The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making to a candidate for elective state office, for statewide elective office, or for office of the Governor, and prohibits those candidates from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than a specified amount per election. For a candidate for elective state office other than a candidate for statewide elective office, the limitation on contributions is $3,000 per election, as that amount is adjusted by the Fair Political Practices Commission in January of every odd-numbered year.

Existing law authorizes a county, city, or district to limit campaign contributions in local elections. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures or contributions in elections to district offices. The act specifies that it does not prevent the Legislature or any other state or local agency from imposing additional requirements on a person if the requirements do not prevent the person from complying with the act, and that the act does not nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions by any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, as specified.

This bill, commencing January 1, 2018, instead would prohibit a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and would prohibit a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth in the act for limitations on contributions to a candidate for elective state office. This bill would also authorize a county, city, special district, or school district to impose a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill. This bill would repeal the authorization for the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures in elections to district offices. This bill would make specified provisions of the act relating to contribution limitations applicable to a candidate for a local elective office, except as specified.

The act makes a violation of its provisions punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties.

This bill would add the contribution limitation imposed by the bill to the acts provisions, thereby making a violation of the limitation punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties. However, the bill would specify that a violation of a limitation imposed by a local government is not subject to the acts enforcement provisions. The bill would authorize a local government that imposes a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation imposed by the local government agency, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. By expanding the scope of an existing crime with regard to a violation of a contribution limitation imposed by the bill, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the acts purposes upon a ²/₃ vote of each house and compliance with specified procedural requirements.

This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.

The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making to a candidate for elective state office, for statewide elective office, or for office of the Governor, and prohibits those candidates from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than a specified amount per election. For a candidate for elective state office other than a candidate for statewide elective office, the limitation on contributions is $3,000 per election, as that amount is adjusted by the Fair Political Practices Commission in January of every odd-numbered year.

Existing law authorizes a county, city, or district to limit campaign contributions in local elections. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures or contributions in elections to district offices. The act specifies that it does not prevent the Legislature or any other state or local agency from imposing additional requirements on a person if the requirements do not prevent the person from complying with the act, and that the act does not nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions by any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, as specified.

This bill, commencing January 1, 2018, instead would prohibit a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and would prohibit a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth for limitations on contributions to a candidate for elective state office. This bill would authorize a county, city, special district, or school district to impose a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill. This bill would repeal the authorization for the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures in elections to district offices. This bill would make specified provisions of the act relating to contribution limitations applicable to a candidate for a local elective office, except as specified.

The act makes a violation of its provisions punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties.

This bill would add the contribution limitation imposed by the bill to the acts provisions, thereby making a violation of the limitation punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties. However, the bill would specify that a violation of a limitation imposed by a local government is not subject to the acts enforcement provisions. The bill would authorize a local government that imposes a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation imposed by the local government agency, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. By expanding the scope of an existing crime with regard to a violation of a contribution limitation imposed by the bill, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the acts purposes upon a ²/₃ vote of each house and compliance with specified procedural requirements.

This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.

The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making to a candidate for elective state office, for statewide elective office, or for office of the Governor, and prohibits those candidates from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than a specified amount per election. For a candidate for elective state office other than a candidate for statewide elective office, the limitation on contributions is $3,000 per election, as that amount is adjusted by the Fair Political Practices Commission in January of every odd-numbered year.

Existing law authorizes a county, city, or district to limit campaign contributions in local elections. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures or contributions in elections to district offices. The act specifies that it does not prevent the Legislature or any other state or local agency from imposing additional requirements on a person if the requirements do not prevent the person from complying with the act, and that the act does not nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions by any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, as specified.

This bill, commencing January 1, 2018, instead would prohibit a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and would prohibit a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth for limitations on contributions to a candidate for elective state office. This bill would authorize a county, city, special district, or school district, which includes a community college district, district to impose a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill. This bill would repeal the authorization for the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures in elections to district offices.

This bill would make a violation of add the contribution limitation imposed by the bill to the acts provisions, thereby making a violation of the limitation punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to a specified civil fine administered by the district attorney, as specified. This penalties. However, the bill would specify that a violation of a limitation imposed by a local government is not subject to the acts enforcement provisions. The bill would also authorize a local government that imposes a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation imposed by the local government, government agency, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. By creating a new crime, this expanding the scope of an existing crime with regard to a violation of a contribution limitation imposed by the bill, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making to a candidate for elective state office, for statewide elective office, or for office of the Governor, and prohibits those candidates from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than a specified amount per election. For a candidate for elective state office other than a candidate for statewide elective office, the limitation on contributions is $3,000 per election, as that amount is adjusted by the Fair Political Practices Commission in January of every odd-numbered year.

Existing law authorizes a county, city, or district to limit campaign contributions in local elections. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures or contributions in elections to district offices. The act specifies that it does not prevent the Legislature or any other state or local agency from imposing additional requirements on a person if the requirements do not prevent the person from complying with the act, and that the act does not nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions by any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, as specified.

This bill bill, commencing January 1, 2018, instead would prohibit a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and would prohibit a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth for limitations on contributions to a candidate for elective state office. This bill would authorize a county, city, special district, or school district, which includes a community college district, to impose a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill. This bill would repeal the authorization for the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures in elections to district offices.

This bill would make a violation of the contribution limitation imposed by the bill punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to a specified civil fine administered by the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurs. attorney, as specified. This bill would also authorize a local government that imposes a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation imposed by the local government, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making to a candidate for elective state office, for statewide elective office, or for office of the Governor, and prohibits those candidates from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than a specified amount per election. For a candidate for elective state office other than a candidate for statewide elective office, the limitation on contributions is $3,000 per election, as that amount is adjusted by the Fair Political Practices Commission in January of every odd-numbered year.

Existing law authorizes a county, city, or district to limit campaign contributions in local elections. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures or contributions in elections to district offices. The act specifies that it does not prevent the Legislature or any other state or local agency from imposing additional requirements on a person if the requirements do not prevent the person from complying with the act, and that the act does not nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions by any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, as specified.

This bill would prohibit a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and would prohibit a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth for limitations on contributions to a candidate for elective state office. This bill would authorize a county, city, special district, or school district district, which includes a community college district, to impose a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill. This This bill would repeal the authorization for the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures in elections to district offices.

This bill would make a violation of the contribution limitation imposed by the bill punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to a specified civil fine administered by the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurs. This bill would also authorize a local government that imposes a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation imposed by the local government, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making to a candidate for elective state office, for statewide elective office, or for office of the Governor, and prohibits those candidates from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than a specified amount per election. For a candidate for elective state office other than a candidate for statewide elective office, the limitation on contributions is $3,000 per election, as that amount is adjusted by the Fair Political Practices Commission in January of every odd-numbered year.

Existing law authorizes a county, city, or district to limit campaign contributions in local elections. The act specifies that it does not prevent the Legislature or any other state or local agency from imposing additional requirements on a person if the requirements do not prevent the person from complying with the act, and that the act does not nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions by any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, as specified.

This bill would prohibit a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and would prohibit a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth for limitations on contributions to a candidate for elective state office. This bill would authorize a county, city, special district, or school district to impose a limitation that is equal to or lower than that limitation, except as specified. different from the limitation imposed by this bill. This bill would make a violation of the contribution limitation imposed by the bill punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to a specified civil fine administered by the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurs. This bill would also authorize a local government that imposes a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation imposed by the local government, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Political Reform Act of 1974 imposes limitations on contributions to candidates for elective state office, statewide elective office, and office of the Governor, as specified. The act specifies that nothing in it prevents the Legislature or any other state or local agency from imposing additional requirements on a person if the requirements do not prevent the person from complying with the act, and that nothing in it nullifies contribution limitations or prohibitions by any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, as specified. The act requires a local government agency that has enacted, enacts, amends, or repeals an ordinance or other provision of law affecting campaign contributions to file a copy of the action with the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Existing law authorizes a county, city, or district to limit campaign contributions in local elections.

