UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 71

Author: Leyva (D)

Amended: 8/26/19

Vote: 27

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-0, 3/19/19

AYES: Umberg, Nielsen, Leyva, Stern

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hertzberg

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 5/16/19

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Hill, Jones, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates

SENATE FLOOR: 35-0, 5/30/19

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, Caballero, Chang, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Grove, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Jones, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Borgeas, Pan

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 9/11/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign expenditures: limitations

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits the expenditure of campaign funds and legal defense funds to pay or reimburse a candidate, elected officer, and others for penalties, judgements, or settlements related to claims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment, as specified

Assembly Amendments

limit the provisions of the bill only to a penalty, judgment, or settlement related to a claim filed against a candidate or elected officer and add language to prevent a chaptering conflict with AB 220 (Bonta).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), and makes it responsible for the administration and implementation of the Political Reform Act (PRA).
2. Establishes specified per-source limits on campaign contributions to candidates for state elective office. Some local jurisdictions also impose limits on contributions to candidates seeking elective offices therein.
3. Provides that all contributions deposited into a campaign committee account are deemed to be held in trust for expenses associated with the election of the candidate or for expenses associated with holding office. An expenditure to seek or hold office is within the lawful execution of this trust if it is reasonably related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose. Expenditures that confer a substantial personal benefit must be directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose.
4. Defines “committee,” in part, for the purposes of the PRA, as any person or combination of persons who directly or indirectly receives contributions for political purposes totaling $2,000 or more in a calendar year. “Committee” includes candidate campaign committees, officeholder committees, ballot measure committees, general purpose committees (commonly referred to as “PACs”), and independent expenditure committees.
5. Provides generally that attorneys’ fees and other costs related to administrative, civil, or criminal litigation may only be paid with campaign funds if the litigation is directly related to activities of the committee that are consistent with its primary objectives.
6. Authorizes state and local candidates and elective officers to establish a separate account (a legal defense account) to defray attorney’s fees and other related legal costs incurred if they are subject to civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings arising directly out of the conduct of an election campaign, the electoral process, or the performance of their governmental activities and duties.
7. Requires that all contributions to a legal defense account be publicly reported, as specified.
8. Provides that contributions to legal defense accounts are not subject to state contribution limits but may be subject to local jurisdiction contribution limits, where applicable.
9. Provides that once the legal dispute is resolved, candidates and elective officers must dispose of any funds remaining in a legal defense account after all expenses associated with the dispute are discharged, as specified.
10. Defines “sexual abuse” and “sexual assault,” for purposes of the Penal Code, as specified.
11. Defines “sexual harassment,” pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as including sexual harassment, gender harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Provides that sexually harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire.

This bill:

1. Prohibits the expenditure of funds in a legal defense account to pay or reimburse a candidate or elected officer for a penalty, judgement, or settlement related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment filed against the candidate or elected officer in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding.
2. Provides that campaign funds shall not be used to pay or reimburse a candidate or elected officer for a penalty, judgement, or settlement related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment filed against the candidate or elected officer in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding.
3. Provides that if a candidate or elected officer uses legal defense account or campaign funds for other legal costs and expenses related to claims of those unlawful practices and is held liable for such a violation, the candidate or elected officer shall reimburse the campaign or legal defense account for all funds used in connection with those other legal costs and expenses.
4. Provides, for the purposes of this bill, that “sexual abuse” and “sexual assault,” has the same meaning as in the Penal Code and “sexual harassment” has the same meaning as in the FEHA.

Background

Mendoza FPPC Advice Letter. A December 12, 2018 FPPC memorandum stated, in part:

At the March 2018 meeting, the Commission rescinded the Mendoza Advice Letter A-18-009. The letter concluded then-Senator Tony Mendoza may establish a legal defense fund to defray attorney’s fees related to a claims of wrongful termination, proceedings related to Senate Resolution 69 (2018), and a subsequent civil proceeding should one be filed. The letter had also stated Mr. Mendoza may use campaign and legal defense funds to defend himself from claims of sexual harassment that arose directly out of his activities, duties, or status as a candidate or elected officer. The [Political Reform] Act authorizes certain candidates and elective officers to establish legal defense funds to defray attorney’s fees and other related legal costs in defense of a candidate who is subject to one or more civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings arising directly out of conduct of an election campaign or performance of governmental activities and duties. The [Political Reform] Act permits expenditures that confer a substantial personal benefit must be directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose. The [Political Reform] Act prohibits the use of campaign funds for fines, penalties, judgements, or settlements.

The rescission of the Mendoza Advice Letter has left a potential gap in the Commission’s policy of whether the payments or reimbursements are permitted for claims related to violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

SR 69 (Vidak, 2018) and SR 85 (DeLeon, 2018), both of which sought the expulsion of Senator Tony Mendoza from the Senate, were never brought up for a vote on the Senate Floor.

Fair Employment and Housing Act.  According to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing:

The FEHA protects individuals from illegal discrimination by employers based on the following: race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, creed, age (over 40), mental and physical disability, sex, gender (including pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or related medical conditions), sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, and military or veteran status.

