THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 571

Author: Mullin (D), et al.

Amended: 4/2/19 in Assembly

Vote: 27

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-0, 7/2/19

AYES: Umberg, Hertzberg, Leyva, Stern

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nielsen

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/30/19

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Durazo, Hill, Wieckowski

NOES: Bates, Jones

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-13, 5/29/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Political Reform Act of 1974: contribution limits

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill establishes default campaign contribution limits for county and city office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly, effective January 1, 2021. This bill permits a county or city to establish its own contribution limits, which would prevail over these default limits.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Permits a county or city to limit campaign contributions in its local elections. Permits a special district, school district, or community college district to limit campaign contributions in elections to district offices.
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. Allows the governing body of any local government agency with a population of three million to contract with the FPPC for the administration, implementation, and enforcement of a local campaign finance or government ethics law, as specified.
7. Prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making any contribution totaling more than $4,700 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 a person from making to a candidate for elective county or city office, and prohibits a candidate for elective county or city 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 FPPC, as specified. The current limit under this provision is $4,700 per contributor per election. Provides that these limits become effective January 1, 2021.
2. Permits a county or city, by ordinance or resolution, to impose a limit on contributions to a candidate for elective county or city office which prevails over the limit otherwise imposed by this bill, and allows the county or city to adopt enforcement standards for violations, which may include administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. Permits the limitation to be imposed by a local initiative measure. Provides that the FPPC is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of such a county or city ordinance or resolution. Provides that local contribution limits that are in effect on January 1, 2021, shall prevail over the default contribution limits imposed by this bill.
3. Prohibits a candidate for any elective state, county, or city office, or a committee controlled by such a candidate, from making a contribution to any other candidate for elective state, county, or city office in an amount greater 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 FPPC, as specified, beginning January 1, 2021. A similar prohibition currently applies to contributions made by candidates for elective state office (or their controlled committees) to other candidates for elective state office. Provides that this restriction does not apply in a jurisdiction in which the county or city imposes its own limits on campaign contributions.
4. Makes conforming changes to various state laws related to contribution limits, including rules governing the transfer of campaign funds from one controlled committee to another controlled committee for the same candidate; the acceptance of campaign contributions for an election after that election has occurred; the carryover of contributions raised in connection with one election for an elective office to pay campaign expenditures incurred in connection with a subsequent election to the same office; the acceptance of campaign contributions for a general election prior to the primary election; and personal loans made by a candidate to the candidate’s campaign committee.
5. Provides that the contribution limits in this bill do not apply to contributions made to oppose a recall against a county or city elected official, as specified.
6. Makes various findings and declarations as well as corresponding and technical changes.

Background

History of local 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 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 2019 and 2020, these limits range from $4,700 per election for candidates for Assembly and Senate to $31,000 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 22 counties, 148 cities, and two special districts.

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, 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 2016 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 limit on campaign contributions from individuals that is higher than the $4,700 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 limit on contributions to candidates for local office in 78 percent of cities and 72 percent of counties. In these jurisdictions, contributors can give unlimited amounts to candidates for local office. A single donor may give tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to a candidate for city council or county board – far exceeding the amount that even state legislators can legally accept.

In recent years, there have been examples of $50,000, $100,000, and even $244,000 contributions to candidates for local office from donors with business before that local government. Such massive campaign contributions create a serious risk of actual or perceived corruption.

For this reason, state law prevents a donor from contributing more than $4,700 to candidates for the state Assembly or Senate. Outside California, 34 other states have also established limits on contributions to candidates for local office.

AB 571 sets default local campaign contribution limits for local city and county elections, setting a new standard for these local elections. This bill respects local control in the sense that it would not prevent local jurisdictions from adopting a higher or lower limit threshold. AB 571 takes an important step in establishing a more widespread application of campaign contribution limit to prevent undue influence in local elections.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1089 (Mullin, 2017), which was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee’s suspense file, would have imposed default contribution limits for all levels of local government (including school district and special districts). AB 1089 was substantially similar to the final version of AB 2523 (Mullin, 2016). AB 2523 failed passage on the Senate Floor on a 25-14 vote. Because AB 2523 proposed to amend the PRA without being submitted to voters for their approval, it required a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature for passage (27 votes in the case of the Senate).

