Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.

This bill would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for this purpose, as specified. The bill would prohibit the public moneys for this dedicated fund from being taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. This restriction would not apply to charter cities.

The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval of the voters.

This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, general statewide election, as specified.

Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.

This bill would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for this purpose, as specified. The bill would prohibit the public moneys for this dedicated fund from being taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. This restriction would not apply to charter cities.

The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval of the voters.

This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, general statewide election, as specified.

Existing law requires the statewide direct primary election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March in each even-numbered year that is evenly divisible by four. Existing law requires the presidential primary election to be consolidated with this statewide direct primary election and to be held on the same date.

This bill would change the date of the presidential primary and consolidated statewide direct primary described above to an unspecified date.

Date of Hearing: June 19, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 24

Author:(Umberg) – As Amended Ver:June 26, 2023

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

SUMMARY:

This bill, if approved by the voters, allows the state or a local government entity to offer public campaign financing programs.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Allows a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public money for use in seeking elective office if the state or a local government entity establishes, by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter, a dedicated fund for this purpose.
2. Prohibits, unless the local government entity is a charter city, such fund money being taken from public money earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.
3. Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to submit this bill’s provisions to voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to the SOS for printing and mailing expenses associated with placing the measure on the ballot at the next statewide general election (General Fund (GF)). Based on the average cost per page for prior elections, the SOS estimates such costs to be approximately $123,000 per page. Actual costs for this bill will depend on the length of the title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal for publication in the Voter Information Guide.
2. This bill requires the redirection of public funds, except those earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety, for public campaign financing, which is, in itself, a significant fiscal effect resulting in GF cost pressures.
3. If the state establishes a public campaign financing fund, costs to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to issue advice, modify regulations, and provide other related oversight should be absorbable. Similarly, since each local entity may decide whether to adopt a public campaign financing fund, this bill would not constitute a state reimbursable mandate. However, it is unclear whether such local programs would be subject to FPPC oversight. To the extent the FPPC must investigate complaints regarding the operation of local programs, enforcement costs may be significant.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the GF faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author notes that “voters in several charter cities have overwhelmingly approved public campaign financing measures in recent years. Unfortunately, other local governments do not have the option to enact these same policies.” According to the author, “SB 24 will restore control to local governments and the state by giving counties, districts, general law cities, and the state the same option that charter cities currently have to enact public financing of campaigns.”
2. Support and Opposition. This bill is co-sponsored by the California Clean Money Campaign and California Common Cause, with the latter organization arguing that public financing programs “increase the voice and impact of small-dollar donors on elections, can even boost voter turnout, and make running for office more accessible for a wider range of people.” This bill is also supported by a large coalition of public interest and progressive advocacy organizations.

This bill is opposed by the Election Integrity Project California, which argues, “SB 24 is vague in that it does not specify how the distribution of funds would work…A bill that mandates the WHAT and WHY without providing the HOW at best does nothing to advance its cause and at worst injects chaos into the system.”

1. Many Attempts at Public Financing. Because of the public funding ban contained in Proposition 73 (1988), the state and most local governments in California may not offer public financing programs for electoral campaigns. While the California Supreme Court ruled that the public financing ban does not apply to charter cities, a state appellate court has held that the public financing ban does apply to charter counties. As a result, while charter cities in California may enact public campaign financing programs, and at least six charter cities (Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Richmond, Sacramento, and San Francisco) have enacted such programs, general law cities, all counties, all districts, and the state government are covered by the current ban.

SB 1107 (Allen), Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016, authorized the creation of public financing programs by the state or local government entities. Because SB 1107 sought to amend a provision of Proposition 73, which amended and thus became part of the Political Reform Act (PRA), SB 1107 was subject to rules governing legislation seeking to amend the PRA – notably, findings and declarations the bill furthered the purposes of the PRA and approval by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. However, former-Senator Quentin Kopp (a proponent of Proposition 73) and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) successfully challenged SB 1107 in court, alleging the measure did not further the purposes of the PRA, and therefore could not be enacted without voter approval. This bill repeals the invalidated provisions of SB 1107 and proposes to reenact similar provisions in a new code section, subject to voter approval at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election.

1. Future Author Amendments. The author intends to propose amendments to this committee that would require the SOS to submit this bill’s provisions to voters for approval at the November 3, 2026, election, instead of the November 5, 2024, election.
2. Related Legislation. AB 270 (Lee) is virtually identical to this bill. AB 270 is pending hearing in the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee.

SB 888 (Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments) repeals the provisions of SB 1107 enjoined from enforcement by the HJTA, amongst other unrelated substantive provisions. SB 888 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file.

Analysis Prepared by: Irene Ho / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 5, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

Gail Pellerin, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 24

Author:(Umberg and Allen) – As Amended Ver:June 26, 2023

SENATE VOTE: 31-8

SUBJECT: Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing.

SUMMARY: Allows, if approved by the voters, the state and local governments to offer public campaign financing programs. Specifically, this bill:

1. Permits a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if a state or local governmental entity establishes a dedicated fund for that purpose and if both of the following are true:
   
   1. Public moneys held in the fund are available to all qualified, voluntarily participating candidates of the same office without regard to incumbency or political party preference; and,
      
   2. The state or local governmental entity has established criteria for determining a candidate's qualification for such moneys, as specified.
      
2. Prohibits public moneys for the dedicated fund described above in 1) from being taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. Provides that this restriction does not apply to charter cities.
   
