Amended in Assembly August 15, 2016

Amended in Assembly June 30, 2016

Amended in Assembly June 21, 2016

Amended in Senate March 28, 2016

Senate BillNo. 1107


Introduced by Senator Allen

(Principal coauthor: Senator Hancock)

(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Chiu)

begin insert

(Coauthor: Assembly Member Gonzalez)

end insert

February 17, 2016


An act to amend Section 85300 of, and to add Section 89519.5 to, the Government Code, relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 1107, as amended, Allen. Political Reform Act of 1974.

Existing law prohibits a person who has been convicted of a felony involving bribery, embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of public money, perjury, or conspiracy to commit any of those crimes, from being considered a candidate for, or elected to, a state or local elective office. Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, provides that campaign funds under the control of a former candidate or elected officer are considered surplus campaign funds at a prescribed time, and it prohibits the use of surplus campaign funds except for specified purposes.

This bill would prohibit an officeholder who is convicted of one of those enumerated felonies from using funds held by that officeholder’s candidate controlled committee for purposes other than certain purposes permitted for the use of surplus campaign funds. The bill would also require the officeholder to forfeit any remaining funds held 6 months after the conviction became final, and it would direct those funds to be deposited in the General Fund.

The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.

This bill would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for this purpose, as specified.

A violation of the act’s provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act’s purposes upon a 23 vote of each house and compliance with specified procedural requirements.

This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.

Vote: 23. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

P2    1

SECTION 1.  

The Legislature finds and declares all of the
2following:

3(a) All citizens should be able to make their voices heard in the
4political process and hold their elected officials accountable.

5(b) Elections for local or state elective office should be fair,
6open, and competitive.

7(c) The increasing costs of political campaigns can force
8candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and
9special interests, which can give those wealthy donors and special
10interests disproportionate influence over governmental decisions.

11(d) Such disproportionate influence can undermine the public’s
12trust that public officials are performing their duties in an impartial
P3    1manner and that government is serving the needs and responding
2to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth.

3(e) Special interests contribute more to incumbents than
4challengers because they seek access to elected officials, and such
5contributions account for a large portion of the financial
6incumbency advantage, as confirmed by recent studies such as
7those published in the Journal of Politics in 2014 and Political
8Research Quarterly in 2016.

9(f) Citizen-funded election programs, in which qualified
10candidates can receive public funds for the purpose of
11communicating with voters rather than relying exclusively on
12private donors, have been enacted in six charter cities in California,
13as well as numerous other local and state jurisdictions.

14(g) Citizen-funded election programs encourage competition
15by reducing the financial advantages of incumbency and making
16it possible for citizens from all walks of life, not only those with
17connections to wealthy donors or special interests, to run for office,
18as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in State
19Politics and Policy Quarterly in 2008, and by the Campaign
20Finance Institute in 2015 and the National Institute of Money in
21State Politics in 2016.

22(h) By reducing reliance on wealthy donors and special interests,
23citizen-funded election programs inhibit improper practices, protect
24 against corruption or the appearance of corruption, and protect the
25political integrity of our governmental institutions.

26(i) In Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, the California
27Supreme Court commented that “it seems obvious that public
28money reduces rather than increases the fund raising pressures on
29public office seekers and thereby reduces the undue influence of
30special interest groups.”

31(j) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States
32Supreme Court recognized that “public financing as a means of
33eliminatingbegin insert theend insert improper influence of large private contributions
34furthers a significant governmental interest.”

35(k) In Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (2011) 564 U.S. 721,
36the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that public
37financing of elections “can further ‘significant governmental
38interest[s]’ such as the state interest in preventing corruption,”
39quoting Buckley v. Valeo.

P4    1(l) In Buckley v. Valeo, the United States Supreme Court further
2noted that citizen-funded elections programs “facilitate and enlarge
3public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals
4vital to a self-governing people.”

5(m) The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing
6allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and
7unfairly favors incumbents. An exception should be created to
8permit citizen-funded election programs so that elections may be
9conducted more fairly.

10

SEC. 2.  

Section 85300 of the Government Code is amended
11to read:

12

85300.  

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), a public
13officer shall not expend, and a candidate shall not accept, any
14public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.

15(b) A public officer or candidate may expend or accept public
16moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a
17local governmental entity establishes a dedicated fund for this
18purpose by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter, and both of
19the following are true:

20(1) Public moneys held in the fund are available to all qualified,
21voluntarily participating candidates for the same office without
22regard to incumbency or political party preference.

23(2) The state or local governmental entity has established criteria
24for determining a candidate’s qualification by statute, ordinance,
25resolution, or charter.

26

SEC. 3.  

Section 89519.5 is added to the Government Code, to
27read:

28

89519.5.  

(a) An officeholder who is convicted of a felony
29enumerated in Section 20 of the Elections Code, and whose
30conviction has become final, shall use funds held by the
31officeholder’s candidate controlled committee only for the
32following purposes:

33(1) The payment of outstanding campaign debts or elected
34officer’s expenses.

35(2) The repayment of contributions.

36(b) Six months after the conviction becomes final, the
37officeholder shall forfeit any remaining funds subject to subdivision
38(a), and these funds shall be deposited in the General Fund.

P5    1(c) This section does not apply to funds held by a ballot measure
2committee or in a legal defense fund formed pursuant to Section
385304.

4

SEC. 4.  

The provisions of this bill are severable. If any
5provision of this bill or its application is held invalid, that invalidity
6shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given
7effect without the invalid provision or application.

8

SEC. 5.  

No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
9Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
10the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
11district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
12infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
13for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of
14the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within
15the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
16Constitution.

17

SEC. 6.  

The Legislature finds and declares that this bill furthers
18the purposes of the Political Reform Act of 1974 within the
19meaning of subdivision (a) of Section 81012 of the Government
20Code.



O

    95