Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

For the purpose of this hearing, we are accepting witness testimony in person, and we are also accepting written testimony through the Legislature's position letter portal. That portal can be accessed through the Committee's website at AELC.assembly.com. The Committee has eight bills on its agenda. There are two bills on consent. When we hear the bills on the agenda, we will hear from a maximum of two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition of the Bill, with a limit of two minutes per witness.

Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, their organization they represent, if any, and their position on the Bill. Additional comments will be ruled out of order. Before we move on to the agenda, I have an additional announcements to make. I have a letter from Speaker Reavis appointing Assemblymember Reggie Jones Sawyer to replace Assemblymember Akilah Weber on the Committee for the purpose of today's hearing only. Assemblymember Jones Sawyer welcome and thank you for being here.

Additionally, I have a letter from Speaker Revas appointing Assemblymember Juan Alanis to replace Assemblymember Bill Essayli on the Committee for the purpose of today's hearing only, and we will welcome him when he gets here. Also, Rules Committee has determined that the fiscal implications of AB 2990 low should be analyzed in the Appropriations Committee despite the Bill being keyed non fiscal. Accordingly, AB 2990 will be sent to the Appropriations Committee if it passes this Committee.

With those announcements out of the way, we will now move on to the Committee's agenda. Of course, we are starting as a Subcommittee and we will now go ahead and take up our first Bill. It's in sign-in order, so we have AB-3239 by Wendy Carrillo. You may begin when you're ready. Thanks.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members, Happy Denim Day. Today I am proud to present AB-3239, which permits campaign funds to be used to pay or reimburse airline travel expenses related to an emotional support animal belonging to and traveling with an individual whose travel is already authorized to be paid using campaign funds. According to the National Institute of Health, there is increasing recognition of the therapeutic functions pets can play in relation to mental health. The presence of an emotional support animal can cause calming effects to an individual's work, school, and home, and overall health.

The Bill defines an emotional support animal to mean an animal that provides emotional, cognitive, and other similar support to an individual with a disability. In 2020, the United States Department of Transportation announced that it was revising it's Air Carrier Access Act regulation on the transportation of service animals by air. There is no opposition to this Bill, and I respectfully request and aye vote.

Any witnesses in support? Anybody in the room? Any witnesses in opposition?

Okay, before we move on, we want to go ahead and establish a quorum. So, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call] We have a quorum.

Wonderful. We'll now bring the Bill back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? We got a motion and a second. Assemblymember, you may close.

Respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

So I'd like to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward for discussion. I believe emotional support animals truly contribute to a person's well-being and play a vital role in one's health. And I am recommending a support position on this Bill. Madam Secretary, go ahead and call the roll.

The motion is do-pass. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out 5-0. Thank you so much.

The motion is do pass to consent calendar. Does any Member wish to remove an item from the consent calendar seeing and hearing? None. Do we have a motion on move by Assemblymember Lackey and seconded by Assemblymember Jones Sawyer? Madam Secretary, please call the roll. [Roll Call] Consent calendar is out. Thank you very much. We'll now move on to our next author which is AB 2724 by Assembly.

We'll now move on to our next author, which is AB-2724 by Assemblymember Reyes. You may begin when ready, thanks.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I'm presenting to AB-2724 to provide high school students in California the opportunity and the resources to pre-register to vote by the end of the 11th grade. Every election cycle, we discuss how low voter turnout from all across California is affecting our civic engagement. Unfortunately, millions of Californians pass up on this opportunity to exercise their democratic right to vote every election.

One critical strategy we can employ to address this is by ensuring that Californians who are eligible to vote are registered to do so. Voter preregistration is an excellent tool that makes it possible for 16 and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote so that upon their 18th birthday, they are automatically registered voters. However, currently, only 11% of 16 and 17-year-olds in California are actually pre-registered to vote.

By focusing on our youth and bringing the resources to them at their high schools, we can ensure more Californians, especially young Californians, are voting and developing the habit of doing so at an early age. Civic engagement is invaluable, which is why we need AB-2724, the High School Voter Registration Act, so more voices can be heard at the polls on election day. Here to testify in support of the Bill are Vivian Esparza and John Haro.

Both are youth leaders from the Inland Empire and are with our co-sponsors, the Inland Congregations United for Change.

Yes. You each have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Vivian Esparza and my pronouns are she/her. I'm a Voter Engagement Student Organizer with Inland Congregations United for Change, also known as ICUC, and I attend Cajon High School. Today, I am testifying in favor of AB-2724.

As we know, the electoral process plays a significant part in upholding our democratic system. Consistent elections for citizens to vote are the reason we are functioning as a nation. Voting allows citizens to hold their elected officials accountable and to gain insight into the needs of their constituents. As a low-income youth in my community, I can confidently say that we have a diverse population of various backgrounds, ethnicities, and most notably, age groups.