AB 2880 (Harper, Chapter 394, Statutes of 2018) authorized the FPPC to administer and enforce a local campaign finance ordinance or government ethics law upon mutual agreement between the FPPC and a local agency with a population of less than three million people, as specified. As a result of AB 2880, any local jurisdiction that wants to establish campaign contribution limits but that does not want to create its own mechanism for enforcement of those limits has the option of contracting with the FPPC (subject to the agreement of the FPPC) for that purpose.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the FPPC indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $920,000, and $878,000 annually thereafter, to implement the provisions of this bill (General Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/30/19)

California Clean Money Campaign

California Common Cause

California League of Conservation Voters

Fair Political Practices Commission

League of Women Voters of California

RepresentUs

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/30/19)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In a letter supporting AB 571, the League of Women Voters of California stated, in part:

While existing law allows California counties and cities to limit the size of campaign contributions, considerably less than a third do so. For example, a recent study by California Common Cause found that 78 percent of California cities have no limit on campaign contributions. Moreover, many local contributions exceed the size of contributions allowed for state elected officials, and in some cases, candidates may be dependent on just a few large donors to fund their campaigns. Very large contributions can damage the public’s trust in the democratic process by deepening the perception or the possibility that candidates will be more responsive to their financial backers than to their constituents.

This bill would establish a realistic default limit on contributions in local campaigns, set at the same level as for state legislative campaigns. It would not affect jurisdictions that have adopted their own local contribution limits and would not prevent a local government from adopting a higher or lower limit.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-13, 5/29/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooper, Cunningham, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Bigelow, Brough, Chen, Choi, Dahle, Diep, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Mathis, Melendez, Patterson, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooley, Eduardo Garcia

Prepared by: Darren Chesin / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106

9/1/19 11:04:05

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 571 (Mullin) - Political Reform Act of 1974: contribution limits

Bill Summary:

AB 571 would establish default campaign contribution limits for county and city office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly, effective January 1, 2021. The bill would permit a county or city to establish its own contribution limits, which would prevail over these default limits.

Fiscal Impact:

The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $920,000, and $878,000 annually thereafter, to implement the provisions of the bill (General Fund).

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 2019 and 2020, these limits range from $4,700 to $31,200, 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 22 counties, 148 cities, and two special districts.

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 2016 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 $4,700 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 (1) a person from making to a candidate for elective county or city office, and (2) a candidate for elective county or city 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 FPPC, as specified. The current limit under this provision is $4,700 per contributor per election. These limits would become effective January 1, 2021.
• Permit a county or city, by ordinance or resolution, to impose a limit on contributions to a candidate for elective county or city office which prevails over the limit otherwise imposed by this bill, and allow the county or city to adopt enforcement standards for violations, which may include administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. Permit the limitation to be imposed by a local initiative measure. Provide that the FPPC is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of such a county or city ordinance or resolution. Provide that local contribution limits that are in effect on January 1, 2021, shall prevail over the default contribution limits imposed by this bill.
• Prohibit a candidate for any elective state, county, or city office, or a committee controlled by such a candidate, from making a contribution to any other candidate for elective state, county, or city office in an amount greater 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 FPPC, as specified, beginning January 1, 2021. A similar prohibition currently applies to contributions made by candidates for elective state office (or their controlled committees) to other candidates for elective state office. Provides that this restriction does not apply in a jurisdiction in which the county or city imposes its own limits on campaign contributions
• Provide that the contribution limits in this bill do not apply to contributions made to oppose a recall against a county or city elected official, as specified.

Related Legislation:

• AB 1089 (Mullin, 2017) would have imposed default contribution limits for all levels of local government (including school district and special districts), and was held under submission on the Suspense File of the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The bill was substantially similar to the final version of AB 2523 (Mullin) of 2016. AB 2523 failed passage on the Senate Floor on a 25-14 vote.
• AB 2880 (Harper, Chapter 394, Statutes of 2018) authorizes FPPC to administer and enforce a local campaign finance ordinance or government ethics law upon mutual agreement between the FPPC and a local agency with a population of less than three million people, as specified. As a result of AB 2880, any local jurisdiction that wants to establish campaign contribution limits but that does not want to create its own mechanism for enforcement of those limits has the option of contracting with the FPPC (subject to the agreement of the FPPC) for that purpose.