The FEHA applies to public and private employers, labor organizations and employment agencies. It is illegal for employers of five or more employees to discriminate against job applicants and employees because of a protected category, or retaliate against them because they have asserted their rights under the law. The FEHA prohibits harassment based on a protected category against an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a contractor. Harassment is prohibited in all workplaces, even those with fewer than five employees.

Comments

Author’s statement. According to the author, current law authorizes elected officials and candidates to use campaign and legal defense funds to pay for the legal expenses that may arise directly out of the conduct of an election campaign, the electoral process, or the performance of the officeholder’s governmental activities and duties. Under the PRA, attorneys’ fees and other costs related to administrative, civil, or criminal lawsuits may only be paid with campaign funds if the case is directly related to a political, legislative, or legal purpose.

In March 2018, the FPPC withdrew an advice letter requested by and sent to former Senator Tony Mendoza that permitted him to use legal defense and campaign funds to defend himself against claims of sexual harassment that arose during his status as an elected official. Following its withdrawal of the advice letter, the FPPC reexamined its policies pertaining to the use of campaign and legal defense funds. In order to remove any ambiguity, SB 71 prohibits legal defense and campaign funds from being used to pay or reimburse for a penalty, judgment, or settlement related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment filed against the candidate or elected officer in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. This bill also requires elected officials and candidates to reimburse all funds used for other expenses associated with the claim to the appropriate account if they are held liable.

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

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor costs for FPPC to enforce the bill.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/9/19)

California Common Cause

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/9/19)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 9/11/19

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cunningham, Friedman, Quirk-Silva

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

9/11/19 20:09:35

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 71

Author:(Leyva)

As Amended Ver:August 26, 2019

2/3 vote

SUMMARY:

Requires a candidate or elected officer to reimburse any campaign funds or legal defense funds for legal expenses related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment against the candidate or officer if the candidate or officer is held liable for the violation. Prohibits the use of campaign funds or legal defense funds to pay penalties or settlements related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment by a candidate or elected officer.

Major Provisions

1. Prohibits campaign funds or funds held in a legal defense account from being used to pay or reimburse a candidate or elected officer for a penalty, judgment, or settlement related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment filed against the candidate or elective officer in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. Requires a candidate or elective officer who uses campaign funds or funds in a legal defense account for other legal costs and expenses related to claims of those unlawful practices, and who is held liable for such a violation, to reimburse the campaign or legal defense account for all funds used in connection with those other legal costs and expenses.
2. Provides that for the purposes of this bill, the terms "sexual assault" and "sexual abuse" have the same meaning as in a specified provision of the Penal Code, and the term "sexual harassment" has the same meaning as in a specified provision of the Government Code.
3. Contains double-jointing language to avoid chaptering problems with AB 220 (Bonta) of the current legislative session.

COMMENTS:

The Political Reform Act (PRA) generally provides that attorney's fees and other costs related to administrative, civil, or criminal litigation may only be paid with campaign funds if the litigation is directly related to activities of the committee that are consistent with its primary objectives or arises directly out of a committee's activities or out of a candidate's or elected officer's activities, duties, or status as a candidate or elected officer. The PRA additionally allows state and local candidates and elective officers to establish a separate account (a legal defense account) to defray attorney's fees and other related legal costs incurred if they are subject to civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings arising directly out of the conduct of an election campaign, the electoral process, or the performance of their governmental activities and duties.

In March 2018, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) rescinded a previously-issued advice letter in which the FPPC had concluded that then-Senator Tony Mendoza could permissibly use campaign funds to defend himself against claims of sexual harassment that "arise directly out of [his] activities, duties, or status as a candidate or elected officer," and could "establish a legal defense fund to defray attorney's fees in connection with proceedings…that arise directly out of the performance of governmental activities and duties," subject to specified limitations. According to a subsequent agenda item at the FPPC's December 2018 meeting, the rescission of that advice letter "left a potential gap in the [FPPC's] policy of whether…payments or reimbursements are permitted for claims related to violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act," which includes claims related to sexual harassment.

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 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:

"In March 2018, the [FPPC] withdrew an advice letter sent to and requested by former Senator Tony Mendoza that permitted him to use legal defense and campaign funds to defend himself against claims of sexual harassment that arose during his status as an elected official. Following its withdrawal of the advice letter, the FPPC reexamined its policies pertaining to the use of campaign and legal defense funds. To remove any ambiguity, SB 71 would prohibit legal defense and campaign funds from being used to pay or reimburse for a penalty, judgment, or settlement related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment filed against a candidate or elected officer in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding."

Arguments in Support:

In support of a prior version of this bill, Common Cause – California wrote, "Campaign contributions are given to candidates to help elect them to office; not to insulate them from committing crimes, like sexual harassment, that are entirely unrelated to campaigning. For too long, claims of officeholders sexually harassing staff and members of the Capitol community have been swept under the rug. Our campaign finance system should not be used to perpetuate this wrong."

Arguments in Opposition:

None received.

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor costs for the FPPC to enforce the bill.