This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would impose limitations on campaign contribution for local elections.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2523

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/21/16

AYES: Allen, Hancock, Hertzberg, Liu

NOES: Anderson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SENATE FLOOR: 25-14, 8/29/16 (FAIL)

AYES: Allen, Beall, Block, De León, Galgiani, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Wieckowski, Wolk

NOES: Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Cannella, Fuller, Gaines, Glazer, Huff, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-26, 6/2/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: California Common Cause

DIGEST: This bill establishes campaign contribution limits for local office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly, except where a local jurisdiction establishes its own limits.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Permits a county, city, special district, or school district to limit campaign contributions in local elections.
2. Creates the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), and makes it responsible for the impartial, effective administration and implementation of the Political Reform Act (PRA).
3. Requires any local government agency that has enacted, enacts, amends, or repeals an ordinance or other provision of law affecting campaign contributions and expenditures to file a copy of the action with the FPPC.
4. Prohibits a local government agency from enacting a campaign finance ordinance that imposes campaign reporting requirements that are additional to or different from those set forth in the PRA for elections held in its jurisdiction unless the additional or different requirements apply only to the candidates seeking election in that jurisdiction, their controlled committees or committees formed or existing primarily to support or oppose their candidacies, and to committees formed or existing primarily to support or oppose a candidate or to support or oppose the qualification or passage of a local ballot measure which is being voted on only in that jurisdiction, and to city or county general purpose committees active only in that city or county, respectively.
5. Provides that nothing in the PRA shall nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions of any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, except that these limitations and prohibitions may not conflict with a specified provision of the PRA dealing with "member communications."
6. Prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making any contribution totaling more than $4,200 to any candidate for elective state office other than statewide elective office, and prohibits candidates from accepting a contribution that exceeds that amount. Requires the FPPC to adjust this limit in January of every odd-numbered year to reflect any increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index, and requires those adjustments to be rounded to the nearest $100.
7. Provides that the aforementioned limitation does not apply to a candidate’s contributions of his or her personal funds to his or her own campaign.
8. Provides that a candidate for elective office or committee controlled by that candidate may not make a contribution to any other candidate for elective office in excess of the applicable limits.
9. Provides that a candidate may transfer campaign funds from one controlled committee to a controlled committee for elective state office of the same candidate. Contributions transferred must be attributed to specific contributors using a “last in, first out” or “first in, first out” accounting method, and these attributed contributions when aggregated with all other contributions from the same contributor may not exceed applicable limits.
10. Provides that applicable contribution limits do not apply to loans made to a candidate by a commercial lending institution in the lender’s regular course of business on terms available to members of the general public for which the candidate is personally liable.
11. Provides that a candidate for elective state office may not personally loan to his or her campaign, including the proceeds of a loan obtained by the candidate from a commercial lending institution, an amount, the outstanding balance of which exceeds $100,000.
12. Prohibits a candidate from charging interest on any loan he or she makes to his or her campaign.
13. Provides that an elected state officer may accept campaign contributions to oppose a recall measure without regard to the otherwise applicable campaign contributions limits.
14. Provides for specified limitations and circumstances under which a candidate may accept contributions after the date of the election, as specified, including contributions after the date of the election for the purpose of paying expenses associated with holding the office.

This bill:

1. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2018, a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and prohibits a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth for limitations on contributions to a candidate for specified elective state office (currently $4,200) as that amount is adjusted periodically by the FPPC. This limit would also apply to contributions made by one candidate or candidate controlled committee to any other candidate.
2. Provides that the above limits shall not apply in a jurisdiction in which the local government imposes a limit on contributions.
3. Authorizes a county, city, special district, or school district to impose a limitation that is different from, and in lieu of, the limitation imposed by this bill. That limitation may also be imposed by means of a local initiative measure.
4. Authorizes a local government that imposes a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation imposed by the local government agency, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties.
5. Provides that a local government agency may not impose additional requirements on a person if the requirements prevent the person from complying with other existing provisions of the PRA.
6. Provides for other conforming changes consistent with existing law as it relates to limitations on contributions to state candidates, including all of the following:
   1. The conditions under which a candidate may transfer contributions between his or her own controlled committees.
   2. Limitations on loans and extensions of credit.
   3. The effect of contribution limits on candidate controlled committees formed to oppose a recall measure.
   4. Specified limitations and circumstances under which a candidate may accept contributions after the date of the election, including those for the purpose of paying expenses associated with holding the office.
7. Adds the contribution limitation imposed by this bill to the PRA, thereby making a violation of the limitation punishable pursuant to existing administrative, civil, or criminal penalties provided for in the PRA. However, this bill specifies that a violation of a limitation imposed by a local government is not subject to the PRA’s enforcement provisions.
8. Provides that the FPPC shall not be responsible for the administration or enforcement of a local contribution limit adopted pursuant to this bill.
9. Makes the following findings and declarations:
   1. Most states impose limitations on contributions to candidates for local elective offices. California is among the minority of states without these contribution limitations.
   2. Most local governments in this state have not independently imposed limitations on contributions to candidates for local elective offices.
   3. In local jurisdictions in this state that have not imposed limitations on contributions, candidates for local elective offices often receive contributions that would exceed the limitations for a state Senate campaign, even though most local jurisdictions contain far fewer people than the average state Senate district.
   4. In local jurisdictions in this state that have not imposed limitations on contributions, candidates for local elective office sometimes raise 40 percent or more of their total campaign funds from a single contributor.
   5. A system allowing unlimited contributions to a candidate for local elective office creates the risk and the perception that local elected officials are beholden to their contributors and will act in the best interest of those contributors at the expense of the people.
   6. This state has a statewide interest in preventing actual corruption and the appearance of corruption at all levels of government.
   7. This act establishes a limitation on contributions to a candidate for local elective office in a jurisdiction in which the local government has not established a limitation. However, a local government may establish a different limitation that is more precisely tailored to the needs of its communities.
10. Makes other conforming changes.

Background

Existing State Contribution Limits. The existing contribution limits that apply to candidates for elective state office were enacted via Proposition 34 on the November, 2000 ballot through passage of SB 1223 (Burton, Chapter 102, Statutes of 2000).

While Proposition 34 established new campaign contribution limits for elections to state office, it did not contain contribution limits for elections to local office. The limits on contributions by individuals contained in Proposition 34 ranged from $3,000 (for candidates for Assembly and Senate) to $20,000 per election (for candidates for Governor), and are required to be adjusted for inflation every two years. For 2015 and 2016, these limits range from $4,200 per election for candidates for Assembly and Senate to $28,200 for candidates for Governor. While local governments have the authority to adopt contribution limits for elections to local offices in their jurisdictions, state law does not impose limits on contributions to candidates for local office.

Local Campaign Ordinances. Under existing law, local government agencies have the ability to adopt campaign ordinances that apply to elections within their jurisdictions, though the PRA imposes certain limited restrictions on those local ordinances. For instance, SB 726 (McCorquodale, Chapter 1456, Statutes of 1985) limited the ability of local jurisdictions to impose campaign filing requirements that differed from those in the PRA, while AB 1430 (Garrick, Chapter 708, Statutes of 2007) prohibits local governments from adopting rules governing member communications that are different than the rules that govern member communications at the state level.

Aside from these restrictions, however, local government agencies generally have a significant amount of latitude when developing local campaign finance ordinances that apply to elections in those agencies' jurisdictions. Any jurisdiction that adopts or amends a local campaign finance ordinance is required to file a copy of that ordinance with the FPPC, and the FPPC posts those ordinances on its Web site. The FPPC's Web site currently includes campaign finance ordinances from 19 counties, 141 cities, and one special district.

The campaign ordinances adopted by local governments in California vary significantly in terms of their scope. Some local ordinances are very limited in scope, while others are much more extensive. In some cases, the ordinances include campaign contribution limits, reporting and disclosure requirements that supplement the requirements of the PRA, temporal restrictions on when campaign funds may be raised, and voluntary public financing of local campaigns, among other provisions. In many cases, local campaign finance ordinances are enforced by the district attorney of the county or by the city attorney. In at least a few cases, however, local jurisdictions have set up independent boards or commissions to enforce the local campaign finance laws.

