Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

[Roll Call]

Okay, a quorum has been established. First, we will take up our consent calendar. Proposed for consent is one item, SB 948 from Limon. Does any Member want to pull this item from consent? Not seeing anyone doing that, please call the roll on the consent.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that is 60 and it's on call. So our first item will be Senator Dodd's Bill, SB 1243. Are you ready? Okay, you can feel free to come over here, please.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm presenting SB 1243 to amend the Levine act for better clarity, compliance and fairness. In 2022, the Levine act was amended to include local elected officials. Previously, the law only applied to appointed officials. Over the last year, as cities and counties have worked to implement that law, it has become very apparent that there were problems. And today you'll hear from folks trying to implement and follow the law that is unnecessarily complicated and frankly, unworkable.

By making transparent, direct contributions infeasible, the law essentially freezes out a sector of the community from donating anything directly to candidates. This, unfortunately, promotes a very undesirable consequence. Independent expenditures pouring into campaigns. This Bill improves upon the work in 2022 and seeks to address a number of those issues that have arisen during the implementation. First, the Bill adjusts the contribution limit that has not changed since 1982 from $250 to $1000, approximating inflation.

It adjusts the prohibition period before and after decisions made from 12 months to nine months, which is still three times longer than what was in the law for 40 years prior to the 2022 change. And it clarifies that increased membership dues for unions or chambers of commerce don't trigger inclusion in this statute when they have no direct financial stake in that development project. It also simplifies compliance by keeping contributions from agents and a party or participant calculated separately.

Additional changes address a myriad issues cities, counties, and stakeholders have had trying to implement the new law. The Bill will further the goals of the Political Reform act by making the requirements for the implementation clear and workable and helping remove conditions that have incentivized dark money pouring into campaigns. At the same time, it focuses the FPPC and the Levine act on situations where there could be reasonable appearances of impropriety.

The idea that our local elected officials can be bought and sold for $250 is both laughable and frankly, offensive, especially compared to the standards for the state legislators. I want to thank the chair and Committee staff for the dialogue on the Bill. We don't have any amendments worked out yet, but I want to make it clear that if the Bill does advance today, I will continue discussions with the chair and will work with all the stakeholders.

I will work collaboratively to identify amendments to help address underlying concerns as much as possible while still solving the problems with the existing law. With me today is Nick Camarota, Senior Vice President and General counsel for the California Building Industry Association, and Rebecca Krell, Director of policy and legislative affairs for the San Francisco City Attorney's office, representing City Attorney David Hsu.

It's on. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Nick Cammarota on behalf of California's home builders, as represented by the California Building Industry Association, I want to echo the author's comments about our gratitude to you, Madam Chair, and to your staff for working with us and discussing these issues. I want to begin by simply pointing out some data. First, the Construction Industry Research Bureau has kept track of residential permits issued within the State of California since 1954.

The high point of those permits was in 1963, when California's population was 17 and a half million people. We issued 322,000 residential permits in the State of California. Last year, when our population was 39 million, we issued 120,000 permits. So you can see, over time, the trend has been a decline in the issuance of residential permits. Over this time period, contributions to campaigns and to candidates at the local level has increased and yet permits have decreased.

This is the opposite of what you would expect to see if there were a pay to play type of scenario going on. Having said that, the amendments to this law made two years ago have resulted really in a De facto prohibition on a large swath of folks in our communities and a prohibition on their ability to make contributions to local elected officials that has arisen out of the bills or the laws requirements to aggregate contributions from participants and from parties with their agents.

There is a lack of clarity as to who is an agent, but there's also a lack of clarity as to how you would determine when and if they have made a contribution and how much they have contributed. Who are some of those agents? Those agents are parties that are necessary in order for us to get our approvals. Folks like hydrologists, biologists who are there to protect endangered species and their habitat. Native American consultants who are there to protect tribal cultural resources and sacred sites.

Planners, architects, and the firms that they work for as well. It's no small thing to tell such a large group of people that you must choose either between participating in our democracy or to earn a living. That's going to result, we believe, in enforcement chaos because those lack of clarities, those complexities, are going to be resolved in the courts. Litigation, of course, is a thing we're very concerned about because it is a significant obstacle to the production of housing.

We don't believe that SB 1439 or this code section of the law, or frankly, any code section of the law should turn into a game of gotcha for people who are well intended and trying to comply with the law in good faith. Having all these people removed from the political process doesn't just create some great situation, it creates a vacuum. We're concerned that that vacuum will be filled by candidates for local office who are wealthy and have the ability to self finance their own campaigns. That is not going to result, in our view, in a representative democracy. It's not going to result in a balanced decision making at the local level.

You need to wrap it up, please. Thank you.

And it's going to make our communities less inclusive and more exclusive. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Blakespear and Members of the Senate elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee, I'm Rebekah Krell here representing San Francisco City Attorney David Chu. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of SB 1243. The amendments to the Levine act have caused significant compliance issues for local elected officials due to uncertainty concerning the individuals and entities whose contributions trigger the law's restrictions and the difficulty in creating an adequate system for tracking covered proceedings and contributors.

The problems are particularly acute as to participants in proceedings who may be individuals who give public comment or submit written comment. Additionally, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether and when contributions from agents must be aggregated with those of parties and participants. San Francisco handles thousands of proceedings covered by this law each year, if not tens of thousands, in which local elected officials may participate or decide.

The amendments proposed by Senate Bill 1243 are a step towards making it more feasible for local elected officials to comply with the law first. Raising the contribution threshold to more than $1,000 is a sensible adjustment that will continue the goal of reducing improper influence on governmental decisions while recognizing that small dollar contributions are unlikely to have a significant impact on such decisions.

Second, by providing that contributions between parties and participants will not be aggregated with contributions of their agents, the Bill will remove a significant barrier to compliance. Third, excluding housing projects approved consistent with the jurisdiction's housing element removes unintended consequences of the law that could potentially impact housing approvals, and further reduction in scope will assist in reducing compliance burdensome.