3. Makes various findings and declarations, including the following:
   
   1. The increasing costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which can give those wealthy donors and special interests disproportionate influence over governmental decisions.
      
   2. Such disproportionate influence can undermine the public’s trust that public officials are performing their duties in an impartial manner and that government is serving the needs and responding to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth.
      
   3. Citizen-funded election programs, in which qualified candidates can receive public funds for the purpose of communicating with voters rather than relying exclusively on private donors, are currently operative in five charter cities in California, as well as numerous other local and state jurisdictions.
      
   4. Citizen-funded election programs encourage competition by reducing the financial advantages of incumbency and making it possible for citizens from all walks of life, not only those with connections to wealthy donors or special interests, to run for office.
      
   5. By reducing reliance on wealthy donors and special interests, citizen-funded election programs inhibit improper practices, protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption, and protect the political integrity of our governmental institutions.
      
   6. The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents. An exception should be created to permit citizen-funded election programs so that elections may be conducted more fairly.
      
4. Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to submit this bill’s provisions to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election.
5. Contains a severability clause.

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). (Government Code §§83100, 83111)
   
2. Prohibits public officers from expending, and candidates from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office. (Government Code §85300)
3. Permits the Legislature to amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without the electors’ approval. (California Constitution, Article II, §10(c))
   
4. Permits the PRA to be amended or repealed only through one of the following procedures:
   
   1. Amendments to the PRA that further its purposes may be enacted by statute that is passed by a two-thirds vote in each house and signed by the Governor, if at least 12 days prior to passage in each house the bill in its final form has been delivered to the FPPC for distribution, as specified; or,
   2. The PRA may be amended or repealed by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors. (Government Code §81012)
5. Requires every constitutional amendment, bond measure, or other legislative measure submitted to the people by the Legislature to appear on the ballot of the first statewide election occurring at least 131 days after the adoption of the proposal by the Legislature. (Elections Code §9040)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, one-time SOS costs in the range of $738,000 to $984,000 (General Fund), in 2024-25, for printing and mailing costs to place the measure on the ballot on the November 2024 General Election ballot. Actual costs may be higher or lower, depending on the length of required elements and the overall size of the ballot.

COMMENTS:

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

Currently, local jurisdictions such as counties, districts, and general law cities, do not have the option to set up [a] public fund for campaign financing, despite the policy’s popularity among voters, as voters in several charter cities have overwhelmingly approved public campaign financing measures in recent years. Unfortunately, other local governments do not have the option to enact these same policies. In 2016, bipartisan supermajorities of the legislature passed, and Governor Jerry Brown signed, SB 1107 (Allen), which would have removed the ban and given local governments and the state this option. However, the courts ruled that the question must be put before the voters. SB 24 will restore control to local governments and the state by giving counties, districts, general law cities, and the state the same option that charter cities currently have to enact public financing of campaigns. If passed, this measure will be placed on the November 2024 ballot for voter approval.

1. Public Campaign Financing Programs and Previous Legislation: In June 1974, California voters passed an initiative—Proposition 9—that created the FPPC and codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. That initiative is commonly known as the PRA.
   
   In 1988, voters approved two separate initiatives that sought to regulate campaign financing by amending the PRA: Proposition 68 and Proposition 73. Proposition 68 proposed a system of public funding and expenditure limits for state legislative races, and passed with 53% of the vote. Proposition 73 prohibited public funding of campaigns and set contribution limits for state and local elections, and passed with 58% of the vote. The California Supreme Court subsequently ruled in Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. FPPC (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 744, that because the two measures contained conflicting comprehensive regulatory schemes they could not be merged and only one could be implemented. As such, since Proposition 73 received more affirmative votes than Proposition 68, the Court ordered the implementation of Proposition 73 and declared all provisions of Proposition 68 invalid.
   
   In 1990, all state and local elections were conducted under the provisions of Proposition 73. Many of the provisions of Proposition 73 were ultimately ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts. The only provisions of Proposition 73 to survive legal challenge were contribution limits for special elections, restrictions on certain mass mailings by officeholders, and the prohibition on the use of public money for campaign purposes. The contribution limits for special elections that were included in Proposition 73 subsequently were repealed and replaced in another ballot measure.
   
   As detailed above, the California Constitution permits the Legislature to amend an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the voters, unless the initiative statute provides otherwise. The PRA allows its provisions to be amended without voter approval if certain conditions are met, including a requirement that the proposed amendments must “further the purposes” of the PRA.
   
   In an effort to authorize public campaign financing programs subject to certain conditions, in 2016, the Legislature approved and Governor Brown signed SB 1107 (Allen), Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016. SB 1107 did not create any public financing programs, but instead authorized the creation of such programs by state or local governmental entities through separate actions by those entities. Because SB 1107 sought to amend a provision of Proposition 73, which itself amended and became part of the PRA, the provisions of SB 1107 were subject to rules governing legislation that seeks to amend the PRA. SB 1107 contained legislative findings and declarations that the bill furthered the purposes of the PRA, and was enacted in a manner that complied with various procedural requirements for bills that seek to amend the PRA without the approval of voters.
   