According to a recent report prepared by California Common Cause, approximately 23 percent of cities and 28 percent of counties in the state have adopted local campaign contribution limits. Of the 124 local jurisdictions identified in the report as having adopted local campaign contribution limits, only one (Alameda County) has a contribution limit that is higher than the $4,200 per election limit that would be imposed by this bill. More than 90 percent of the cities that have adopted contribution limits have limits of $1,000 or less. By contrast, about half of the counties that adopted contribution limits have limits of $1,000 or less.

Comments

According to the author, currently, there is no state standard of limits on campaign contributions for candidates running for local office. This means that those local jurisdictions that have not adopted limits independently currently have no limit on the amount of money local candidates can accept. This opens the potential for the corrupting influence of money. Ensuring the integrity of our elections process should be a priority, and more money should not equal more representation, even at the lowest level of elected office. Local elected officials often have the most direct influence on the governance, and California needs a standard in place to ensure that local candidates are not overly reliant upon a select few wealthy donors.

AB 2523 establishes a standard $4,200 limit on campaign contributions to candidates running for local elected office in jurisdictions that have not adopted their own contribution limits. By establishing a reasonable cap to prevent excessive contributions in jurisdictions that have no limits and simultaneously maintaining and encouraging local jurisdictions' ability to enact their own contribution limits tailored to the needs of their communities, this bill safeguards our democracy down to the local level. Thirty-four other states have enacted a statewide limit for local campaign contributions. California should be among them.

According to a recent study by Common Cause, only 25 percent of cities and 30 percent of counties have established contribution limits. The percentage of districts with limits is much lower. Most jurisdictions have enacted no limits whatsoever; in these jurisdictions, contributors can give unlimited amounts to candidates for office. In the past few election cycles, there have been numerous examples of candidates running for local office receiving $20,000, $50,000, or even $90,000 contributions. In some cases, more than 50 percent of a candidate’s campaign funds may come from just one or two contributors. Contributions of this magnitude harm public trust in the democratic process by deepening the perception or the possibility that candidates will be more responsive to their financial backers than their constituents.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, based on prior experience and similar workload related to San Bernardino County, the FPPC indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $1.1 million, and ongoing costs of $1 million to implement the provisions of the bill (General Fund). Counties would incur nonreimbursable enforcement costs, offset to some extent by fine revenue.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/12/16)

California Common Cause (source)

California Clean Money Campaign

League of Women Voters of California

Money Out, Voters In

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/16)

Madera County Board of Supervisors

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-26, 6/2/16

AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Rodriguez, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Harper, Jones, Kim, Levine, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Ridley-Thomas, Salas, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Gipson, Roger Hernández, Linder

Prepared by:

8/29/16 18:47:24

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2523

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/21/16

AYES: Allen, Hancock, Hertzberg, Liu

NOES: Anderson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-26, 6/2/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: California Common Cause

DIGEST: This bill establishes campaign contribution limits for local office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly, except where a local jurisdiction establishes its own limits.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Permits a county, city, special district, or school district to limit campaign contributions in local elections.
2. Creates the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), and makes it responsible for the impartial, effective administration and implementation of the Political Reform Act (PRA).
3. Requires any local government agency that has enacted, enacts, amends, or repeals an ordinance or other provision of law affecting campaign contributions and expenditures to file a copy of the action with the FPPC.
4. Prohibits a local government agency from enacting a campaign finance ordinance that imposes campaign reporting requirements that are additional to or different from those set forth in the PRA for elections held in its jurisdiction unless the additional or different requirements apply only to the candidates seeking election in that jurisdiction, their controlled committees or committees formed or existing primarily to support or oppose their candidacies, and to committees formed or existing primarily to support or oppose a candidate or to support or oppose the qualification or passage of a local ballot measure which is being voted on only in that jurisdiction, and to city or county general purpose committees active only in that city or county, respectively.
5. Provides that nothing in the PRA shall nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions of any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, except that these limitations and prohibitions may not conflict with a specified provision of the PRA dealing with "member communications."
   
6. Prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making any contribution totaling more than $4,200 to any candidate for elective state office other than statewide elective office, and prohibits candidates from accepting a contribution that exceeds that amount. Requires the FPPC to adjust this limit in January of every odd-numbered year to reflect any increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index, and requires those adjustments to be rounded to the nearest $100.
   
7. Provides that the aforementioned limitation does not apply to a candidate’s contributions of his or her personal funds to his or her own campaign.
   
8. Provides that a candidate for elective office or committee controlled by that candidate may not make a contribution to any other candidate for elective office in excess of the applicable limits.
   
9. Provides that a candidate may transfer campaign funds from one controlled committee to a controlled committee for elective state office of the same candidate. Contributions transferred must be attributed to specific contributors using a “last in, first out” or “first in, first out” accounting method, and these attributed contributions when aggregated with all other contributions from the same contributor may not exceed applicable limits.
   
10. Provides that applicable contribution limits do not apply to loans made to a candidate by a commercial lending institution in the lender’s regular course of business on terms available to members of the general public for which the candidate is personally liable.
    
11. Provides that a candidate for elective state office may not personally loan to his or her campaign, including the proceeds of a loan obtained by the candidate from a commercial lending institution, an amount, the outstanding balance of which exceeds $100,000.
    
12. Prohibits a candidate from charging interest on any loan he or she makes to his or her campaign.
    
13. Provides that an elected state officer may accept campaign contributions to oppose a recall measure without regard to the otherwise applicable campaign contributions limits.
    
14. Provides for specified limitations and circumstances under which a candidate may accept contributions after the date of the election, as specified, including contributions after the date of the election for the purpose of paying expenses associated with holding the office.

This bill:

1. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2018, a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and prohibits a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth for limitations on contributions to a candidate for specified elective state office (currently $4,200) as that amount is adjusted periodically by the FPPC. This limit would also apply to contributions made by one candidate or candidate controlled committee to any other candidate.
   
2. Provides that the above limits shall not apply in a jurisdiction in which the local government imposes a limit on contributions.
   
3. Authorizes a county, city, special district, or school district to impose a limitation that is different from, and in lieu of, the limitation imposed by this bill. That limitation may also be imposed by means of a local initiative measure.
4. Authorizes a local government that imposes a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation imposed by the local government agency, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties.
   
5. Provides that a local government agency may not impose additional requirements on a person if the requirements prevent the person from complying with other existing provisions of the PRA.
   
6. Provides for other conforming changes consistent with existing law as it relates to limitations on contributions to state candidates, including all of the following:
   
   1. The conditions under which a candidate may transfer contributions between his or her own controlled committees.
      
   2. Limitations on loans and extensions of credit.
      
   3. The effect of contribution limits on candidate controlled committees formed to oppose a recall measure.
      
   4. Specified limitations and circumstances under which a candidate may accept contributions after the date of the election, including those for the purpose of paying expenses associated with holding the office.
7. Adds the contribution limitation imposed by this bill to the PRA, thereby making a violation of the limitation punishable pursuant to existing administrative, civil, or criminal penalties provided for in the PRA. However, this bill specifies that a violation of a limitation imposed by a local government is not subject to the PRA’s enforcement provisions.
   
8. Provides that the FPPC shall not be responsible for the administration or enforcement of a local contribution limit adopted pursuant to this bill.
   
9. Makes the following findings and declarations:
   1. Most states impose limitations on contributions to candidates for local elective offices. California is among the minority of states without these contribution limitations.
   2. Most local governments in this state have not independently imposed limitations on contributions to candidates for local elective offices.
   3. In local jurisdictions in this state that have not imposed limitations on contributions, candidates for local elective offices often receive contributions that would exceed the limitations for a state Senate campaign, even though most local jurisdictions contain far fewer people than the average state Senate district.
   4. In local jurisdictions in this state that have not imposed limitations on contributions, candidates for local elective office sometimes raise 40 percent or more of their total campaign funds from a single contributor.
   5. A system allowing unlimited contributions to a candidate for local elective office creates the risk and the perception that local elected officials are beholden to their contributors and will act in the best interest of those contributors at the expense of the people.
   6. This state has a statewide interest in preventing actual corruption and the appearance of corruption at all levels of government.
   7. This act establishes a limitation on contributions to a candidate for local elective office in a jurisdiction in which the local government has not established a limitation. However, a local government may establish a different limitation that is more precisely tailored to the needs of its communities.
10. Makes other conforming changes.