While AB 1243 does not completely eliminate the difficulties imposed by SB 1439, the Bill will provide greater clarity and will reduce the amount of public resources and staff time that must be spent to assist officials in complying with the law. The San Francisco, San Diego and Oakland City attorneys offices, along with the Santa Clara County Council, strongly support SB 1243. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have opposition witnesses? I'm sorry. We have the supporters who could come forward and say your name, organization and your position.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Mike Monagan, on behalf of state building and construction trades, we are the sponsors of the Bill. Thank the author, thank the chair and her staff for all the dialogue. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. Martin Vindiola, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Andi Liebenbaum, on behalf of the County of Los Angeles, and we'd like to align our support with the city attorney of San Francisco. Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in strong support.

Good morning. Johnny Pena, with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Megan Subers, on behalf of the California professional firefighters in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Annalee Augustine, on behalf of the Family Business Association of California and support.

Thanks. Thank you very much. And now we'll invite any opposition witnesses to come forward.

Thank you, chair and Committee Members. My name is Pedro Hernandez, and here I'm here on behalf of the California Common Cause. As original sponsors of SB 1439, we were proud to take action in 2022 with the unanimous support of the Senate to address local corruption scandals that were shaking the public's faith in local democracies. SB 1243 is a rollback of SB 1439's common sense reforms, and we are opposed.

First, SB 1243 exempts real estate developers from disclosure and contribution limits that would apply to every other party and industry. Exempting a single interest from an ethics law is simply bad policy. Second, the modification to the applicable time period for the Levenax contribution cap is also concerning. SB 1243 would cap contributions for nine months before a final decision and for many lengthy projects that take longer than nine months. These changes would allow for large contributions to be made while a matter is pending.

We have other concerns about the Bill as well. We had reviewed the chair's proposed amendments, and we believe that they were thoughtful and would move us in the right direction. We would have had some outstanding issues that we would speak to the author's office about, but they would have gotten us very close to dropping our opposition. Thank you, Madam Chair for those.

The two outstanding issues would be the increased contribution cap from 250 to 1000 and the exemption of periodic reviews of development agreements should those proposed amendments be adopted. I would be optimistic, chairs and Members, that continued conversations would lead to an agreeable resolution on these issues. We are not categorically opposed to any increase in the contribution cap. Finally, it is clear that the Bill in print does not further the purposes of the Political Reform act and thus would be extremely vulnerable in court.

We remain strongly opposed to the Bill in print. Thank you once more, my name, chair, for your leadership.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members Trent Lange, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign. For the reasons set forth in your excellent analysis and as stated by common cause, we also strongly oppose the Bill as in currently in print, which clearly does not further the purposes of the Political Reform act.

We believe that the Levine act and SB 1439's conflict of interest protections are extremely important to protecting the integrity, and especially voter confidence in local governments who may actually be concerned by $1000 contributions, especially many times. Unfortunately, SB 1243 has written, would dramatically weaken those protections. Not only would it exempt a single interest group and remove Levine act limits from proceedings that take longer than nine months completely.

If they take longer than nine months, they'd be able to get around the contributions before that last nine months as written. But it would dramatically increase the amount that parties, participants, and agents could give to the elected officials that are deciding their proceedings. Eliminating the longstanding practice of aggregating agents contributions with the parties is especially problematic, allowing special interests to Max out to officials through multiple channels that they cannot in longstanding law.

That said, we have reviewed the Committee's proposed amendments that address these problems, and with enormous gratitude to you, Madam Chair, and to your staff, I can report that they get us very, very close to being able to remove our opposition to this Bill. Besides some clarity on the exemption of periodic reviews of the development agreements, the only thing that would cause us to still oppose is that $1000, that increase to $1,000.

We believe that a fourfold increase is too high, but we are definitely not categorically opposed to further increases. And we are very optimistic that with good faith data, grounded conversations with the author, with you, with supporters, that we could get a good result there. In conclusion, for the reasons set forth in your analysis and in our letter, however, we remain strongly opposed to the Bill in print, which would not further the purposes of the act.

And thank you once more, chair, for your leadership on this issue.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the room wishing to express opposition?

Adriana Champagne Zamora with the League of Women Voters of California. In opposition.

Members, James Thuerwachter with The California State Council of Laborers. Actually, we're in strong support. So sorry for being a little late. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We'll bring it back to the Committee. And I just want to confirm with the author, you are not accepting the amendment.

Yeah, that's correct, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you. So I'd like to direct the Committee Members to the amendment mock up. It should be in front of you right here if you would like to see the proposed Bill and then my proposed amendment so that you can see that. So I would just like to say a few words about this Bill.

So I do think there have been a lot of problems for local governments associated with the Bill, the original Bill from Senator Glazer, and that there are some changes that need to be made to make it fair and also clearer what's allowed. So one of my main interests in modifying this Bill was in making it so that it's easier to implement for somebody who's in local elected office, and also somebody who wants to make a donation.

And so having that be something where somebody could actually be in elected office, read the rules and understand if they apply or don't, was very important to me. So there are two parts of the proposed Bill that we are evaluating today, SB 1243, that carve out specific interests over others, and I think makes it very unworkable for a local elected official.

So the first one is on the first page, section sub two, which says that a person is not a participant under this paragraph if their financial interest in the decision results from an increase or decrease in membership dues. So as a local elected official understanding whether somebody is donating and they pay membership dues or not, you know what? That what that specifically is meant to address is labor concerns.

And so the fact that a local elected might be receiving a contribution from, like, something called cannabis cooperative. Would they know if that they paid membership dues? Would they know if they went up or not? You know, that to me, paying membership dues is not something that allows for clarity for the person who's accepting. Maybe it does for those who are donating. And then I'll direct us to the very last sentence in here, which says, this section does not apply to housing development projects.

So that's the very last one on the very last page. So, to me, those are the two areas that are the most problematic in carving out specific special interests and exempting them from this. This is essentially a pay to play, an anti pay to play Bill, and it's exempting from ethics rules, these two industries. So my proposal, which the chair is rejected, was to eliminate those two carve outs.

