Assembly Standing Committee on Banking and Finance

Good afternoon. The committee on banking and finance is called to order. Sergeants, please call the absent members.

It should work. Yeah.

Should work. Yeah. It's on. Thank you. Since we don't have a quorum, we will start as a subcommittee.

And in order to ensure that Members are here to vote, we will start with the one presentation that we have today from Assembly Member Rogers. Please, join us here at the desk.

File item two AB1984. And, again, this will be heard as testimony only. Author, when you are ready, please start.

Yeah. Absolutely. So first of all, I'm here today to present AB 1984. This bill really is our attempt to try to neuter the impacts from Citizens United.

Citizens United was passed sixteen years ago, and since then, we've seen an unlimited amount of spending that is being spent in our democracy, and it, has had a detrimental effect.

This bill actually approaches the problem from a different perspective than the question about how much speech and whether or not you should limit speech, and instead looks at the powers that are being granted to corporations and to LLCs, nonprofits, unions,

to say that we just fundamentally think that there should be less money in politics. This isn't about saying one side's money or the other side's money is better or that it is worse.

It's about saying that money by itself is inherently corrupting and that the public deserves a better process. I'll turn it over to folks in a minute here to talk a little bit about the how and and what this currently looks like. But I think it's really important for us to talk about the why.

Since Citizens United passed, polling has consistently shown that the public does not trust the decisions that are made when so much money is being spent in the elections.

Nearly 80% of Americans feel like unfettered spending in elections has eroded democracy and actually is producing worse outcomes for us.

We even have academic research that has shown that since Citizens United, the public not just feels like, but you can actually draw a line between the decisions that are made being more in tune with the wants and desires of the folks who are big dollar donors than it is with

the average person. I like to quote George Carlin, and this is probably the only appropriate time ever to quote George Carlin in the legislature. But George Carlin said, 'it's a big club, and you're not in it.'

And I think now more than ever, the electorate is feeling like it's a big club that they're not a part of. Even if we wanna step back from where we sit with elections, when you see things like the Epstein files where the public sees zero accountability for people who are,

considered elites that are in those files. When you see billions of dollars being spent on stocks right before tweets happen and there's somebody who is making a ton of money while the rest of us are toiling away and struggling to live in this country,

it feels like a big club that the average person is not in. And we spend so much time fighting to get people to vote and make them believe that one one person, one vote, and one voice really only works and functions when people believe that democracy works and that things are even.

And with Citizens United and the spending that's been been occurring especially since then, people don't actually believe that anymore. People don't actually believe that their voice matters, and they're completely drowned out by big moneyed interests.

So that's why we introduced the bill. Montana is advancing a ballot measure this November, a bipartisan measure that doesn't call out one specific type of money, but really just calls out money in general.

And I think that in this moment, if Montana can do it, California should be having this discussion as well about how we return power back to people and make sure that they see that those who are in power recognize that there's a problem, and it's a system that we all have benefited.

We're all in elected office. We all, in some way, have benefited from the system, but I think it's important for us to say that we recognize that the system is broken and that we're trying to do something inherently different.

So I have two witnesses with us to start today. First, I gotta give him a lot of credit because Tom Moore has been doing so much work on this and pushing across the nation to address this issue for Center for American Progress.

He'll be here to talk through what that looks like on a national level. Then we also have Nancy Price with Alliance for Democracy who has been working on this since the Citizens United ruling passed, and has been working really hard on that as well. So I'll kick it over. Who wants to start?

Good afternoon. It's an honor to speak to the California State Assembly Banking and Finance Committee in support of AB 1984. My name is Nancy Price. I'm co-Chair of the Alliance for Democracy that is based on a 1995 article in Nation magazine thirty years ago declaring,

we are ruled by big business and we know it. Corporate money is wrecking popular government. It's as if American democracy has been bombed.

Corporate tobacco tobacco lawyer Lewis Powell instigated this problem with his famous 1971 memo to The US, for the US Chamber of Commerce more than fifty years ago, calling on corporations to aggressively increase their influence in our political system.