VOTES:

SENATE FLOOR: 35-0-3

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, Caballero, Chang, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Grove, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Jones, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bates, Borgeas, Pan

ASM ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING: 7-0-0

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

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 17-0-1

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Diep

UPDATED:

VERSION: August 26, 2019

CONSULTANT: Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0002247

Date of Hearing: August 28, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 71

Author:(Leyva) – As Amended Ver:August 26, 2019

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

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits a candidate or elected official from using campaign funds or legal defense funds to pay penalties or settlements related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse or sexual harassment.

This bill requires a candidate or elected officer to reimburse any campaign funds or legal defense funds for legal expenses related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse or sexual harassment against the candidate or elected official if the candidate or elected official is held liable for the violation.

This bill is double-joined to AB 220 (Bonta) to avoid chaptering out.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Minor costs for the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to enforce the bill.

COMMENTS:

1. Background and Purpose. In March 2018, the FPPC rescinded an advice letter requested by former Senator Tony Mendoza (Mendoza Advice Letter A-18-009). The letter concluded that then Senator Mendoza could establish a legal defense fund to defray attorney’s fees related to claims of wrongful termination proceedings related to SR 6 (Vidak), of the 2018-19 Legislative Session and a subsequent civil proceeding, should one be filed. SR 69 would have expelled Senator Mendoza from the Senate but was never brought up for a vote. Instead, Senator Mendoza resigned.

The withdrawal of the advice letter created ambiguity related to whether legal defense and campaign funds can be used to pay or reimburse an elected official or candidate for legal fees associated with violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

This bill prohibits legal defense and campaign funds from being used to pay or reimburse an elected official or candidate for legal fees associated with any of the employment-related violations of FEHA, including but not limited to sexual harassment and discrimination.

1. FPPC Position. As noted in the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee analysis, the FPPC was the sponsor of this bill when it was introduced in the Senate, however, the bill was amended when it came off the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file. Based on those amendments, the FPPC changed its position on this bill to “support if amended.” While the FPPC’s letter indicates the current version of the bill “provides an improvement on current law,” the letter identifies the following concerns:

• The bill could be interpreted to allow for the expenditure of campaign funds to defend against sexual assault allegations that are unrelated to campaign or governmental purposes.
• It is unclear how a provision requiring reimbursement of campaign funds where a person was held liable for a violation would apply for settlements where there is “no admission of liability” by the alleged offender.
• The bill may allow the use of campaign funds to pay settlements prior to the filing of any formal action in a civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
• The provision requiring reimbursement of campaign funds where a person was held liable for a violation could result in situations where the FPPC is unable to collect a debt against a violator.

Although the FPPC’s letter does not identify specific amendments to address some or all of their concerns, any amendments may be viewed as inconsistent with the amendments that were adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

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.

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

Date of Hearing: July 3, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING

Marc Berman, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 71

Author:(Leyva) – As Amended Ver:May 17, 2019

SENATE VOTE: 35-0

SUBJECT: Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign expenditures: limitations.

SUMMARY: Requires a candidate or elected officer to reimburse any campaign funds or legal defense funds for legal expenses related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment against the candidate or officer if the candidate or officer is held liable for the violation. Prohibits the use of campaign funds or legal defense funds to pay penalties or settlements related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits funds held in a legal defense account from being used to pay or reimburse a candidate or elected officer for a penalty, judgment, or settlement related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment filed against the candidate or elective officer in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. Requires a candidate or elective officer who uses funds in a legal defense account for other legal costs and expenses related to claims of those unlawful practices and is held liable for such a violation to reimburse the account for all funds used in connection with those other legal costs and expenses.
2. Prohibits campaign funds from being used to pay or reimburse a candidate, elected officer, individual with the authority to approve the expenditure of campaign funds held by a committee, employee or staff of the committee or the elected officer’s governmental agency, or any other person for a penalty, judgment, or settlement related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment filed against the person in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. Requires a candidate, elected officer, individual with authority to approve the expenditure of campaign funds held by a committee, or employee or staff of the committee or the elected officer’s governmental agency who uses campaign funds for other legal costs and expenses related to claims of those unlawful practices and who is held liable for such a violation to reimburse the campaign for all funds used in connection with those other legal costs and expenses.
3. Provides that for the purposes of this bill, the terms “sexual assault” and “sexual abuse” have the same meaning as in a specified provision of the Penal Code, and the term “sexual harassment” has the same meaning as in a specified provision of the Government Code.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Creates the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), and makes it responsible for the impartial, effective administration and implementation of the Political Reform Act (PRA).
2. Establishes specified per-source limits on campaign contributions to candidates for state elective office. Some local jurisdictions also impose limits on contributions to candidates seeking elective offices therein.
3. Provides that all contributions deposited into a campaign committee account are deemed to be held in trust for expenses associated with the election of the candidate or for expenses associated with holding office. Provides that an expenditure to seek or hold office is within the lawful execution of this trust if it is reasonably related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose. Requires expenditures that confer a substantial personal benefit to be directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose.
4. Provides generally that attorney’s fees and other costs related to administrative, civil, or criminal litigation may only be paid with campaign funds if the litigation is directly related to activities of the committee that are consistent with its primary objectives or arises directly out of a committee’s activities or out of a candidate’s or elected officer’s activities, duties, or status as a candidate or elected officer.
5. Authorizes state and local candidates and elective officers to establish a separate account (a legal defense account) to defray attorney’s fees and other related legal costs incurred if they are subject to civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings arising directly out of the conduct of an election campaign, the electoral process, or the performance of their governmental activities and duties.
6. Requires that all contributions to a legal defense account be publicly reported, as specified.
7. Provides that contributions to legal defense accounts are not subject to state contribution limits but may be subject to local jurisdiction contribution limits, where applicable.
8. Provides that once the legal dispute is resolved, candidates and elective officers must dispose of any funds remaining in a legal defense account after all expenses associated with the dispute are discharged, as specified.
9. Prohibits an expenditure of campaign funds to pay a fine, penalty, judgment, or settlement relating to an expenditure of campaign funds that was found to be improper because the expenditure resulted in either of the following:
   