There were also several parts of this that I think I was willing to accept and did accept, which was raising it to $1,000 from $250. And that was in part because of the analysis that I was shown that when the $250 was set, if you consider inflation and how things have changed over time, it's close to $1,000. Now it's 800 and something. So the value of that 250. So I think that that does make sense to raise it.

And then we were also clarifying this question of aggregation. So, who is an agent when they give. You can see that my proposals specify taking from the FPPC, who is an agent and who isn't. So to the point that was made from the supporters from the BIA, supporters about hydrologists, architects, engineers, people who are working on projects would not be considered to be agents. And so clarifying that issue of aggregation, I think, also helped improve the Bill.

And then I was willing to accept the desire to go to nine months from a year, although I do actually think a year is easier to work with as a local elected official and a donor, to recognize the date on the calendar and say a year before or after a decision is made, and also to very much clarify when is a decision made.

So when it's on the agenda, then it's clear to the person in elected office that that is a development project or other project that's coming before them. And for the person who is putting forward a proposed development, that that would be when they submit it to the city or the agency, because that submittal is something that they would know, but maybe the elected official wouldn't.

So they do have two different timelines, but they're clearly stated as a point in time so that it could be clearly tracked and understood. I think my hope with this Bill was to avoid the gotcha situations for either side to make. Because when the rules are really clear, then people don't get caught up in inability to understand it and mistakenly stumbling into it.

And also the reality that as complexity grows, local electeds need to hire lawyers and they need to hire people to help them just comply with the FPPC guidelines. And that doesn't seem right. I mean, most local elected officials are not paid very much, and we really should be setting up the system so that. So that people can follow the rules.

I wanted to also just point out that I've distributed this FPPC guidance, and there's a little blue tab that points you to the right page in the right section about when is a union representative considered a participant. So the FPPC gave this guidance not very long ago. So this was October of 2023, and they're essentially saying that a union representative is not a participant, so would not be subject to this unless the project is at this really high value.

So it says in the section change in receipts, you can see that sentence that says if the decision may result in an increase or decrease of the organization's annual gross receipts in an amount equal to $1 million or 5% of the organization's annual gross receipts. So most projects are not falling into something that's affecting something that high.

And so, from my reading of this whole thing, it's not really necessary to have a Bill that puts in here this sentence about membership dues that is trying to exclude labor because they're already essentially excluded, except for when it is over $1.0 million or 5% of the organization's annual gross receipt. So I think the reason that they wanted to be included was they didn't want that cap to apply.

But to me, if something is affecting that much money, it does seem to me as if this limit of $1,000 should apply. And so I just. I wanted to point this out because it's not as if unions are being hamstrung by not being able to participate or not being able to donate because of the FPPC guidance that we already have in front of us.

So I am recommending a no vote on this, because I do feel it's a disservice to be carving out these two industries, and also to be not creating clarity for either side in how to participate in the political process. I will also note that there's a Bill on the Assembly side that raises the keeps Glazers Bill intact 100%, but raises the limit to $1,500. So that Bill did make it through Committee and is moving forward. So this isn't the last time that we will see this.

And with that, I'll move forward and call in my colleagues who might want to make any comments on this. And just to be clear, I'm not necessarily recommending a no vote, but a no or decline to vote for it vote. So does anybody on the Committee wish to?

Yes, I do.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Senator Dodd, you know, as context, you know, I think somebody pointed out this Bill was supported unanimously last year, and clearly by the number of support witnesses today that, you know, this is a Bill whose kind of ultimate implications weren't clear at the time. I think that much is clear.

Senator Newman.

And so if you wouldn't mind first speaking to the chair's point about raising the limit, and I know Mister Lange said, you know, a fourfold increase to the 250 is extreme, but, you know, the 250 was a new limit, right? So maybe that limit was never reasonable.

And then more specifically, you know, about this question about organizations that are affected, and you may not know the answer, but I'd like to know the answer is a typical pla, you know, that might be part of a discussion at a council, especially in a reasonably sized city. Will that result in an increase of $1 million or more of membership dues? And maybe somebody from labor can answer that question. Mister Monagan.

Yes, sir. The question was.

Question was, you know, to the chair's point about the existing FPPC language around, you know, the impact on a membership organization. If, you know, if a union, one of your trades unions, were party to a PLA as part of a proceeding at a City Council, would it be outside of the norm for a PLA of that nature to increase the membership dues to the organization by over $1.0 million?

My first sense is likely not, but I don't know that from experience. So likely, I don't want to confuse you, likely out of the norm or likely would likely not cause that not. But again, it depends on the scale and the size of the people in the number of unions that are involved.

Okay, appreciate that, because I think that's important. But Senator Dodd, I mean, you know, what we're doing here is we're revisiting legislation that clearly wasn't fully considered, especially with respect to its unintended consequences. So if you wouldn't mind kind of making clear why we're doing this or why we as a Committee are considering.

This today, it's almost ironic that the author of the original Bill, Senator Glazer, who's a good friend and colleague of mine, always talks about legislative oversight and how important legislative oversight is and how often the Legislature abdicates their role in legislative oversight. So the groups, the sponsors of this, of this specific Bill have been in Senator Glaser's office numerous times trying to get changes made to this law and were totally and completely unsuccessful in doing so for whatever reasons.

And prior to me doing this, I did have a conversation just out of courtesy to Senator Glazer that I was going to be running this Bill because I felt that these organizations, particularly cities and counties, im a former elected official, the chambers, you know, and labor, of course, had all these concerns.

And so I think this is something that is a legislative oversight that we've seen the problems, how difficult it has been on the ground to follow the rules and regulations, understand the rules and regulations, how much time it was taking at cities and counties to try to figure this out. When you've got an organization like the building industry organization, who has literally thousands of Members and projects are region wide, it's very, very difficult. So this is legislative oversight, trying to figure out a best way forward.

I did make a mistake. When the chair asked me if I'm willing to accept the amendments, I said no right away. In the time we had allotted, I could not get all the sponsors, the people that want this Bill together enough to really figure it out. Some said it makes this Bill a little more difficult. Some said, well, I'm willing to, on the membership thing or the housing thing, take that out. So there are numerous, I think, areas of agreement that we have.

