California Democrat Party considering financial disclosure rules

November 21, 2016

California Democratic PartyIn response to a controversy involving one of its leaders, the California Democratic Party is considering a new rule that would require its officials to disclose any compensation they receive in exchange for advocating for a statewide ballot measure or in support of a candidate for state office. [LA Times]

Eric Bauman, the chairman of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party and a candidate for state party chair, is facing criticism for his political consulting work during the recent election cycle. Bauman’s consulting firm, North Hollywood-based Victoryland Partners, received more than $100,000 from the pharmaceutical industry, which was opposing Proposition 61.

Had it passed, Prop. 61 would have prohibited state agencies from paying more for prescription drugs than the lowest price that the federal Department of Veterans Affairs pays. The initiative failed with 54 percent of voters opposing it.

Baumana’s firm was also a paid consultant for backers of Prop. 51, a $9 billion bond for statewide school construction projects; Prop. 52, an initiative that makes a hospital fee program permanent in order to help fund Medi-Cal; and Prop. 64, the marijuana legalization measure. Each of those three initiatives passed.

Over the weekend, the state Democratic Party’s rules committee discussed the proposed disclosure policy at a party executive meeting in San Diego. The committee voted to draft the proposal, which will come up for a vote at the party’s May convention in Sacramento.

Bauman said he supports the proposed rule changes “100 percent.”

Kimberly Ellis, who heads an effort to get Democratic women elected and is also a candidate for state party chair, said the proposal calling for members to merely disclose financial interests in a ballot measure or candidate is too vague. Ellis asked the committee to broaden its scope.

“Is this a party of the special interests or is it a party of the people?” Ellis asked.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Is this a party of the special interests or is it a party of the people?” Ellis asked.

LoL, this person must be new to the democrat party…

I will be long dead and buried when they pass this rulel!!!

Pay to Play baby…the corrupt Democrat party has turned the Golden State into the Toilet Bowl State.

Disgusting and inaccurate.

Pull up anchor and move to the land of freedom if you thing Cali sucks so much.

That’s your answer to anything someone doesn’t like, tell them to move away? Are you going to tell that to all these “Ain’t my president” protestors?

Agreed! I told you kettle… dont look now but you may be the new minority in this state.

What about all your Democratic Celebs who said they would all move from the USA??? Time for them to put up and start packing.

You are dreaming.

True, but I have seen nothing to show that the Republicans wouldn’t be equally corrupt if they had enough power to be worth bribing.

True, until we get the money people and lifers out of political office, both parties will be corrupt depending on which is in control.

I totally agree that the conflict of interest aspect in all voting needs to be addressed. Often I think about Gov (for the people) employees voting on issues that shift revenue from the public benefit side of the ledger to Gov employees side of the ledger. Maybe the color of taxes should be paid on this bases too, after all Gov always address the color of money when they spend it. An example may be something like this: let’s say for an income of $79,000, $22,000 of red taxes would go for administrative overhead and $3,000 of blue taxes would be spent for capital improvements / direct public benefit. I understand that nonprofits are require to provide no less than 5% of the revenue collected to go directly to the beneficiary the nonprofit represents? Yes, in my mind, disclosure rules for all aspects of conflict are needed.