Transparency measure appears headed to November ballot

Sacto-Capital2A ballot measure aimed at increasing legislative transparency crossed a vital threshold on Thursday and appears poised to be on November’s ballot. 

The initiative is a constitutional amendment requiring the Legislature to make available online the final version of a bill at least 72 hours prior to a vote on either the Assembly or Senate floor.

The measure would also require all open legislative meetings to be recorded, with the videos posted online with 24 hours. It also allows individuals to record and share their own videos of open meetings.  

“Voters are making it clear that they are fed up with special interest legislation being passed in the middle of the night, without time for input or careful consideration of how new laws impact them,” Sam Blakeslee, a former state senator and one of the measure’s proponents, said in a statement on Thursday. “We look forward to seeing these common sense reforms become a reality when all Californians have the opportunity to vote for this measure at the polls this November.”

The measure is backed by Republican donor Charles T. Munger Jr. and is supported by right-leaning groups like the California Chamber of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the National Federation of Independent Business and the left-leaning California Common Cause.

The most outspoken and public opponent of the measure is Democratic political strategist Steven Maviglio, who argues it’s just another “tool” for special interests to unravel legislative deals at the last second. 

Maviglio points to the 2008 budget agreement, the 1959 Fair Housing Act, the 2006 climate change bill (AB32) and the 2014 water bond were all tough votes taken without 72 hours notice. This measure, he argues, would subject iffy legislators to attacks from special interest groups.

“Let’s not give special interests any more tools to prevent lawmakers from doing the right thing, whether it be unnecessary delays in enacting legislation or ways to demonize the Legislature,” wrote in The Sacramento Bee


Write a comment
  1. Dude
    Dude 5 May, 2016, 23:44

    Maviglio’s position couldn’t be more obviously corrupt. His ridiculous argument is absolutely laughable.

    Reply this comment
  2. Dork
    Dork 6 May, 2016, 06:10

    “Let’s not give special interests any more tools to prevent lawmakers from doing the right thing.

    Those “Special Interests” this clown is talking about are the CITIZENS. I don’t think this law goews far enough. I say add this to the LAW:

    All Legislation Shall be Read into the Public Record without Pause by it’s Author. All Elected Officials Shall Certify under Penalty of Perjury that they have read the Entire Legislation before casting a vote.

    Reply this comment
  3. ricky65
    ricky65 6 May, 2016, 08:51

    This is a very sensible and common sense amendment giving the people a chance to see what their legis-whores are up to before they loot the treasury and restrict ever more of our liberties.
    So its very predictable that Mapiglio would be against this one. He’s been one of the long time corrupt Dema-Rat cockroaches slithering around the back rooms of the legislature for decades. He and his cronies have been screwing the public and fattening the wallets of the special interests every chance they get.
    The special interests controlling the corruptocrats will not give up their control of power easily.
    The people will have to take it back one battle at a time.

    Reply this comment
  4. Queeg
    Queeg 6 May, 2016, 09:42


    The Masses rarely read. They gauge life by wallet cash flow and what’s in their belly. Transparency is a joke!

    I once dealt with a real estate transaction requiring language about a height restriction. Two attornies pawed the ground. 14 pages later, three revisions, thousands of dollars billed and challenged, the attornies relieved of their duties.

    Who will oversee this Plutocrat transparency?????

    Reply this comment
  5. Spurwing Plover
    Spurwing Plover 6 May, 2016, 22:37

    We already have a goverment so transperent its totaly invisible

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Murder victims’ relatives debate Prop. 47

  At 11 p.m. on July 25, 2005 San Leandro police officer Nels “Dan” Niemi was called to the scene

Huge CA Powerball sales sharpen lottery debate

Californians joined in the country’s fever over an extraordinary Powerball prize, leading the nation in ticket sales — but not without

Pension costs burden CA budget

Gov. Jerry Brown still hasn’t gotten his state’s budget problems beat. A high-profile new report showed California still faces massive liabilities extending far