But in the time allotment that we had, it was just something that we weren't able to do. So I think, and I've said in my comments, I'm willing to work with the chair, I'm willing to work with Committee Members and not bring this up on the floor until we have a consensus. Remember, this is going to take two thirds vote of all our colleagues in the Senate. So work needs to be done. I recognize that.

I've been here for 10 years, and I've looked at a number of you straight in the eyes and said, you can trust me. I will work on this. I'm not going to bring you something back that's going to be uncomfortable for our Members.

So with respect to those two proposed amendments, one is arguably, maybe necessary, maybe not, right. It's a question of how the language reads, right, the first one, but to the second one, I guess it's worth asking a question. Why exempt housing as distinct from something else? Specifically.

I think that the addressing housing goes to my first point about what we're doing in the housing space in terms of the number of permits we've been issued over time. We don't believe that pay to play is, in effect when it comes to approving housing. If it were, I mean, I'll put it very crassly, we would buy our permits, we'd have more housing, and that simply isn't in the numbers.

And I think when you look at appearances and appearances of impropriety, you have to look at the full picture. You have to look at all the data. Having said all that, as the author mentioned, we don't insist on an exemption for housing, but we want to make that point simply because I think there are people who come to this issue assuming that whenever there's contributions in the political process, that it's always a pay to play situation.

And I think it's been our experience, and I dare say it's everyone's experience, that just because you make a contribution doesn't mean you get what you ask for. That's my point.

And I will say I do appreciate that. And that's what transparency is supposed to be about. So if we could hear from common cause in response to that assertion.

Thank you for the question. So there are a lot of things folks have said about kind of pay to play and the Levine act. And the Levine act was not necessarily ever taking a particular side on regulating a certain industry. It's in our position that we don't want to see any specific carve outs for one industry in particular.

We have issues with that, and we think that would probably cause issues with not furthering the purposes of the political Reform act based on some research that our organization had done. But, you know, we are open to a conversation. You know, we like the chair's proposed amendments, and if they're not those amendments, then we wouldn't be prepared to kind of negotiate on the floor here.

All right, so then, to Senator Dodd's point that you're open to finding common ground on this. Completely. All right. Appreciate that. And you certainly have a track record in that respect. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And before I go to you, Senator Allen, I just. I wanted to turn it back to either of you. The reason that Glaser's Bill was introduced and you supported it in the first place was a series of financial participation in things that ended up looking like corruption or. And so. And they were in the housing space and the cannabis space and a number of different things. So could you just address that? So there's an understanding of why we're even talking about this idea at all. Yeah.

So in the legislative record for SB 1439, we had laid out a number of stories from local instances of local, you know, perception pay to play in actual corruption. We saw large donations that were given to local politicians who were later issued cannabis permits. We saw housing developers make significant contributions. I think that was in Alhambra.

I don't have the list right in front of me, but we laid out a pretty robust legislative record indicating why SB 1439 was necessary, and we were proud that it actually went into effect. I think the local. The public faith and local democracy up until that point had been struggling. And I thought. We thought that something like this was absolutely necessary to address the perception that local government is not putting the interests of the public ahead.

Thank you. And one other thing I'd just like to say is that there's a discussion about whether this would lead to more money in ies and less money in going directly to candidates.

And I think it's worth saying that while there are sophisticated players that donate large amounts to ies, and in some cities that might be common, like big cities that host things like Disneyland, there are a lot of other cities of the 400 cities in the state where some individual person who's trying to build their mansion or some grocery store that's trying to expand or some mixed use housing developer is not going to go through the process of setting up an IE and participating that way.

In the same way, they're also not going to donate to the county parties in order to get money to those candidates because there are barriers to entry associated with that and forms that need to be filed, and it costs more. And there's a reality to it. So from my experience of the cities that I was in and saw around me, most of the contributions are coming directly to the candidate.

So having, having a cap on that and saying after a certain amount of that, then that person has to recuse themselves. You know, they're still able to participate in the rest of being a City Council Member. But to me, that seems, it's important to recognize that it's not like money just easily moves from one thing over to the, that is because the reality of what ies mean is just, it is just more complicated.

So I just want to put that out there because I know there are a lot of different opinions about that. And it directly addresses a point that the chair that the author made at the beginning. Go ahead, Senator Allen, can I respond? Yes.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I don't disagree with the opponents to the Bill and the merits of what the Bill was trying to do, and I don't disagree with some of your assertions that smaller communities don't have this type of sophistication. But out of 400 cities, I would suggest there's more than we all know.

That said, I believe this Bill the way it is now, plus with some modifications, working with the chair that we've heard in working with the opposition, that we will have a Bill that will address the issues of the corruption, because nobody sitting in this room wants any corruption at any level of government, whether it's local government, state government or Federal Government.

Okay, thank you. We'll go to Senator Allen and then over to Senator Umberg. Go ahead.

I really appreciate, well, first of all, let me say I understand the motivation behind this Bill, and I do think it needs some, I think the glazier Bill needs some reform. And I appreciate your comments about wanting to work with the chair. I guess.

So then that begs the question for me. Why don't you accept the amendments and then you can continue to work together? I mean, you're, you know, I've been a Member of your Committee in the past. You're a great chair. Strong chair. I've backed you up many times, oftentimes against some tough folks, you know, to give you some strength in negotiations. You can still work out a deal that's mutually acceptable here.

But I think as a chair yourself, you can appreciate why the chair would want to be able to at least have the leverage of accepting the amendments, and then you can do some continual negotiation going forward. Well, I've already told you that. I've told in my testimony that we just weren't able. Right, but that's why you set the amendments and then you can continue to negotiate. Well, with all due respect, it cuts both ways. Totally. It cuts both ways.

And so just the same way as the $1 million threshold on the dues, which is not only for labor, it's also for CBIA, it's also for chambers of commerce, and it cuts both ways. If $1.0 million is no big deal, then it's no big deal to cut them out either.

So I guess my experience here in 10 years in the Legislature suggests and conversations that I've had suggest that what I'm doing here is the best course forward to make much needed adjustments to a Bill and do appropriate legislative oversight. And what I've heard here today is, okay, Dodd, all your ideas aren't the best ideas here or all your people that are supportive of this. You've got more work to do.

