BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó




                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                            Senator Kevin de León, Chair


          SB 1101 (Padilla) - Campaign Contributions
          
          Amended: April 30, 2014         Policy Vote:  E&CA 4-1
          Urgency:  No                    Mandate: No
          Hearing Date:  May 23, 2014                             
          Consultant: Maureen Ortiz       
          
          SUSPENSE FILE. AS AMENDED.
          
          
          Bill Summary:  SB 1101 amends the Political Reform Act (PRA) to  
          prohibit campaign contributions to a Member of the Legislature  
          during specified periods of time, and makes certain exceptions  
          for local elective offices and special elections.  

          Fiscal Impact:
           
              Annual costs of approximately $85,000 to Fair Political  
              Practices Commission (General Fund)

          The FPPC indicates the need for  PY Attorney IV position for  
          litigation purposes.

          Background:   Existing law, pursuant to the Political Reform  
          Act, limits campaign contributions to candidates for elective  
          state office as follows:

           To a candidate for elective state office other than a  
            candidate for statewide elective office, no person may  
            contribute more than $4,100 per election and no small  
            contributor committee may contribute more than $8,200 per  
            election;

           To a candidate for elective statewide office other than a  
            candidate for Governor, no person may contribute more than  
            $6,800 per election and no small contributor committee may  
            contribute more than $13,600 per election;

           To a candidate for Governor, no person or small contributor  
            committee may contribute more than $27,200 per election.

          The Fair Political Practices Commission is authorized to adjust  








          SB 1101 (Padilla)
          Page 1



          these contribution limits biannually to reflect any increase or  
          decrease in the Consumer Price Index.

          A state lobbyist may not contribute to a state officeholder's or  
          candidate's committee if the lobbyist is registered to lobby the  
          agency of the elected officer or the agency to which the  
          candidate is seeking election.  The lobbyist also may not  
          contribute to a local committee controlled by any such state  
          candidate.

          Existing law requires an individual to file a statement of  
          intention to be a candidate for an elective office prior to  
          soliciting or receiving a campaign contribution or loan but does  
          not otherwise place restrictions on when candidates may solicit  
          or receive contributions.
          Proposed Law:  SB 1101 prohibits any person from making a  
          contribution to a Member of the Legislature, and prohibits a  
          Member of the Legislature from soliciting or accepting a  
          contribution during the following periods:

          1)  In an odd-numbered year, on the date the Legislature  
          adjourns the regular session for a joint recess to reconvene in  
          the second calendar year of the biennium of the regular session,  
          during the 100 day period preceding that date, and during the  
          seven-day period following that date.

          2)  In an even-number year, the period from May 23 to September  
          7, inclusive.

          However, the above blackout periods will not apply to a Member  
          of the Legislature for purposes of that member's candidacy for a  
          local elective office, or for that member's candidacy for an  
          elective state office that is to be voted upon at a special  
          election.

          Staff Comments:  This bill imposes "blackout" periods where no  
          campaign contributions can be made to Members of the  
          Legislature.  This has been challenged as a violation of the  
          First Amendment right to freedom of speech in several states.   
          While several other states also have enacted blackout periods  
          prohibiting campaign contributions, the Oregon Attorney General  
          issued an opinion that its statute is unconstitutional and would  
          not be enforced.  








          SB 1101 (Padilla)
          Page 2




          In at least four states, state or federal courts have struck  
          down laws that prohibited legislators from receiving campaign  
          contributions while the Legislature was in session.  In 1990,  
          the Florida State Supreme Court ruled in  State v. Dodd  (1990)  
          561 So.2d 263, that a state law that prohibited a candidate  
          running for legislative office or a statewide office from  
          accepting or soliciting a campaign contribution during a regular  
          or special session of the Legislature was "unconstitutional for  
          its overbroad intrusion upon the rights of free speech and  
          association."  The court found a number of defects to the  
          Florida law, including that it placed restrictions on candidates  
          "who could not possibly be subject to a corrupting quid pro quo  
          arrangement," and that "by focusing entirely on the legislative  
          session, the Campaign Financing Act fails to recognize that  
          corrupt campaign practices just as easily can occur some other  
          time of the year."  Additionally, the court found that the  
          contribution blackout period would cut off "the flow of  
          resources needed for effective advocacy during a crucial portion  
          of the election year," in violation of the test established in  
           Buckley  .

          The United States District Court for the Eastern District of  
          Missouri, Eastern Division considered a similar contribution  
          blackout period in  Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin   
          (1996) 922 F. Supp. 1413.  Unlike the Florida law, Missouri's  
          Campaign Finance Disclosure Law only applied during a regular  
          session of the legislature and it did not prohibit the  
          solicitation of campaign contributions during a legislative  
          session, but otherwise was substantially similar to the Florida  
          law.  The  Maupin  court ruled that Missouri's blackout period  
          "severely impacts on a candidate's ability to expend funds which  
          in turn impinges upon the rights of individual citizens and  
          candidates to engage in political debate and discussion."

          Two other federal courts reached similar conclusions in 1998.  
          The United States District Court for the Eastern District of  
          North Carolina, Western Division in  North Carolina Right to Life  
          v. Bartlett  (1998) 3 F.Supp.2d 675, struck down a North Carolina  
          law prohibiting lobbyists from making contributions to  
          legislators and candidates for state legislature during a  
          legislative session.  The court ruled that the North Carolina  
          law "prevent[ed] candidates from amassing the resources  








          SB 1101 (Padilla)
          Page 3



          necessary for effective advocacy," in violation of the test  
          established in  Buckley  .  The United States District Court for  
          the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division in  
          Arkansas Right to Life v. Butler  (1998) 29 F.Supp.2d 540, struck  
          down an Arkansas law that prohibited statewide elected officials  
          and legislators from accepting any contribution 30 days before,  
          during, and 30 days after any regular session of the  
          Legislature.  The court concluded that the Arkansas law was  
          unconstitutional because "it does not take into account the fact  
          that corruption can occur at any time, and that only large  
          contributions pose a threat of corruption."  Unlike the Florida,  
          Missouri, and North Carolina laws, the Arkansas law did not  
          apply to non-state officeholder candidates for state office, but  
          only to elected state officials.

          While the provisions of this bill are distinguishable from the  
          laws in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, and Arkansas in that  
          it does not apply during the entire legislative session, but  
          only during that portion of the legislative session, this bill  
          nevertheless could be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge  
          based on other issues raised by one or more of these court  
          decisions.

          Committee Amendments:   Revise the blackout periods, and add an  
          urgency clause.