   Following the enactment of SB 1107, former-Senator Quentin Kopp (who was one of the proponents of Proposition 73) and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association challenged the provisions of SB 1107 related to public campaign financing programs in court, alleging that those changes did not further the purposes of the PRA, and therefore could not be enacted without being approved by voters. In Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Newsom (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 158, the Third District Court of Appeal agreed, finding that SB 1107 “directly conflicts with a primary purpose and mandate of the [PRA], as amended by subsequent voter initiatives, to prohibit public funding of political campaigns.” In its decision, the court affirmed a judgment by the Sacramento County Superior Court that enjoined the FPPC from enforcing the public financing related provisions of SB 1107.
   
   The provisions of SB 1107 that authorized public financing programs have not been repealed since the court’s decision in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. Nonetheless, while those provisions remain in statute, and appear to authorize public campaign financing programs, the PRA as enforced by the FPPC continues to prohibit public officers from expending, and candidates from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.
   
   This bill proposes to repeal the provisions of SB 1107 that sought to authorize public campaign financing programs, and proposes to reenact similar provisions in a new code section that would be part of the PRA. This bill would prohibit public moneys used for such public campaign financing programs from being taken from moneys earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety purposes, a restriction that was not included in SB 1107. Furthermore, unlike SB 1107, this bill provides that it would become effective only upon approval of the voters.
2. Charter Cities and Counties: Notwithstanding the PRA’s general prohibition on the use of public money for campaign purposes, the California Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition does not apply to charter cities (Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 389). On the other hand, a state appellate court has held that the public financing ban does apply to charter counties (County of Sacramento v. Fair Political Practices Commission (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 687). The California Constitution generally grants charter cities greater autonomy over local affairs than charter counties have, particularly with respect to local elections.
   
   As a result, while charter cities in California can enact public campaign financing programs, general law cities, all counties, all districts, and the state government are covered by the current ban. At least six charter cities in California (Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Richmond, Sacramento, and San Francisco) have enacted public campaign funding programs, though the program is not funded and thus is no longer available in one of those cities (Sacramento).
3. Previous Measures to Permit Public Campaign Financing: On three previous occasions, California voters have rejected ballot measures that would have repealed the prohibition against public funding of campaigns that was included in Proposition 73. In all three cases, however, the ballot measures also proposed to enact specific public campaign financing programs for state elections—something that this bill does not propose.
   
   Proposition 25—an initiative measure that appeared on the March 2000 statewide primary election ballot—would have provided for public financing of campaign media advertisements and voter information packets for qualifying candidates and ballot measure committees that agreed to abide by spending limits and would have repealed the PRA's prohibition against public financing systems, among other provisions. Proposition 25 failed passage, receiving 34.7% of the vote statewide.
   
   Proposition 89—an initiative measure that appeared on the November 2006 statewide general election ballot—would have created a public campaign financing system for candidates for elective state office, and would have repealed the PRA's prohibition against public financing systems. Proposition 89 was defeated by the voters, receiving 25.7% of the vote statewide.
   
   Proposition 15—a measure that was placed on the June 2010 statewide primary election ballot by the Legislature—would have created a public campaign financing pilot project for candidates for SOS, and would have repealed the PRA's prohibition against public financing systems. Proposition 15 was defeated by the voters, receiving 42.7% of the vote statewide.
4. Arguments in Support: In support of this bill, the League of Women Voters of California writes:

Money presents one of the greatest threats to representative democracy today. It distorts incentives, makes the competition among candidates inequitable, and drowns out the voices of ordinary voters. Public financing of election campaigns reduces the influence of special interests, increases the power of small donors and ordinary voters, enables candidates to compete more equitably for public office, and diminishes barriers to entry – thereby diversifying the candidate pool.

Five charter cities (Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco) have successful public financing systems in place. And voter support for such systems has been very strong – 75% of voters voted for Los Angeles’ Measure H in 2011, 65% voted for Berkeley’s Measure X1 in 2016, and 74% voted for Oakland’s Measure W in 2022.

In 2016, the League of Women Voters of California supported SB 1107 (Allen), which would have removed the ban on public financing of campaigns. While the bill passed with a bipartisan supermajority of the legislature, and was signed into law, the courts ruled the question must be put before the voters. SB 24 will allow voters to restore control to local governments and the state by placing a measure on the ballot to repeal the ban on campaign public financing.

1. Arguments in Opposition: In opposition to a prior version of this bill, Election Integrity Project California wrote:

SB 24 would laudably make public funds available for bona fide candidates who are at a financial and name-recognition disadvantage, BUT that benefit is cancelled out by the fact that incumbents would have equal access to those funds. This would enable them to add to their financial advantage with money they do not need. The financial differential between incumbents and candidates with special interest backing and up-and-coming challengers would remain the same.

The bill does nothing to eliminate or even reduce the influence of special interest money on politics and political campaigns.

Unless public funds are the ONLY source of campaign financing allowed, and distributed equally among all candidates meeting reasonable standards of viability, those the bill purports to incentivize and assist would be fighting the same financial disadvantage as before dipping into the public largess. There would be no change to the status quo.