And so I think just based on the time that I've been here and my decorum during that time, you can rest assured that we're not going to bring this Bill up on the floor until we have had that appropriate conversation.

Thank you, Senator Umberg.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple comments. One is I think you are right. You know, my frame of reference with the cities I represent, Anaheim and Santa Ana, is that ies do participate quite vigorously at local elections. Number one. Number two is that I appreciate the thought and effort you've put into the amendments in working on this Bill. And of course, Members are in an uncomfortable position.

Sure.

Because typically I want to support not just the chair, but this particular chair. And the fact that she has put in so much work, so much effort, so much thought deserves recognition. I also heard you say that before this Bill comes to the floor for a 27 vote, requisite vote that you will put in the work to make sure that these issues are as close to being resolved as is possible. So that's a tough decision for us.

And so on balance, on balance, I am going to support the Bill with the assurance that this is going to be a work in progress, it again means that when it comes to the floor, that it doesn't necessarily mean I'll support the Bill. It just means that I'm, and I'm supporting the bills moving forward.

Understood.

Thank you.

Senator Portantino.

I'm glad I brought my roommate, who's also my attorney today. That's why I let you live with me. I never knew, I never knew there was a reason, but I think you hit the nail on the head. This is a tough situation. Obviously, we want to support the chair, but we also want to keep an important Bill moving.

And typically, if an author says, I'm not going to move the Bill forward until we work out all the kinks, that's usually a good sign of collaboration, to make sure that the system is respected and the Bill doesn't come up without having the chair work out with the author. Those comments? I'd also like to add something that every politician has their own compass, and I think we can pass many, many laws, but I think we have to.

When we elect representatives on the local level and state level, we choose wisely. And I hearken back to when I ran for the City Council. We had no campaign limits at the time, and somebody wrote a very large check to my campaign, and lo and behold, they had an item that was going to come before the City Council once I got elected. And so even though I didnt have to recuse myself, I did, because it just didnt feel right. When I ran for the Assembly.

Again, somebody had business before the City Council, and they wrote checks to my Assembly campaign. I gave them back, didnt have to. So I think thats part of whats here is there are those of us who know what limits to set on our own selves and those that, regardless of what the laws say, are going to find ways around them. And, you know, I hate when I say it to my kids. I sound like a dad, and I apologize.

You know, we should choose wisely when we elect people to make sure that we're electing people with those moral compasses, regardless of what the law says. So to me, this is an important issue that needs resolution, that needs more work. As my attorney and roommate said, this is not a commitment to vote for this Bill on the floor. But I do think this conversation needs to continue, and I do think the chair needs to be party to that conversation.

And with the assurance from the author that the chair will continue to be prominent in that conversation, I could support it today just to keep it moving.

Okay. Thank you. Yes. Senator Menjivar.

Just want to get some clarification. And my question is directed to the support here. You mentioned, you gave an example, one of your early comments regarding right now you see high contributions, Low permits being allocated. So what do you, then what's the purpose of excluding this one stakeholder if you already don't see an increase of permits? Wouldn't everything stay the same?

We don't insist on being carved out of existing law. I know that's in the Bill and I know that the chair has it in her amendments. And I can only speak for us, and I'm not speaking for the author.

You mentioned there's a lot of stakeholders and not everyone agrees with us.

Right. And so the point there was simply to say that you, the Legislature has directed local governments for quite a few years now to adopt housing elements that comply with state law. This was meant to only apply to projects that are built on those sites consistent with local housing elements that have been adopted by those local governments pursuant to the direction of this body. And the point here is you plan for it. You plan for it. They're an eight year cycle.

You've done a lot of work on it. Now, if we come forward with a project that is consistent with that, should these contribution limits apply? Shouldn't they be approving them? Period. That was the rationale behind it. If you just want to, if you want the backstory for that.

Senator Dodd, and I've beat the horse on this topic, but I'm wondering in good faith, did no amendments were taken? Not, not even one, just like in good faith as we're moving forward, I always like to see, and I have a record of not supporting bills when, as in print, without a direct commitment. And I'd like to keep to my same trend and not provide a carve out for one individual and just keep it the same as I've been voting.

I think the chair did, was very eloquent in her opening remarks with her viewpoints on this. Senator Yu and I spoke over the weekend. I'd like to at least hear at least one commitment to a direct amendment in good faith.

I think that's, that's a fair comment. As I said earlier, I knew that there were parts of what the chair was talking to us about that did make some sense. That carve out right now will be, if that is something that the Committee would like to see, we'll accept that as amendment moving, you know, you know, moving forward with our commitment.

And I would say for CBIA, that was something that they were on the phone and I think, probably didn't exactly want to do that, but it was their example of trying to help this Bill forward. So I do appreciate their willingness to be helpful on that score. So, thank you.

I know we can't negotiate, so I'm trying to thread the line on here of what we can do.

Yeah, I mean, so I appreciate that. So I think there are two points here for me. One is process and one is substance. So on process, there is legitimately no reason that these amendments shouldn't have already been taken. We have had four days since we had our first meeting, and I worked over the weekend on it. I offered to work on the weekend on it. When I proposed my original amendments, I actually was keeping the year.

The year that was in Glaser's Bill, I was keeping and not going to nine months. I was putting the number at $500. But in trying to work with the chair and his sponsors, I was willing to move on those things. So when my amendments came out, they were the things that were the most important, and that made this feel better. They eliminated this unworkable standard of membership dues. They eliminated the carve out for housing developers.

They made it clear how aggregation works and how agents are defined. You know, this was a compromise on my side, where I was moving from what I initially first wanted. But the author and his, it was not moving. So I think I take him at his word, after 10 years that he says, I'm going to work with you later. But I honestly believe that we were told, I've been told and heard, this is my second year in the Legislature. Work these things out in Committee.

Committee is where this is supposed to be worked out. Don't bring it to the floor and then expect all of us to get involved. And that's what I was trying to do in good faith, was work this out in Committee. So I take him at his word that he is going to make these changes and that it's going to come out.