While it's true that youth is our nation's future, it is evident that we need to be more adequately equipped to participate in the election process of our great State of California. AB-2724 will give students like me the opportunity to take the initiative in a process that often seems too mature and overwhelming. Personally, I had the privilege of voting in the last primary election. This was such a formative experience because I was able to be the instrument to communicate my undocumented parent's voice.

By using my lived experience, I was not only able to participate in the democratic process, but also experience a sense of empowerment and solidarity for my community, beginning with my family. This Bill, if implemented, could further strengthen these bonds of solidarity and community, creating a long-term impact that transcends generationally. This Bill would also ensure that high schools across California are required to provide students with information on how to pre-register to vote at least once before the end of their 11th grade.

This measure is crucial in providing equal opportunities for all students, regardless of their background or circumstances. We believe that this will help so many students like myself become pre-registered to vote, empowering them to participate in future elections just like I was able to in this past election. Thank you for your time.

Hello, Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Arturo, community organizer with ICUC. John wasn't able to join us today, so I'll be reading his testimony on his behalf.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is John Haro and I'm a Senior at Arroyo Valley High School in San Bernardino. I am here today to discuss the importance of AB-2724. AB-2724 seeks to increase voter registration among young people in California. By enlightening students on their voting rights and pre-registering them to vote. AB-2724 is a Bill that will empower and form a culture where students are actively able to be involved in shaping their own future.

I grew up in an immigrant household where my parents did not have the opportunity to educate me and my siblings about our rights as U.S. citizens. Growing up without the knowledge of voting, which is a God-given right, is not only a predicament that I suffer from. Young adults aged 18 through 34 make up 31% of the population in California, but only 18% are likely to be voters.

Youth not just in San Bernardino, but across the states, suffer from the lack of voting literacy, either for being told that their vote doesn't matter, or growing up in an environment where voting doesn't matter. My friend Sarah Mendez was told her whole childhood through the means of her religion she shouldn't get involved in politics yet alone voting. This fixed mindset influences a culture that diminishes youth's sense of empowerment and instead adds to the already existing lack of voting literacy.

Our voting literacy isn't only construed by our upbringings, but by the environment we are placed in. Although we live in a nation built off of democracy, it is driven by social media, where misinformation is a deceptive tactic used to uneducate and unsuspecting voters. This misinformation is embedded into society, creating a social norm where people who know very little are persuaded by manipulative means.

This policy would inform students of the facts and allow them to come to their own conclusions, give students the opportunity to vote and understand that their vote matters, which will create a culture of healthy voter literacy. AB-2724 will form a culture where all students will be given the opportunity to know their rights, equip students with the information that they need and resources to understand their participation affects democratic activities.

Thus, supporting AB-2724 is not only a step towards teaching students about their civic duties, but also an investment in the future of the democracy of California. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses in the room who would like to register their support for the Bill? If so, please come on up. It's your name, any organization you represent, and your position.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Power California Action. We're a co-sponsor of the measure and in strong support.

Anyone else? Is there anybody in the room who is a primary witness in opposition to the Bill? Anybody who wants to register their opposition to the Bill? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to thank the students and the young individuals who have testified here today to make time out of your busy schedules for us to acknowledge the important work and the potential that you have and hope that we'll continue in supporting the efforts that you have. As you may know, the State of California, we have supported proposals to allow 17-and-a-half-year-olds to vote in elections.

This is clearly in consistency to help engage younger voters so that we have lifelong voters as well too. So I thank very much the author, and we'll make a motion in support. Thank you.

Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer.

Well, and I applaud this. And I also hope at some point, those of us that are long in the tooth, remember it was a time where it was mandatory that you had to have civics classes.

And I still think it's important that we need, and it's probably through the education Committee, we need to get back to that, because I think that also helped not only for young people to understand the process, but why they need to vote for certain people and what they do. Cause I find some people don't know, especially young people. I know adults that don't know the difference between a California Secretary of State, the US Secretary of State, and what the secretary that works in their office does.

They need to be able to understand the full process. And I think they'll be more engaged to vote if they understand what these individuals do. And it's unfortunate that a lot of us don't even know who our council person is, who our Assembly person. They don't even know what Assembly person does. They probably think we assemble things.

And so I think it's really, really important that we also come up with a develop a plan to reengage young people in civics so they learn how this, not only how the process works, but what these actual individuals do. And I thank you, and we'll be voting for this today.

Any other comments? Assemblymember Lackey.