Background

Existing State Contribution Limits. The existing contribution limits that apply to candidates for elective state office were enacted via Proposition 34 on the November, 2000 ballot through passage of SB 1223 (Burton, Chapter 102, Statutes of 2000).

While Proposition 34 established new campaign contribution limits for elections to state office, it did not contain contribution limits for elections to local office. The limits on contributions by individuals contained in Proposition 34 ranged from $3,000 (for candidates for Assembly and Senate) to $20,000 per election (for candidates for Governor), and are required to be adjusted for inflation every two years. For 2015 and 2016, these limits range from $4,200 per election for candidates for Assembly and Senate to $28,200 for candidates for Governor. While local governments have the authority to adopt contribution limits for elections to local offices in their jurisdictions, state law does not impose limits on contributions to candidates for local office.

Local Campaign Ordinances. Under existing law, local government agencies have the ability to adopt campaign ordinances that apply to elections within their jurisdictions, though the PRA imposes certain limited restrictions on those local ordinances. For instance, SB 726 (McCorquodale, Chapter 1456, Statutes of 1985) limited the ability of local jurisdictions to impose campaign filing requirements that differed from those in the PRA, while AB 1430 (Garrick, Chapter 708, Statutes of 2007) prohibits local governments from adopting rules governing member communications that are different than the rules that govern member communications at the state level.

Aside from these restrictions, however, local government agencies generally have a significant amount of latitude when developing local campaign finance ordinances that apply to elections in those agencies' jurisdictions. Any jurisdiction that adopts or amends a local campaign finance ordinance is required to file a copy of that ordinance with the FPPC, and the FPPC posts those ordinances on its Web site. The FPPC's Web site currently includes campaign finance ordinances from 19 counties, 141 cities, and one special district.

The campaign ordinances adopted by local governments in California vary significantly in terms of their scope. Some local ordinances are very limited in scope, while others are much more extensive. In some cases, the ordinances include campaign contribution limits, reporting and disclosure requirements that supplement the requirements of the PRA, temporal restrictions on when campaign funds may be raised, and voluntary public financing of local campaigns, among other provisions. In many cases, local campaign finance ordinances are enforced by the district attorney of the county or by the city attorney. In at least a few cases, however, local jurisdictions have set up independent boards or commissions to enforce the local campaign finance laws.

According to a recent report prepared by California Common Cause, approximately 23 percent of cities and 28 percent of counties in the state have adopted local campaign contribution limits. Of the 124 local jurisdictions identified in the report as having adopted local campaign contribution limits, only one (Alameda County) has a contribution limit that is higher than the $4,200 per election limit that would be imposed by this bill. More than 90 percent of the cities that have adopted contribution limits have limits of $1,000 or less. By contrast, about half of the counties that adopted contribution limits have limits of $1,000 or less.

Comments

According to the author, currently, there is no state standard of limits on campaign contributions for candidates running for local office. This means that those local jurisdictions that have not adopted limits independently currently have no limit on the amount of money local candidates can accept. This opens the potential for the corrupting influence of money. Ensuring the integrity of our elections process should be a priority, and more money should not equal more representation, even at the lowest level of elected office. Local elected officials often have the most direct influence on the governance, and California needs a standard in place to ensure that local candidates are not overly reliant upon a select few wealthy donors.

AB 2523 establishes a standard $4,200 limit on campaign contributions to candidates running for local elected office in jurisdictions that have not adopted their own contribution limits. By establishing a reasonable cap to prevent excessive contributions in jurisdictions that have no limits and simultaneously maintaining and encouraging local jurisdictions' ability to enact their own contribution limits tailored to the needs of their communities, this bill safeguards our democracy down to the local level. Thirty-four other states have enacted a statewide limit for local campaign contributions. California should be among them.

According to a recent study by Common Cause, only 25 percent of cities and 30 percent of counties have established contribution limits. The percentage of districts with limits is much lower. Most jurisdictions have enacted no limits whatsoever; in these jurisdictions, contributors can give unlimited amounts to candidates for office. In the past few election cycles, there have been numerous examples of candidates running for local office receiving $20,000, $50,000, or even $90,000 contributions. In some cases, more than 50 percent of a candidate’s campaign funds may come from just one or two contributors. Contributions of this magnitude harm public trust in the democratic process by deepening the perception or the possibility that candidates will be more responsive to their financial backers than their constituents.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, based on prior experience and similar workload related to San Bernardino County, the FPPC indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $1.1 million, and ongoing costs of $1 million to implement the provisions of the bill (General Fund). Counties would incur nonreimbursable enforcement costs, offset to some extent by fine revenue.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/12/16)

California Common Cause (source)

California Clean Money Campaign

League of Women Voters of California

Money Out, Voters In

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/16)

Madera County Board of Supervisors

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-26, 6/2/16

AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Rodriguez, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Harper, Jones, Kim, Levine, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Ridley-Thomas, Salas, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Gipson, Roger Hernández, Linder

Prepared by:

8/15/16 20:33:30

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 2523 (Mullin) - Local elective offices: contribution limitations

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 11, 2016

Bill Summary:

AB 2523 would establish campaign contribution limits for local office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly ($4,200), except where a local jurisdiction establishes its own limits.

Fiscal Impact:

Based on prior experience and similar workload related to San Bernardino County, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $1.1 million, and ongoing costs of $1 million to implement the provisions of the bill (General Fund). Counties would incur nonreimbursable enforcement costs, offset to some extent by fine revenue.

Author Amendments:

Make clarifying changes.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 2523 (Mullin) - Local elective offices: contribution limitations

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 2523 would establish campaign contribution limits for local office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly ($4,200), except where a local jurisdiction establishes its own limits.

Fiscal Impact:

The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $1.1 million, and ongoing costs of $1 million to implement the provisions of the bill (General Fund). Counties would incur nonreimbursable enforcement costs, offset to some extent by fine revenue.

Background:

Current law (Proposition 34) imposes campaign contribution limits for elections to state office. The limits on contributions by individuals initially ranged from $3,000 (for candidates for Assembly and Senate) to $20,000 (for candidates for Governor) per election, and are required to be adjusted for inflation every two years. For 2015 and 2016, these limits range from $4,200 to $28,200, respectively. While local governments have the authority to adopt contribution limits for elections to local offices in their jurisdictions, state law does not impose limits on contributions to candidates for local office. Thus, local government agencies generally have a significant amount of latitude when developing local campaign finance ordinances that apply to elections in those agencies' jurisdictions. Any jurisdiction that adopts or amends a local campaign finance ordinance is required to file a copy of that ordinance with FPPC, which posts those ordinances to its internet site. FPPC's website currently includes campaign finance ordinances from 19 counties, 141 cities, and one special district.

The campaign ordinances adopted by local governments in California vary significantly in terms of their scope. Some local ordinances are very limited, while others are much more extensive. In some cases, the ordinances include campaign contribution limits, reporting and disclosure requirements that supplement the requirements of the PRA, temporal restrictions on when campaign funds may be raised, and voluntary public financing of local campaigns, among other provisions. In many instances, local campaign finance ordinances are enforced by the district attorney of the county or by the city attorney. In at least a few cases, however, local jurisdictions have set up independent boards or commissions to enforce the local campaign finance laws.

A recent report prepared by California Common Cause indicates that about 23 percent of cities and 28 percent of counties in the state have adopted local campaign contribution limits. Of the 124 local jurisdictions identified in the report as having adopted local campaign contribution limits, only one (Alameda County) has a contribution limit that is higher than the $4,200 per election limit that would be imposed by this bill. More than 90 percent of the cities that have adopted contribution limits have limits of $1,000 or less. By contrast, about half of the counties that adopted contribution limits have limits of $1,000 or less.

