BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Ben Allen, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2523 Hearing Date: 6/21/16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Mullin |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |6/14/16 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Darren Chesin |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Local elective offices: contribution limitations
DIGEST
Establishes campaign contribution limits for local office at the
same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to
candidates for Senate and Assembly, except where a local
jurisdiction establishes its own limits.
ANALYSIS
Existing law:
1)Permits a county, city, special district, or school district
to limit campaign contributions in local elections.
2)Creates the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), and
makes it responsible for the impartial, effective
administration and implementation of the Political Reform Act
(PRA).
3)Requires any local government agency that has enacted, enacts,
amends, or repeals an ordinance or other provision of law
affecting campaign contributions and expenditures to file a
copy of the action with the FPPC.
4)Prohibits a local government agency from enacting a campaign
finance ordinance that imposes campaign reporting requirements
that are additional to or different from those set forth in
the PRA for elections held in its jurisdiction unless the
AB 2523 (Mullin) Page 2
of ?
additional or different requirements apply only to the
candidates seeking election in that jurisdiction, their
controlled committees or committees formed or existing
primarily to support or oppose their candidacies, and to
committees formed or existing primarily to support or oppose a
candidate or to support or oppose the qualification or passage
of a local ballot measure which is being voted on only in that
jurisdiction, and to city or county general purpose committees
active only in that city or county, respectively.
5)Provides that nothing in the PRA shall nullify contribution
limitations or prohibitions of any local jurisdiction that
apply to elections for local elective office, except that
these limitations and prohibitions may not conflict with a
specified provision of the PRA dealing with "member
communications."
6)Prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee
or political party committee, from making any contribution
totaling more than $4,200 to any candidate for elective state
office other than statewide elective office, and prohibits
candidates from accepting a contribution that exceeds that
amount. Requires the FPPC to adjust this limit in January of
every odd-numbered year to reflect any increase or decrease in
the Consumer Price Index, and requires those adjustments to be
rounded to the nearest $100.
This bill:
1)Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2018, a person from making to
a candidate for local elective office, and would prohibit a
candidate for local elective office from accepting from a
person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth
for limitations on contributions to a candidate for specified
elective state office (currently $4,200) as that amount is
adjusted periodically by the FPPC.
2)Provides that a contribution shall not be deemed received for
purposes of this bill if it is returned to the contributor
within 14 days of receipt and further provides that this
limitation does not apply to a candidate's contributions of
his or her personal funds to his or her own campaign.
3)Authorizes a county, city, special district, or school
AB 2523 (Mullin) Page 3
of ?
district to impose a limitation that is different from, and in
lieu of, the limitation imposed by this bill. That limitation
may also be imposed by means of a local initiative measure.
4)Authorizes a local government that imposes a limitation that
is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt
enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation
imposed by the local government agency, including
administrative, civil, or criminal penalties.
5)Provides that a local government agency may not impose
additional requirements on a person if the requirements
prevent the person from complying with other existing
provisions of the PRA.
6)Adds the contribution limitation imposed by this bill to the
PRA, thereby making a violation of the limitation punishable
pursuant to existing administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties provided for in the PRA. However, the bill would
specify that a violation of a limitation imposed by a local
government is not subject to the PRA's enforcement provisions.
7)Makes the following findings and declarations:
a) Most states impose limitations on contributions to
candidates for local elective offices. California is among
the minority of states without these contribution
limitations.
b) Most local governments in this state have not
independently imposed limitations on contributions to
candidates for local elective offices.
c) In local jurisdictions in this state that have not
imposed limitations on contributions, candidates for local
elective offices often receive contributions that would
exceed the limitations for a state Senate campaign, even
though most local jurisdictions contain far fewer people
than the average state Senate district.
d) In local jurisdictions in this state that have not
imposed limitations on contributions, candidates for local
elective office sometimes raise 40 percent or more of their
AB 2523 (Mullin) Page 4
of ?
total campaign funds from a single contributor.
e) A system allowing unlimited contributions to a candidate
for local elective office creates the risk and the
perception that local elected officials are beholden to
their contributors and will act in the best interest of
those contributors at the expense of the people.
f) This state has a statewide interest in preventing actual
corruption and the appearance of corruption at all levels
of state government.
g) This act establishes a limitation on contributions to a
candidate for local elective office in a jurisdiction in
which the local government has not established a
limitation. However, a local government may establish a
different limitation that is more precisely tailored to the
needs of its communities.
1)Makes other conforming changes.
BACKGROUND
Existing State Contribution Limits . The existing contribution
limits that apply to candidates for elective state office were
enacted via Proposition 34 on the November, 2000 ballot through
passage of SB 1223 (Burton, Chapter 102, Statutes of 2000).