After appointment to the US Supreme Court, Powell Powell followed up by promoting the pivotal 1976 Buckley versus Valeo campaign finance decision, giving corporations the right to spend as much money as they as they want to corrupt elections,

followed much later by Citizens United Citizens United in 2010. Surely, this is not news to you. You know the tremendous amount of time and energy needed to raise money to be elected to office.

This effort would would be much reduced if corporations were not funding your opponents. Your time and energy would be better spent creating solutions for the common good.

The Alliance for Democracy is also the genesis of the Grassroots Institute in Mendocino County that is co-sponsoring this bill to further the mission to create solutions for the common good.

We have been working on this issue for three decades and the situation has gotten much worse. We need your help. The announced analyst for this bill did a great job laying out the problem with corporate money in politics.

Look at the list of organizations opposing this bill. These are the leading groups that want to keep the power to use corporate money to influence public policy making in California.

AB 1984 uses a logical state level approach to get around the Supreme Court roadblocks to solving this problem. It will eliminate the corruptive influence of corporate money in politics.

Please pass AB 1984 out of this committee so the legislature can fully discuss this issue as advocated by opponents of this bill. The people of California want to join this effort this year.

The simultaneously being taken up in many other states to reconstruct our democracy. So we, the people, can create solutions for the common good, not the corporate good. Thank you.

Thank you. And can we just pause for a quick second? Since we do have a quorum, we'd like to establish that so we can start the committee informality. And madam secretary, since we do now have a quorum, I believe, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call] We have a quorum.

Thank you. We have a quorum, and I'd also like to welcome Kate who is our new secretary, and she is gonna oversee our first committee hearing. So please welcome her. With that being said, we also have a couple of housekeeping items.

We have pulled item two AB 2350, and we will be potentially hearing that at a later date. A couple logistical items, we accept written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee website.

In order to facilitate the goal of the hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. With that, please continue with the testimony. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Valencia and Members of the committee. My name is Tom Moore. I'm a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, and I'm the architect of the corporate power reset, which is a legal foundation of AB 1984. Corporations aren't born. They're built.

They're built with the powers that we, the people, give them, and the people working through their legislature can trim that list of powers anytime they want. The Monterey delegates who built the state of California itself ensured that the people can.

They had a healthy fear about what corporations might do to hurt the public if they were too powerful. So they wrote these words into California's first constitution in 1849 before California was even a state, that all laws concerning corporations, quote,

'may be altered from time to time or repealed', unquote. What AB 1984 does is simple. It alters the law concerning corporations and no longer grants corporations operating in California the power to spend in its politics. That's it. That's all it takes.

Now I know you're hearing pushback on this from business, from nonprofits across the spectrum, from labor. I wanna be clear about what that pushback actually represents.

It's not that they think AB 1984 won't work. It's that they think that it will. It turns out that everybody is against Citizens United until something comes along that might actually work.

People have adapted to this broken system and are comfortable operating with it even as the system is crushing them and the rest of us under a mountain of dark money.

But your job is to look at the bigger picture and protect the voters in our democracy, not current fundraising and spending models. I also know that you're hearing from folks who say the courts will overturn AB 1984 as soon as you pass it,

but the onus is on them to explain how that would happen. No precedent has to be overturned, zero precedence to uphold AB 1984. But to strike it down, the Roberts court would have to dismantle two centuries of foundational corporation law and two decades of

everything they've been working toward. Montana's moving to put this on its 2026 ballot. Hawaii has passed it through its Senate on a unanimous bipartisan vote and has just one house committee left to go.

California should be leading on this issue, not watching. I appreciate this informational hearing, but I've been speaking to Californians on this issue for the past year. They hate Citizens United.

They're feeling disempowered in their own democracy, and they don't want information. They want action from you. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions from Committee Members? Miss Dixon, please.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just for the sake of clarity, could you define corporation? I know you've gone through a long list, but specifically, typically, people would think corporation is business. So is there any other entity that's not business? Could you please define that, please?

Thank you. The text of the bill is actually it doesn't use the word corporations. They use artificial persons, which is defined very broadly as any entity that is either created by the state or gets charter privileges from the state.

So if it's a business corporation, a nonprofit, a trust, you California's got a long list of things. If it's an an unincorporated association where they get limited liability from the state, all of those things are covered by this definition.

Including unions. I just wanna get some specificity on a union type organization.