Staff Comments:

FPPC indicates that it would require six new positions to administer the bill, including two consultants, two counsel, an investigator and a program specialist. Annual ongoing costs for salary, benefits and operating expenses for these positions would be $878,000.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB Hearing Date: 7/2/19

Subject: Political Reform Act of 1974: contribution limits

DIGEST

This bill establishes default campaign contribution limits for county and city office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly, effective January 1, 2021. Permits a county or city to establish its own contribution limits, which would prevail over these default limits.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Permits a county or city to limit campaign contributions in its local elections. Permits a special district, school district, or community college district to limit campaign contributions in elections to district offices.
   
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. Allows the governing body of any local government agency with a population of three million to contract with the FPPC for the administration, implementation, and enforcement of a local campaign finance or government ethics law, as specified.
   
7. Prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making any contribution totaling more than $4,700 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 a person from making to a candidate for elective county or city office, and prohibits a candidate for elective county or city 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 FPPC, as specified. The current limit under this provision is $4,700 per contributor per election. Provides that these limits become effective January 1, 2021.
   
2. Permits a county or city, by ordinance or resolution, to impose a limit on contributions to a candidate for elective county or city office which prevails over the limit otherwise imposed by this bill, and allows the county or city to adopt enforcement standards for violations, which may include administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. Permits the limitation to be imposed by a local initiative measure. Provides that the FPPC is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of such a county or city ordinance or resolution. Provides that local contribution limits that are in effect on January 1, 2021, shall prevail over the default contribution limits imposed by this bill.
   
3. Prohibits a candidate for any elective state, county, or city office, or a committee controlled by such a candidate, from making a contribution to any other candidate for elective state, county, or city office in an amount greater 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 FPPC, as specified, beginning January 1, 2021. A similar prohibition currently applies to contributions made by candidates for elective state office (or their controlled committees) to other candidates for elective state office. Provides that this restriction does not apply in a jurisdiction in which the county or city imposes its own limits on campaign contributions.
   
4. Makes conforming changes to various state laws related to contribution limits, including rules governing the transfer of campaign funds from one controlled committee to another controlled committee for the same candidate; the acceptance of campaign contributions for an election after that election has occurred; the carryover of contributions raised in connection with one election for an elective office to pay campaign expenditures incurred in connection with a subsequent election to the same office; the acceptance of campaign contributions for a general election prior to the primary election; and personal loans made by a candidate to the candidate’s campaign committee.
   
5. Provides that the contribution limits in this bill do not apply to contributions made to oppose a recall against a county or city elected official, as specified.
   
6. Makes various findings and declarations as well as corresponding and technical changes.

BACKGROUND

History of Local 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 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 2019 and 2020, these limits range from $4,700 per election for candidates for Assembly and Senate to $31,000 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 22 counties, 148 cities, and two special districts.

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, 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 2016 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 limit on campaign contributions from individuals that is higher than the $4,700 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

1. According to the author: Currently, there is no limit on contributions to candidates for local office in 78 percent of cities and 72 percent of counties. In these jurisdictions, contributors can give unlimited amounts to candidates for local office. A single donor may give tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to a candidate for city council or county board – far exceeding the amount that even state legislators can legally accept.
   
   In recent years, there have been examples of $50,000, $100,000, and even $244,000 contributions to candidates for local office from donors with business before that local government. Such massive campaign contributions create a serious risk of actual or perceived corruption.
   
   For this reason, state law prevents a donor from contributing more than $4,700 to candidates for the State Assembly or State Senate. Outside California, 34 other states have also established limits on contributions to candidates for local office.
   
   AB 571 would set default local campaign contribution limits for local city and county elections, setting a new standard for these local elections. This bill respects local control in the sense that it would not prevent local jurisdictions from adopting a higher or lower limit threshold. AB 571 takes an important step in establishing a more widespread application of campaign contribution limit to prevent undue influence in local elections.
2. Argument in Support. In a letter supporting AB 571, the League of Women Voters of California stated, in part:

While existing law allows California counties and cities to limit the size of campaign contributions, considerably less than a third do so. For example, a recent study by California Common Cause found that 78 percent of California cities have no limit on campaign contributions. Moreover, many local contributions exceed the size of contributions allowed for state elected officials, and in some cases, candidates may be dependent on just a few large donors to fund their campaigns. Very large contributions can damage the public’s trust in the democratic process by deepening the perception or the possibility that candidates will be more responsive to their financial backers than to their constituents.

