Is the California Legislature Really Taking On Campaign Finance Reform?

A hot topic amongst legislators in the new year and new season of governing is campaign finance reform, specifically taking aim at the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United campaign finance ruling in 2010 that greatly expanded the ability of corporations to directly contribute to election campaigns.

Assembly Democrats Michael Allen and Bob Wieckowski introduced a resolution on Wednesday that addresses the Citizens United ruling as part of a national effort to overturn it. The non-binding resolution urges Congress to nullify the ruling by passing a constitutional amendment.

According to a statement released by Wieckowski, the 2010 ruling unleashed a "torrent of corporate money into our political process," leading to a 427 percent increase in corporate donations to campaigns in the 2010 elections.

, who represents Santee, introduced AB 860 last year, a campaign finance reform bill that included restrictions on the ability of labor unions and corporations to contribute to campaigns by pulling funds from employee paychecks. However, the bill did not pass in the 2010 season.

“While I applaud the willingness of the Democrats to pursue campaign finance reform, I’m also a bit confused," Jones stated.

"My own campaign finance bill, AB 860, has already been introduced in the California Assembly, but Democrats refuse to support it, despite the fact that it’s a more dramatic reform that would reduce not only the role of corporations, but labor unions as well. Instead, they’re spending time passing non-binding resolutions asking for Congress to implement an unhelpful solution.

"If Democrats were actually interested in campaign finance reform, they’d give AB 860 a bit more attention."

Let's give AB 860 a bit more attention here.

The bill analysis by the Assembly Committe on Elections and Redistricting summarizes AB 860: "It prohibits payroll deductions from being made if the money deducted will be used for political purposes and prohibits corporations, labor unions, and government contractors from making campaign contributions in certain circumstances."

The bill analysis specifically addressed its relationship to the Citizens United ruling and suggested that AB 860 is more focused on limiting labor union contributions than corporate contributions: "While this bill prohibits corporations and labor unions from making contributions to candidates in the state, it does not limit the ability of corporations or labor unions to make independent expenditures."

"Because this bill doesn't restrict independent expenditures, it seems unlikely that it will have much of an impact on political spending by corporations. Because labor unions often rely on payroll deductions to collect union dues, however, and because this bill prohibits AB 860 any amount deducted from an employee's wages for being used for political purposes, this bill could noticeably reduce the amount of money that labor unions have available to make expenditures for political purposes."

According to the bill analysis, the Citizens United ruling would likely cause any such restriction on independent expenditures to be deemed unconstitutional. This is why the recently introduced bill by Allen and Wieckowski is non-binding; a constitutional amendment may be the only way to limit independent expenditures that affect elections.

The Assembly Committe on Elections and Redistricting elaborates on the issue of indipendent expenditures as a key aspect of campaign finance reform: "In hotly contested campaigns for Legislature, it is not uncommon for spending through independent expenditures to exceed the total amount of spending by all candidates in the race."