Yeah. Unions take two different forms in the state level. They are either nonprofit corporations, usually under 501 c 5 of of the tax code or their unincorporated association.

They are included in the definitional

That is correct.

Framework.

Absolutely. Unions are absolutely included in the definition.

Okay. One other question. The Center for American Progress is known politically as being pro one party or the other. So I don't is there an another part of your advocacy or sponsorship group that is on the other side of the aisle just to kinda bring balance to this whole issue?

Well, we're moving the issue forward. Where this is moving, and the three states where it's moved the furthest are Montana, Hawaii, and California. And in Montana and Hawaii, there has been bipartisan support for it. I can't personally be bipartisan myself.

But, you know, the and one of the reasons it's it one of the things about this, it's not it's it's not a zero sum game. This does not advantage one party and disadvantage the other.

This is this helps this actually helps everybody and helps the democracy. And it's you know, nobody benefits from the kind of, you know, corrosive communications that all this dark money's been been, paying for.

I think one of the things that you see in the committee analysis and in the bill, and it it took a lot of discussion to figure out how to get here is in order for this legal theory to be able to be tested, it has to cut across everybody.

The exclusions that you build in make it so that there are significant legal risk moving forward, that you had to have it apply to everybody.

We actually have been very diligent in working with folks because the original draft of the bill that came out would have done things like excluded political parties from spending money because they are artificial creations as well.

So we've had to figure out how to get away from the conversation about granting powers to certain entities and then trying to limit it versus determining which powers we grant in the first place at all. Right.

So that brings up another point. So political parties are not excluded from this.

We we have taken amendments to make sure that it's very clear that that they are able to. Yeah.

Very good. Yeah. Alright.

There are two exclusions. One is political parties as an entity. I'm sorry. Political political committees as an entity. So candidate committees, party committees, PACs, the works.

And then also media activity, not the media corporation itself, you know, not the Los Angeles Times Corporation, but the news gathering operation of the Los Angeles Times would be exempt from being considered political spending activity.

Okay. Alright. Alright. Thank you very much.

Any other questions? Assembly Member Schiavo?

I just wanna say I really appreciate you trying to be creative in this space. This is a huge, huge issue, and it's something that we have to figure out because there's no end in sight for Citizens United with this current Supreme Court.

And so I think we are at a point where we have to, as states, take proactive action. You know? And this is I mean, this is the the money in politics having an effect on our politics is very real.

It's very real. And the threats, in this space are meant for people in seats like mine, in purple districts, where you can spend some money and you can change the outcome. And so because of that, it's been recommended to me to do or not do certain bills in certain spaces.

I'm doing AI and tech bills this year, and one person said maybe that's not a good idea this year because they just opened up a pack with a $100,000,000.

And so, you know, this is and I've literally been not so veiled had not so veiled threats said in my office about how closely I was elected related to bills and positions, by a lobbyist who is no longer welcome in my office.

But, you know, so this is I think a lot of times people and I hear it. I come out of advocacy before being here. And I know, you know, in the advocacy spaces, you talk a lot about taking this money or taking that money, and that's why people are voting certain ways.

I think the bigger threat is who can do an IE against you. And I think that everybody in the political space knows that. And so it's a much bigger threat that someone's gonna do an IE of, you know I had in one day,

a half $1,000,000 dropped against me in my first election just from one corporation. And it was and so I think that those are the things that are in fact trying to sway and change the political outcomes.

And it's incredibly problematic because I think that it works sometimes. It scares people sometimes, and it means that we don't get the policy outcomes that truly represent and reflect our community and Californians, and people in our country.

And what you said in your opening, people know that, and it's reflected in, people's view of politics and why, you know, people are so angry when it comes to elected leaders not representing them is, you know, has a lot to do with money in politics.

So, you know, I it's an it's unfortunate. It doesn't seem like we're figuring it out with this bill today, but I think it is something that we absolutely have to figure out.

Because we're at a point where, you know, we are moving towards a future where 8 to 10 companies have more money than governments. And where governments become, obsolete and them just throwing around that kind of money means governments are

almost irrelevant in the future. I mean, that is that is a future we could see. And so if we don't find ways to control what can be spent in the political space, then I'm very concerned about what our future looks like. So and if you have any comments on that, that's more of a statement.

