www.CAcleanAction.org

David Erlich did not answer the Clean Money questionnaire

His opponent, Assemblymember Rob Bonta, scored 90%.

They are running for Assembly District 18, which includes the cities of Alameda, Oakland, Piedmont, San Leandro, and San Lorenzo.

The California Clean Money Action Fund asked all candidates for state office in California to answer six questions about whether they support legislation for more disclosure on political ads and public financing of campaigns.

"No Answer" means the candidate didn't answer the questionnaire after our attempts to reach their campaign several separate times through email or by phone.

Overall Score.

David Erlich (R) Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D)
Overall Score: No Answer Overall Score: 90%

The overall score on the survey is determined by the answers on the first five questions. For every “Yes”, the candidate gets 20%, for every “No” they get 0%. An answer of “Other” gets 10% unless it’s clear from their explanation that the candidate would or would not support the legislation.

Q1. Do you support legislation requiring ballot measure ads to clearly state their three largest true individual, corporate or union funders instead of committee names, even if the funds are transferred through one or more intermediary committees or organizations?
David Erlich (R) Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D)
Answer: No Answer
Answer: "Yes"

"As an Assemblymember sitting on the Elections and Redistricting committee, I strongly supported passage of SB 52 containing these provisions relating to ballot measure advertisements."

Q2. Do you support legislation requiring independent ads for and against candidates to clearly state their three largest true individual, corporate or union funders instead of committee names, even if the funds are transferred through one or more intermediary committees or organizations?
David Erlich (R) Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D)
Answer: No Answer
Answer: "Yes"

"I would support such a requirement on independent expenditure campaigns for and against candidates."

Q3. Would you support legislation described in questions 1 and 2 if your constituents were clearly in favor of it while major campaign funders opposed it?
David Erlich (R) Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D)
Answer: No Answer
Answer: "Other"

"As an Assemblymember I have been willing and open to hear many points of view, from constituents who are passionate about political reform to those who have an opposing position. Furthermore, I reject the notion that campaign contributions have any relation to my decision making process. However, if the hypothetical conflict detailed above did arise, I believe that one of the vital parts of the legislative process is that it is deliberative and promotes compromise in reaching an equitable solution. This is especially the case with legislation amending the Political Reform Act, which has significantly higher hurdles in reaching passage, such as increased transparency of amendments and a two-thirds vote requirement. As such, if such a situation arose, I believe it is important that the sides work to iron out their differences—which often are in the smallest technicalities—prior to a final vote, where failure would throw away a year or two of work, and I would be open to working with both sides to help find that solution."

Q4. Do you support legislation requiring state and local candidates to stand by their political ads, saying in those ads that they “approve this message” as federal candidates must?
David Erlich (R) Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D)
Answer: No Answer
Answer: "Yes"

"As a member of the Assembly Elections and Redistricting committee, I supported such a requirement which was contained within SB 2 (Lieu and Yee), which unfortunately was not brought up for a vote on the Assembly floor."

Q5. Do you support legislation providing competitive amounts of public financing or small donor matching funds to campaigns of qualified candidates who demonstrate a broad base of public support and abide by strict spending limits?
David Erlich (R) Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D)
Answer: No Answer
Answer: "Yes"

"I am open to public financing or small donor matching funds, but unfortunately we have a US Supreme Court majority which is not friendly to such a concept, having ruled poorly on Citizens United and subsequently striking down Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act, first passed by the voters in 1998."

Q6. Would you support a system of public financing of campaigns as in question 5 that covers all state races, including Assembly, State Senate, and statewide offices, if it were funded by an annual tax or fee of no more than $8 per California resident? *
David Erlich (R) Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D)
Answer: No Answer
Answer: "Yes"

"I would be open to such a proposal, however it would face a very uphill battle within the current legislative process—the initial two-thirds threshold for political reform bills would be even harder to achieve with a tax or fee attached to it. And, as mentioned above, if such a proposal were passed by ballot initiative the US Supreme Court would be likely be interested in weighing in on the policy, likely with detrimental results."

* The wording of this question created some confusion about its intent. The intent was to ask about funding of public campaign finance for state offices with a tax or fee that averaged $8 per person, an investment in the integrity of our elections that is less than one-third of 1% of California's General Fund this year. However some candidates responded to the question as if it were proposing an additional flat tax of $8 to be paid by every Californian. Due to the confusion the wording of this question created, its answers were not scored and did not count towards the overall score for the Clean Money Survey.

Note: Candidate explanations are shown as submitted. CCMAF has not edited the candidate explanations for content or writing style.

California Clean Money Action Fund
3916 Sepulveda Blvd, Suite 208, Culver City, CA  90230.  United States.
Phone: (800) 566-3780.  Fax:(888) 633-8898.  info@CAcleanaction.org