I don't know how long my tooth is, but I've been around a while. I will say that back when I was in high school, which was several decades ago, I was sent to a program called Presidential Classroom for Young Americans. I was sent to Washington, DC for three days. I never imagined that I would actually be in a Legislature myself, but it did introduce me to civic engagement and it got me excited about governance. And so those kind of things, you just never know what it can lead to. So it is very important to support early registration.

And I try to visit high schools in my district to try to encourage these juniors and seniors to become active and become part of the process. And it is very exciting to see that many of them are actually now starting to consider becoming engaged in our civic process. And I feel that this is the only thing that's going to give our country hope, because soon you guys will be running this country one way or another. So we look forward to that. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none from the Committee Members. Assemblymember, you may close.

Well, I want to thank you all for the words of support, especially for our youth. I appreciate that they are here today to provide testimony. This is an important step, making sure that they're pre-registered and on their 18th birthday, they are registered voters. And by that time, they will have spent a little bit of time on civic engagement. And maybe we'll send them all to DC, to this President's Council. But with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And do I have a motion? We had a motion by Mr. Low. Mr. Low moved and was it Vice Chair Lackey? Seconded. Okay. And so I'd like to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. As we know, youth voters are the least likely age group to participate in elections. I'm thrilled to see you both here today.

It's very exciting seeing young people come and testify, and there's a clear connection between civic engagement and voter participation. That's why I also have a Bill to help educate and engage young voters. And in my past life as County Clerk, I did a lot of voter registration and outreach at high schools, and it was always very inspiring seeing our future leaders and registering to vote. I'd be honored to be a co-author if you'll have me.

I would love that.

And for these reasons, I'm recommending a support position. Madam Secretary, go ahead and call the roll.

The motion is do-pass and be rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill will be on call for our absent Members, but thank you so much.

Thank you.

We'll now move on to our next author in the room, we have AB-2911 by Assemblymember Mckinnor. You may begin when you're ready. Good morning. Happy denim day.

Madam Chair and Members, I would like to start by letting you guys know that I will continue to work with the opposition on this Bill. AB-2911 will discourage the use of dark money in local election and ease significant financial burdens on local governments by revising the Levine Act's arbitrarily low contribution limit, a limit that has not been changed in 35 years.

Current law severely limits a local candidate's ability to run a competitive campaign, communicate directly with voters, and has resulted in an increase in the use of non-candidate-controlled independent expenditures financed with dark money. A 2021 study published in the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics concluded that policies that set low contribution limits reduce the concentration of political power in the hands of richer individuals.

Additionally, in just the past two years, compliance with SB-1439 has cost local governments millions of dollars, resources that would be better spent supporting local public safety programs, infrastructure, or efforts to address California's housing and homelessness crisis. Here to testify in support of AB-2911 is Jennifer Perez, President of California Contract Cities Association and Mayor of the City of Norwalk, and Dylan Elliott, on behalf of Fresno County. Thank you.

Each will have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you and good morning, distinguished Members of the Assembly Committee on Elections. As said, I am Jennifer Perez, Councilmember from the City of Norwalk and Incoming President for the California Contract Cities Association, CCCA for short. It is an honor to be here today to speak in support of AB-2911 by Assemblymember Mckinnor. CCCA is an association comprised of 80 municipalities throughout Southern California. Advocating for our member cities and 8 million residents.

Since 1957, CCCA has been dedicated to promoting the interests of our cities and residents. And today I'm proud to continue that tradition. AB-2911 seeks to increase the Levine Act from $250 to $1500. This increase is crucial as today's low limits disproportionately impacts candidates with limited financial stabilities, creating new barriers for low-income residents should they want to run for office. Meanwhile, wealthier candidates can easily self-finance their campaigns, circumventing these limits.

This disparity undermines the principles of fairness and equality in our electoral process. There ought to be equal opportunity for all qualifying California residents to run for office if they wish to do so. Notably, CCCA is generally supportive of responsible campaign finance reforms. For elected officials at both the state and local levels. However, we do not fill the current limits established by the Levine Act offer such framework. Instead, current policies have inadvertently created more opportunities for dark money in local politics.

Contributions that would typically go to a candidate's campaign. Are now more likely to be redirected to independent expenditures and other third party campaigns. Making the money extremely hard to follow. Upping the contribution limits to $1,500 would not only promote more direct contributions, but the policy change would also increase transparency and accountability in campaign financing and strengthen democracy. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Next witness, please. Two minutes, please.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Committee Members. Dylan Elliott here speaking with you on behalf of Fresno County. I want to first and foremost, thank you for the opportunity to speak. Keep my comments brief. Obviously, as mentioned by the author, one of the challenges that has been experienced as a result of SB-1439 is increased staff time and barriers for administrative purposes that have led to an increased cost. Additionally, the legislation limits candidates from elected offices from receiving a certain level of funding.

