AB 2413 amends the Political Reform Act to add a new definition—“large-format public advertisement”—and to prohibit those ads from being published or displayed at public expense when two triggers are met: the ad includes a photograph of an elected officer affiliated with the agency that produces or purchases the ad, and the ad was prepared in cooperation, consultation, coordination, or concert with that officer, with public money paying distribution or paying for design/production/printing done with intent to display. The definition lists billboards, transit wraps, and bus-stop ads and lets the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) add other large formats by regulation.
The measure closes a gap in existing law that targets mass mailings and mass electronic mailings by extending similar limits to large-format outdoor media. For agencies, elected officials, vendors, and campaign professionals, the bill replaces a previously permissive environment for high-visibility government-paid advertising with a two-part test that turns on image use, official involvement, and how public funds are spent.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a statutorily defined category—large-format public advertisements—and makes them off-limits for publication or display at public expense when (1) the ad contains a photograph of an elected officer affiliated with the purchasing agency and (2) the ad was prepared with that officer’s cooperation and paid for with public money for either distribution or design/production/printing with intent to display. The FPPC may add other large formats by regulation.
Who It Affects
State and local agencies that produce or purchase outdoor ads (transit agencies, public works, communications offices), elected officers who appear in government communications, vendors and contractors who design or place large-format ads, and watchdogs and political opponents monitoring incumbent advantage.
Why It Matters
AB 2413 expands the Political Reform Act’s restrictions from mass mailings to high-visibility outdoor media, limiting a common vehicle for incumbent messaging funded by taxpayers. It establishes a new compliance framework and gives the FPPC regulatory authority to clarify which ad types fall inside the rule, creating both enforcement and administrative consequences for public communications programs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2413 adds a new statutory category called “large-format public advertisement” and gives examples—billboards, bus wraps, and bus-stop ads—while allowing the FPPC to designate other similarly sized public ads by regulation. The change recognizes that high-visibility outdoor media operate differently from individually distributed mail and electronic messages and brings them under the Political Reform Act’s public expense restrictions.
The bill establishes a two-part prohibition. First, the ad must include a photograph of an “elected officer affiliated with the agency” — a broadly defined term that covers members, officers, employees of the agency (or subunits), or anyone who supervises or appoints agency members.
Second, the ad must be prepared in cooperation, consultation, coordination, or concert with that elected officer and involve public payment: either public money funds the ad’s distribution, or public money pays for design/production/printing when those activities are intended to result in publication or display. Both criteria must be present for the ban to apply.Practically, that structure targets situations where an agency uses taxpayer dollars to produce and place a high-profile advertisement that looks like an incumbent’s campaign material because it includes their photo and was done at their direction.
The bill leaves open ordinary government communications that do not meet both criteria, but it also creates line-drawing questions—especially around what counts as “cooperation” and how to treat incidental or historical photographs.The statute also amends existing Section 89001 to add large-format public advertisements to the list of materials prohibited at public expense (the section already covered newsletters and mass mailings). Finally, the bill contains a clause saying no state reimbursement to local agencies is required under the Constitution because any costs arise from a change in crimes or infractions or penalties, and it declares the measure furthers the Political Reform Act’s purposes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill’s definition of “large-format public advertisement” explicitly includes billboards, wraps on public transportation vehicles, and advertisements affixed to bus stops, and authorizes the FPPC to add other large types by regulation.
The prohibition applies only when two triggers are met: the ad includes a photograph of an elected officer affiliated with the agency, and the ad was prepared in cooperation, consultation, coordination, or concert with that officer.
Public-payment triggers are bifurcated: the ban applies if public money pays distribution costs, or if public money pays for design, production, or printing and those activities were done with the intent to publish or display the ad.
Section 89001 is amended so that large-format public advertisements are treated alongside newsletters and mass mailings as materials that may not be sent or displayed at public expense.
The bill defines “elected officer affiliated with the agency” broadly to include agency members, officers, employees, subunit committee members, anyone with supervisory control over the agency, or anyone who appoints one or more agency members.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statutory definition of large-format public advertisement
This section creates a closed-but-expandable statutory definition listing billboards, transit wraps, and bus-stop ads as large-format public advertisements and delegates to the FPPC authority to identify additional formats by regulation. That delegation matters: it lets the agency tailor the list over time as new outdoor and public-facing ad formats emerge, but it also shifts significant scope-setting from the Legislature to the FPPC, triggering future rulemaking and stakeholder engagement.