This bill would establish a realistic default limit on contributions in local campaigns, set at the same level as for state legislative campaigns. It would not affect jurisdictions that have adopted their own local contribution limits and would not prevent a local government from adopting a higher or lower limit.

RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION

AB 1089 (Mullin) of 2017, which was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee’s suspense file, would have imposed default contribution limits for all levels of local government (including school district and special districts). AB 1089 was substantially similar to the final version of AB 2523 (Mullin) of 2016. AB 2523 failed passage on the Senate Floor on a 25-14 vote. Because AB 2523 proposed to amend the PRA without being submitted to voters for their approval, it required a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature for passage (27 votes in the case of the Senate).

AB 2880 (Harper), Chapter 394, Statutes of 2018, authorizes the FPPC to administer and enforce a local campaign finance ordinance or government ethics law upon mutual agreement between the FPPC and a local agency with a population of less than three million people, as specified. As a result of AB 2880, any local jurisdiction that wants to establish campaign contribution limits but that does not want to create its own mechanism for enforcement of those limits has the option of contracting with the FPPC (subject to the agreement of the FPPC) for that purpose.

PRIOR ACTION

POSITIONS

Sponsor: Author

Support: California Clean Money Campaign

California Common Cause

California League of Conservation Voters

League of Women Voters of California

RepresentUs

Oppose: None received

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 571

Author:(Mullin)

As Amended Ver:April 2, 2019

2/3 vote

SUMMARY:

Establishes default campaign contribution limits for county and city office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly (currently $4,700 per contributor, per election), effective January 1, 2021. Permits a county or city to establish its own contribution limits, which prevail over the default limits contained in this bill.

Major Provisions

1. Prohibits a person from making to a candidate for elective county or city office, and prohibits a candidate for elective county or city 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. Provides that these limits become effective January 1, 2021.
2. Permits a county or city, by ordinance or resolution, to impose a limit on contributions to a candidate for elective county or city office which prevails over the limit otherwise imposed by this bill, and allows the county or city to adopt enforcement standards for violations, which may include administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. Permits the limitation to be imposed by a local initiative measure. Provides that the FPPC is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of such a county or city ordinance or resolution. Provides that local contribution limits that are in effect on January 1, 2021, shall prevail over the default contribution limits imposed by this bill.
3. Makes conforming changes to various state laws related to contribution limits.

COMMENTS:

Under existing law, local government agencies generally have a significant amount of latitude to develop 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 22 counties, 148 cities, and two special districts.

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 Political Reform Act (PRA), temporal restrictions on when campaign funds may be raised, and voluntary public financing of local campaigns, among other provisions.

According to a 2016 report prepared by California Common Cause, approximately 23% of cities and 28% 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 limit on campaign contributions from individuals that is higher than the $4,700 per election limit that would be imposed by this bill. More than 90% 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.

California voters passed an initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974 that created the FPPC and codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. That initiative is commonly known as the PRA. Amendments to the PRA that are not submitted to the voters, such as those contained in this bill, must further the purposes of the initiative and require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature.

According to the Author:

"Currently, there is no limit on contributions to candidates for local office in 78% of cities and 72% of counties. In these jurisdictions, contributors can give unlimited amounts to candidates for local office. A single donor may give tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to a candidate for city council or county board – far exceeding the amount that even state legislators can legally accept…

"AB 571 would set default local campaign contribution limits for local city and county elections, setting a new standard for these local elections. This bill respects local control in the sense that it would not prevent local jurisdictions from adopted a higher or lower limit threshold. AB 571 takes an important step in establishing a more widespread application of campaign contribution limit to prevent undue influence in local elections."