That may be essential to the success of their campaigns and may further inhibit qualified individuals from seeking public office. These levels of restriction promote inaction and reluctance to support candidates that may move projects forward for the greater benefit of the community. And as I said, in addition, this legislation has increased staff time dedicated to tracking requirements and information, and increasing this quality could certainly help the county out. So thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you so much. Is there anybody in the room who would like to register their position in support of the Bill? You could step up to the mic and give us your name and organization, please.

Good morning. Sylvia Ferrara, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. In support. Thank you.

McKay Carney, on behalf of Los Angeles County. In support.

Karen Stout, on behalf of Power California Action. In support.

Mike Monaghan, on behalf of State Building Trades. In support.

Thank you so much. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? If there are, step on up and you have two minutes to make your testimony.

Good morning, Chair Pellerin and Members. I'm Kevin Wolf, Chair of the California Clean Money Action Fund. I speak to you joining common cause and strong opposition to AB-2911 as written. Two years ago, the Legislature and nearly all of you passed SB-1439 to extend California's longstanding Levine Act pay-to-play protections to local elected officials.

You properly voted to stop developers, city contractors, and other special interests from giving more than $250 to local elected officials presiding over the permits and contracts. In doing so, you took a strong stance against the appearance of corruption in local politics. Most of your constituents probably think 250 is too much, and that's why a number of cities actually completely ban the contributions from developers and city contractors to elected officials that are presiding over those decisions. And that's why we.

Although we appreciate the author's recent amendments, we must ask you to reject AB-2911 because it would invalidate your votes on SB-1439 and make the Levine Act completely moot in most cities. For example, Mountain View has $1,000 limit. Santa Clara has $630 limit. San Diego has a $750 limit. Oxnard has a $500 limit. And this would increase the threshold six times from $250 to $1,500.

The California Legislature and you yourself showed great resolve by voting to support SB-1439. Voting now to gut it, and the rest of the Levine Act, by exploding the threshold to $1,500, would risk taking away the confidence that each of you gave to voters that the Legislature would care about limiting pay-to-play.

While we support indexing $250 contributions to inflation, we ask that, except for that change, that you stand by your previous vote on SB-1439 and please reject the appearance of corruption in local governments by rejecting AB-2911 as written. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair and Members, I'm Laurel Brodzinsky, on behalf of California Common Cause, respectfully in opposition. We were a strong supporter of SB-1439, Glazer, which extended Levine Act's provisions to local elected officials.

And while we do appreciate the author's amendments that greatly reduced the scope of this Bill, we do still think that the threshold is too high, but recognize that it hasn't been changed since the Levine Act was passed in the 1980s, and so do think that there's some room to work on a potential increase, but just believe that the 1,500 is too high, but are hoping to continue those discussions in the future.

Anybody else in the room who's in opposition that wants to register your name and organization, please step up to the mic.

Good morning, Committee. Chanel Freeman, on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California. In respectful opposition.

Anyone else in the room? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Berman.

Couple of questions. So hypothetical. So if I'm remodeling my house and a neighbor complains and files an appeal on something, and then my project goes in front of the City Council, does that trigger the Levine Act? And does that mean that I can only make contributions up to whatever is allowed under the Levine Act? Maybe that's too technical.

That might be too technical, but I would assume, yes. I would assume that would be a trigger.

Is that something that goes in front of the elected body, right?

Yes.

And so, the Levine act was adopted in 1982?

Yes.

And it was $250. It was set in 1982. And if I apologize, I walked in the middle of your presentation. Thank you for being here. You were talking through the different contribution limits of different communities. But those would still apply, right? The contribution limits in those communities override the Levene Act?

I don't think so.

I don't think so.

No. I don't think so.

My understanding from the staff analysis is that if there's a local contribution limit, then that applies. And so even if we pass this Bill that allows for $1,500, which I think is too high, and I'll get to that in a minute. Go ahead, please.

The cities and counties still have the right to lower it.

Right.

Not to make it higher, but they do have the right to lower it. Yes. If the city is in counties.

Right. So the city has a $500 contribution limit, then that still applies no matter what. And nobody can. And this won't change that.

Right. They can't go above the $1,500, but they could stay under it.

Right. And then the city could, yeah, exactly. Let me know if you disagree with that analysis. But that's my answer.

I'm not sure, but I think that's correct.

Okay, so cities still have local control.

Yes.

And if cities still want to establish lower limits, they still have the ability to do that. 250 was established in 82. I now see here. Thank you very much that that would be about $800 today. So what I would encourage the author to do, I'm going to support the Bill to sort of as a courtesy vote to keep the conversation going. I think 250 if a neighbor of mine appeals a project. And that's my understanding and love to hear more after this if folks disagree.