1. Related Legislation: AB 270 (Lee), which is pending in the Senate Elections & Constitutional Amendments Committee, is substantively identical to this bill. AB 270 was approved by this committee on a 5-2 vote, and was approved by the Assembly on a 59-18 vote.
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 by the Legislature must further the purposes of the proposition and require a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature, or the Legislature may propose amendments to the proposition that do not further the purposes of the act by a majority vote, but such amendments must be approved by the voters to take effect. This bill would only take effect if approved by the voters.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Clean Money Campaign (Sponsor) (prior version)

All Rise Alameda (prior version)

Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Southern California (prior version)

Building the Base Face to Face (prior version)

California Church Impact (prior version)

California Nurses Association (prior version)

CALPIRG, California Public Interest Research Group (prior version)

Change Begins With Me (INDIVISIBLE) (prior version)

Cloverdale Indivisible (prior version)

Consumer Watchdog (prior version)

Contra Costa MoveOn (prior version)

Courage California (prior version)

Defending Our Future: Indivisible in CA (prior version)

Democracy Policy Network (prior version)

East Valley Indivisibles (prior version)

El Cerrito Progressives (prior version)

Endangered Habitats League (prior version)

Feminists in Action (formerly Indivisible CA 34 Womens) (prior version)

Fix Democracy First (prior version)

Hillcrest Indivisible (prior version)

Indi Squared (prior version)

Indivisible 30/Keep Sherman Accountable (prior version)

Indivisible 36 (prior version)

Indivisible 41 (prior version)

Indivisible Auburn CA (prior version)

Indivisible Beach Cities (prior version)

Indivisible CA-25 Simi Valley Porter Ranch (prior version)

Indivisible CA-29 (prior version)

Indivisible CA-3 (prior version)

Indivisible CA-33 (prior version)

Indivisible CA-37 (prior version)

Indivisible CA-39 (prior version)

Indivisible CA-43 (prior version)

Indivisible CA-7 (prior version)

Indivisible CA: Statestrong (prior version)

Indivisible Claremont/Inland Valley (prior version)

Indivisible Colusa County (prior version)

Indivisible East Bay (prior version)

Indivisible El Dorado Hills (prior version)

Indivisible Elmwood (prior version)

Indivisible Euclid (prior version)

Indivisible Lorin (prior version)

Indivisible Los Angeles (prior version)

Indivisible Manteca (prior version)

Indivisible Marin (prior version)

Indivisible Media City Burbank (prior version)

Indivisible Mendocino (prior version)

Indivisible Normal Heights (prior version)

Indivisible North Oakland Resistance (prior version)

Indivisible North San Diego County (prior version)

Indivisible OC 46 (prior version)

Indivisible OC 48 (prior version)

Indivisible Petaluma (prior version)

Indivisible Sacramento (prior version)

Indivisible San Bernardino (prior version)

Indivisible San Jose (prior version)

Indivisible San Pedro (prior version)

Indivisible Santa Barbara (prior version)

Indivisible Santa Cruz County (prior version)

Indivisible Sausalito (prior version)

Indivisible Sebastopol (prior version)

Indivisible SF (prior version)

Indivisible SF Peninsula and CA-14 (prior version)

Indivisible Sonoma County (prior version)

Indivisible South Bay LA (prior version)

Indivisible Stanislaus (prior version)

Indivisible Suffragists (prior version)

Indivisible Ventura (prior version)

Indivisible Windsor (prior version)

Indivisible Yolo (prior version)

Indivisible: San Diego Central (prior version)

Indivisibles of Sherman Oaks (prior version)

Initiate Justice (prior version)

League of Women Voters of California

Livermore Indivisible (prior version)

Los Angeles County Democratic Party (prior version)

Maplight (prior version)

Mill Valley Community Action Network (prior version)

Money Out Voters In (prior version)

Mountain Progressives (prior version)

Northern California Recycling Association

Nothing Rhymes With Orange (prior version)

Orchard City Indivisible (prior version)

Orinda Progressive Action Alliance (prior version)

Our Revolution Long Beach (prior version)

Public Citizen, Inc. (prior version)

Riseup (prior version)

Rooted in Resistance (prior version)

San Diego Indivisible Downtown (prior version)

SFV Indivisible (prior version)

South Bay Progressive Alliance (prior version)

Tehama Indivisible (prior version)

The Resistance Northridge-Indivisible (prior version)

Together We Will Contra Costa (prior version)

Together We Will/Indivisible - Los Gatos (prior version)

Vallejo-Benicia Indivisible (prior version)

Venice Resistance (prior version)

Voices for Progress (prior version)

Voters Right to Know (prior version)

Women's Alliance Los Angeles (prior version)

Yalla Indivisible (prior version)

Opposition

Election Integrity Project California (prior version)

Analysis Prepared by: Ethan Jones / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 24

Author: Umberg (D) and Allen (D), et al.

Amended: 3/30/23

Vote: 21

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 6-1, 4/18/23

AYES: Glazer, Allen, McGuire, Menjivar, Newman, Umberg

NOES: Nguyen

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/18/23

AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener

NOES: Jones, Seyarto

SUBJECT: Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill submits a proposal to voters that would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for this purpose, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

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. Provides, pursuant to the PRA as amended by Proposition 73 of 1988, that no public officer shall expend and no candidate shall accept any public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.
3. Provides that the PRA may be amended to further its purposes by statute, passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring and signed by the Governor, if at least 12 days prior to passage in each house the bill in its final form has been delivered to the FPPC for distribution to the news media and to every person who has requested the FPPC to send copies of such bills to that person.
4. Provides that the PRA may be amended or repealed by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors. The Legislature may place a PRA amendment on the ballot by majority vote in each house and signed by the Governor.

This bill:

1. Permits a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity establishes a dedicated fund for this purpose by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter, and both of the following are true:
   1. Public moneys held in the fund are available to all qualified, voluntarily participating candidates for the same office without regard to incumbency or political party preference.
   2. The state or local governmental entity has established criteria for determining a candidate’s qualification by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter.
2. Provides that no public moneys for the dedicated fund described may be taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety and does not apply to charter cities, as specified.
3. Requires the Secretary of State to submit the bill’s proposed changes to the PRA to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election.