Arguments in Support:

In support of this bill, the League of Women Voters of California writes "While existing law allows California counties and cities to limit the size of campaign contributions, considerably less than a third do so. For example, a recent study by California Common Cause found that 78 % of California cities have no limit on campaign contributions. Moreover, many local contributions exceed the size of contributions allowed for state elected officials, and in some cases, candidates may be dependent on just a few large donors to fund their campaigns. Very large contributions can damage the public's trust in the democratic process by deepening the perception or the possibility that candidates will be more responsive to their financial backers than to their constituents."

Arguments in Opposition:

None received.

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, Initial FPPC enforcement costs of $920,000 for the first year to hire and equip consultants, counsel, an investigator and specialist (6 PY), and annual ongoing costs of $878,000 (General Fund).

VOTES:

ASM ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING: 6-1-0

YES: Berman, Calderon, Low, Mayes, Mullin, Weber

NO: Gallagher

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 13-5-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow, Brough, Diep, Fong, Obernolte

UPDATED:

VERSION: April 2, 2019

CONSULTANT: Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0000633

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 571

Author:(Mullin) – As Amended Ver:April 2, 2019

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

SUMMARY:

This bill establishes, effective January 1, 2021, default campaign contribution limits for a local office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly ($4,700 per contributor, per election). This bill also continues to permit a local jurisdiction to establish its own contribution limits, which prevail over the default limits contained in this bill.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Initial FPPC enforcement costs of $920,000 for the first year to hire and equip consultants, counsel, an investigator and specialist (6 PY), and annual ongoing costs of $878,000 (General Fund).

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Existing law permits cities and counties to limit campaign contributions in local elections; however, many have not established limits. Existing law establishes certain campaign contribution limits for statewide offices. The FPPC is responsible for ensuring compliance with statewide campaign contribution limits and investigates potential violations of those limits.

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 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 2019 and 2020, these limits range from $4,700 per election for candidates for Assembly and Senate to $31,000 for candidates for governor.

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 22 counties, 148 cities and two special districts.

1. Purpose. According to the author, “In recent years, there have been examples of $50,000, $100,000, and even $244,000 contributions to candidates for local office from donors with business before that local government.”

This bill establishes a standard limit on campaign contributions to candidates running for local elected office in jurisdictions that have not adopted their own contribution limits.

1. Political Reform Act of 1974. California voters passed an initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974, which created the FPPC and codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. Amendments to the Political Reform Act not submitted to the voters, such as those contained in this bill, must further the purposes of the initiative and require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature.
2. Prior Legislation. This bill is similar to AB 1089 (Mullin), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, which was held in this committee on suspense. Unlike this bill, AB 1089 applied to school districts and other special districts.

AB 2523 (Mullin), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to AB 1089. AB 2523 failed passage on the Senate Floor.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 10, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING

Marc Berman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 571 (

Author:Mullin) – As Amended Ver:April 2, 2019

SUBJECT: Political Reform Act of 1974: contribution limits.

SUMMARY: Establishes default campaign contribution limits for county and city office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly, effective January 1, 2021. Permits a county or city to establish its own contribution limits, which prevail over the default limits contained in this bill. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a person from making to a candidate for elective county or city office, and prohibits a candidate for elective county or city 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 $4,700 per contributor per election. Provides that these limits become effective January 1, 2021.
2. Permits a county or city, by ordinance or resolution, to impose a limit on contributions to a candidate for elective county or city office which prevails over the limit otherwise imposed by this bill, and allows the county or city to adopt enforcement standards for violations, which may include administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. Permits the limitation to be imposed by a local initiative measure. Provides that the FPPC is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of such a county or city ordinance or resolution. Provides that local contribution limits that are in effect on January 1, 2021, shall prevail over the default contribution limits imposed by this bill.
3. Prohibits a candidate for any elective state, county, or city office, or a committee controlled by such a candidate, from making a contribution to any other candidate for elective state, county, or city office in an amount greater 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 FPPC, as specified, beginning January 1, 2021. A similar prohibition currently applies to contributions made by candidates for elective state office (or their controlled committees) to other candidates for elective state office. Provides that this restriction does not apply in a jurisdiction in which the county or city imposes its own limits on campaign contributions.
4. Makes conforming changes to various state laws related to contribution limits, including rules governing the transfer of campaign funds from one controlled committee to another controlled committee for the same candidate; the acceptance of campaign contributions for an election after that election has occurred; the carryover of contributions raised in connection with one election for an elective office to pay campaign expenditures incurred in connection with a subsequent election to the same office; the acceptance of campaign contributions for a general election prior to the primary election; and personal loans made by a candidate to the candidate’s campaign committee.
5. Provides that the contribution limits in this bill do not apply to contributions made to oppose a recall against a county or city elected official, as specified.
6. Makes various findings and declarations.
7. Makes corresponding and technical changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Permits a county or city to limit campaign contributions in its local elections. Permits a special district, school district, or community college district to limit campaign contributions in elections to district offices.
2. Creates the 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. Allows the governing body of any local government agency with a population of three million to contract with the FPPC for the administration, implementation, and enforcement of a local campaign finance or government ethics law, as specified.
   
7. Prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making any contribution totaling more than $4,700 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 limit on contributions to candidates for local office in 78 percent of cities and 72 percent of counties. In these jurisdictions, contributors can give unlimited amounts to candidates for local office. A single donor may give tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to a candidate for city council or county board – far exceeding the amount that even state legislators can legally accept.

In recent years, there have been examples of $50,000, $100,000, and even $244,000 contributions to candidates for local office from donors with business before that local government. Such massive campaign contributions create a serious risk of actual or perceived corruption.

For this reason, state law prevents a donor from contributing more than $4,700 to candidates for the State Assembly or State Senate. Outside California, 34 other states have also established limits on contributions to candidates for local office.

AB 571 would set default local campaign contribution limits for local city and county elections, setting a new standard for these local elections. This bill respects local control in the sense that it would not prevent local jurisdictions from adopted a higher or lower limit threshold. AB 571 takes an important step in establishing a more widespread application of campaign contribution limit to prevent undue influence in local elections.

1. History of Local 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 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 2019 and 2020, these limits range from $4,700 per election for candidates for Assembly and Senate to $31,000 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.
2. 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 22 counties, 148 cities, and two special districts.
   
   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 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 2016 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 limit on campaign contributions from individuals that is higher than the $4,700 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.
3. Arguments in Support: In support of this bill, the League of Women Voters of California writes:

While existing law allows California counties and cities to limit the size of campaign contributions, considerably less than a third do so. For example, a recent study by California Common Cause found that 78 percent of California cities have no limit on campaign contributions. Moreover, many local contributions exceed the size of contributions allowed for state elected officials, and in some cases, candidates may be dependent on just a few large donors to fund their campaigns. Very large contributions can damage the public’s trust in the democratic process by deepening the perception or the possibility that candidates will be more responsive to their financial backers than to their constituents.

This bill would establish a realistic default limit on contributions in local campaigns, set at the same level as for state legislative campaigns. It would not affect jurisdictions that have adopted their own local contribution limits and would not prevent a local government from adopting a higher or lower limit.

1. Previous Legislation: This bill is similar to AB 1089 (Mullin) of 2017, which was approved by this committee on a 6-1 vote, but was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee’s suspense file, except that AB 1089 would have imposed default contribution limits for all levels of local government (including school district and special districts), while this bill applies solely to counties and cities. AB 1089 was substantially similar to the final version of AB 2523 (Mullin) of 2016. AB 2523 failed passage on the Senate Floor on a 25-14 vote. Because AB 2523 proposed to amend the PRA without being submitted to voters for their approval, it required a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature for passage (27 votes in the case of the Senate).
   
   AB 2880 (Harper), Chapter 394, Statutes of 2018, authorizes the FPPC to administer and enforce a local campaign finance ordinance or government ethics law upon mutual agreement between the FPPC and a local agency with a population of less than three million people, as specified. As a result of AB 2880, any local jurisdiction that wants to establish campaign contribution limits but that does not want to create its own mechanism for enforcement of those limits has the option of contracting with the FPPC (subject to the agreement of the FPPC) for that purpose.
2. Political Reform Act of 1974: California voters passed an initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974 that created the FPPC and codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. That initiative is commonly known as the PRA. Amendments to the PRA that are not submitted to the voters, such as those contained in this bill, must further the purposes of the initiative and require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Clean Money Campaign

California Common Cause
League of Women Voters of California

California League of Conservation Voters

RepresentUs (prior version)

Opposition

None on file.

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