While Proposition 34 established new campaign contribution
limits for elections to state office, it did not contain
contribution limits for elections to local office. The limits
on contributions by individuals contained in Proposition 34
ranged from $3,000 (for candidates for Assembly and Senate) to
$20,000 per election (for candidates for Governor), and are
required to be adjusted for inflation every two years. For 2015
and 2016, these limits range from $4,200 per election for
candidates for Assembly and Senate to $28,200 for candidates for
Governor. While local governments have the authority to adopt
contribution limits for elections to local offices in their
jurisdictions, state law does not impose limits on contributions
to candidates for local office.
Local Campaign Ordinances . Under existing law, local government
agencies have the ability to adopt campaign ordinances that
AB 2523 (Mullin) Page 5
of ?
apply to elections within their jurisdictions, though the PRA
imposes certain limited restrictions on those local ordinances.
For instance, SB 726 (McCorquodale, Chapter 1456, Statutes of
1985), limited the ability of local jurisdictions to impose
campaign filing requirements that differed from those in the
PRA, while AB 1430 (Garrick, Chapter 708, Statutes of 2007),
prohibits local governments from adopting rules governing member
communications that are different than the rules that govern
member communications at the state level.
Aside from these restrictions, however, local government
agencies generally have a significant amount of latitude when
developing local campaign finance ordinances that apply to
elections in those agencies' jurisdictions. Any jurisdiction
that adopts or amends a local campaign finance ordinance is
required to file a copy of that ordinance with the FPPC, and the
FPPC posts those ordinances on its website. The FPPC's website
currently includes campaign finance ordinances from 19 counties,
141 cities, and one special district.
The campaign ordinances adopted by local governments in
California vary significantly in terms of their scope. Some
local ordinances are very limited in scope, while others are
much more extensive. In some cases, the ordinances include
campaign contribution limits, reporting and disclosure
requirements that supplement the requirements of the PRA,
temporal restrictions on when campaign funds may be raised, and
voluntary public financing of local campaigns, among other
provisions. In many cases, local campaign finance ordinances
are enforced by the district attorney of the county or by the
city attorney. In at least a few cases, however, local
jurisdictions have set up independent boards or commissions to
enforce the local campaign finance laws.
According to a recent report prepared by California Common
Cause, approximately 23 percent of cities and 28 percent of
counties in the state have adopted local campaign contribution
limits. Of the 124 local jurisdictions identified in the report
as having adopted local campaign contribution limits, only one
(Alameda County) has a contribution limit that is higher than
the $4,200 per election limit that would be imposed by this
bill. More than 90 percent of the cities that have adopted
contribution limits have limits of $1,000 or less. By contrast,
about half of the counties that adopted contribution limits have
AB 2523 (Mullin) Page 6
of ?
limits of $1,000 or less.
COMMENTS
According to the author : Currently, there is no state standard
of limits on campaign contributions for candidates running for
local office. This means that those local jurisdictions that
have not adopted limits independently currently have no limit on
the amount of money local candidates can accept. This opens the
potential for the corrupting influence of money. Ensuring the
integrity of our elections process should be a priority, and
more money should not equal more representation, even at the
lowest level of elected office. Local elected officials often
have the most direct influence on the governance, and California
needs a standard in place to ensure that local candidates are
not overly reliant upon a select few wealthy donors.
AB 2523 establishes a standard $4,200 limit on campaign
contributions to candidates running for local elected office in
jurisdictions that have not adopted their own contribution
limits. By establishing a reasonable cap to prevent excessive
contributions in jurisdictions that have no limits and
simultaneously maintaining and encouraging local jurisdictions'
ability to enact their own contribution limits tailored to the
needs of their communities, this measure safeguards our
democracy down to the local level. Thirty-four other states
have enacted a statewide limit for local campaign contributions.
California should be among them.
According to a recent study by Common Cause, only 25 percent of
cities and 30 percent of counties have established contribution
limits. The percentage of districts with limits is much lower.
Most jurisdictions have enacted no limits whatsoever; in these
jurisdictions, contributors can give unlimited amounts to
candidates for office. In the past few election cycles, there
have been numerous examples of candidates running for local
office receiving $20,000, $50,000, or even $90,000
contributions. In some cases, more than 50 percent of a
candidate's campaign funds may come from just one or two
contributors. Contributions of this magnitude harm public trust
in the democratic process by deepening the perception or the
possibility that candidates will be more responsive to their
financial backers than their constituents.
AB 2523 (Mullin) Page 7
of ?
RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION
SB 1223 (Burton, Chapter 102, Statutes of 2000), placed
Proposition 34 on the November, 2000 ballot which enacted the
existing contribution limits that apply to candidates for
elective state office.
PRIOR ACTION
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Assembly Floor: |51 - 26 |
|--------------------------------------+---------------------------|
|Assembly Appropriations Committee: |14 - 5 |
|--------------------------------------+---------------------------|
|Assembly Elections and Redistricting | 5 - 2 |
|Committee: | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
POSITIONS
Sponsor: California Common Cause
Support: California Clean Money Campaign
League of Women Voters of California
Money Out, Voters In (MOVI)
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
Oppose:Fair Political Practices Commission
Madera County Board of Supervisors
-- END --