   1. A personal benefit to the candidate or officer, and the expenditure was not reasonably related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose; or,
      
   2. A substantial personal benefit to the candidate or officer, and the expenditure was not directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill would likely result in minor costs to the FPPC.

COMMENTS:

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

Current law authorizes elected officials and candidates to use campaign and legal defense funds to pay for the legal expenses that may arise directly out of the conduct of an election campaign, the electoral process, or the performance of the officeholder’s governmental activities and duties. Under the Political Reform Act, attorneys’ fees and other costs related to administrative, civil, or criminal lawsuits may only be paid with campaign funds if the case is directly related to a political, legislative, or legal purpose.

In March 2018, the [FPPC] withdrew an advice letter sent to and requested by former Senator Tony Mendoza that permitted him to use legal defense and campaign funds to defend himself against claims of sexual harassment that arose during his status as an elected official. Following its withdrawal of the advice letter, the FPPC reexamined its policies pertaining to the use of campaign and legal defense funds. To remove any ambiguity, SB 71 would prohibit legal defense and campaign funds from being used to pay or reimburse for a penalty, judgment, or settlement related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment filed against a candidate or elected officer in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding.

1. Mendoza FPPC Advice Letter: At its December 2018 meeting, the FPPC considered a recommendation from its Law & Policy Committee that the FPPC consider sponsoring legislation that limited the use of campaign and legal defense funds to defend against claims related to violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The memorandum outlining the legislative proposal stated, in part:

At the March 2018 meeting, the [FPPC] rescinded the Mendoza Advice Letter A-18-009. The letter concluded then-Senator Tony Mendoza may establish a legal defense fund to defray attorney’s fees related to a claims of wrongful termination, proceedings related to Senate Resolution 69 (2018), and a subsequent civil proceeding should one be filed. The letter had also stated Mr. Mendoza may use campaign and legal defense funds to defend himself from claims of sexual harassment that arose directly out of his activities, duties, or status as a candidate or elected officer.

The [PRA] authorizes certain candidates and elective officers to establish legal defense funds to defray attorney’s fees and other related legal costs in defense of a candidate who is subject to one or more civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings arising directly out of conduct of an election campaign or performance of governmental activities and duties.

The [PRA provides that] expenditures that confer a substantial personal benefit must be directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose. The [PRA] prohibits the use of campaign funds for fines, penalties, judgements, or settlements…

The rescission of the Mendoza Advice Letter has left a potential gap in the [FPPC’s] policy of whether…payments or reimbursements are permitted for claims related to violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Senate Resolution 69 (Vidak) and Senate Resolution 85 (DeLeon) of 2018, both of which sought the expulsion of Senator Tony Mendoza from the Senate, were never brought up for a vote on the Senate floor.

The FPPC approved the recommendation of the Law & Policy Committee, and this bill was introduced in the Senate with the bill language that was approved by the FPPC.

1. Employer Liability: As outlined above, this bill prohibits campaign funds from being used to pay any person for a penalty, judgment, or settlement related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment filed against the person in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. For the purposes of the PRA, the term “person” is defined broadly to include various non-individual entities, including committees.
   
   According to information from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, employers are liable for sexual harassment by their supervisors or agents. Because committees often are employers, it is possible that a committee could be found to have liability as an employer in a sexual harassment claim. Under this bill, however, it appears that the committee would have no way to satisfy that liability, since the term “campaign funds” is defined to include any assets received or possessed by a committee that receives contributions. This could create a situation where a victim of sexual harassment is unable to recover damages from a committee that has liability for that harassment under state law. It further could allow a committee that is liable for sexual harassment by its supervisors or agents to avoid any consequences for that sexual harassment (though it is possible that the supervisor or agent could be individually liable as well). It seems unlikey that this is the author’s intent. Accordingly, further refinements to this bill may be warranted, in a manner that is consistent with prior committees’ actions on this bill, to ensure that victims of sexual harassment have the ability to recover damages from liable parties.
2. FPPC Position: Although the FPPC was the sponsor of this bill when it was introduced in the Senate, the bill subsequently was amended when coming off of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file. Based on those amendments, the FPPC has now changed its position on this bill to “support if amended.” While the FPPC’s letter indicates that the current version of the bill “provides an improvement on current law,” the letter identifies the following concerns with the current version of the bill:

• The bill could be interpreted to allow for the expenditure of campaign funds to defend against sexual assault allegations that are unrelated to campaign or governmental purposes.
• It is unclear how a provision requiring reimbursement of campaign funds where a person was held liable for a violation would apply for settlements where there is “no admission of liability” by the alleged offender.
• The bill may allow the use of campaign funds to pay settlements prior to the filing of any formal action in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding.
• The provision requiring reimbursement of campaign funds where a person was held liable for a violation could result in situations where the FPPC is unable to collect a debt against a violator.