Yeah. No. Absolutely. And I and I'll say one of the things that we saw in the last presidential election was not just an increase in overall spending, but also an increase in dark money.

And while California has done a better job than some places in providing that transparency, Oftentimes, still, it's money that's coming in at the end of an election before you have some of the reporting that has to happen where people have absolutely no idea who is actually

spending the money. You actually saw almost 2 billion. I think it was $1.9 billion in dark money spent in the last presidential election, which was a almost 200% increase from the previous presidential election.

So it's not just the public that has figured out that this is a problem, but also the people literally spending the money have figured out workarounds to be able to continue to spend an unlimited amount.

And like I emphasized in my beginning, part of what we are trying to do with this in this discussion is not to throw a pox on one group or another group that is spending money, but to say that the money itself inherently is the problem.

It has caused an arms race wherein which people are having to raise more money. They're having to spend more money because that's the way that the game is played. We're saying change the game.

Thank you.

I would like just like to add.

Please.

That if money is speech, then we have to really turn back and emphasize, I think, that we need the people's voice to be heard and not the voice of all those who have the money.

However, we describe who that is or what that is. We really have to emphasize we need to hear from the people.

Thank you. Please.

And one note on dark money, the the damage isn't just from the dark money that gets spent. It's the ability to threaten to spend it against somebody that's the real power. Right?

Like, they don't have to spend a $100,000,000 against you in your next race. They just you just have to know that it's possible. And so, I mean, you could act in some ways, it's this huge multiplier effect that however much money is actually being spent,

so much more is being threatened or just being laid out there like a blanket because it's possible. And that is the that's really the what makes it so corrosive.

Thank you. Assembly member Rubio?

Thank you. Thank you. The Assembly Member and I have had many conversations about this. And so my concerns that I shared with him is, true about you know, we keep calling it dark money.

In California, I've been through several, bills that have required more transparency. So I the dark money comment, it's, you know, sometimes feels like it's the threat as well. But what what my concern is, you're correct.

We are talking about the people's voice as well. Some of us come from poor districts. So the people that come from rich districts have an advantage over, you know, those of us that can't raise money, from the from the voices of the people because there is other entities.

And so my concern is if we keep putting these regulations, we're empowering the IE community because they're the ones that can raise and have that kind of money.

So we're in my opinion, we're taking away people's voices by doing bills like this because now what you're saying is, you know, quote, unquote, dark money, etcetera, etcetera.

Well, if the the folks that are that have the ability, the rich corporations can do it, those of us that don't have a rich we're not in the Silicon Valley, for example, and they're not going to go to Baldwin Park and be like, hey. She's gonna be our champion.

Like, that's not their backyard. And so we're giving the power to the IE, the independent expenditures, I think, by doing bills like this to Assembly Member Schiavo's point.

I don't think we figured it out yet because we are still disenfranchising those voices because the powers in within those rich corporations. Because the conversation that we had is, yes, you know, the company x has to disclose. Okay.

And then what? They don't care. They're if so even if they're we're disclosing who it is, they're still gonna spend the money because they're not being shamed. Like, what it feels like is we're trying to shame them into transparency. Well okay.

So we've disclosed that company x is is is the one that's providing that money. Doesn't stop them from continuing to contribute that money. Right? So it's not stopping the money. It's just making sure that the transparency is there.

And so that's where where I you know, we went back and forth for a long time about, you know, what about this? What about that? And so understand, you know, that we're here. I'm not trying to, you know, not support the bill.

What I'm trying to do is for us to acknowledge that this is not gonna solve the issue of the independent expenditures either.

And so we go back and forth with, again, who those who have money and those that do not. The conversation we also had, you know, and I understand this is not Congress, but in Congress, I think there was I shared it, like,

60% of congressional members are independently wealthy. So they don't care if, you know, company x and y contributes to them. They can self fund. It happened in my district.

My congressman who does not live in the district, has never lived in the district, was district shopping. He was not electable in Orange County because it's a Republican district.

So he went district shopping, went to our district, and somebody that I know, was running for that seat. He spent $5,000,000 attacking her and ended up winning a seat where he has never lived, has no idea what our constituency needs.

