Measures submitted to the voters: private corporations.
The implications of AB1849 could be significant for the structure of initiative measures in California. By reinforcing this definition, the bill may affect how initiatives are presented to voters and which entities can be involved in these initiatives. The inclusion of business entities as 'private corporations' subjects them to the same restrictions as individuals under the existing law, maintaining the integrity of the public initiative process and ensuring that the electorate does not endorse specific corporations through these measures.
Assembly Bill No. 1849, introduced by Assembly Member Bennett, seeks to amend the California Elections Code by adding Section 9620. This bill clarifies the definition of a 'private corporation' as it pertains to the prohibition under the California Constitution that bars initiative measures from naming individuals or private corporations for specific functions or duties. Specifically, AB1849 aims to ensure that this definition includes any business entity that is registered to do business in California with the Secretary of State. This clarity is aimed at reinforcing the constitutional intent regarding the limitations on initiative measures.
One potential area of contention surrounding AB1849 revolves around the balance between public accountability and corporate influence in the electoral process. Critics might argue that by stringently defining private corporations, there could be unintended consequences for innovative initiatives that seek corporate participation or insights. Additionally, the bill raises questions about the extent to which businesses can be engaged in the shaping of public policy if they cannot be named in initiative measures. This could lead to debates about transparency and the role of corporations in local governance and public decision-making.