Proposed Law: This bill would, among other things, do the following:

• Prohibit, commencing January 1, 2018, a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and would prohibit a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth for limitations on contributions to a candidate for specified elective state office (currently $4,200) as that amount is adjusted periodically by the FPPC.
• Authorize a county, city, special district, or school district to impose a limitation that is different from, and in lieu of, the limitation imposed by this bill. That limitation may also be imposed by means of a local initiative measure.
• Authorize a local government that imposes a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation imposed by the local government agency, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties.
• Add the contribution limitation imposed by this bill to the PRA, thereby making a violation of the limitation punishable pursuant to existing administrative, civil, or criminal penalties provided for in the PRA. However, the bill would specify that a violation of a limitation imposed by a local government is not subject to the PRA’s enforcement provisions.
• Specify that FPPC is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a contribution limits adopted by a local government that is different from the limits imposed on state elective offices.

Related Legislation:

SB 1223 (Burton, Chapter 102, Statutes of 2000), placed Proposition 34 on the November, 2000 ballot which enacted the existing contribution limits that apply to candidates for elective state office.

Staff Comments:

As noted earlier, FPPC estimates that, based on prior experience with similar workload related to San Bernardino County, the bill would result in first-year costs of $1.074 million, and $1.018 million in the out years to administer the bill. This cost reflects eight new positions, and the following additional workload resulting from the bill: reviewing and responding to email and telephone requests for advice, posting local ordinances on its internet site, training, outreach and educational activities, updating existing manuals, implementing regulations and providing advice and counsel.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Ben Allen, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: 2523 Hearing Date: 6/21/16

Subject:

DIGEST

Establishes campaign contribution limits for local office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly, except where a local jurisdiction establishes its own limits.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Permits a county, city, special district, or school district to limit campaign contributions in local elections.
2. Creates the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), and makes it responsible for the impartial, effective administration and implementation of the Political Reform Act (PRA).
3. Requires any local government agency that has enacted, enacts, amends, or repeals an ordinance or other provision of law affecting campaign contributions and expenditures to file a copy of the action with the FPPC.
4. Prohibits a local government agency from enacting a campaign finance ordinance that imposes campaign reporting requirements that are additional to or different from those set forth in the PRA for elections held in its jurisdiction unless the additional or different requirements apply only to the candidates seeking election in that jurisdiction, their controlled committees or committees formed or existing primarily to support or oppose their candidacies, and to committees formed or existing primarily to support or oppose a candidate or to support or oppose the qualification or passage of a local ballot measure which is being voted on only in that jurisdiction, and to city or county general purpose committees active only in that city or county, respectively.
5. Provides that nothing in the PRA shall nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions of any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, except that these limitations and prohibitions may not conflict with a specified provision of the PRA dealing with "member communications."
   
6. Prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making any contribution totaling more than $4,200 to any candidate for elective state office other than statewide elective office, and prohibits candidates from accepting a contribution that exceeds that amount. Requires the FPPC to adjust this limit in January of every odd-numbered year to reflect any increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index, and requires those adjustments to be rounded to the nearest $100.

This bill:

1. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2018, a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and would prohibit a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth for limitations on contributions to a candidate for specified elective state office (currently $4,200) as that amount is adjusted periodically by the FPPC.
   
2. Provides that a contribution shall not be deemed received for purposes of this bill if it is returned to the contributor within 14 days of receipt and further provides that this limitation does not apply to a candidate’s contributions of his or her personal funds to his or her own campaign.
3. Authorizes a county, city, special district, or school district to impose a limitation that is different from, and in lieu of, the limitation imposed by this bill. That limitation may also be imposed by means of a local initiative measure.
4. Authorizes a local government that imposes a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation imposed by the local government agency, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties.
   
5. Provides that a local government agency may not impose additional requirements on a person if the requirements prevent the person from complying with other existing provisions of the PRA.
6. Adds the contribution limitation imposed by this bill to the PRA, thereby making a violation of the limitation punishable pursuant to existing administrative, civil, or criminal penalties provided for in the PRA. However, the bill would specify that a violation of a limitation imposed by a local government is not subject to the PRA’s enforcement provisions.
   
7. Makes the following findings and declarations:
8. Most states impose limitations on contributions to candidates for local elective offices. California is among the minority of states without these contribution limitations.
9. Most local governments in this state have not independently imposed limitations on contributions to candidates for local elective offices.
10. In local jurisdictions in this state that have not imposed limitations on contributions, candidates for local elective offices often receive contributions that would exceed the limitations for a state Senate campaign, even though most local jurisdictions contain far fewer people than the average state Senate district.
11. In local jurisdictions in this state that have not imposed limitations on contributions, candidates for local elective office sometimes raise 40 percent or more of their total campaign funds from a single contributor.
12. A system allowing unlimited contributions to a candidate for local elective office creates the risk and the perception that local elected officials are beholden to their contributors and will act in the best interest of those contributors at the expense of the people.
13. This state has a statewide interest in preventing actual corruption and the appearance of corruption at all levels of state government.
14. This act establishes a limitation on contributions to a candidate for local elective office in a jurisdiction in which the local government has not established a limitation. However, a local government may establish a different limitation that is more precisely tailored to the needs of its communities.
15. Makes other conforming changes.

BACKGROUND

Existing State Contribution Limits. The existing contribution limits that apply to candidates for elective state office were enacted via Proposition 34 on the November, 2000 ballot through passage of SB 1223 (Burton, Chapter 102, Statutes of 2000).

While Proposition 34 established new campaign contribution limits for elections to state office, it did not contain contribution limits for elections to local office. The limits on contributions by individuals contained in Proposition 34 ranged from $3,000 (for candidates for Assembly and Senate) to $20,000 per election (for candidates for Governor), and are required to be adjusted for inflation every two years. For 2015 and 2016, these limits range from $4,200 per election for candidates for Assembly and Senate to $28,200 for candidates for Governor. While local governments have the authority to adopt contribution limits for elections to local offices in their jurisdictions, state law does not impose limits on contributions to candidates for local office.

Local Campaign Ordinances. Under existing law, local government agencies have the ability to adopt campaign ordinances that apply to elections within their jurisdictions, though the PRA imposes certain limited restrictions on those local ordinances. For instance, SB 726 (McCorquodale, Chapter 1456, Statutes of 1985), limited the ability of local jurisdictions to impose campaign filing requirements that differed from those in the PRA, while AB 1430 (Garrick, Chapter 708, Statutes of 2007), prohibits local governments from adopting rules governing member communications that are different than the rules that govern member communications at the state level.

Aside from these restrictions, however, local government agencies generally have a significant amount of latitude when developing local campaign finance ordinances that apply to elections in those agencies' jurisdictions. Any jurisdiction that adopts or amends a local campaign finance ordinance is required to file a copy of that ordinance with the FPPC, and the FPPC posts those ordinances on its website. The FPPC's website currently includes campaign finance ordinances from 19 counties, 141 cities, and one special district.

The campaign ordinances adopted by local governments in California vary significantly in terms of their scope. Some local ordinances are very limited in scope, while others are much more extensive. In some cases, the ordinances include campaign contribution limits, reporting and disclosure requirements that supplement the requirements of the PRA, temporal restrictions on when campaign funds may be raised, and voluntary public financing of local campaigns, among other provisions. In many cases, local campaign finance ordinances are enforced by the district attorney of the county or by the city attorney. In at least a few cases, however, local jurisdictions have set up independent boards or commissions to enforce the local campaign finance laws.

According to a recent report prepared by California Common Cause, approximately 23 percent of cities and 28 percent of counties in the state have adopted local campaign contribution limits. Of the 124 local jurisdictions identified in the report as having adopted local campaign contribution limits, only one (Alameda County) has a contribution limit that is higher than the $4,200 per election limit that would be imposed by this bill. More than 90 percent of the cities that have adopted contribution limits have limits of $1,000 or less. By contrast, about half of the counties that adopted contribution limits have limits of $1,000 or less.

