Editorial: Pulling the shades on transparency in politics

If there's a silver lining to the Legislature's 53-day budget impasse, it can be found in several bad bills that have been sidelined.

One of these is Assembly Bill 1430, a brazen attempt to stop cities and counties from shining a light on how campaign contributions are funneled to local candidates through political parties, unions and other "member organizations."

The right of local governments to regulate elections and monitor campaign contributions is embedded in the state Constitution through the 1974 Political Reform Act. Yet with little debate, lawmakers are preparing to undercut such laws to help the state's big political machines.

Consider the impact of this bill on Los Angeles, one city that has passed its own campaign finance ordinances.

Los Angeles prohibits groups and individuals from giving more than $500 to City Council candidates and $1,000 to mayoral candidates. For years, special interests have sidestepped these limits by contributing directly to the parties, which then bombards registered voters with advertising touting one candidate or another.

After billionaires Eli Broad and Ron Burkle tried to use these methods to elect Antonio Villaraigosa mayor in 2001, Los Angeles toughened its law by requiring political parties, unions and others to disclose within a day if they spent $1,000 or more on "member political communications," such as a mailer to support a candidate.

AB 1430, by Assemblyman Martin Garrick, R-Solano Beach, would block such disclosure requirements, preventing voters from learning which groups are bankrolling local campaigns. Garrick, who says he introduced the bill to enhance "free speech," apparently did so to head off a San Diego campaign disclosure proposal.

This page has long been wary of attempts to restrict campaign contributions. Full and immediate disclosure is generally the best way to help the electorate monitor the influence of campaign money, so voters can vote accordingly.

AB 1430 would pull the shades on such transparency. Even worse, the bill swept through the Assembly on a 77-0 vote — almost always a bad sign.

Another bill deserving of the dust bin is Senate Bill 381, by Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montibello. Calderon's bill would make it easier for special interests to curry favor with politicians by contributing to charities the politicians support or control.

Currently, an elected official must make a public disclosure when a contributor transmits $5,000 or more to a charity at the official's behest. Such disclosures must be made within 30 days. Calderon's bill would loosen the reportable limit to $7,000 and give politicians 90 days to make the disclosure.

Calderon says the bill is needed so public officials aren't discouraged from recording public service announcements -- help that might prompt regulators to assume that a later charitable donation was done "at the behest" of the official.

That's a thin justification. Only the naive would assume politicians now face a real chilling effect in getting in front of a television camera, or a radio microphone.

And even if we were to believe that, Calderon doesn't need to change the disclosure requirements for donations to charity. As with AB 1430, this bill deserves defeat.