So he had the advantage because he was independently wealthy as opposed to the the people that helped me get elected that, you know, my neighbor, they gave me $10.

I was able to raise, you know, enough money, and they felt really proud that they were able to give me that money. $10 here and $10 there, I won, but it put me in this environment because my my congressman was independently wealthy.

So where is the line? I think that's the question is, you know, how do you address those issues

Yeah.

When you know, if we are truly looking for representation, then somebody like me that does is not independently wealthy should be able to get elected, right, as opposed to somebody that has never lived in my district and, can self fund.

So we're I feel like we're actually dis disenfranchising more people By doing this because now the only people that are that can, you know, hold these seats are the people that can self fund. So, you you know, we keep going back and forth.

And and I'm happy to jump in a little bit. First of all, that sounded like an endorsement for publicly financed campaigns. But because we have talked about this.

The issue and kind of the elephant to make sure that we address in the room, even with this bill, if we were to pass this bill, an independent expenditure could still be done by a billionaire who can spend as much money as they want. Under Citizens United,

they're not an artificial entity. They would not be rolled into this bill. They'd be able to spend as much money as they want. That is absolutely true. What I would say, though, is kind of two points. One is that there's still inherent value in making them spend it through their own name.

They wouldn't be able to have an a ridiculously named independent expenditure. You know, Chris Rogers, the billionaire. Well, I'm not a billionaire. Chris Rogers, the billionaire for a better California. Right?

That doesn't mean anything to the average voter. They'd have to actually have it be from their name. Right? And I'll give you a really good example. In the last presidential election, there was an independent expenditure, a PAC that popped up,

in early October called the, RBG PAC, which was modeled after Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dumped 20,000,000 into it and targeted women with pro, pro choice messaging for Trump in swing states.

It was not disclosed until after the election that that 20,000,000 for the RGB pack or RBG pack was from Elon Musk's revocable trust. And so that was a way to try to obscure where that money was coming from during the election.

And actually, under this bill, and this is the other part part part I wanted to make, billionaires don't they have more, assets than us. It's not always liquid.

So by removing the ability to spend money out of the revocable trust, which is an LLC, that would not be money that could have been put in.

From their personal bank account, sure, they can spend as much as they want, but they can't spend money through the treasuries of the corporations that they control. And Tom, I know you wanted to jump in if you can on this a little bit about the network that we're seeing from

billionaires and the way that they are using multiple corporations or more multiple structures to funnel money and to coordinate money.

For the last sixteen years since Citizens United was decided, The fear initially was that, oh, the Fortune five hundred is just gonna start spending all this money in our elections and own our elections. That hasn't been the case.

What happened over that time was very wealthy individuals laundered their money through c four corporations into super packs that who do have to disclose, but the only thing they had to disclose was the name of the c four dark money group,

and that has been what we've seen mostly. Elon Musk in 2024 was the exception. He was you know, he put his name he let his name be known that he was putting in, know, $240,000,000 into the presidential campaign.

That is unusual. And New York Times did a story a couple weeks ago saying like, oh, actually, he did that, but also he's got this web of LLCs and other kind of corporate entities in Texas that he is using to spend all this money dark.

So, you know, the what this bill would do at the end of the day, if this bill passes in California, every dollar in California politics, whether it's elections or ballot issues, would come from an individual.

And every one of those dollars would be disclosed. And that is not perfect.

That is not everything. That does not stop the billionaires from just, you know, throwing the money through, but it does stop them from doing it anonymously. And that is a huge improvement over what we have right now. It's a gigantic improvement over what we have right now.

And, you know, it's the the the flows of money that would stop in districts like yours, you know, I it's not immediately clear to me that the dark money c fours were spending on behalf of your constituents' interests to start with.

But it's if you know, your your constituents are not in the in politics, not just wallets, they're also ears. And when they are listening to the ads that are coming in and when they see who is who the person is who's paying for those ads, they are better off.

And, you know, the at the end of the day, they are the voters that all this money is trying to convince. And if they can know which person this ad came from, this horrible ad that this and IE paid for, that's a useful piece of information for your for your constituents. Yeah.