But my understanding is if a project comes before an elected body, that triggers the Levine Act. And so I think 250 that was set in 82 is too low. I think 1500 is probably too high. I think there's, I'm getting a dirty look. I like the idea of saying, hey, what was like $250 in 1980 dollars is x, is 18, or is 800? Maybe you do a little higher. Maybe you do a little lower. And so that, I think, is sort of a sweet spot that I hope you will work towards.

Well, I have made a commitment to continue to work with the opposition. I'm not a Member that necessarily negotiates a Bill in Committee. But I will definitely continue to work with the opposition on this because, you know, we want to come to a conclusion where everyone's happy. But really and truly, my, my fear is the dark money.

My fear is that when you have those limits so low that outside sources can come into the cities, which is happening in my district, come into the city, especially when I'm looking at my school boards and they could come into the city and they could just put in whatever. Because if we're going to really talk about cleaning up money in politics, we have to clean up independent expenditures.

Because then my mother that wants to, that's in the PTA that wants to run from school for school board, if her views are not where people want, outside forces want them to be, she can't win because they could come in and put in a lot of money on that independent expenditure side.

I hear you. So I worry a little bit about how kind of normal people that are just doing projects on their homes, which we support and want to happen, can get caught up in this and all of a sudden have, have what I think is an arbitrarily Low limit that was established in 1982 and hasn't been increased since then. I also really want to discourage people from talking about play-to-play corruption in politics.

Like, if that exists, then that should be identified and prosecuted. But that is not the case. People throw those accusations around, and I think that, frankly lowers people's perception of government officials when that might not be warranted. I get contributions all the time and I vote the opposite way of how those folks want all the time. I did it when I was on the City Council, I do it in the State Assembly, I report it. It's all public.

And so, you know, I agree that limits are important. Let's not kind of accuse everybody who takes any contribution of being corrupt. And, you know, appreciate the author's commitment to keep working on this because I think increasing the limit makes sense. I think this is too high right now. I think 250 is too low. And appreciate you continuing to work with folks to, you know, tying it to CPI from 82.

There's some simple logic in that and it's something that is sort of hard to argue with, I think, from a logical standpoint. So I'm going to vote for the Bill today. Really appreciate you continuing to work out the details.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Any other comments? Any questions? Assemblymember Low.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. For the opposition, continue on a little bit from the commentary from Mr. Berman. Is the opposition on the actual number of the mount, from the 250 to the number of the 1500 in your testimony? Or it sounded more about that the opposition was such that there's a corrosive nature to money. So fundamentally, it's just the principle of campaign contributions and elections point blank.

I think we might have slightly different views depending on which organization. California Clean Money Campaign or California Common Cause. California Common Cause is willing to work on an adjustment to the threshold.

As are we. But it is an appearance of corruption. So it's not just, it's not gonna be corrupting for a lot of folks, but it can appear to everybody that's on a significant amount of money that's being provided to somebody who's going to oversee a contract and oversee an agreement, and we don't need an appearance any more appearance of corruption that's already going on and on dark money.

If you really want to swamp the thing in dark money, $1,500 isn't a big deal. You'll just put in $10,000 and run right over it, and you still run a dark money campaign. So I don't think this is a protection against dark money. It's a protection against appearance that people are directly investing in a Legislator by making a large contribution, way larger than most of the cities that we have. And so that, I think it's an appearance problem.

The question that I would have then, following that argument, is about the accountability effort then. On a contribution to a candidate. This is publicly disclosed and there is accountability for that candidate to own up to the appearance because there's ownership. But similarly, this Committee has also seen that the concept of a leaky bucket and you plug one hole, then the money goes elsewhere, would go to an independent expenditure without that accountability. Do you agree with that assessment?

Yes, except the local papers are not covering things. And so you don't even know that this is going on. But the candidate knows they got the money, but the public doesn't know because we're not informing the public about this level of detail much anymore.

So if from clean money campaign, is that right?

Yes

If you acknowledge the fact that then that is true, that there's accountability from the candidate whereas there's not the accountability from the independent expenditure, wouldn't you prefer the accountability for the candidate versus that of an independent expenditure where there's no accountability?

I'd like to have the power of very wealthy interest not overwhelming the ability for the public to oppose a project because it's very difficult to run an election without money. And $1,500 is a lot of money in a lot of cities. And you can get all kinds of money in through these projects. And it overwhelms the ability for the opposition to be able to run a campaign when so much money is coming in from the contractors and the developers into the candidates coffers.

Sorry, I'm just trying to follow that because I share the concept of the organization and the efforts. But given the realities of Citizens United that we are in, we're construed by the realities that exist.