COMMENTS

According to the author: Currently, there is no state standard of limits on campaign contributions for candidates running for local office. This means that those local jurisdictions that have not adopted limits independently currently have no limit on the amount of money local candidates can accept. This opens the potential for the corrupting influence of money. Ensuring the integrity of our elections process should be a priority, and more money should not equal more representation, even at the lowest level of elected office. Local elected officials often have the most direct influence on the governance, and California needs a standard in place to ensure that local candidates are not overly reliant upon a select few wealthy donors.

AB 2523 establishes a standard $4,200 limit on campaign contributions to candidates running for local elected office in jurisdictions that have not adopted their own contribution limits. By establishing a reasonable cap to prevent excessive contributions in jurisdictions that have no limits and simultaneously maintaining and encouraging local jurisdictions' ability to enact their own contribution limits tailored to the needs of their communities, this measure safeguards our democracy down to the local level. Thirty-four other states have enacted a statewide limit for local campaign contributions. California should be among them.

According to a recent study by Common Cause, only 25 percent of cities and 30 percent of counties have established contribution limits. The percentage of districts with limits is much lower. Most jurisdictions have enacted no limits whatsoever; in these jurisdictions, contributors can give unlimited amounts to candidates for office. In the past few election cycles, there have been numerous examples of candidates running for local office receiving $20,000, $50,000, or even $90,000 contributions. In some cases, more than 50 percent of a candidate’s campaign funds may come from just one or two contributors. Contributions of this magnitude harm public trust in the democratic process by deepening the perception or the possibility that candidates will be more responsive to their financial backers than their constituents.

RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION

SB 1223 (Burton, Chapter 102, Statutes of 2000), placed Proposition 34 on the November, 2000 ballot which enacted the existing contribution limits that apply to candidates for elective state office.

PRIOR ACTION

POSITIONS

Sponsor: California Common Cause

Support: California Clean Money Campaign

League of Women Voters of California

Money Out, Voters In (MOVI)

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)

Oppose: Fair Political Practices Commission

Madera County Board of Supervisors

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2523

Author:(Mullin)

As Amended Ver:May 31, 2016

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Establishes campaign contribution limits for local office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly, except where a local jurisdiction establishes its own limits, effective January 1, 2018. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and prohibits a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the limit on contributions to candidates for state Senate and Assembly from persons other than small contributor committees and political party committees, as adjusted by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), as specified. The current limit under this provision is $4,200 per contributor per election.
2. Permits a local government, by ordinance or resolution, to impose a limitation on contributions to candidates for local elective office which shall take precedence over the limits otherwise imposed by this bill, and allows the local government to adopt enforcement standards for violations. Permits the limitation to be imposed by a local initiative measure.
3. Provides that a violation of the contribution limits established by this bill is punishable by a civil fine of up to $5,000 or three times the amount that was contributed or accepted in excess of the contribution limit, whichever is greater. Provides that a knowing and willful violation of the contribution limits is a misdemeanor. Makes the district attorney (DA) of the county in which the contribution is required to be reported by the candidate responsible for enforcing these civil and criminal penalties. Requires the Attorney General to enforce these penalties if the candidate who violated the contribution limits is the DA or a candidate for DA.
4. Provides that whether a violation of the contribution limits imposed by this bill is inadvertent, negligent, or deliberate, and the presence or absence of good faith, shall be considered in applying penalties. Requires an enforcement action to be commenced within four years after the date on which the violation occurred.
5. Defines various terms for the purposes of this bill such that those terms generally have the same or similar meanings as those terms are defined in the Political Reform Act (PRA).

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, given that most local entities have not adopted their own campaign contribution limits, this bill will, at least initially, apply broadly to most counties, cities, special districts, and school districts. Though enforcement of the contribution limits – a nonreimbursable cost – will be by district attorneys, this bill will nonetheless increase the FPPC's workload. According to the FPPC, the existence of contribution limits tends to be associated with an increase in independent expenditures and an increase in laundering of campaign contributions, activities governed by the PRA. The FPPC will require three positions at an annual General Fund cost of $350,000 to amend manuals and instructions, respond to a large number of advice requests, and conduct additional investigations and enforcement.

As stated above, there will be nonreimbursable costs to counties for enforcement, offset to some extent by fine revenue.

COMMENTS: According to the author, "AB 2523 establishes a standard $4,200 limit on campaign contributions to candidates running for local elected office in jurisdictions that have not adopted their own contribution limits. By establishing a reasonable cap to prevent excessive contributions in jurisdictions that have no limits and simultaneously maintaining and encouraging local jurisdictions' ability to enact their own contribution limits tailored to the needs of their communities, this measure safeguards our democracy down to the local level. Thirty-four other states have enacted a statewide limit for local campaign contributions. California should be among them."

Under existing law, local government agencies have the ability to adopt campaign ordinances that apply to elections within their jurisdictions, though the PRA imposes certain limited restrictions on those local ordinances. The campaign ordinances adopted by local governments in California vary significantly in terms of their scope. In some cases, the ordinances include campaign contribution limits, reporting and disclosure requirements that supplement the requirements of the PRA, temporal restrictions on when campaign funds may be raised, and voluntary public financing of local campaigns, among other provisions.

With a few limited exceptions, provisions of state law regulating campaign finance generally are found within the PRA, and the FPPC has the primary responsibility for administering and enforcing those provisions. Given the FPPC's role as the primary entity responsible for administering, interpreting, and enforcing the state's campaign finance laws, it could be argued that a state law imposing local campaign contribution limits should be enforced by the FPPC.

Even if the FPPC does not enforce the default contribution limits, this bill nonetheless likely will increase the FPPC's workload. The existence of contribution limits tends to be associated with an increase in independent expenditures, and attempts to circumvent contribution limits could result in an increase in laundering of campaign contributions. Because laws governing independent expenditures and the laundering of campaign contributions are contained in the PRA, the FPPC would have jurisdiction and enforcement authority over these matters even if it does not enforce the contribution limits imposed by this bill.

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0003126

Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2523

Author:(Mullin) – As Amended Ver:April 19, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill establishes a campaign contribution limit for local offices at the same level as for Senate and Assembly candidates, unless a local jurisdiction adopts its own limits. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a person from contributing to a candidate for local elective office, and prohibits a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the limit on contributions to candidates for state Senate and Assembly from persons other than small contributor committees and political party committees, as inflation-adjusted by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) pursuant to current law. The current limit under this provision is $4,200 per contributor per election.
   
2. Provides that a violation of the contribution limits in (1) is punishable by a civil fine of up to $5,000 or three times the amount that was contributed or accepted in excess of the contribution limit, whichever is greater, and provides that a knowing and willful violation of the contribution limits is a misdemeanor. The district attorney of the county in which the violation occurs would be responsible for enforcing these civil and criminal penalties.
3. Permits a local jurisdiction, by ordinance, resolution or initiative, to impose a limitation on contributions to candidates for local elective office which shall take precedence over the limits otherwise imposed by (1), and allows the local government to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of that limit, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Given that most local entities have not adopted their own campaign contribution limits, this bill will, at least initially, apply broadly to most counties, cities, special districts and school districts. Though enforcement of the contribution limits—a nonreimbursable cost—will be by district attorneys, this bill will nonetheless increase the FPPC's workload. According to the commission, the existence of contribution limits tends to be associated with an increase in independent expenditures and an increase in laundering of campaign contributions, activities governed by the Political Reform Act. The FPPC will require three positions at an annual General Fund cost of $350,000 to amend manuals and instructions, respond to a large number of advice requests, and conduct additional investigations and enforcement.

As stated above, there will be nonreimbursable costs to counties for enforcement, offset to some extent by fine revenue.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Proposition 34 was passed by the voters in the November 2000 general election after being placed on the ballot through passage of SB 1223 (Burton), Chapter 102, Statutes of 2000. This proposition revised state laws on political campaigns for state elective offices and ballot propositions, including placing new campaign contribution limits for elections to state office. These limits ranged from $3,000 (for candidates for Assembly and Senate) to $20,000 per election (for candidates for Governor), and are required to be adjusted for inflation every two years. For 2015 and 2016, these limits range from $4,200 per election for candidates for Assembly and Senate to $28,200 for candidates for Governor.