Although the FPPC’s letter does not identify specific amendment language that it is seeking, amendments to address some or all of the FPPC’s concerns may be viewed as inconsistent with the amendments to this bill that were adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

1. Arguments in Support: In support of a prior version of this bill, Common Cause – California wrote:

Campaign contributions are given to candidates to help elect them to office; not to insulate them from committing crimes, like sexual harassment, that are entirely unrelated to campaigning. For too long, claims of officeholders sexually harassing staff and members of the Capitol community have been swept under the rug. Our campaign finance system should not be used to perpetuate this wrong.

Under this bill, campaign funds could still be used for legal defense against claims related to legitimate campaign activities – for example, claims of reporting violations, disclosure violations, or receiving contributions over state limits. However, candidates could no longer avail themselves of special interest money to shield them from the consequences of abusing others, a twisted luxury that was never available to the abused.

1. 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

Common Cause – California (prior version)

Fair Political Practices Commission (if amended)

Opposition

None on file.

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

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 71

Author: Leyva (D)

Amended: 5/17/19

Vote: 27

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-0, 3/19/19

AYES: Umberg, Nielsen, Leyva, Stern

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hertzberg

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 5/16/19

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Hill, Jones, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates

SUBJECT: Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign expenditures: limitations

SOURCE: Fair Political Practices Commission

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits the expenditure of campaign funds and legal defense funds to pay or reimburse a candidate, elected officer, and others for penalties, judgements, or settlements related to claims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), and makes it responsible for the administration and implementation of the Political Reform Act (PRA).
2. Establishes specified per-source limits on campaign contributions to candidates for state elective office. Some local jurisdictions also impose limits on contributions to candidates seeking elective offices therein.
3. Provides that all contributions deposited into a campaign committee account are deemed to be held in trust for expenses associated with the election of the candidate or for expenses associated with holding office. An expenditure to seek or hold office is within the lawful execution of this trust if it is reasonably related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose. Expenditures that confer a substantial personal benefit must be directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose.
4. Defines “committee,” in part, for the purposes of the PRA, as any person or combination of persons who directly or indirectly receives contributions for political purposes totaling $2,000 or more in a calendar year. “Committee” includes candidate campaign committees, officeholder committees, ballot measure committees, general purpose committees (commonly referred to as “PACs”), and independent expenditure committees.
5. Provides generally that attorneys’ fees and other costs related to administrative, civil, or criminal litigation may only be paid with campaign funds if the litigation is directly related to activities of the committee that are consistent with its primary objectives.
6. Authorizes state and local candidates and elective officers to establish a separate account (a legal defense account) to defray attorney’s fees and other related legal costs incurred if they are subject to civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings arising directly out of the conduct of an election campaign, the electoral process, or the performance of their governmental activities and duties.
7. Requires that all contributions to a legal defense account be publicly reported, as specified.
8. Provides that contributions to legal defense accounts are not subject to state contribution limits but may be subject to local jurisdiction contribution limits, where applicable.
9. Provides that once the legal dispute is resolved, candidates and elective officers must dispose of any funds remaining in a legal defense account after all expenses associated with the dispute are discharged, as specified.
10. Defines “sexual abuse” and “sexual assault,” for purposes of the Penal Code, as specified.
11. Defines “sexual harassment,” pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as including sexual harassment, gender harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Provides that sexually harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire.

This bill:

1. Prohibits the expenditure of funds in a legal defense account to pay or reimburse a candidate or elected officer for a penalty, judgement, or settlement related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment filed against the candidate or elected officer in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding.
2. Provides that campaign funds shall not be used to pay or reimburse a candidate, elected officer, individual with authority to approve the expenditure of campaign funds held by a committee, employee or staff of the committee or the elected officer’s governmental agency, or any other person for a penalty, judgement, or settlement related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment filed against any of these individuals in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding.
3. Provides that if a candidate or elected officer uses legal defense account or campaign funds for other legal costs and expenses related to claims of those unlawful practices and is held liable for such a violation, the candidate or elected officer shall reimburse the campaign or legal defense account for all funds used in connection with those other legal costs and expenses.
4. Provides, for the purposes of this bill, that “sexual abuse” and “sexual assault,” has the same meaning as in the Penal Code and “sexual harassment” has the same meaning as in the FEHA.