In the twenty twenty four election, The United States far eclipsed any other country in per capita spending. Almost I think it was around $45 per voter was spent in that election.

Thank you. Again, you know, I understand that. And just one more comment because I know we can go back and forth, but a lot of our billionaire friends, right, you know, the folks that you're talking about are egotistical anyway, so they don't really care.

And so, yes, to your point about, like, my constituents knowing where it came from, well but and, you know, that's the part that I haven't completely understood that so if you disclose the name so what? You know?

Yeah. I think You think Elon Musk doesn't, you know, doesn't want his name on on stuff?

And when it was disclosed by the paper that he was putting in money, that's probably a large part of why I'm sitting here is the public's understanding of where that money was coming from.

He just, you know It's not about Elon Musk not wanting his name on it. It's on the voters understanding that it's coming from Elon Musk. And I'll tell you, for in my city council first race and in my assembly race, we had a local billionaire who is well known and is not liked.

Right. Well and that's the point. Right? We can see it in debate, because the differences in within districts is that. Right?

So my, most of my constituents are are blue collar. They're not paying attention to to who you know, they do see the ads, but they're not going, oh my goodness. Well, so and so paid for it. I'm not voting.

They're just too busy, you know, having to go to work and trying to figure out life first rather than paying attention to who's paying for for it. Like I said, we can go back and forth for a long time, but that my point is that that it also depends on those districts. Right?

So if we don't wanna disenfranchise folks, my opinion is that by, you know, allowing these, independent expenditures to because they'll figure if there's a workaround, right, they're gonna figure out how to do this,

then we're really disenfranchising folks because now my regular people, you know, that that want to have a position like this won't have the ability to do that unless they have those connections with the independent expenditures or, you know,

somehow are connected to people that have more money. And so the whole point of, you know, equal representation, right, is that my neighbor can or me can be your representative regardless of my financial, you know, status. I'm not a, you know, millionaire.

One day I will be, but not today. You know? But that's the point. Right? So that's what I expressed to Assembly Member Rogers was that, you know, in concept, I understand, but the the the core of this is a disenfranchisement of folks,

and I think that this would disenfranchise folks more though so because we're giving the power to the independent expenditures. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Schiavo?

So would we already have a law that says, I think you have to disclose the top three. Right? Yeah. Good job. Good job on that.

So would this so if it's an individual, then that would fall under the disclosure. They'd have to disclose their individual name on our on campaign communication. Correct? Yeah. Okay.

So then they'd so it would be, you know, it'd be sent to people's mailboxes or disclosed on ads or all that kind of stuff. So I think it's easier because I totally get your point about, you know, people barely pay attention to the news, let alone research who's funding things.

Right? And that's a pretty unrealistic standard. But if it's if it's coming to people right on the mail and it has to be in a certain size print is what I think the law says.

And I'm so grateful for that because it was, you know, oil companies that dropped that half $1,000,000 in one day against me, and then the the bit pieces came. And it was all these, you know, oil companies on something about health care or something.

And I heard from people. They're like, oh, this must not be true because oil companies paid for it. So it really does backfire depending on, you know, who who it is and how they're regarded by the public.

And I think it is information that is incredibly helpful for people to be able to make that decision. And, you know, and it sounds like individuals would kinda be treated a similar way. I understand what you're saying, though.

I mean, your point is more that on the side of these, IEs is helping people get elected who could not maybe afford to raise the money.

But I think but I think on the other side of that is you don't have to you you don't have to raise so much money if there's not this opportunity for all of these IEs to come in on the other side.

Right? You don't it's so much like, races would be so much more affordable for working class people. I mean, I come from working class background. And my first campaign, I didn't take any corporate money. And and so, you know, and and had 11 IEs against me.

But I think it's so much easier to be able to do that if these IEs cannot happen. And it makes it actually more accessible for working class people to be able to run, because that's one of the biggest challenges about being able to run.

And the daunting things is being able to raise the money that you have to raise to be able to run for office and making it unaffordable. Well but it it does take away the it would take away the the I the the IEs. Right?