Background

Proposition 68 and Proposition 73. Prior to 1988, there were no limits on the amount of money candidates for California state office could accept or spend. In June of 1988 however, voters approved two separate campaign finance reform initiatives: Proposition 68 and Proposition 73. The California State Supreme Court eventually ruled that because the two measures contained conflicting comprehensive regulatory schemes they could not be merged and only one could be implemented. Since Proposition 73 received more affirmative votes than Proposition 68, the Court ordered the implementation of Proposition 73 and proclaimed all the provisions of Proposition 68 invalid. In 1990, all state and local elections were conducted under the Proposition 73 limits.

Proposition 73 prohibited the use of public moneys for campaign purposes and limited the amount of contributions candidates, committees, and political parties could accept from all entities on a fiscal year basis ($1,000, $2,500, or $5,000, depending on the source), and also prohibited the transfer of campaign funds between candidates. These same provisions also applied to special elections, but were based on election cycles rather than fiscal years. The competing Proposition 68 was a more comprehensive measure consisting not only of contribution limits, but partial public financing of campaigns for candidates who agreed to an overall limit on campaign expenditures.

However, many of the provisions of Proposition 73 were ultimately found unconstitutional by the federal courts. The fiscal-year based contribution limits were deemed to discriminate against non-incumbents. The only provisions of Proposition 73 that survived legal challenge were the contribution limits for special elections, some restrictions on the type of mass mailings officeholders may send out at public expense, and the prohibition on the use of public money for campaign purposes.

The Current Ban. California and most the state’s local governments do not have the option to offer any public funding to electoral campaigns under the existing statewide ban. While charter cities are exempt under autonomy granted by the state Constitution, general law cities, counties, districts, and the state governments are covered by the current state ban. Other local governments are prohibited from offering public campaign funding, due to a provision of Proposition 73 of 1988.

Recent Legislation. In 2016, the Legislature passed and Governor Brown signed SB 1107 (Allen, Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016). Among the provisions of SB 1107, the bill permitted a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. However, courts ruled that the question must be put before the voters because an initiative, Proposition 73, put those provisions into the PRA. For the 2023-2024 legislative session, AB 270 (Lee, 2023) is nearly identical to this bill.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, currently, local jurisdictions such as counties, districts, and general law cities do not have the option to set up public fund for campaign financing, despite the policy’s popularity among voters, as voters in several charter cities have overwhelmingly approved public campaign financing measures in recent years. Unfortunately, other local governments do not have the option to enact these same policies. In 2016, bipartisan supermajorities of the legislature passed, and Governor Jerry Brown signed, SB 1107 (Allen), which would have removed the ban and given local governments and the state this option. However, the courts ruled that the question must be put before the voters. SB 24 will restore control to local governments and the state by giving counties, districts, general law cities, and the state the same option that charter cities currently have to enact public financing of campaigns.
2. Majority Vote by Legislature and Voters. As previously mentioned, the Legislature can pass amendments to the PRA with a two-thirds vote. An alternative way is to submit proposed amendments to the PRA to voters. If that latter approach is taken, as this bill does, it requires a majority vote of the Legislature, the Governor signature on the bill, and a majority approval by voters.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, one-time Secretary of State (SOS) costs in the range of $738,000 to $984,000 (General Fund), in 2024-25, for printing and mailing costs to place the measure on the ballot on the November 2024 General Election ballot. Actual costs may be higher or lower, depending on the length of required elements and the overall size of the ballot.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/19/23)

350 Silicon Valley

Affordable Housing Network

All Rise Alameda

Building the Base Face to Face

California Church IMPACT

California Clean Money Campaign

California Nurses Association/National Nurses United

CALPIRG

Change Begins With ME

Cloverdale Indivisible

Consumer Watchdog

Contra Costa MoveOn

Courage California

Defending Our Future: Indivisible in CA 52^nd District

East Valley Indivisibles

El Cerrito Progressives

Endangered Habitats League

Feminists in Action Los Angeles

Green Party of Santa Clara County

Hillcrest Indivisible

Human Agenda

Indi Squared

Indivisible 30/Keep Sherman Accountable

Indivisible 36

Indivisible 41

Indivisible Auburn CA

Indivisible Beach Cities

Indivisible CA: StateStrong

Indivisible CA-25 Simi Valley Porter Ranch

Indivisible CA-29

Indivisible CA-3

Indivisible CA-33

Indivisible CA-37

Indivisible CA-39

Indivisible CA-43

Indivisible CA-7

Indivisible Claremont/Inland Valley

Indivisible Colusa County

Indivisible East Bay

Indivisible El Dorado Hills

Indivisible Elmwood

Indivisible Euclid

Indivisible Lorin

Indivisible Los Angeles

Indivisible Manteca

Indivisible Marin

Indivisible Media City Burbank

Indivisible Mendocino

Indivisible Normal Heights

Indivisible North Oakland Resistance

Indivisible North San Diego County

Indivisible OC 46

Indivisible OC 48

Indivisible Petaluma

Indivisible Sacramento

Indivisible San Bernardino

Indivisible San Jose

Indivisible San Pedro

Indivisible Santa Barbara

Indivisible Santa Cruz County

Indivisible Sausalito

Indivisible Sebastopol

Indivisible SF

Indivisible SF Peninsula and CA-14

Indivisible Sonoma County

Indivisible South Bay LA

Indivisible Stanislaus

Indivisible Suffragists

Indivisible Ventura

Indivisible Windsor

Indivisible Yolo

Indivisible: San Diego Central

Indivisibles of Sherman Oaks

Laborers Local 270

League of Women Voters of California

Livermore Indivisible

Los Angeles County Democratic Party

Low Income Self Help Center

MapLight

Mill Valley Community Action Network

Money Out Voters In

Mountain Progressives

Nothing Rhymes With Orange

Orchard City Indivisible

Orinda Progressive Action Alliance

Our Revolution Long Beach

Public Citizen, Inc.

