Citizens in Charge

While we don’t support or oppose any particular initiatives here at Citizens in Charge Foundation, we work with a lot of initiative activists who do. At the Grassroots Director, I am in regular contact with people involved in initiatives all over the country, and it gives me great insight into how the process really works “on the ground”. It is that insight that makes me question the logic of a bill that has recently passed the California legislature, and whether California legislators even understand the initiative process that they are meddling with.

Due to the high number of signatures required and short amount of time to collect them, the use of paid petitioning firms is necessary to get a measure on the ballot in California. Typically the sponsor of an initiative will contract with a petitioning firm to qualify a measure. Assembly Bill 1068, if signed by Gov. Swarzenegger, would void any contract that makes payment contingent on a measure qualifying for the ballot.

While this may sound like a good reform, the problem is that no contracts are ever actually written with those terms. I have asked initiative proponents, petition company managers, and attorneys from California and beyond on both sides of the aisle about this law. Not a one of them, including CICF President Paul Jacob (who has been involved in over 100 ballot initiative campaigns), have ever seen contract that makes payment contingent on the measure qualifying.

So, if no contracts are written to make payment contingent on a measure qualifying, why did legislators make a law prohibiting it? It really makes one wonder if these legislators even understand the process that they are making changes to?