BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 2523 (Mullin) - Local elective offices: contribution
limitations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: June 14, 2016 |Policy Vote: E. & C.A. 4 - 1 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 1, 2016 |Consultant: Robert Ingenito |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 2523 would establish campaign contribution limits
for local office at the same level as the limit on contributions
from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly ($4,200),
except where a local jurisdiction establishes its own limits.
Fiscal
Impact: The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) indicates
that it would incur first-year costs of $1.1 million, and
ongoing costs of $1 million to implement the provisions of the
bill (General Fund). Counties would incur nonreimbursable
enforcement costs, offset to some extent by fine revenue.
Background: Current law (Proposition 34) imposes campaign contribution
limits for elections to state office. The limits on
AB 2523 (Mullin) Page 1 of
?
contributions by individuals initially ranged from $3,000 (for
candidates for Assembly and Senate) to $20,000 (for candidates
for Governor) per election, and are required to be adjusted for
inflation every two years. For 2015 and 2016, these limits
range from $4,200 to $28,200, respectively. 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. Thus, 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 FPPC, which posts those ordinances to its
internet site. 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, 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
instances, 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.
A recent report prepared by California Common Cause indicates
that about 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 limits of
$1,000 or less.
AB 2523 (Mullin) Page 2 of
?
Proposed Law: This bill would, among other things, do the
following:
Prohibit, 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.
Authorize a county, city, special district, or school
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.
Authorize 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.
Add 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.
Specify that FPPC is not responsible for the
administration or enforcement of a contribution limits
adopted by a local government that is different from the
limits imposed on state elective offices.
AB 2523 (Mullin) Page 3 of
?
Related
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.
Staff
Comments: As noted earlier, FPPC estimates that, based on prior
experience with similar workload related to San Bernardino
County, the bill would result in first-year costs of $1.074
million, and $1.018 million in the out years to administer the
bill. This cost reflects eight new positions, and the following
additional workload resulting from the bill: reviewing and
responding to email and telephone requests for advice, posting
local ordinances on its internet site, training, outreach and
educational activities, updating existing manuals, implementing
regulations and providing advice and counsel.
-- END --