Represent.Us Silicon Valley

RiseUp

Rooted in Resistance

San Diego Indivisible Downtown

San Jose / Silicon Valley NAACP

San Jose Peace and Justice Center

Santa Clara County Move to Amend

Santa Clara County Single Payer Health Care Coalition

SFV Indivisible

Silicon Valley Democratic Socialists of America

South Bay Progressive Alliance

Sunrise Silicon Valley

Tehama Indivisible

The Resistance Northridge

Together We Will Contra Costa

Together We Will/Indivisible - Los Gatos

Vallejo-Benicia Indivisible

Venice Resistance

Voices for Progress

Women's Alliance Los Angeles

Yalla Indivisible

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/19/23)

Election Integrity Project California, Inc.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In a letter supporting SB 24, a coalition of organizations stated, in part, the following:

Every California jurisdiction deserves the same opportunity that charter cities have to enact systems of public financing of campaigns that work for them. For these reasons, the organizations and individuals below SUPPORT SB 24 and respectfully request your AYE vote.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In a letter opposing SB 24, Election Integrity Project California, Inc., stated, in part, the following:

SB 24 would laudably make public funds available for bona fide candidates who are at a financial and name-recognition disadvantage, BUT that benefit is cancelled out by the fact that incumbents would have equal access to those funds. This would enable them to add to their financial advantage with money they do not need. The financial differential between incumbents and candidates with special interest backing and up-and-coming challengers would remain the same.

The bill does nothing to eliminate or even reduce the influence of special interest money on politics and political campaigns.

Unless public funds are the ONLY source of campaign financing allowed, and distributed equally among all candidates meeting reasonable standards of viability, those the bill purports to incentivize and assist would be fighting the same financial disadvantage as before dipping into the public largess. There would be no change to the status quo.

Prepared by: Scott Matsumoto / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106

5/20/23 12:37:43

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 24 (Umberg) - Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing

Bill Summary:

SB 24 would submit a proposal to voters that would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for this purpose, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• One-time Secretary of State (SOS) costs in the range of $738,000 to $984,000 (General Fund), in 2024-25, for printing and mailing costs to place the measure on the ballot on the November 2024 General Election ballot. Actual costs may be higher or lower, depending on the length of required elements and the overall size of the ballot.

Background:

In 1974, California voters passed Proposition 9 (the Political Reform Act, or PRA) which created the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), and codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders, and lobbyists. The Legislature is permitted to amend the PRA, but the amendments must further the purposes of the Act and require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature. The PRA also permits amendments by submitting them to voters for approval.

In 2016, the Legislature passed SB 1107 (Allen). Among its provisions, the bill permitted a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. However, courts ruled that the question must be put before the voters, because Proposition 73 (1988) placed into the PRA the prohibition on the use of public money for campaign purposes.

Proposed Law:

This bill would do the following:

• Permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity establishes a dedicated fund for this purpose by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter, and both of the following are true: (1) public moneys held in the fund are available to all qualified, voluntarily participating candidates for the same office without regard to incumbency or political party preference, and (2) the state or local governmental entity has established criteria for determining a candidate’s qualification by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter.
• Provide that no public moneys for the dedicated fund described may be taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety and does not apply to charter cities, as specified.
• Require SOS to submit the bill’s proposed changes to the PRA to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024 General Election.

Related Legislation:

• AB 270 (Lee) is nearly identical to this bill, and is currently pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
• SB 1107 (Allen, Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016), among other things, permitted a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. Courts ruled that the question must be put before the voters.

Staff Comments:

SOS indicates that printing and mailing costs associated with placing a measure on the statewide ballot are approximately $123,000 per page, depending on the length of the ballot. The fiscal estimates noted above reflect the addition of 6-8 pages in the Voter Information Guide. Actual costs would depend upon the length of the title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Steven Glazer, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: SB Hearing Date: 4/18/23

Subject: Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing

DIGEST

This bill submits a proposal to voters that would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for this purpose, as specified.

ANALYSIS

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. Provides, pursuant to the PRA as amended by Proposition 73 of 1988, that no public officer shall expend and no candidate shall accept any public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.
3. Provides that the PRA may be amended to further its purposes by statute, passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring and signed by the Governor, if at least 12 days prior to passage in each house the bill in its final form has been delivered to the commission for distribution to the news media and to every person who has requested the FPPC to send copies of such bills to that person.
4. Provides that the PRA may be amended or repealed by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors. The Legislature may place a PRA amendment on the ballot by majority vote in each house and signed by the Governor.