Yeah. I actually was kinda laughing yesterday because we were having Easter dinner, and my grandma brought with me things she got in the mail. I won't name which one, but one of the petitions that's being circulated to try to add to the ballot actually mailed to her

mailed to her whole neighborhood asking people to sign the petition and send it back. And on the petition, it said paid for by and then it had a name that was similar to what I mentioned earlier, a name that doesn't mean anything to anybody.

And then it said on it, you can find the top donors by going to and then it had a really long URL associated with it that my grandma was never going to go and plug that into the URL, but I did because she's asking it. I haven't heard of this group. I haven't been paying attention to it.

So I go to the site, and then it has another group, another entity that is multiple groups that are working together as the top donor. And then you had to go to another link to figure out who were the top donors to that entity.

That is not something when you talk about blue collar workers and folks who don't have time.

It it is more effective than what most states have in terms of disclosure, but it is still not sufficient to make sure that people actually understand who is paying for manipulating our elections, and there's no other way to put it.

And I think the point you're making is that me it's not banning necessarily these IEs, but it is but it's disincentivizing it to or it's making it so that it's doing these IUs as much. I mean, what can you explain more about that?

Yeah. It's it so it doesn't change the way a pack works. It doesn't change the way a political committee works, but it does shut off some of the faucets that would flow into that.

So, you know, your citizens for a better tomorrow tomorrow, you know, dark money group would not be able to spend in politics. And so that would just be out.

So it's yes. You would have you would have there's no change in the way the IEs could be spent or how super PACs could spend unlimited amounts of money and so forth, but it would shut down some of the faucets of money coming in.

And and that's a good thing because these the you know, because these communications are by law, not coordinated, and, you know, they they're not part of the campaign. They're this they're independent. This these are all the most corrosive communications in any election.

These are the ones that are destroying people's faith in democracy even when you know, no matter whether progressives or conservatives are spending it. I mean, this is, like and and the reason they can get away with it being so awful is that nobody's accountable for it.

No human being is accountable for this terrible mailer that showed up at my mailbox, and and that is what'll gives them license to do that. So it's it's it's doesn't just it it does shut off some of the faucets. There'll be less money coming in.

But really importantly in this is the kind of material that that money was paying for and because it was so unaccountable. It's it's qualitatively different from everything else.

And and the example that I used earlier about the RBG pack, the they disclosed who the fine who the funder was at the appropriate time, which was after the election, and then that pack was dissolved the next day, rinse, repeat.

Very much appreciate the robust discussion. We will pause on the discussion to pass the consent calendar so that Members can also excuse themselves if needed.

We have one bill on the consent calendar file item one AB 2607 by Assembly Member Nguyen, which has a motion of do passing to the committee on appropriations. Do we have a motion on the consent calendar?

First, by Assembly Member Rubio, second by Assembly Member Fong. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2607, when the motion is due passed, the committee on appropriations recommended consent. Valencia? [Roll Call]

The consent calendar is passed, and we will now continue with the presentation.

If well, if there are no other questions, I'll just say this, and and call it a close, Mr. Chair. Please. California, we know Californians agree with this because California has a history of literally inventing citizens democracy through the initiative system to try to get around corporate influence

in this building. We know that when we look at polling, it cuts across every party. People don't feel like their voice is heard in elections. They feel like it's been detrimental to democracy, and they don't think that unlimited spending should be allowed.

So we know where the average voter, the average person is on this concept. I'm excited to see what happens in Montana. When Montana moves forward this November and they put it up to a vote, I would be shocked based on the the current polling for it if it didn't pass.

The Supreme Court will either then at that point have to either refuse to hear the challenge to it or overturn centuries of jurisprudence that they have had on the ability for states to grant powers in this space.

Either way, if that if that's the case, either way, California is gonna have to come back and have a conversation about whether we're following Montana's Montana's lead, which is not something that I think we are used to hearing is California following Montana's lead.

But as I mentioned, they have the same history of corruption within their government. That's why it's a bipartisan popular measure that they are doing, and I think that California is is right for the same conversation.

Thank you, Assembly Member. We will actually have, any witnesses in opposition also approach if they would like to share to continue the robust discussion.

Great. Best promise.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

Yeah. Get close. Yeah.

Oh, if you're real close. Okay.

You can move the mic over if you need to.