Background

Mendoza FPPC Advice Letter. A December 12, 2018 FPPC memorandum stated, in part:

At the March 2018 meeting, the Commission rescinded the Mendoza Advice Letter A-18-009. The letter concluded then-Senator Tony Mendoza may establish a legal defense fund to defray attorney’s fees related to a claims of wrongful termination, proceedings related to Senate Resolution 69 (2018), and a subsequent civil proceeding should one be filed. The letter had also stated Mr. Mendoza may use campaign and legal defense funds to defend himself from claims of sexual harassment that arose directly out of his activities, duties, or status as a candidate or elected officer. The [Political Reform] Act authorizes certain candidates and elective officers to establish legal defense funds to defray attorney’s fees and other related legal costs in defense of a candidate who is subject to one or more civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings arising directly out of conduct of an election campaign or performance of governmental activities and duties. The [Political Reform] Act permits expenditures that confer a substantial personal benefit must be directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose. The [Political Reform] Act prohibits the use of campaign funds for fines, penalties, judgements, or settlements.

The rescission of the Mendoza Advice Letter has left a potential gap in the Commission’s policy of whether the payments or reimbursements are permitted for claims related to violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

SR 69 (Vidak, 2018) and SR 85 (DeLeon, 2018), both of which sought the expulsion of Senator Tony Mendoza from the Senate, were never brought up for a vote on the Senate Floor.

Fair Employment and Housing Act.  According to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing:

The FEHA protects individuals from illegal discrimination by employers based on the following: race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, creed, age (over 40), mental and physical disability, sex, gender (including pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or related medical conditions), sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, and military or veteran status.

The FEHA applies to public and private employers, labor organizations and employment agencies. It is illegal for employers of five or more employees to discriminate against job applicants and employees because of a protected category, or retaliate against them because they have asserted their rights under the law. The FEHA prohibits harassment based on a protected category against an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a contractor. Harassment is prohibited in all workplaces, even those with fewer than five employees.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, current law authorizes elected officials and candidates to use campaign and legal defense funds to pay for the legal expenses that may arise directly out of the conduct of an election campaign, the electoral process, or the performance of the officeholder’s governmental activities and duties. Under the PRA, attorneys’ fees and other costs related to administrative, civil, or criminal lawsuits may only be paid with campaign funds if the case is directly related to a political, legislative, or legal purpose.

In March 2018, the FPPC withdrew an advice letter requested by and sent to former Senator Tony Mendoza that permitted him to use legal defense and campaign funds to defend himself against claims of sexual harassment that arose during his status as an elected official. Following its withdrawal of the advice letter, the FPPC reexamined its policies pertaining to the use of campaign and legal defense funds. In order to remove any ambiguity, SB 71 prohibits legal defense and campaign funds from being used to pay or reimburse for a penalty, judgment, or settlement related to a claim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment filed against the candidate or elected officer in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. This bill also requires elected officials and candidates to reimburse all funds used for other expenses associated with the claim to the appropriate account if they are held liable.

1. Just candidates and officeholders? The prohibitions on the use of campaign funds for specified purposes in this bill apply to candidate campaign committees as well as other types of committees, including officeholder committees, ballot measure committees, general purpose committees, and independent expenditure committees.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill would likely result in minor costs to the FPPC.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/16/19)

Fair Political Practices Commission (source)

California Common Cause

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/16/19)

None received

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

5/20/19 13:45:28

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

SB 71 (Leyva) - Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign expenditures: limitations

Bill Summary:

SB 71 would prohibit the expenditure of campaign funds and legal defense funds to pay or reimburse attorney’s fees or other specified legal costs in connection with claims of unlawful practices made pursuant to specified provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

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

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 16, 2019

Fiscal Impact:

This bill would likely result in minor costs to the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Committee Amendments:

Make clarifying changes and require candidates to reimburse any campaign funds used for related legal costs if a claim is substantiated.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

SB 71 (Leyva) - Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign expenditures: limitations

Bill Summary:

SB 71 would prohibit the expenditure of campaign funds and legal defense funds to pay or reimburse attorney’s fees or other specified legal costs in connection with claims of unlawful practices made pursuant to specified provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Fiscal Impact:

This bill would likely result in minor costs to the Fair Political Practices Commission (See Staff Comments).

Background:

Current law makes the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) responsible for the administration and implementation of the Political Reform Act (PRA). Additionally, current law provides that all contributions deposited into a campaign committee account are deemed to be held in trust for expenses associated with the election of the candidate or for expenses associated with holding office. An expenditure to seek or hold office is lawful if it is reasonably related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose. Expenditures that confer a substantial personal benefit must be directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose. The definition of “committee”” includes candidate campaign committees, officeholder committees, ballot measure committees, general purpose committees (commonly referred to as “PACs”), and independent expenditure committees.

Current law authorizes state and local candidates and elective officers to establish a separate account (a legal defense account) to defray attorney’s fees and other related legal costs incurred if they are subject to civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings arising directly out of the conduct of an election campaign, the electoral process, or the performance of their governmental activities and duties. Such contributions must be publicly reported, as specified, and are not subject to state contribution limits; however, they might be subject to local jurisdiction contribution limits, where applicable. Once the

legal dispute is resolved, candidates and elective officers must dispose of any funds remaining in a legal defense account after all expenses associated with the dispute are discharged, as specified.