While local governments have the authority to adopt contribution limits for elections to local offices in their jurisdictions, state law (and Proposition 34) does not impose limits on contributions to candidates for local office. Any jurisdiction that adopts or amends a local campaign finance ordinance is required to file a copy of that ordinance with the FPPC, and the FPPC posts those ordinances on its website. The FPPC's website currently includes campaign finance ordinances from 19 counties, 141 cities, and one special district.

1. Purpose. According to the author, "Ensuring the integrity of our elections process should be a priority, and more money should not equal more representation, even at the lowest level of elected office. Local elected officials often have the most direct influence on the governance, and California needs a standard in place to ensure that local candidates are not overly reliant upon a select few wealthy donors.

"AB 2523 establishes a standard $4,200 limit on campaign contributions to candidates running for local elected office in jurisdictions that have not adopted their own contribution limits. By establishing a reasonable cap to prevent excessive contributions in jurisdictions that have no limits and simultaneously maintaining and encouraging local jurisdictions' ability to enact their own contribution limits tailored to the needs of their communities, this measure safeguards our democracy down to the local level."

Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 13, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING

Shirley Weber, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2523 (

Author:Mullin) – As Amended Ver:April 6, 2016

SUBJECT: Local elective offices: contribution limitations.

SUMMARY: Establishes campaign contribution limits for local office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly, except where a local jurisdiction establishes its own limits. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and prohibits a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the limit on contributions to candidates for state Senate and Assembly from persons other than small contributor committees and political party committees, as adjusted by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), as specified. The current limit under this provision is $4,200 per contributor per election.
   1. Provides that a contribution is not deemed to be received for the purposes of this limit if it is returned to the contributor within 14 days of receipt.
      
   2. Provides that this limit does not apply to a candidate's contributions of his or her personal funds to his or her own campaign.
      
2. Permits a local government, by ordinance or resolution, to impose a limitation on contributions to candidates for local elective office which shall take precedence over the limits otherwise imposed by this bill, and allows the local government to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of that limit. Permits the limitation to be imposed by a local initiative measure. Provides that nothing in this bill prevents a local government from adopting its own penalties and its own enforcement mechanism for a violation of a local contribution limit that is established pursuant to this provision.
3. Provides that a violation of the contribution limits established by this bill is punishable by a civil fine of up to $5,000 or three times the amount that was contributed or accepted in excess of the contribution limit, whichever is greater. Provides that a knowing and willful violation of the contribution limits is a misdemeanor. Makes the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurs responsible for enforcing these civil and criminal penalties.
4. Provides that whether a violation of the contribution limits imposed by this bill is inadvertent, negligent, or deliberate, and the presence or absence of good faith, shall be considered in applying the penalties detailed above.
5. Requires a civil action or criminal prosecution for a violation of the contribution limits established by this bill to be commenced within four years after the date on which the violation occurred.
6. Defines various terms for the purposes of this bill such that those terms generally have the same or similar meanings as those terms are defined in the Political Reform Act (PRA).
7. Requires this bill to be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes.
8. Contains a severability clause.
9. Makes various findings and declarations.
10. Makes corresponding changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Permits a county, city, special district, or school district to limit campaign contributions in local elections.
2. Creates the FPPC, and makes it responsible for the impartial, effective administration and implementation of the PRA.
   
3. Requires any local government agency that has enacted, enacts, amends, or repeals an ordinance or other provision of law affecting campaign contributions and expenditures to file a copy of the action with the FPPC.
   
4. Prohibits a local government agency from enacting a campaign finance ordinance that imposes campaign reporting requirements that are additional to or different from those set forth in the PRA for elections held in its jurisdiction unless the additional or different requirements apply only to the candidates seeking election in that jurisdiction, their controlled committees or committees formed or existing primarily to support or oppose their candidacies, and to committees formed or existing primarily to support or oppose a candidate or to support or oppose the qualification or passage of a local ballot measure which is being voted on only in that jurisdiction, and to city or county general purpose committees active only in that city or county, respectively.
   
5. Provides that nothing in the PRA shall nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions of any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, except that these limitations and prohibitions may not conflict with a specified provision of the PRA dealing with "member communications."
   
6. Prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making any contribution totaling more than $4,200 to any candidate for elective state office other than statewide elective office, and prohibits candidates from accepting a contribution that exceeds that amount. Requires the FPPC to adjust this limit in January of every odd-numbered year to reflect any increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index, and requires those adjustments to be rounded to the nearest $100.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains a crimes and infractions disclaimer.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:

Currently, there is no state standard of limits on campaign contributions for candidates running for local office. This means that those local jurisdictions that have not adopted limits independently currently have no limit on the amount of money local candidates can accept. This opens the potential for the corrupting influence of money. Ensuring the integrity of our elections process should be a priority, and more money should not equal more representation, even at the lowest level of elected office. Local elected officials often have the most direct influence on the governance, and California needs a standard in place to ensure that local candidates are not overly reliant upon a select few wealthy donors.

AB 2523 establishes a standard $4,200 limit on campaign contributions to candidates running for local elected office in jurisdictions that have not adopted their own contribution limits. By establishing a reasonable cap to prevent excessive contributions in jurisdictions that have no limits and simultaneously maintaining and encouraging local jurisdictions' ability to enact their own contribution limits tailored to the needs of their communities, this measure safeguards our democracy down to the local level. Thirty-four other states have enacted a statewide limit for local campaign contributions. California should be among them.

1. History of Contribution Limits: In 1988, voters approved Proposition 73, a campaign finance initiative that prohibited public funding of campaigns and established contribution limits for state and local elections, among other provisions. Under Proposition 73, contributions from a person to a candidate for state or local office were limited to $1,000 per fiscal year, while political parties and certain political committees could give higher amounts.

Many of the provisions of Proposition 73, including the campaign contribution limits, were ultimately ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts. Because Proposition 73 limited the amount that a contributor could give in each fiscal year, rather than limiting the amount that a contributor could give in each election, the courts found that the contribution limits discriminated in favor of incumbents, since incumbents were much more likely than challengers to fundraise in non-election years.

The federal case ended in 1993 when the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Service Employees International Union v. FPPC. The only provisions of Proposition 73 to survive legal challenge were contribution limits for special elections (those limits were on a per-election basis, rather than a per-year basis), limits on gifts and honoraria to state and local elected officials, restrictions on certain mass mailings by officeholders, and a prohibition on the use of public money for campaign purposes. State and local elections were conducted under the Proposition 73 contribution limits for most of the 1990 election cycle, though the limits were struck down for the last six weeks before the 1990 general election.

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 208, which proposed significant changes to the PRA, including establishing new contribution limits for state and local elections. Proposition 208 prohibited any person other than a political party or a small contributor committee from making contributions of more than $100 per election to candidates in small local districts (less than 100,000 residents); $250 per election for Senate, Assembly, Board of Equalization and large local districts; and $500 per election for statewide office. These limits were increased to $250, $500, and $1,000, respectively, for candidates who agreed to abide by specified voluntary expenditure limits.

On January 6, 1998, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California entered a preliminary injunction barring the enforcement of Proposition 208. The Legislature subsequently placed Proposition 34 on the November 2000 ballot through passage of SB 1223 (Burton), Chapter 102, Statutes of 2000. The proposition, which passed with 60.1% of the vote, revised state laws on political campaigns for state elective offices and ballot propositions, and repealed almost all of Proposition 208, which was still enjoined from enforcement.

While Proposition 34 established new campaign contribution limits for elections to state office, it did not contain contribution limits for elections to local office. The limits on contributions by individuals contained in Proposition 34 ranged from $3,000 (for candidates for Assembly and Senate) to $20,000 per election (for candidates for Governor), and are required to be adjusted for inflation every two years. For 2015 and 2016, these limits range from $4,200 per election for candidates for Assembly and Senate to $28,200 for candidates for Governor. While local governments have the authority to adopt contribution limits for elections to local offices in their jurisdictions, state law does not impose limits on contributions to candidates for local office.

