Even with campaign finance disclosures, sometimes it’s hard to follow all the money that flows into political pockets. That’s why California entrepreneur John Cox—chairman of the California Is Not For Sale Initiative—wants his state representatives to wear their donors’ names on their sleeves.

“If they don’t take any money, they won’t have to wear any stickers,” Cox told ABC News in November, shortly after filing his 2016 ballot initiative.

In a staged protest to gain publicity for his proposal, Cox’s team plastered corporate logos on cardboard cutouts of state representatives:

Dubbed the “Name All Sponsors Candidate Accountability Reform Initiative,” Cox’s proposed measure begins with an acerbic declaration: “Our state Legislature does not serve the interests of the citizens. The Legislature only serves the special interests.”

The initiative would require candidates for “any state elective office” to list their 10 highest cumulative contributors in all political ads.

But the part of the ballot measure garnering the strongest reaction is its other requirement, mandating a less-than-flattering dress code:

“State elected officials shall wear stickers or badges displaying the names of their ten highest campaign contributors when participating in any public session of the Legislature or any Committee thereof.”

According to the ballot measure, politicians would have to don their donor logos any time they vote in a committee, subcommittee, or on the Senate or State Assembly floor.

And in case, any California politicians think they can weasel their way out of the new transparency measure by writing their donors’ names in cursive or Wingdings, there’s a provision that details that the logos must “be printed clearly and legibly” in a “conspicuous” spot (and size)—so that “it can be read by a member of the public observing any public session.”

According to U.S. News and World Report, Cox has spent $1 million to promote the measure through canvassing—and he hopes to gain further momentum from securing the support of an unlikely pair of politicians: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

While the candidates’ platforms might cast them as polar opposites, perhaps Cox is hoping to take advantage of their mutual opposition to their rivals’ acceptance of larger donations from outside groups:

I wish good luck to all of the Republican candidates that traveled to California to beg for money etc. from the Koch Brothers. Puppets? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 2, 2015

I am prepared to take on powerful special interests which wield enormous power over the economic and political life of this country. — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 10, 2015

Critics note that the ballot measure may violate politicians’ right to free speech by dictating the messages conveyed by their clothing.

But even if the measure did pass, supporters on Reddit expressed pessimism that it could actually achieve its intended goal of bringing transparency in campaign finance—especially given the ease with which super PACs with agreeable names can mask their donors’ identities:

You can read the full text of Cox’s ballot measure, as submitted in October, on the California Attorney General’s website.