This bill:

1. Permits a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity establishes a dedicated fund for this purpose by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter, and both of the following are true:
   1. Public moneys held in the fund are available to all qualified, voluntarily participating candidates for the same office without regard to incumbency or political party preference.
   2. The state or local governmental entity has established criteria for determining a candidate’s qualification by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter.
2. Provides that no public moneys for the dedicated fund described may be taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety and does not apply to charter cities, as specified.
3. Requires the Secretary of State to submit the bill’s proposed changes to the PRA to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election.

BACKGROUND

Political Reform Act of 1974. In 1974, California voters passed Proposition 9, an initiative commonly known as the PRA. Proposition 9 created the FPPC and codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders, and lobbyists. The Legislature is permitted to amend the PRA, but the amendments must further the purposes of the PRA and requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature. The PRA also permits amendments to the PRA by submitting them to voters for approval.

Proposition 68 and Proposition 73. Prior to 1988 there were no limits on the amount of money candidates for California state office could accept or spend. In June of 1988 however, voters approved two separate campaign finance reform initiatives: Proposition 68 and Proposition 73. The California State Supreme Court eventually ruled that because the two measures contained conflicting comprehensive regulatory schemes they could not be merged and only one could be implemented. Since Proposition 73 received more affirmative votes than Proposition 68, the Court ordered the implementation of Proposition 73 and proclaimed all the provisions of Proposition 68 invalid. In 1990, all state and local elections were conducted under the Proposition 73 limits.

Proposition 73 prohibited the use of public moneys for campaign purposes and limited the amount of contributions candidates, committees, and political parties could accept from all entities on a fiscal year basis ($1,000, $2,500, or $5,000, depending on the source), and also prohibited the transfer of campaign funds between candidates. These same provisions also applied to special elections, but were based on election cycles rather than fiscal years. The competing Proposition 68 was a more comprehensive measure consisting not only of contribution limits, but partial public financing of campaigns for candidates who agreed to an overall limit on campaign expenditures.

Many of the provisions of Proposition 73 however, were ultimately found unconstitutional by the federal courts. The fiscal-year based contribution limits were deemed to discriminate against non-incumbents. The only provisions of Proposition 73 that survived legal challenge were the contribution limits for special elections, some restrictions on the type of mass mailings officeholders may send out at public expense, and the prohibition on the use of public money for campaign purposes.

Proposition 131 of 1990. Proposition 131, an initiative measure which garnered only 37.75% of the vote in November 1990 would have, among other numerous provisions, provided partial public campaign financing for candidates to state office who agree to specified campaign expenditure limits. However, it should be noted that this measure also contained a term limits proposal that term limits advocates opposed because it was less restrictive than the competing Proposition 140, which was approved by the voters.

Proposition 25 of 2000. Proposition 25, an initiative measure which received only 34.7% of the vote in March of 2000 would have, among other numerous provisions, provided public financing of campaign media advertisements and voter information packets for qualifying candidates and ballot measure committees.

Proposition 89 of 2006. Proposition 89, which appeared on the November 7, 2006 General Election ballot, was rejected by the voters by an almost 3-1 margin. Proposition 89 would have enacted a “clean money” system of campaign financing. Under “clean money,” participating candidates would qualify for large amounts of public funds to expend on their campaigns once they collect a threshold amount of small ($5) qualifying contributions. Once qualified, candidates could not raise or spend campaign funds from any other source other than the “clean money” (with limited exceptions). Proposition 89 also lowered the current limit on contributions that non-participating candidates may accept and placed restrictions on direct corporate contributions to initiative campaigns. Proposition 89 would have funded the “clean money” system by raising roughly $200 million per year through an increase in the current income tax on corporations and specified financial institutions.

Proposition 15 of 2010. AB 583 (Hancock), Chapter 735, Statutes of 2008, which was often described as a pared down version of Proposition 89, was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger and appeared on the June of 2010 Primary Election ballot as Proposition 15. While it fared better than Proposition 89, it was nevertheless defeated 57.3% to 42.7%. Proposition 15 would have created a pilot project whereby qualifying candidates for Secretary of State could have received public campaign funds for the 2014 and 2018 elections if they agreed not to accept most private contributions. Funding would have come from a hefty increase in the filing fees for lobbyists and their employers. State courts in Arizona and Vermont had invalidated lobbyist fees that were used to fund public financing programs similar to this one. Prior to the election, lobbyists’ lawyers filed suit in both state and federal court but in both instances, the courts held that the issue was not yet ripe for review since Proposition 15 had yet to be approved by the voters. With the defeat at the polls, the lawsuit was dropped.

The Current Ban. California and most the state’s local governments do not have the option to offer any public funding to electoral campaigns under the existing statewide ban. While charter cities are exempt under autonomy granted by the state Constitution, general law cities, counties, districts, and the state governments are covered by the current state ban. Additionally, after voters in Sacramento County enacted public financing several years ago, the courts struck it down under Proposition 73. Proponents of these programs describe them as intended to provide candidates with an alternative to relying on large campaign contributions and amplify the voices of Californians who make small donations. Other local governments are prohibited from offering public campaign funding, due to a provision of Proposition 73 of 1988.

Recent Legislation. In 2016, the Legislature passed and Governor Brown signed SB 1107 (Allen), Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016. Among the provisions of SB 1107, the bill permitted a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. However, courts ruled that the question must be put before the voters because an initiative, Proposition 73, put those provisions into the PRA.