Enacted in 1959, FEHA is the State’s primary law that protects individuals from illegal discrimination by employers based on the following protected categories: race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, creed, age (over 40), mental and physical disability, sex, gender (including pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or related medical conditions), sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, and military or veteran status. FEHA applies to public and private employers, labor organizations and employment agencies. It is illegal for employers of five or more employees to discriminate against job applicants and employees because of a protected category, or retaliate against them because they have asserted their rights under the law. FEHA prohibits harassment based on a protected category against an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a contractor. Harassment is prohibited in all workplaces, even those with fewer than five employees. FEHA also prohibits retaliation against any person for making a complaint under the FEHA, for assisting another in making such a complaint or for opposing any action in the workplace that would constitute a violation of the FEHA.

Proposed Law:

This bill would prohibit the expenditure of funds in a legal defense account to pay or reimburse a candidate or elected officer for attorney’s fees or other legal costs, as specified, in connection with claims of unlawful practices made pursuant to specified provisions of FEHA relating to employment.

Additionally, the bill would prohibit the expenditure of campaign funds to pay or reimburse a candidate, elected officer, or any individual or individuals with authority to approve the expenditure of campaign funds held by a committee, or employees or staff of the committee or the elected officer’s governmental agency for attorney’s fees or other costs, as specified, in connection with claims of unlawful practices made pursuant to specified provisions of the FEHA relating to employment as described above.

Staff Comments:

In March 2018, FPPC withdrew an advice letter sent to and requested by former Senator Tony Mendoza that permitted him to use legal defense and campaign funds to defend himself against claims of sexual harassment that arose during his status as an elected official. The withdrawal of the advice letter created ambiguity related to whether or not legal defense and campaign funds can be used to pay or reimburse an elected official or candidate for legal fees associated with violations of FEHA.

This bill would prohibit legal defense and campaign funds from being used to pay or reimburse an elected official or candidate for legal fees associated with any of the employment-related violations of FEHA, including but not limited to sexual harassment and discrimination. Under current law, however, candidates could continue to use legal defense and campaign funds if they are subject to criminal proceedings arising directly out their conduct as an elected official.

FPPC notes that enforcement cases resulting from violations under the bill would go through its regular evaluation and investigatory process. Like all cases it investigates, FPPC would make determination regarding whether a violation occurred, which could then lead to settlement and/or other administrative or civil penalties. FPPC anticipates this increased workload resulting from the bill would be minor.

Any local government costs resulting from the mandate in this measure are not state-reimbursable because the mandate only involves the definition of a crime or the penalty for conviction of a crime.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: SB 71 Hearing Date: 3/19/19

Subject: Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign expenditures: limitations

DIGEST

Prohibits the expenditure of campaign funds and legal defense funds to pay or reimburse attorney’s fees or other specified legal costs in connection with claims of unlawful practices made pursuant to specified provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), and makes it responsible for the administration and implementation of the Political Reform Act (PRA).
2. Establishes specified per-source limits on campaign contributions to candidates for state elective office. Some local jurisdictions also impose limits on contributions to candidates seeking elective offices therein.
   
3. Provides that all contributions deposited into a campaign committee account are deemed to be held in trust for expenses associated with the election of the candidate or for expenses associated with holding office. An expenditure to seek or hold office is within the lawful execution of this trust if it is reasonably related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose. Expenditures that confer a substantial personal benefit must be directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose.
   
4. Defines “committee,” in part, for the purposes of the PRA, as any person or combination of persons who directly or indirectly receives contributions for political purposes totaling $2,000 or more in a calendar year. “Committee” includes candidate campaign committees, officeholder committees, ballot measure committees, general purpose committees (commonly referred to as “PACs”), and independent expenditure committees.
   
5. Provides generally that attorneys’ fees and other costs related to administrative, civil, or criminal litigation may only be paid with campaign funds if the litigation is directly related to activities of the committee that are consistent with its primary objectives.
   
6. Authorizes state and local candidates and elective officers to establish a separate account (a legal defense account) to defray attorney’s fees and other related legal costs incurred if they are subject to civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings arising directly out of the conduct of an election campaign, the electoral process, or the performance of their governmental activities and duties.
   
7. Requires that all contributions to a legal defense account be publicly reported, as specified.
   
8. Provides that contributions to legal defense accounts are not subject to state contribution limits but may be subject to local jurisdiction contribution limits, where applicable.
   
9. Provides that once the legal dispute is resolved, candidates and elective officers must dispose of any funds remaining in a legal defense account after all expenses associated with the dispute are discharged, as specified.
   
10. Provides, in part, for all of the following pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA):
11. Prohibits an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status of any person, to refuse to hire, discriminate against, or harass the person, as specified. These prohibitions also extend to persons in training programs, internships, apprenticeships, and other limited duration programs.
12. Prohibits an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program, or any training program leading to employment, to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring, as specified.
13. Requires each employer to post a poster on discrimination in employment, which includes information relation to the illegality of sexual harassment, in a prominent and accessible location in the workplace, as specified.
14. Requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide at least two hours of prescribed training and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees within 6 months of assuming supervisorial duties and once every two years.
15. Extends liability for sexual harassment education and training to any person who regularly receives the services of 50 or more persons providing services pursuant to a contract, or any person acting as an agent of an employer.