We're on the disclosed act. It should be disclosed. If they're not disclosing in their ads and their advertising that they're not, who's paying for them, then the threshold that triggers the disclosure needs be done. And so that we have a lower disclosure rate, so that we know. But right now it's not known.

Sure. Thank you. And just to conclude, I would much prefer the accountability from the individual rather than zero accountability from an independent expenditure. Understanding the restraints that we're currently in, that there's greater accountability from an individual who accepts and reports versus that. And so if there's conversation about the distinction between the individual versus independent expenditure versus that of the threshold of the actual number we're talking about. But it sounds like conceptually, as opposed to that of money in elections itself. But unfortunately, that is the reality that we're in. But I just want to get clarification on the position.

Presently, the candidates have more accountability because the money is coming to them than if it goes into dark money and the public does not know where that money is coming from.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Sure.

I will say, I totally appreciate your concern about the influence of money in politics. I personally would love to see us investigate more seriously a public financing of campaigns, but until we do that, we have this. So I think everybody's sort of philosophically aligned, just disagreeing on some of these details, which happens.

Any other questions or comments from Committee Members on this Bill? We'll take a motion from Assemblymember Alanis, but we'll let Assemblymember Mckinnor close, please.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. So, we have a motion by Assemblymember Alanis. Do we have a second? Second by Vice Chair Lackey. And certainly thank you to the author for bringing this Bill forward. California has strong campaign finance laws that ensure robust campaign disclosure. And although I wasn't in office when the Legislature approved SB-1439 in 2022, the passage of that Bill significantly strengthened California's campaign finance lawsuit.

And as is often the case with major changes in state law, the implementation of SB-1439 has created some significant, unanticipated challenges for those who are subject to this Bill. And just a reminder that the cities still have the ability to have that lower limit if that's what best meets the needs of that city.

And we've spoken to the author as well as far as working with the opposition to come up with that exact threshold number that works for everybody and keeping it maybe closer to the adjusted inflation rate from, what was it, 1982. But today, I'm supporting this Bill and keep that conversation going, and between the author and the relevant stakeholders about ways to address those compliance challenges in SB-1439. So I'm recommending a support position.

Madam Secretary, you may call the roll.

On AB-2911 by Mckinnor. The motion is do-pass. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out 6-0, but we'll leave the roll open for our absent Members. Thank you so much. Okay, we'll move on to our next author in the room. We've got Assemblymember Valencia, with AB-2803.

You may begin when you're ready. Welcome. You've got your denim on, too.

I do, I do. It's denim day, right?

Yes.

Excited. Buenos Dias, Madam Chair. And Members just want to start by thanking the Committee for their Diligence on this Bill. We went back and forth a couple times and I think we found a good working foundation. AB 2803 restricts the use of campaign funds for candidates and elected officials when they have been convicted of public crimes or fraud. If a candidate or elected official uses campaign funds in defense of these charges and is convicted, they must reimburse the campaign account.

Campaign donors expect their contributions to be used to support their candidate or elected official, but currently, law lacks clarity when funds are used for dishonorable legal cases. Campaign funds for legal cases have been used in a number of high profile cases throughout the state's history, whether it's at the Legislature or even most recently back home in Anaheim. These elected officials not only betrayed the public's trust, but also undermined the donor integrity by using these donations to fight immoral charges while in public office.

Candidates are already prohibited from running for office if they have been convicted of public crimes. So in my opinion, there's no reason why they should be allowed to spend campaign funds on acts that they have done and been convicted of. It's my belief that if you're an elected office, it's your responsibility to own up to the actions and the votes that you take.

And if you do something that's immoral or wrong, depending on the crimes that are listed in this Bill, you should have to pay in terms of the financial and legal component through your own means. With me to provide testimony today is Mister Bill Mitchell, lawyer and longtime Orange County good government advocate.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Fellow Members. As Assemblyman lynch just said, I've been. I'm a practicing lawyer, very, very involved in good government initiatives in Orange County. It may surprise some of you that Orange County has been a leader in good government initiatives, everything from campaign finance reform, gift ban ordinance, code of ethics, and then we were a laggard. But we did finally adopt a campaign finance and ethics Committee, and the person I worked with was a woman named Shirley Grendel.

She's been a steadfast good government advocate, and I've had the pleasure of being her wingman and Robin to her Batman for over 30 years. And it's a privilege today to be here with Assemblymember Valencia in support of AB 2803. The wisdom of this legislation seems self evident and closes a hole in the law that seems to have been unintended.

Both voters and campaign donors do not and should not expect that campaign contributions should be used for legal expenses of elected officials who have been convicted of serious crimes. The key word here in this Bill is convicted. This Bill does not become effective unless the elected official is convicted. The other keywords are public crimes and a felony involving fraud. That's a high standard. The bar has been set high. The Committee and the Assemblyman has done a great job of defining this Bill.

