed November 18, 2015
- ↑ PR Web, "California Ballot Measure to Revolutionize Disclosure of Political Money," September 16, 2015
- ↑ Fox and Hounds Daily, "The Voters’ Right to Know Initiative is a Poison Pill for the Political Process," September 25, 2015
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Attorney General Information: Initiative and Referendum Proposals Pending Review By Attorney General," accessed November 18, 2015
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Circulating Initiatives with 25% of Signatures Reached," accessed February 24, 2016
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