Adds large-format ads to existing public-expense prohibitions
Section 89001 previously prohibited certain printed mass mailings from being sent at public expense; the amendment places large-format public advertisements in the same statutory prohibition. Mechanically, agencies that comply with the mass-mailing rules will now need to apply similar compliance checks to outdoor media programs and procurement related to large ads.
Two-part test for when an ad is prohibited
This new section sets out the substantive test: both (1) inclusion of a photograph of an affiliated elected officer and (2) preparation in cooperation with that officer plus public payment for distribution or for design/production/printing done with intent to display must be satisfied. The separate treatment of distribution versus production costs creates two independent monetary triggers, expanding the ban beyond simply funding placement to also cover producing materials intended for public display.
Broad coverage of who counts as an affiliated elected officer
The bill defines an affiliated elected officer to include members, officers, and employees of the agency or its subunits, and extends to individuals who supervise or appoint agency members. That breadth makes it harder for agencies to argue that an official was unaffiliated; officials with appointment or supervisory roles are explicitly captured, increasing the range of situations where photos and coordination will trigger the prohibition.
Fiscal and statutory housekeeping: reimbursement and PRA purpose
Section 4 states no state constitutional reimbursement is owed to local agencies because the only costs arise from changes to crimes or infractions or their definitions—a narrow fiscal assertion that limits state liability. Section 5 declares the bill furthers the Political Reform Act’s purposes, a routine statutory finding that supports using the PRA’s amendment procedures and positions the measure as within the PRA’s remedial scope.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Opposition candidates and challengers — by narrowing taxpayer-funded, high-visibility messaging that could otherwise function like incumbent advertising, the bill reduces a promotional channel that advantages sitting officials.
- Taxpayers and fiscal watchdogs — the measure curtails a specific form of government spending on high-profile ads that can carry the appearance of self-promotion, improving transparency around how public funds are used for communications.
- Good-government and transparency organizations — the statutory clarity and FPPC rulemaking process give these groups defined levers (public comment, rule proceedings) to shape which formats are covered and to monitor enforcement.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local and state communications offices (city/county PR, transit agencies) — the bill forces new pre-publication compliance checks and may require restructuring outreach and procurement to avoid the two-part trigger.
- Elected officials and their staff — incumbents lose a high-impact channel for visibility; staff time will shift toward managing compliance and documenting lack of coordination.
- Vendors and contractors who design or place large-format ads — potential loss of public contracts and the need to add compliance representations and documentation to bids and invoices.
- The FPPC and enforcement bodies — the commission will face new rulemaking duties and potentially increased enforcement workload to interpret cooperation, intent, and affiliation standards.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between preventing taxpayer-funded advertising that functions as incumbent self-promotion and preserving government’s ability to communicate about programs and services: a strict rule reduces the risk of public funds being used for politics but risks chilling legitimate informational or ceremonial communications, while a permissive rule preserves operational flexibility but leaves open a powerful channel for political advantage.
AB 2413 draws a line between permissible government communication and prohibited, campaign-like publicity, but the line is inherently fuzzy. Key terms—“cooperation, consultation, coordination, or concert,” “photograph,” and “intent of publishing or displaying”—are open to interpretation, which means the FPPC’s forthcoming regulations and enforcement guidance will determine how the law operates in practice.
Agencies will need internal procedures to document whether a vendor’s work was undertaken at the agency’s direction or created independently, and vendors will need contractual language and records to show a lack of prohibited coordination.
The bill may also have unintended operational impacts. Routine civic signage, event announcements, and emergency notices sometimes portray elected officials to provide accountability or point people to who authorized a program.
If those images are photographs and involved minimal staff interaction, agencies will face risk-averse behavior—either removing photos (which reduces transparency) or rerouting publications through separate funding streams. Finally, the reimbursement clause narrows state liability, but it also raises questions about who absorbs compliance and enforcement costs at the local level; shifting those costs without funding may strain small agencies’ communications budgets and produce uneven application across jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.