So the application is narrow because if an elected official has engaged in this type of conduct, they have violated the public trust and they have undermined the integrity of the political system. To allow an elected official who's been convicted of a serious crime to use campaign funds is subverting both the legislative and the elective process and escaping consequences for their own wrongdoing.

Let's wrap up. Thank you.

So I urge support and an I vote on this Bill. Thank you.

Move the Bill.

Thank you very much. We have a motion by Assemblymember Berman, a second by assemblymember Low. Are there any other people in the audience who'd like to register their position of support? If so, step up to the mic with your name and organization. See none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill or anyone who just wants to register opposition, bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer.

If you just kind of delineate, it may all be the same between someone who sets up a legal defense Fund versus their campaign funds. Is that or they considered one in the same or are you separating the two?

This Bill addresses campaign committees. The legal defense Fund is a separate entity.

That is not covered within this Bill. It's specific to the elected officials campaign Fund.

Okay. Just want that clarification.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. Assembly Member Valencia, you may close.

Public trust is fundamental to democracy, and I think this is a good step in continuing that public trust. Respectfully ask for yes vote.

Thank you so much. So when Members of the public make campaign contributions to candidates, they generally do so to support those candidates campaigns for office and not to defray legal expenses when public officials violate the public trust. So thank you so much for bringing this Bill forward. The Bill helps to ensure candidates and elected officials are held accountable for any crimes that betray the integrity of the office they hold. And for that reason, I am recommending a support position.So we have a motion in a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 2803 Valencia. [Roll Call]The motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on appropriations.

That Bill is out five to zero, but we'll leave the roll open for our absent Members. Thank you so much. We now are down to our last two bills, both with sitting Members here and Mister Jones Sawyer, you were here first this morning, so you're up.

And Assembly Member Jones Sawyer is presenting AB 3123 today. And you may begin when you're ready.

I don't move as fast. Shorten my speech. Thank you. Members and chair, I would like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments. I represented AB 3123, which seeks to ensure that ethics laws that govern elected officials statewide apply equally to the Los Angeles Board Metro Board of directors

With the recent passage of SB 1439, which amended the Levene act in 2020, the California made clear that there should be a uniform ethics law governing contract decisions by local and state officials, regardless of the composition of a board. However, LA Metro board is still subject to a 30 year old law that imposes different standards on board Members regarding contract decisions and campaign contributions from contractors.

For example, under the current law, board Members are prohibited from accepting campaign contributions over $10, while the Levine Act prohibits campaign contributions over $250. These differing standards and requirements have made it difficult for La Metro to comply simply because board Members are subject to both the Levine act and the Hayden Bill.

In their roles as Metro Board Members, LA Metro seeks to be consistent with all other officials in the state making contract decisions under the standards and guidance of the Levine Act, which governs their primary elected officials. This Bill makes makes also makes changes to the metro's lobbyist registration statute, aligning reporting requirements, standards and prohibitions with similar agencies. Finally, AB 3123 codifies the specific authority of Metro's ethics Department and mandates its Independence.

With me in support of this Bill is Madeliene Moore, Deputy Executive officer of La Metro, and Paul Solis, Chief Ethics officer for La Metro.

Thank you very much. Good morning, chair and Members. Los Angeles Metro is the proud sponsor of AB 3123. I will now turn it over to Paul Solis, who is Metro's Chief Ethics Officer, to provide more information about the Bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Paul Solis, Metro's chief ethics officer. Metro is the third largest transportation system in the United States and has one of the largest capital construction and system expansion programs in the nation to prepare for the 2028 Olympics and beyond. I'm a board appointed officer and Member of the State Bar of California. Currently, I advise LA Metro on issues related to state pay to play laws.

Metro is subject to two of these laws, one in the Public Utilities Code that applies exclusively to Metro and one in the government code known as the Levine act that applies statewide. The Metro specific PUC law employees different terms, language, dollar thresholds and time periods in the Levene Act. Importantly, the Levene Act has ample interpretive guidance issued by the California Fair Political Practices Commission and courts, while the PUC law has virtually none. This creates issues with compliance and it's frankly very confusing.

It also creates liability and risk for Metro. The current sponsored amendments will allow the Levine Act to govern the Metro board's pay to play responsibilities consistent with all other agencies in the state and the intent of this Legislature expressed in 2023. There are additional amendments I'll briefly explain. First, the Bill would make amendments to Metro's lobbyist registration statute, keeping it consistent with other jurisdictions like the State of California and the City of Los Angeles.

Next, the Bill would remove out of date language in the Metro board's code of conduct that contrasts with current applicable state law and Metro's administrative codes. The Bill would also enact changes and additions that exist in peer agency codes. Finally, this Bill strengthens Metro's ethics Department by specifying its authority and relationship with the board and agency.