But I'll just say that on the process side, there's no reason it shouldn't have been worked out by right now, on the substance side, I would say this Bill, I still would argue this Bill is not worth moving forward. It has too many problems in it. There has been no movement on it. And there is a Bill that keeps Glazer's Bill the same, that raises it to $1,500 and doesn't have any carve outs.

So the FPPC can continue to evaluate what is an agent, what is aggregation that doesn't have to be in statute, but it raises the threshold so that we're not at the $250. So what I continue to say is that I am not going to support this Bill today, and that I don't think we're better off moving it forward. I think we're better off having worked on it in Committee and it didn't make it through Committee.

There's also the reconsideration process that happens in Committee, so, you know, that's always an opportunity. But so on both process and substance, I would recommend not voting for the Bill. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, as a rule, I try to defer to the chair, but what I want to hear specifically from Senator Dodd is that you are committed to finding common ground prior to bringing this to the floor.

Yes, sir. Absolutely. 100%.

Yeah. I appreciate that. And so we will hold you to that promise, I think. And if that doesn't happen, I think I will absolutely support the chair in, you know, her decision whether or not to move it forward or not.

Thank you, Senator Menjivar.

Madam Chair, can you. We would have time for reconsideration. The Senator could come back to this Committee and have time to.

Let me consult very briefly.

They told me no. One night was on the phone with them. That was the problem. So you heard me say that we have a. I mean, it's not gonna. Did I make a mistake and say it may not be 100% what she wants? Okay. I just want to make sure I'm not misleading.

Right.

Okay. So if it failed today, we could grant reconsideration, and we would need a rule deadline because it's going to be after the non fiscal deadline. So we could. But it would require a waiver. A rule waiver. Okay. Any other Members wanting to make any more comments? Okay, I'm not seeing any. So. Or did you want to. Or. Okay, so the chair or the author could go ahead and close.

Yeah. Without beating that same dead horse that others have talked about. Again, Members, this is about legislative oversight on a Bill that has not worked. We understand completely that we have work to do. I apologize to the chair that it worked out this way with the timing and everything else. The reality is I've agreed to negotiate in good faith and will encourage my sponsors and supporters to be at the table with me with that same attitude. And also the opposition.

I invite them to be at the table with that same attitude as well. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, let's go ahead and call the roll. Oh, sorry. We need a motion. Umberg moves the Bill.

File item two. SB 1243. Motion is due pass. Blakespear.

No.

Blakespear no. Nguyen. Nguyen aye. Alan. Menjivar. Newman. Newman aye. Portantino. Portantino aye. Umberg. Umberg aye.

Okay, it's 41 and it's out.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members.

Okay, the next Bill is Senator Menjivar. SB 1170. We invite you to present your Bill. Thank you.

All right, Members, good morning, colleagues. When candidates run for office, they face many issues concerning their safety and well being due to threats and hostility received during the campaign. Women, women of color, LGBTQ plus candidates express an overwhelmingly barrage of hostility due to double standards, demeaning and demoralizing criticism, harassment, sexism, and an et cetera amount of things.

These instances can take a toll on a candidate's mental health that can all look differently for the candidate but run the gamut of increased anxiety, sleep disturbance, panic attacks and diso - nope, can't say that word - and other reactions. SB 1170 would allow non incumbent candidates running for political office to use campaign funds for campaign related mental health care services. There have been two recent reports that have come to support SB 1170, and I want to speak on those right now.

The first one happened just this year. In 2024, The Berman Center for Justice report demonstrated an increase of threats, of attacks, harassments for individuals both running and currently in office. According to the report, over 40% of state legislators experienced threats or attacks within the past three years, and more than 18% of local officeholders experience threats. This is an increase of 89% for state legislators and an increase of 52% for local office holders.

When less severe forms of abuse are portrayed against an individual, it impacts and hinders their ability to take on more, as we would know, crunchy Bills in the state Legislature. Because they are concerned of the threats and attacks, how they could increase when they take on certain topics. Another survey just last year, 2023, was conducted by the California Women's List, and it found that over 100 Californians who had ran profits between 2016 and 2023.

Of those, 80% of them reported receiving online abuse, 50% of them reported experienced harassment in person. Within those 100 people that submitted this survey, over 50% of them were women of color and LGBTQ plus women experiencing stalking on the campaign trail, and over one third of women of color experience physical violence. We've heard from our colleagues that personal addresses are being put on mailers and so forth that further increase the ability of a stalker to come to someone's home. According to the same study, around 80% of respondents reported experiencing new or worsened mental health or well being symptoms that they believe were caused in whole or in part by hostility experienced on the campaign trail.

The coverage would be - now this is exactly what SB 1170 would cover for - services, including therapy for both individual and group therapy, virtually or in person by a professional licensed individual under the California Board of Behavioral Sciences to address mental health issues directly coming from the campaign trail. One of the main reasons for this is that oftentimes people have to quit their jobs to run for office or they have to go and work part time to run for office.

Further, where they lose health insurance. I had to stop working. I lost all my health insurance. I'm grateful that I had the VA to turn to as that's always there. There are so many individuals that don't have health insurance during the one to two or even three years that they're running for office. This is solely for non incumbent individuals because we are assuming that if you're an incumbent, as we are, we currently have health insurance that we can lean on.

We cannot stop the harassment from occurring, but by allowing campaign funds to be used for mental health care costs, we can support candidates sense of well being as we strive to increase our diversity of voices in government. This is not the first type of attempt we're looking to pass through the Legislature on what else we want to fund with our campaign funds. Recently, we did pass the ability to use our campaign funds for childcare services.

That has further really amplified the diversity of all types of level of government. Ensuring that just because you're a parent does not mean you can't run for office or be in office, because child care services shouldn't be an issue as to why you can't participate in this process. So, Madam Chair, with your permission, and I'd like to turn over to two witnesses I have here from the California Women's List and a Sacramento Councilmember to speak on their personal experiences. I'll start with Councilmember.

Hi. Yes, please proceed. Thank you.