There we go. Oh, there we go. Well, thank you, Chair and Members. Alexis Rodriguez with the California Chamber of Commerce. Well, I guess I wanna say, first of all, thank you so much for the for the conversation today.

I fear that I may not have seen amendments to the bill, or were there amendments to the bill? Okay. Yeah. I don't think I've seen those. Were they posted? Okay. Well, my talking points may be a little out of date, but I will go I'll just move forward with them.

Alexis Rodriguez with California Chamber of Commerce here in opposition to 1984. While we understand and appreciate the concern about the influence of money in politics, the bill before us, is unconstitutional.

It imposes a blanket prohibition on political participation by businesses and nonprofits, effectively silencing a broad segment of voices in our democratic process.

The US Supreme Court has made clear in cases like Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United, that political expression is protected under the First Amendment regardless of whether the speaker is an individual or an organization. AB 1984 directly conflicts with that principle.

It's also important to remember that businesses of all sizes are made up of people whose livelihoods are directly impacted by public policy.

This bill would prevent them from participating in conversations like workforce needs, innovation across various industries, increased or decreased taxation, etcetera.

Rather than banning participation, we should focus on transparency and accountability, and a fair and open system should aim to include all viewpoints while safeguarding against corruption and undue influence.

Finally, it's important to acknowledge that limiting one group's participation will not eliminate influence. It will simply shift it elsewhere. A healthy democracy depends on diverse perspectives, not pure voices. Thank you.

Thank you. And seeing no more questions, thank you, Assemblymember Rogers, for the presentation. You and I have had some very in-depth discussions around this concept I shared with you as well that, funny enough, my senior thesis at Hopkins was on this

very issue and the correlation between dark money, and legislative vote outcomes, which was, interesting data that that we put together with a couple of professors at Hopkins. Needless to say, the concept of money in politics is a very contentious and complicated issue.

The courts have weighed in. Also, the civil sentiment is something that needs to be noted, and with the ability of every state to implement really its own campaign finance, legislation, ads for unlimited number of ideas that have come forth.

So I'm really excited and interested to see the outcome in Montana first and foremost. I think their approach through a constitutional amendment could or could not have more say in a court of law outcome.

But at the same time, I also understand that there are some concerns when it comes to how this could impact the equity component of elections. And I am still evaluating, you know, where I stand on on all of these issues.

But one thing that I will say is that I am pleased to see that money doesn't always resolve in definitive outcomes when it comes to the legislative process. We're seeing that now unfold in a gubernatorial race where there is a very wealthy self funded individual and other

individuals who are running a campaign across the state of California. And despite that, it seems like everybody is even across the board whether or not they've invested a large sum of dollars or not.

So very much curious on that case study as well to see how money continues to impact politics here in California since we are the fourth largest economy in the world and arguably one of the states that has the most money in politics.

So with that, I very much look forward to a continued discussion on this very issue.

I do appreciate the fact that you took to heart the logistical challenges in implementing the previous version that you have presented to the committee. And with this committee having the oversight and autonomy on defining corporations, that is something that we want to

have the opportunity to work through as well. But, again, with this bill, you having modified that, I I am appreciative of your efforts in that space. And, again, let's continue the conversation and see where these national outcomes leads to.

Right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Are you doing #MeToo?

We could have some #MeToo's. Anybody in support of the bill can please approach the microphone and state your name, affiliation, and position.

Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Will Brieger from State Strategies. I'm here today for Climate Action California, and it is a pleasure to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Megan Shumway, representing Sacramento 350 in support of this bill.

Thank you.

William David Munson, representing Indivisible Cal State strong, strongly represent supporting this bill.

Thank you.

Sibb Duclerc representing California State Strong Indivisible, strongly in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Julie Chapman from Indivisible Sacramento in support.

Thank you.

Carolyn Peth for Indivisible Sacramento strongly in support.

Thank you.

Karen Jefferson, Livermore Indivisible strongly in support.

Thank you.

Laura Kyle, Indivisible Tri Valley and Indivisible Livermore, strongly support.

Thank you.

Amy Beal, voter, strongly in support.

Thank you. Any additional support? Seeing none, any opposition?

Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association in opposition. Thank you.

Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in strong opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no additional opposition and that coming to the end of our agenda, this speech is adjourned. Thank you.