Nonprofits speaking about government in California face a thicket of complex reporting and donor disclosure requirements that are among the most burdensome and privacy invasive in the nation. Of particular concern are the state’s disclaimer requirements that force groups to list “top funders” on the face of communications, an aggressively public and direct means of exposing donors to harassment and intimidation campaigns.

At a basic level, lengthy government mandated scripts with inflexible formatting rules, like those in California, crowd out the speaker’s message and render certain forms of communication virtually unusable. Interestingly, a bill introduced this session, A.B. 950, would make some modest improvements to California’s disclaimer requirements for ads about candidates or ballot measures.

In its current Assembly-amended form, the bill permits shortened means of displaying disclosures required under existing law. For instance, when listing “top funders,” groups would be permitted to use “approved abbreviations,” such as “Assoc.” for “Association” and “&” for “and.” A.B. 950 would also allow such disclosures to leave out the articles “A,” “An,” or “The” at the beginning of a contributing entity’s name and omit “words at the end of the top contributor’s name, provided that removing those words still uniquely identifies the entity among active entities.” Additionally, instead of current law’s requirement that an independent group’s ad about a candidate “include a statement that it was not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate,” A.B. 950 would simply require the words, “Not paid for by a candidate.”

Considering the full scope of privacy and free expression incursions within existing disclaimer requirements – not to mention California’s byzantine campaign finance regime as a whole – these changes barely scratch the surface of the reforms needed to rehabilitate nonprofit speech rights in California. But given California elected officials’ history of overwhelming hostility toward advocacy organizations and their supporters, any acknowledgement within the Legislature of the law’s First Amendment burdens, no matter how small, is worth celebrating.

Unfortunately, the bill’s author, Assembly Member José Luis Solache, Jr. (D), has already backed away from some pro-privacy reforms included in the introduced version of A.B. 950. Prior to amendments made at the author’s request, the bill originally would’ve allowed groups to provide a website with required disclosures in lieu of listing donors on billboards, yard signs, and other “printed advertisement[s] that [are] larger than those designed to be individually distributed.” While the option to avoid listing donors on the face of ads ideally would apply to all forms of communication – not just large signs – this would have been a positive, albeit limited, step towards more respect for donor privacy. Instead, the amended version makes the list of donors more prominent on such ads, requiring groups to separate supporters’ names using “clearly visible bullet point[s]” or numbers (“‘1.’ in front of the largest contributor, ‘2.’ in front of the second largest contributor,” etc.), as opposed to simply using commas.

While much of this may seem like minutiae to the average person, the Assembly Elections Committee’s analysis of A.B. 950 underscores the importance of avoiding onerous disclaimers that swallow speech:

“Ensuring that disclaimer requirements are reasonable is essential, as overly burdensome mandates may face legal challenges for infringing on First Amendment rights. That’s particularly true where regulations are so onerous that they deter individuals or groups from engaging in political speech.”

Crucially, the committee analysis acknowledges that “disclaimers under the Disclose Act can still occupy a significant portion of such advertisements – sometimes 50% or more of the available space.”

If Elections Committee members support legislation meant to “improve the practicality of compliance while also helping to safeguard the constitutionality of California’s campaign disclaimer laws by reducing the risk of them being deemed excessively burdensome,” as the Committee’s analysis indicates, they should do more than eliminate a few letters from required disclaimers.

While addressing practicality and space concerns is paramount to protecting political speech, this bill tinkers around the edges of necessary reforms while leaving in place a glaring First Amendment burden. Eliminating the “top funder” requirement would not only reduce the space occupied by disclaimers; it would reduce the chilling effect felt by organizations and donors faced with the choice between privacy and speech. Undoubtedly, organizations have avoided regulated speech out of respect for their supporters’ privacy, and would be-supporters have avoided giving to protect their families from being targeted, among other concerns.

It seems that the primary impact of such mandates is to deter civic engagement. In an age when almost everyone has instant internet access at all times and campaign finance reports are posted on government websites, there’s no reason for anything more than a simple “Paid for by” disclaimer identifying the sponsor of a message. If lawmakers are concerned about voters’ ability to use a search engine or find a government website, they could better publicize the websites for the Secretary of State or Fair Political Practices Commission, both of which provide additional funding details.

Following the Assembly Elections Committee’s unanimous vote, A.B. 950 now awaits review by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where a hearing is scheduled this week. While no one should hold their breath waiting for California lawmakers to make wide-ranging, First Amendment-friendly reforms to campaign finance statutes, efforts to allow even marginally less burdensome means of conveying required information are praiseworthy, even if they’re insufficient.