Is this on? All right. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Katie Valenzuela. I serve on the City Council here in Sacramento. I'm actually most of your City Council Members and your staff when you live in Sacramento, and it's a job that I really take pride in doing well. I'm here today to talk about my personal experience with hostility on the campaign trail. The harassment, abuse online and in person has been persistent and ubiquitous since I first declared to run.

People have yelled profanity out of their car windows at myself and my volunteers as we were out canvassing. Several individuals have implied that they want me to come to physical harm, and one person actually did threaten to take my life. These experiences and the trauma from those experiences led me to develop shingles. I started to realize that I was having hypervigilant behavior that my therapist diagnosed as a symptom of post traumatic stress disorder.

Last spring, when I was launching my reelection campaign, I actually ended up in the emergency room for symptoms that presented as a heart attack. That actually ended up being a severe panic attack, and I've been on anxiety medication ever since. In addition to impacting my mental health, these behaviors impacted my campaigns as well.

My campaign team and I, in interest of ensuring my safety, decided that I could not go to events or canvas without someone with me, which meant that my schedule was restricted to times when I had volunteers available to accompany me. We also had to deploy an RSBP system for any events that we did, so the locations would only be shared with legitimate volunteers and contributors, which took resources and time away from our ability to contact voters directly.

I'm really lucky that now, today, my elected position provides me the healthcare to ensure I have the support I need, because had I not had that access, my campaign would have been further impacted and honestly, I might not have run for reelection at all. This is, I will say, the first time I'm publicly sharing my experiences. I don't normally read notes off my phone like this. It's something that I really was concerned would deter qualified women from running for office at all.

But the report from California's Women's List and so many others have helped me understand that my experience is not unique, that too many candidates, especially women, and particularly women of color, are experiencing this on the campaign trail. And without resources to address those impacts, our candidates and campaigns will further - will continue to experience harm. So I will conclude by saying that if we want a representative democracy, as the Senator said, we have to acknowledge that not all candidates can access the resources they need to run as strong a campaign as they want. So I hope you'll support this Bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for sharing your personal story, too.

Thank you. Councilmember Valenzuela. Good morning. Chair Blakespear and Members, my name is Camille Zapata. I serve on the Board of California Women's List, which is a PAC that supports women running for office on the state and local level across California. Last year, I co led a research study to examine the disproportionate hostility that women face running for office and the impacts on mental health, it was called Her Stories on the Campaign Trail.

Like the Senator had mentioned, our studies surveyed over 100 individuals of various gender identities across lines and confirm that candidates of all backgrounds are targeted with hostility on the campaign trail, with over half experiencing harassment. But most particularly, our study also provided qualitative and quantitative data that found that women and women of color and LGBTQ plus candidates disproportionately experienced hostility.

Over a quarter of women, one third of LGBTQ plus women, and over one third of women of color had physical violence directed towards them, as compared to 13% of male identified candidates. And like the center had mentioned, 80% of all candidates developed new or worsened mental health symptoms. As it relates to the campaign, hostility experienced. More for women, nearly 50% changed their campaign tactics or strategies because of concerns of safety or overall wellbeing.

What came out of this is that we facilitated policy roundtables that brought together candidates, mental health care professionals, party officials and consultants to review this data that we had collected and brainstormed solutions. And like the Senator had mentioned, their top recommendation was to allow campaign funds to be used to cover the costs of mental health care services. And like Councilmember Valenzuela, it was actually effective in her being able to access resources.

So SB 1170 provides a much needed resource to ensure candidates have access to support to sustain themselves and ultimately the success of their campaigns. Women's groups, including Close the Gap, Fund Her, among many others, the counties of San Francisco and LA have joined enthusiastic support. And lastly, the FPPC is providing instrumental and active technical assistance so that we can ensure transparency while minimizing any burden or harm of candidates. So, in conclusion, we please, would love your support for this Bill and moving it forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to express support?

Thank you, Madam Chair Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Andy Liebenbaum on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in strong support.

Okay, seeing no one else, is there anybody speaking in opposition to this Bill? I do not see anybody. Anybody else wishing to express opposition? Okay, seeing none, I will say thank you to the author for bringing this Bill and California Women's List for identifying this as something that we can do. I had a great meeting, a zoom about this Bill and how important it is and the data that went into recommending this option.

And I just also want to say to Councilmember Valenzuela, thank you for sharing your story and also being willing to continue serving in office, recognizing the physical and emotional and mental toll it's having. We're very grateful to have you, and thank you for your sacrifice in doing that. So do any of my colleagues wish to speak? Okay. Yes, Senator Newman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I want to say first, I'm glad to support the Bill. I appreciate your sort of, you know, pointing out that it's not just women who suffer from kind of the stresses of campaigning. This seems like a very valid undertaking. But I do have a question about the mechanics. How, within the reporting, what's the basis for validating a legitimate expense without compromising somebody's kind of HIPAA related information?

Yeah, of course. Thank you so much for that question. And we've been having conversations with, the actual title, the FPPC deputy staff, continuous conversation with them. We, the supporters, actually went and presented at their March hearing on this topic, and we've gotten a lot of feedback this. Right now, what we've trimmed it down to is the candidates must note the underlying campaign related circumstance.

For example, if, like you heard from the Councilmember, the screams and so forth, you have to isolate an incident, and then, just like everything else, we would submit an invoice of you attending mental health service. You won't have to talk about, you don't have to disclose information on what was talked about because that then bleeds into HIPAA. But we don't bleed into HIPPA, violating HIPAA. If we're simply saying, here's an invoice that you submit to your treasurer or what have you, on my bill for mental health service, and this is description as to why I needed to go see them.

So for that scenario that somebody touched on where somebody doesn't have healthcare at that time, how do you make a distinction between paying for healthcare versus the discrete need for mental health services? If somebody - I mean, could a candidate then enroll in healthcare as the basis for receiving that mental health care? And if so, how would you apportion that?

Yeah, no, we, you know, this Bill speaks nothing to utilizing this to sign up for health insurance. It would simply would be to pay the cost for private mental health. This would only cover private mental health that you usually would pay out of pocket outside of it being covered with health insurance.

And you're working, as you said, with the FPPC to make sure that they can verify the expense without compromising somebody's personal information.