And it also adds a two thirds vote requirement, instead of a simple majority, to fire the chief ethics officer, the same as Metro's Inspector General that 's currently codified in state law. In conclusion, Metro is simply seeking to implement a clear system where board Members, employees, lobbyists and contractors can all have confidence they're knowledgeable and compliant with important ethics laws and rules. Thus, we strongly support AB 3123. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee.

Thank you so much. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to register your support position for this Bill? If so, step on up. See none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill or anyone who wants to register their name in opposition? Seeing none I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any comments or questions? Seeing none we have a motion by, I believe, of Assemblymember Berman and seconded by Assemblymember Lowe Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer. You may close.

Respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. I appreciate the author and sponsor's goal to try to reduce complexity and ensure consistent application of the laws governing LA Metro's activities. And I want to thank the author and sponsor for working with the Committee staff on the amendments that are proposed in the Committee analysis. So with that, I am recommending a support position. And, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 3123 by Joan Sawyer. The motion is do pass as amended and be re referred to the Committee on appropriations.

[Roll Call]

That Bill will be on call for our absent Members to come in and sign in.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

We're on our last Bill now, which is AB 2990 by Assembly Member Lowe. And you may begin when you're ready. You already have a motion before you even get to the chair. What do you think of that?

This is efficient Committee. Thank you very much, colleagues, for allowing me present 2990 to strengthen the work of the FPPC to take administrative action within two years of a case opening or five years of a violation occurrence. And we are deeply committed to working with the FPPC throughout the process to create flexibility for complex cases. I respectfully ask for our vote.

Do you have any witnesses in support today? Anybody in the room who wants to register support? We see movement, but not for you. Anybody in the room who is a primary witness in opposition to the Bill? Anyone want to register your name in opposition to the Bill, bring it back to the Committee? Any comments or questions? We have a yawn.

I'm sorry. I'm so boring.

Sorry I called you out on that. Okay, so see, no comments or questions from Committee Members. I'll bring it back to somebody. Member Lowe, you may close.

I respectfully for an Aye vote.

Okey doke. I agreed that the FPPC investigation should be resolved in a timely fashion, however unique circumstances occur. And this Bill does not allow the FPPC flexibility and discretion to go beyond the two year limit if circumstances warrant a longer period of time. So I ask for the author's commitment to work with the FPPC to address that concern as the Bill moves forward in the legislative process.

Yes.

Okay. With that commitment, I am recommending a support position. We have a motion by assemblymember Berman. Do I have a second? 2nd by Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2990 by Low. The motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill will be on call, and we'll round up those absent Members to get on the roll. Thank you very much for your presentation today. And we will remain open for those absent Members so of the sergeant can call them and say, come on down to room 444. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and do add ons. I believe the only person here to do add on would be Vermin. Right? Yeah, but he's not here.

That's true. He's not here.

Yeah. So we can open up for add ons if you'd like to get it done. Yes, go ahead.

Okay, item 12724. Rayes. The motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on appropriations. Berman Aye. Berman Aye.

We have Bennett on that one too. If we want to open it for Bennett. We're opening up the call on the Reyes Bill.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Do you need to do that for the Creole Bill or for consent or are those okay? Those were okay. I'm sorry, I don't have anything. There's a lot going on.

Item 12724 by Miss Rayes Cervantes Aye. Cervantes, aye. Item two, AB 2803, by Valencia. Cervantes, aye. Cervantes, aye. Item three, AB 20911 by Miss McKenna. Cervantes. I just wanted to publicly note that I will be giving this Bill a courtesy vote and Reserve the right to look at it on the floor. All right? Cervantes, aye. Item four, AB 2990 by Mister Low, and that is do pass to appropriations.

Cervantes, aye. Cervantes, aye. On AB five. Excuse me. Item five, AB 3123, Joan Sawyer. Cervantes, aye. Cervantes, aye. Item six, AB 3184. Berman. Cervantes, aye. Cervantes, aye. AB 3239 by Miss Carrillo. Cervantes, aye. Cervantes, aye. Yeah, the consent calendar was. We got you with the 3184. Thank you. We'll do this one more time. Item one, AB. No. AB 2724 by Miss Rayes. Alanis. Alanis, aye. Item two, AB 2803, by Valencia. Alanis. Alanis, aye.

Item four, AB 2990 by Lowe. Alanis. Alanis. Not voting. Item Five, AB 3123, by Jones-Sawyer. Alanis. Alanis, not voting. I'm sorry that I messed up your name. Got you on the consent calendar, so we are good. That's the consent calendar. Thank you.

This Committee is adjourned.

This Committee is adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.