This bill:

1. Prohibits the expenditure of funds in a legal defense account to pay or reimburse a candidate or elected officer for attorney’s fees or other legal costs, as specified, in connection with claims of unlawful practices made pursuant to specified provisions of the FEHA relating to employment as described above.
2. Prohibits the expenditure of campaign funds to pay or reimburse a candidate, elected officer, or any individual or individuals with authority to approve the expenditure of campaign funds held by a committee, or employees or staff of the committee or the elected officer’s governmental agency for attorney’s fees or other costs, as specified, in connection with claims of unlawful practices made pursuant to specified provisions of the FEHA relating to employment as described above.

BACKGROUND

Mendoza FPPC Advice Letter. A December 12, 2018 Fair Political Practices Commission memorandum stated, in part:

At the March 2018 meeting, the Commission rescinded the Mendoza Advice Letter A-18-009. The letter concluded then-Senator Tony Mendoza may establish a legal defense fund to defray attorney’s fees related to a claims of wrongful termination, proceedings related to Senate Resolution 69 (2018), and a subsequent civil proceeding should one be filed. The letter had also stated Mr. Mendoza may use campaign and legal defense funds to defend himself from claims of sexual harassment that arose directly out of his activities, duties, or status as a candidate or elected officer. The [Political Reform] Act authorizes certain candidates and elective officers to establish legal defense funds to defray attorney’s fees and other related legal costs in defense of a candidate who is subject to one or more civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings arising directly out of conduct of an election campaign or performance of governmental activities and duties. The [Political Reform] Act permits expenditures that confer a substantial personal benefit must be directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose. The [Political Reform] Act prohibits the use of campaign funds for fines, penalties, judgements, or settlements.

The rescission of the Mendoza Advice Letter has left a potential gap in the Commission’s policy of whether the payments or reimbursements are permitted for claims related to violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Senate Resolution 69 (Vidak) and Senate Resolution 85 (DeLeon) of 2018, both of which sought the expulsion of Senator Tony Mendoza from the Senate, were never brought up for a vote on the Senate floor.

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).  According to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing:

The FEHA protects individuals from illegal discrimination by employers based on the following: race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, creed, age (over 40), mental and physical disability, sex, gender (including pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or related medical conditions), sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, and military or veteran status.

The FEHA applies to public and private employers, labor organizations and employment agencies. It is illegal for employers of five or more employees to discriminate against job applicants and employees because of a protected category, or retaliate against them because they have asserted their rights under the law. The FEHA prohibits harassment based on a protected category against an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a contractor. Harassment is prohibited in all workplaces, even those with fewer than five employees.

COMMENTS

1. According to the author: Current law authorizes elected officials and candidates to use campaign and legal defense funds to pay for the legal expenses that may arise directly out of the conduct of an election campaign, the electoral process, or the performance of the officeholder’s governmental activities and duties. Under the Political Reform Act, attorneys’ fees and other costs related to administrative, civil, or criminal lawsuits may only be paid with campaign funds if the case is directly related to a political, legislative, or legal purpose.
   
   In March 2018, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) withdrew an advice letter sent to and requested by former Senator Tony Mendoza that permitted him to use legal defense and campaign funds to defend himself against claims of sexual harassment that arose during his status as an elected official. Following its withdrawal of the advice letter, the FPPC reexamined its policies pertaining to the use of campaign and legal defense funds. To remove any ambiguity, SB 71 would prohibit legal defense and campaign funds from being used to pay or reimburse an elected official or candidate for legal fees associated with violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, including sexual harassment and discrimination. This restriction would include those who are defending themselves against a claim as well as individuals filing a complaint.
   
2. Just Candidates and Officeholders? The prohibitions on the use of campaign funds for specified purposes in this bill apply to candidate campaign committees as well as officeholder committees, ballot measure committees, general purpose committees (commonly referred to as “PACs”), and independent expenditure committees.
   
3. Just Sexual Harassment? As stated above, this bill would prohibit the use of campaign funds and legal defense account funds for payment or reimbursement for attorney’s fees or other costs in connection with claims of unlawful practices made pursuant to any of the aforementioned provisions of the FEHA relating to employment.
   
4. Argument in Support. In a letter of support, California Common Cause stated, in part, the following:

Campaign contributions are given to candidates to help elect them to office; not to insulate them from committing crimes, like sexual harassment, that are entirely unrelated to campaigning. For too long, claims of officeholders sexually harassing staff and members of the Capitol community have been swept under the rug. Our campaign finance system should not be used to perpetuate this wrong.

Under this bill, campaign funds could still be used for legal defense against claims related to legitimate campaign activities – for example, claims of reporting violations, disclosure violations, or receiving contributions over state limits. However, candidates could no longer avail themselves of special interest money to shield them from the consequences of abusing others, a twisted luxury that was never available to the abused.

POSITIONS

Sponsor: Fair Political Practices Commission

Support: California Common Cause

Oppose: None received

-- END --