BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1544
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1544 (Cooley and Jones)
As Amended August 20, 2015
2/3 vote. Urgency
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Elections |6-0 |Ridley-Thomas, Grove, | |
| | |Gatto, Gordon, | |
| | |Mullin, Perea | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Provides that a payment made by a state, local, or
federal governmental agency that is made principally for
legislative or governmental purposes does not need to be
reported as a behested payment, as specified. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Specifies that a payment by a state, local, or federal
governmental agency that is made principally for a legislative
or governmental purpose is not subject to the behested payment
reporting requirements described below.
AB 1544
Page 2
2)Contains an urgency clause, allowing this bill to take effect
immediately upon enactment.
3)Contains double-jointing language to avoid chaptering problems
with AB 10 (Gatto) of the current legislative session.
EXISTING LAW requires a candidate who is an elected officer to
report a payment made at the behest of that officer, made
principally for legislative, governmental, or charitable
purposes, within 30 days following the date on which the payment
or payments equal or exceed $5,000 in the aggregate from the
same source in the same calendar year.
FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "Government Code Section
82015 generally provides that a payment made at the 'behest' of
an elected officer is a campaign contribution to that officer.
However, Section 82015 also provides that a 'behested' payment
made by a government agency is presumed not to be a
contribution. In another provision, Section 82015 requires that
elected officers file what is known as a 'behested payment
report' for payments made for a legislative, governmental or
charitable purpose that they 'behest' from others. These
provisions are ambiguous on whether payments made by government
agencies must be covered in these reports. Government
expenditures are subject to many laws designed to protect the
public interest, promote transparency, and ensure the
appropriate use of public resources. It is illegal for a
government agency to spend its funds unless the expenditure
relates to the agency's official function. It is a core
principle of representative government that an elected officer's
duties include advocating to government agencies on matters of
AB 1544
Page 3
consequence to benefit their constituents, which can include
funding of various types. This bill would clarify that a
payment made at the behest of an elected officer by a state,
local, or federal governmental agency that is made principally
for legislative or governmental purposes is exempt from
'behested payment' reporting."
In 1996, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) amended
its regulatory definition of the term "contribution" to include
any payment made "at the behest" of a candidate, regardless of
whether that payment was for a political purpose. As a result,
payments made by a third party at the request or direction of an
elected officer were required to be reported as campaign
contributions, even if those payments were made for governmental
or charitable purposes.
In response to the FPPC's modified definition of "contribution,"
the Legislature enacted SB 124 (Karnette), Chapter 450, Statutes
of 1997, which provided that a payment made at the behest of a
candidate for purposes unrelated to the candidate's candidacy
for elective office is not a contribution. SB 124 specifically
provided that a payment made at the behest of a candidate
principally for a legislative, governmental, or charitable
purpose is not considered a contribution or a gift. However, SB
124 also required that such payments made at the behest of a
candidate who is also an elected officer, when aggregating
$5,000 or more in a calendar year from a single source, be
reported to the elected officer's agency.
Earlier this year, in response to a request for advice from the
Executive Officer of the California State Coastal Conservancy
(SCC) (Schuchat Advice Letter, No. A-15-070), the FPPC concluded
that "[a]n elected official has a 'behested payment' reporting
obligation when he or she provides a letter to the [SCC]
expressing support for a grant of funds to be made by the
Conservancy to a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization to carry out a
AB 1544
Page 4
specific project." The FPPC letter indicated that "a key
component of the SCC's work is to grant funds to public entities
and? 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations to aid the grant
recipients in carrying out projects that further the SCC goals,"
and acknowledged that the SCC "typically asks grant applicants
to contact their local and state elected representatives to seek
letters of support for their projects." Nonetheless, the FPPC
concluded that grants made by the SCC to private nonprofit
entities would "not be used in the regular course of official
agency business of the elected officer" and therefore are
subject to behested payment reporting.
This bill specifies that payments made by state, local, and
federal governmental agencies that are made principally for
legislative or governmental purposes are not subject to the
behested payment reporting requirements, regardless of whether
the beneficiary of the payments is another governmental agency
or a private entity. In effect, this bill would overturn the
Schuchat Advice Letter, and future payments made by governmental
agencies that are made principally for legislative or
governmental purposes would not be subject to behested payment
reporting.
California voters passed an initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974
that created the FPPC and codified significant restrictions and
prohibitions on candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. That
initiative is commonly known as the Political Reform Act (PRA).
Amendments to the PRA that are not submitted to the voters, such
as those contained in this bill, must further the purposes of
the initiative and require a two-thirds vote of both houses of
the Legislature.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
AB 1544
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:
Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN:
0001507