Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a state Senate bill into law Friday that will require online political image and banner advertisements to clearly show their top funders on the ad itself.
Senate Bill 1360, the Disclosure Clarity Act, will be the first law in the country to require this in political advertisements. It will also require formatting changes to make the top three funders of television and video ad disclosures much more readable.
“People shouldn’t have to pause their TVs or computers, squint, or run to the kitchen for their reading glasses to determine who is funding political ads,” said Sen. Thomas J. Umberg (D-Santa Ana), the bill’s author. “Transparency in our political process is more important than ever and voters deserve to be treated respectfully.”
“Gov. Newsom’s signature of the groundbreaking Disclosure Clarity Act and Ballot DISCLOSE Act will help ensure Californians are the most informed voters in the nation, no matter how lopsided the campaign spending,” said Trent Lange, president of the non-partisan California Clean Money Campaign.
“Every Californian who cares about fairness in democracy owes a debt of gratitude to Gov. Newsom, Assemblymember Miguel Santiago, Senators Ben Allen, Henry Stern, and Tom Umberg, and to all the other leaders in the California Legislature who helped them pass.”
18 comments
Call it what it is window dressing in an election year to convince you ‘they care’.
Worth bookmarking,
List of California ballot propositions
https://tinyurl.com/2n59cz45
2022
https://tinyurl.com/26f7xu72
Proof CA’s Proposition process is being used by big money to do what legislature is too afraid to touch. Scroll down on each Prop and look at obscene amounts of money.
As for me NO on everything
What’s the date today? I need to mark my calendar! … I agree with Newsom this time! 🙂
People such as Newsom receive huge soft dollars through special purpose LLCs. This makes it difficult to trace the origins of special interest money. This won’t injure him a bit, which of course is why he signed it.
He’s simply trying to make it difficult on smaller donors assisting groups he is not aligned with. Further, he’ll do what he can to make life difficult for their business’s. It’s a Gavin thing.
@The Fearless Spectator….Here’s an interesting tidbit. BTW, I wonder how much kickback he got for his billion dollar Chinese COVID mask deal a couple of years ago?…..
https://abc7news.com/plumpjack-management-group-llc-gov-newsom-winery-sba-releases-detailed-ppp-data-what-business-does-gavin-own/8618229/
My bet is you will not see Soroses name anywhere. Some should figure out what his disguise will be and publish it.
Just like the Koch Brothers?
Sometimes a vote can depend on who is trying to sell their bill of goods.
I smell a rat. In the same way this bill is supposed to provide sunlight to potential shady dealings, I do not trust this thing at all and wonder where the rat is. The Democrats created this bill with Newsom’s support, but it is the Democrats by far that benefit from such shady dealings especially in this one-party state. For example, Facebook’s Zuckerberg just got caught giving $500 million to support Biden and defeat Trump through deceptively named and tax-exempt legal entities, effectively giving Democratic campaign contributions to oppose Trump tax exempt status. You subsidized Zuckerberg’s $500 million dollar anti-Trump campaign. I smell a rat.
https://tinyurl.com/f65k5v7n
To Do List
Everything Newsom does is suspect.
This fails the smell test. Never trust a politician!
They should just wear sponsorship parches on their suits.
Does anyone know how this squares with the first amendment ? if i read this right if you want to exercise freedom of speech , you are required to identify yourself.
You raise an interesting question. The legal part of it I believe is Buckley v. Valeo (1976) (https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/32/anonymous-speech) where the Supreme Court held that the anonymity of campaign contributions is not a right unless a compelling reason such as physical risk to the contributor is evident. Big picture I believe they think the public has a right to know who is donating to stop politicians from being “bought” by doners, such as when drug companies’ contributions might buy favorable legislation. I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I would also argue that there should be limits to money spent. In the same way the Court ruled the public interest calls for limits on anonymous donations, the idea of one person one vote is violated by the extreme power of people like Zuckerberg. No one is inhibiting his ability to post and argue any positions, but his power comes from spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy thousands or millions of votes. It is not the merit of his ideas that create this power, but the concentration of money and the media used in ways our founding fathers could not have imagined.
Thomas Umberg??
Santa Ana is THE WORST CITY in all of California.I lived there for 14 years and watched it destroy it’s self and had to leave.
This is a good plan,and they act like it will hurt Republicans.If there is any truth to who they say is funding ads,then there should be George Soros all over these ads,but there won’t be,this law won’t seek any truth,as long as you have a name there,there is no integrity or fact checking,it would cost too much.
This law and any laws are only made to help Liberals,and this will backfire,IF they are honest,and they won’ be,but Republicans will be honest,and it help even more.
Talk about a plan backfiriing on it’s makers.
From this point on big companies and names associated with the left will hide behind unknown organization names ,and it will be legal thru a loophole.
When you see these ads,and the names,it will be people you’ve never heard of.
When you see the ads from the right,you’ll see names youre glad to see.
As usual lately, the right are doing stuff so they can dislike the right more,and the right benefits from it.
If Republicans had suggested this law along with integrity checking factors,the left would be jumping around like apes ooking and screaming about privacy.
Notice there’s no mention of any factuallity needed,just list a name?
Wil the ad producers need to see paperwork as to who the donor is,or they are falseley advertizing and not telling who the true contribution source is?
What’s the penalty for that involving this new”law”?
Antytime liberals are saying they want transparancy,something is caddywompus.,as they couldn’t tell the truth if their head was on fire.
Oops typo- “as usual lately the LEFT are doing stuff to dislike the right more,and the right benefits from it.” (sorry i’m old)
This is all poor psychology. their own people will think there’s some kind of truth being shown,when in fact it will be the opposite.
Only their own people could this gullible.
And it makes it look like all sorts of unknowns now back this person and why don’t you?
Very poor psycholgy.
It’s not going to make them look anymore honest that they already do.
I give them a 2 which will become a 1 on a scale of 1-10 truthfulness once they act like they are now walking around naked.
Dark money and Citizens United decision are at the heart of how people gain influence on our politics. Unfortunately the people who can fix it are the ones who benefit from it.
Comments are closed.