COMMENTS

1. According to the author: Currently, local jurisdictions such as counties, districts, and general law cities do not have the option to set up public fund for campaign financing, despite the policy’s popularity among voters, as voters in several charter cities have overwhelmingly approved public campaign financing measures in recent years. Unfortunately, other local governments do not have the option to enact these same policies. In 2016, bipartisan supermajorities of the legislature passed, and Governor Jerry Brown signed, SB 1107 (Allen), which would have removed the ban and given local governments and the state this option. However, the courts ruled that the question must be put before the voters. SB 24 will restore control to local governments and the state by giving counties, districts, general law cities, and the state the same option that charter cities currently have to enact public financing of campaigns.
2. Majority Vote by Legislature and Voters. As previously mentioned, the Legislature can pass amendments to the PRA with a two-thirds vote. An alternative way is to submit proposed amendments to the PRA to voters. If that latter approach is taken, as this bill does, it requires a majority vote of the Legislature, the Governor signature on the bill, and a majority approval by voters.
3. Argument in Support. In a letter supporting SB 24, a coalition of organizations stated, in part, the following:

SB 24 will allow voters to ratify the will of the legislature and restore control to local governments and the state by placing a measure on the November 2024 ballot to repeal the ban on campaign public financing while requiring that no public moneys be used that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.

Public moneys used would be required to come from a dedicated fund that must be available to all qualified, voluntarily participating candidates for the same office without regard to incumbency or political party preference, and following criteria established for qualification by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter.

Every California jurisdiction deserves the same opportunity that charter cities have to enact systems of public financing of campaigns that work for them. For these reasons, the organizations and individuals below SUPPORT SB 24 and respectfully request your AYE vote.

1. Argument in Opposition. In a letter opposing SB 24, Election Integrity Project California, Inc., stated, in part, the following:

SB 24 would laudably make public funds available for bona fide candidates who are at a financial and name-recognition disadvantage, BUT that benefit is cancelled out by the fact that incumbents would have equal access to those funds. This would enable them to add to their financial advantage with money they do not need. The financial differential between incumbents and candidates with special interest backing and up-and-coming challengers would remain the same.

The bill does nothing to eliminate or even reduce the influence of special interest money on politics and political campaigns.

Unless public funds are the ONLY source of campaign financing allowed, and distributed equally among all candidates meeting reasonable standards of viability, those the bill purports to incentivize and assist would be fighting the same financial disadvantage as before dipping into the public largess. There would be no change to the status quo.

RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION

AB 270 (Lee) of 2023 is nearly identical to this bill. AB 270 is currently awaiting consideration in the Assembly Committee on Elections.

SB 1107 (Allen), Chapter 837, Statutes of 2016, among the provisions of SB 1107, the bill permitted a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for that purpose. Courts ruled that the question must be put before the voters.

POSITIONS

Sponsor: California Clean Money Campaign

Support: All Rise Alameda
Building the Base Face to Face
California Church IMPACT
Calpirg, California Public Interest Research Group
Change Begins With ME
Cloverdale Indivisible
Consumer Watchdog
Contra Costa MoveOn
Courage California
Defending Our Future: Indivisible in CA 52^nd District
East Valley Indivisibles
El Cerrito Progressives
Endangered Habitats League
Feminists in Action Los Angeles
Hillcrest Indivisible
Indi Squared
Indivisible 30/Keep Sherman Accountable
Indivisible 36
Indivisible 41
Indivisible Auburn CA
Indivisible Beach Cities

Indivisible CA-3

Indivisible CA-7
Indivisible CA-25 Simi Valley Porter Ranch
Indivisible CA-29
Indivisible CA-33
Indivisible CA-37
Indivisible CA-39
Indivisible CA-43
Indivisible CA: StateStrong
Indivisible Claremont/Inland Valley
Indivisible Colusa County
Indivisible East Bay
Indivisible El Dorado Hills
Indivisible Elmwood
Indivisible Euclid
Indivisible Lorin
Indivisible Los Angeles
Indivisible Manteca
Indivisible Marin
Indivisible Media City Burbank
Indivisible Mendocino
Indivisible Normal Heights
Indivisible North Oakland Resistance
Indivisible North San Diego County
Indivisible OC 46
Indivisible OC 48
Indivisible Petaluma
Indivisible Sacramento
Indivisible San Bernardino
Indivisible San Jose
Indivisible San Pedro
Indivisible Santa Barbara
Indivisible Santa Cruz County
Indivisible Sausalito
Indivisible Sebastopol
Indivisible SF
Indivisible SF Peninsula and CA-14
Indivisible Sonoma County
Indivisible South Bay LA
Indivisible Stanislaus
Indivisible Suffragists
Indivisible Ventura
Indivisible Windsor
Indivisible Yolo
Indivisible: San Diego Central
Indivisibles of Sherman Oaks
League of Women Voters of California
Livermore Indivisible
MapLight
Mill Valley Community Action Network
Money Out Voters In
Mountain Progressives
Nothing Rhymes With Orange
Orchard City Indivisible
Orinda Progressive Action Alliance
Our Revolution Long Beach
Public Citizen, Inc.
RiseUp
Rooted in Resistance
San Diego Indivisible Downtown
SFV Indivisible
Tehama Indivisible
The Resistance Northridge
Together We Will Contra Costa
Together We Will/Indivisible - Los Gatos
Vallejo-Benicia Indivisible
Venice Resistance
Voices for Progress
Women's Alliance Los Angeles
Yalla Indivisible

Oppose: Election Integrity Project California, Inc.

-- END --