Yes. Just to share a couple of things that have been brought up by FPCC that we're looking at are regarding wench, because this is only for when you're running for office. And we want to clarify of who would certify this election to mean that the service is stopped for mental health. So we're looking at allocating that or being clear that the SOS needs to certify this election, not any other outside third party.

We're also looking at to ensure that this is not coverage post that limbo or during that limbo period of when you win your election and when you get sworn in because you potentially don't have health insurance during that time, but you're not running for office anymore. So we want to clarify that as well. The other things that FPPC brought up to us was in relation to ensuring people aren't taking advantage of that, of this. But for that, it's a little difficult for me to see. I don't know how you can take advantage of mental health services, if you have anything else to speak on that, but those are the only points that were brought up to us.

Before you do, I mean, there are many city councils, for instance, that don't include health insurance is one of the benefits of serving. So why make that sort of that deadline post campaign? Why would it not - the stressors probably do still continue.

Thank you so much, Senator, for that. Because you're right. There was a fourth thing that FPPC brought up was related to individuals who don't, aren't in elected official positions full time. This is a full time position for us. Local elected officials, perhaps like the City of Bellflower, is a part time City Council. My worry for me there is of expanding it, and this is the first time we're introducing this Bill.

My worry expanding it to incumbents would further create potential fraud opportunities, if you will, or further expand FPPC's concern on people taking advantage of this. I would love to then come back after this Bill. You know, the first iteration of this Bill moves forward and the Governor signs it to see after some time, see how it's worked, if we can then expand it to a greater pool of individuals. Madam Chair, I'd like to also turn to my sponsor to see if there's any additional information.

To add to Senator Menjivar's comments around the conversations that we've been having with the FPPC around implementation and just to provide a disclosure that these amendments are still in the works with Senator Menjivar's office and also the FPPC. But specifically to your question, Senator Newman, around reporting. One of the proposed solutions to be able to protect candidates is having four distinct categories. And again, this is still under discussion, but that we are not having any unique reports being, for example, having to detail out what specifically had transpired that then resulted in mental health impacts, but have proposed categories such as prejudice, harassment, threats to safety or criminal acts.

I appreciate it. Thank you. I mean, you know, clearly, mechanical detail. Right.

100%.

An eminently valid Bill. Right. Glad, again, glad to support it. But I appreciate you going to have to figure these things out.

Right. And we're working very close with FPPC on it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, thank you. Senator Portantino.

Yeah, I have similar. A, I think it's great to extend this to folks who need it. You know, behavioral health treatment is something that we don't, you know, as a society, embrace to the extent that we need to. And again, thank you for sharing your stories. I have some of the same sort of implementation questions.

If it says payment to Doctor Mary Smith on the form 700, then somebody's going to ask the question when that person's on the campaign trail, why did you pay Doctor Mary Smith, you know, $400? And then that's going to force that candidate to have to answer that question. And so I want to have sensitivity to that disclosure. I mean, we have categories that say professional service, but then, you know, you list the attorney that you hire for that professional service or whatever.

And so I do think there's going to be an art to making sure there's disclosure, but also a disclosure that doesn't compromise the individual candidate even, even more. So I really want thought to go - and you're doing it. So I just want to give you support in making sure that that disclosure is thoughtful and doesn't make that candidate have to get even more stressed because then they're going to be asked - answering questions about it.

And secondly, as the Senator mentioned, for continuity of care, just because you win doesn't mean your struggles go away. And so if you get elected to an office and your health plan is insufficient in behavioral health, from my take, I'd want this to be able to continue to help that particular candidate whose struggle doesn't go away just because you win. Miraculously, you know, your stress level doesn't change.

Sometimes increases.

Sometimes increases. Right. Because then the haters even hate more. Because now you have, now you have a title and power. And so, you know, as you, you know, whether it's the next Bill or whatever, you know, I think it's a laudable effort that you're pursuing and would strongly encourage you to continue to pursue it again in the most sensitive way to help that individual who's struggling with those issues. And so I'm happy to support the Bill.

Thank you so much, Senator. Thank you so much. Point taken on the second part. On the first one, I also want to. It says, you know, we're threading this line of, yes, protecting, but also ensuring that it's not causing. Like, it's a shame, you know, a shameful thing that, hey, you need to hide that you sought out mental health services. So I'm trying to balance that. I think there's power to speaking. When you hear people in power speak about their pointing, you know, right here, people in power speaking about their issues. Not issues, their experiences. And their participation in mental health services helps other people want to participate. So that's where I'm trying to thread the line on that issue.

If I may, Madam Chair. And I agree. That is, you know, we're trying to destigmatize behavioral health. So I always say we'll go to a party and we'll talk about our cholesterol, but we don't talk about, you know, we just saw somebody for something else, or we'll talk about our kids sports injury, but not that they're struggling. And so I agree with you. We have to destigmatize it. And it is a tough line because that individual candidate may not be ready to embrace it, you know, and I trust you to thread that line because you're the perfect person to do it. So I wish you well, and I'm here if you have any other questions down the road that you want to noodle on things.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Yes. And I'll just add my voice to the support for doing version two of this Bill after this first Bill goes through, because even people with health insurance, sometimes they can't get an appointment. You hear this story a lot, that just because you have health insurance doesn't mean that there's actually accessibility. So someone might need to be paying privately and not using their health insurance. So, you know, I appreciate thinking about people who are in office. So, any other comments? Seeing none. Do we have. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Allen, so let's go ahead and call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead and close. I'm sorry, Senator Menjivar.

Thank you so much. Well, Madam Chair, I hope maybe the Chair of election will work with me in the next coming years to further add to this Bill. With that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

File item three, SB 1170. Motion is due passed. [Roll Call].

Okay, it's 6 to 0. The Bill is out. So the last thing we have to do is go back to the consent calendar and call the absent Members.

Consent calendar file item one, SB 948. Current vote is 6-0. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted aye. [Roll call]

Okay, 7-0. That is out. So thank you to all the individuals who participated today. If you are not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee. The Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments is now adjourned. Thank you.