Public Hearing of the Fair Political
Practices Commission’s Subcommittee on the Political
Reform Act & Internet Political Activity
Testimony of Kim Alexander, President & Founder
California Voter Foundation, www.calvoter.org
March 17, 2010
428 J Street, 8th Floor, Sacramento, CA
Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to participate in
today’s hearing.
I am Kim Alexander, President & Founder of the California
Voter Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization
advancing the responsible use of technology to improve the democratic
process, online at www.calvoter.org.
Since 1994 CVF has worked on public policy issues located at
the place where technology and democracy intersect. We have focused
on electronic filing and online disclosure to help voters follow
the money in campaigns and elections; we provide voters with
online access to reliable, nonpartisan election information;
and CVF worked to ensure electronic ballots are audited and backed
up with a voter-verified paper trail.
We have also conducted studies of California’s infrequent
voters and nonvoters to determine what keeps them from participating
and how those barriers could be removed; and we have examined
voter registration data-gathering and dissemination practices
in all fifty states.
One thing I have learned over the years of working in the area
of democracy and technology is that government very rarely keeps
pace with technological innovation. The federal government awarded
hundreds of millions of dollars to states to purchase new voting
equipment before standards were in place to ensure that equipment’s
reliable performance. Counties are using electronic signature
verification technology to process absentee ballots because nothing
in law prevents them from doing so, but at the same time refuse
to accept petition signatures collected on iPhones because nothing
in law permits them to do so.
So first and foremost, I would like to congratulate the Fair
Political Practices Commission for its forward thinking, and
for convening this hearing at all. And not just now, but also
ten years ago, when this agency gathered some very smart, thoughtful
people together to figure out what our state should do, if anything,
to regulate political practices on the Internet.
When I think of political practices online, I think about what
the founders of the Internet envisioned this technology could
create. They had a very egalitarian, inclusive view of the world
and hoped the Internet would democratize politics, enable more
people to participate more effectively, help raise the public’s
voice, balance out the imbalances between big money and grassroots.
I would say that while the Internet is probably a lot more “dot
com” than what they imagined, it is still a place where
a true grassroots cause can take off like wildfire, and where
someone can put a creative, low-budget video together and post
it on Youtube and get millions of views.
It’s important that whatever happens with the Internet
and politics in the future, creativity is not stifled. You don’t
want to create a situation where every time anyone opens his
mouth he has to form a political committee and attach an ID number.
What we want to avoid on the Internet is anonymous paid political
speech. Anyone can open a Twitter account, and mouth off all
day long about someone who is running for office. And they should
be free to do that, unless the person doing it is being paid
by someone – then the twittering moves from “free
speech” to “paid speech”.
California’s approach to balancing political speech and
disclosure is a good one – we use thresholds. If you spend
more than $1,000 you must form a committee. If you put a piece
of campaign literature through the U.S. Mail you must truthfully
identify yourself. If you give one hundred dollars or more your
name, address, occupation and employer will be publicly disclosed.
However, it will not be disclosed online. In California a donor’s
street name and number is redacted from the online display at
the Secretary of State’s web site. In fact, it appears
that California is the only state in the nation that redacts
street names and numbers for donors. This is an important element
of California’s disclosure system and one that CVF pushed
for because we did not want online disclosure to have a chilling
effect on the public’s desire to participate in elections
as campaign donors.
It would be helpful if the public could be better informed about
this redaction process. I also encourage the FPPC to consider
implementing a program to more aggressively monitor and fine
campaigns that identify donors below the itemized threshold.
Too often I find donations for $99 displayed on the Cal-Access
disclosure site – and I’m fairly certain that people
who are giving $99 are doing so because they want to give the
maximum amount possible without having their names disclosed.
I also think it would be helpful if the FPPC could be more forthcoming
on its web site about what anonymous free speech rights the public
is entitled to in campaigns. These rights need to be clearly
spelled out, so that people know how closely they can walk up
to the line of having to identify themselves without crossing
it.
Whether voters are able to track any campaign message back to
its original funding source depends on what time of year they
try to look. It may surprise you to know this, but if you’re
looking in January or February, it is nearly impossible to find
out where the money to fund an initiatiave while it is in circulation
is coming from. The initiative committees are still outside the “90-day-before-an-election” 10-day
disclosure rule. Making all disclosure more instantaneous would
be a huge improvement, but that alone would not be enough. You
also need a resource that lines up initiatives in circulation
with actual names of ballot measure committees. Otherwise the
voter has no idea where to look – the measure is not yet
qualified and no number has been assigned. This is a serious
shortcoming in California’s disclosure process and one
I hope the FPPC can work to correct.
Again, thank you for taking the time to consider these issues.
|