1. Local Campaign Ordinances: Under existing law, local government agencies have the ability to adopt campaign ordinances that apply to elections within their jurisdictions, though the PRA imposes certain limited restrictions on those local ordinances. For instance, SB 726 (McCorquodale), Chapter 1456, Statutes of 1985, limited the ability of local jurisdictions to impose campaign filing requirements that differed from those in the PRA, while AB 1430 (Garrick), Chapter 708, Statutes of 2007, prohibits local governments from adopting rules governing member communications that are different than the rules that govern member communications at the state level.
   
   Aside from these restrictions, however, local government agencies generally have a significant amount of latitude when developing local campaign finance ordinances that apply to elections in those agencies' jurisdictions. Any jurisdiction that adopts or amends a local campaign finance ordinance is required to file a copy of that ordinance with the FPPC, and the FPPC posts those ordinances on its website. The FPPC's website currently includes campaign finance ordinances from 19 counties, 141 cities, and one special district.
   
   The campaign ordinances adopted by local governments in California vary significantly in terms of their scope. Some local ordinances are very limited in scope, while others are much more extensive. In some cases, the ordinances include campaign contribution limits, reporting and disclosure requirements that supplement the requirements of the PRA, temporal restrictions on when campaign funds may be raised, and voluntary public financing of local campaigns, among other provisions. In many cases, local campaign finance ordinances are enforced by the district attorney of the county or by the city attorney. In at least a few cases, however, local jurisdictions have set up independent boards or commissions to enforce the local campaign finance laws.
   
   According to a recent report prepared by California Common Cause, approximately 23 percent of cities and 28 percent of counties in the state have adopted local campaign contribution limits. Of the 124 local jurisdictions identified in the report as having adopted local campaign contribution limits, only one (Alameda County) has a contribution limit that is higher than the $4,200 per election limit that would be imposed by this bill. More than 90 percent of the cities that have adopted contribution limits have limits of $1,000 or less. By contrast, about half of the counties that adopted contribution limits have limits of $1,000 or less.
   
2. FPPC and Campaign Regulation: With a few limited exceptions, provisions of state law regulating campaign finance generally are found within the PRA, and the FPPC has the primary responsibility for administering and enforcing those provisions. Given the FPPC's role as the primary entity responsible for administering, interpreting, and enforcing the state's campaign finance laws, it could be argued that this bill indirectly amends the PRA, and therefore should be subject to restrictions that apply to bills that seek to amend the PRA. The fact that local contribution limits previously have been imposed at the state level through amendments to the PRA (as described above) could provide some support to the argument that the imposition of local contribution limits in state law is a policy that falls within the scope of the PRA.
   
   On the other hand, as originally enacted, the PRA did not impose campaign contribution limits, and none of the enumerated purposes of the PRA relate to imposing restrictions on campaign contributions. Instead, the PRA's enumerated purposes generally focus on disclosure of campaign receipts and expenditures. Provisions of state law that explicitly allow local jurisdictions to enact their own contribution limits are currently located in the Elections Code and the Education Code, not in the PRA, and were first enacted by the Legislature in the same year that the PRA was approved by the voters (although those provisions were signed into law after the adoption of the PRA). Finally, the PRA expressly provides that its provisions do not "prevent[] the Legislature or any other state or local agency from imposing additional requirements on any person if the requirements do not prevent the person from complying with" the PRA. All these factors support the argument that this bill is not an indirect amendment of the PRA.
   
   Regardless of whether this bill is an indirect amendment to the PRA, however, the committee may wish to consider whether it makes sense, as a policy matter, to make its provisions part of the PRA, and to have it enforced and interpreted by the FPPC. On the one hand, making the FPPC responsible for enforcing campaign contribution limits for hundreds of local government agencies likely would significantly increase the workload at the FPPC, which could have a significant expense and could negatively impact the administration and enforcement of this bill and of the current provisions of the PRA. On the other hand, because the PRA regulates campaign disclosure, it already governs local campaign contributions and spending. In fact, as noted above, this bill generally adopts the PRA's definitions of various terms. Bringing this bill's restrictions within the PRA, and having it be administered by the same entity that generally administers the state's other campaign laws, could promote greater consistency in the interpretation and enforcement of the state's campaign finance laws. Additionally, candidates and campaign committees would have a single point of contact for inquiries, advice, and opinions about compliance with campaign finance laws.
   
   Furthermore, having the FPPC enforce the provisions of this bill may lead to more timely and robust enforcement. The FPPC has the authority to impose fines of up to $5,000 for violations of the PRA through an administrative enforcement process. A substantial majority of enforcement actions for violations of the PRA are handled through that administrative process, thereby eliminating the need for more time-consuming and resource-intensive civil or criminal actions in the courts. As currently drafted, this bill does not offer an administrative enforcement process—any violation of the contribution limits imposed by this bill would have to be pursued civilly or criminally (except in situations where local jurisdictions have established their own administrative enforcement process). Moreover, it is unclear whether it would be workable or realistic to establish a new administrative enforcement process solely for the purposes of enforcing this bill. By moving the provisions of this bill into the PRA, however, the FPPC would have the ability to use its existing administrative process to bring enforcement actions against violators.
   
   Finally, even if the FPPC does not enforce the default contribution limits, this bill nonetheless likely will increase the FPPC's workload. The existence of contribution limits tends to be associated with an increase in independent expenditures, so this bill may increase advice requests and enforcement actions related to independent expenditures, including rules that limit coordination between candidates and independent expenditure committees. Additionally, attempts to circumvent contribution limits could result in an increase in laundering of campaign contributions. Because laws governing independent expenditures and the laundering of campaign contributions are contained in the PRA, the FPPC would have jurisdiction and enforcement authority over these matters even if it does not enforce the contribution limits imposed by this bill.
   
3. Arguments in Support: In support of this bill, California Common Cause writes:

Under current law, local governments may enact local contribution limits, but the vast majority have not done so. Only 23 percent of cities and 28 percent of counties have enacted local limits; the percentage of districts with limits is even lower. In jurisdictions without limits, contributors can give any amount to candidates for local office – even contributions exceeding the average Californian's annual salary. Common Cause's research of local contributions found many examples of contributors giving $50,000 to $90,000+ contributions. In some cases, more than 50 percent of a candidate's campaign war chest came from just one or two contributors.

Unfettered campaign contributions undermine democracy. Whenever a candidate is financially dependent on just a handful of contributors there is a risk that they will value their contributors' interests over those of the people they serve. Moreover, requiring candidates to seek support in smaller amounts but from a broader number of contributors has a democratizing effect, and can help the competitiveness of community-supported candidates who do not have access to wealthy patrons.

1. Concerns Expressed: While not taking an official position, Urban Counties of California (UCC) submitted a letter to the committee expressing concerns with this bill. Many of those concerns appear to be addressed by recent amendments to the bill. Two of the concerns expressed by UCC, however, do not appear to be addressed by recent amendments. Specifically, UCC writes that it is "unclear if there are sufficient resources for [district attorneys] to handle the potential volume of cases" that would result from the bill, and UCC expresses concern that "there could be a conflict of interest for [the district attorney's] office to handle all of the enforcement."
2. Technical Amendments: This bill repeals provisions of law that allow counties, cities, and districts to limit campaign contributions in local elections, and instead provides that local governments may enact contribution limits that prevail over the default limits established by this bill. This bill does not, however, repeal Section 35177 of the Education Code, which is a similar provision of law that allows school districts to limit campaign contributions and expenditures. To ensure consistency and avoid ambiguity, committee staff recommends that this bill be amended to repeal Section 35177 of the Education Code.
   
   This bill expressly permits a local government to impose its own contribution limits that differ from those that are otherwise imposed by this bill. The bill's language is ambiguous, however, on the question of whether existing local ordinances that impose campaign contribution limits would prevail over the limits set by this bill, or if a local jurisdiction would have to re-adopt local contribution limits. Committee staff recommends that this bill be amended to clarify that any existing local ordinances that impose campaign contribution limits will continue to be valid if this bill becomes law, and the limits set by those ordinances will prevail over the default limits set by this bill.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Clean Money Campaign

California Common Cause

League of Women Voters of California

MOVI, Money Out Voters In

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094