BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1107
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
1107 (Allen)
As Amended August 15, 2016
2/3 vote
SENATE VOTE: 26-12
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Elections |5-2 |Weber, Gordon, Low, |Harper, Travis |
| | |Mullin, Nazarian |Allen |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |14-6 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Calderon, Daly, |Obernolte, Wagner |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Weber, Wood, McCarty | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Allows state and local governments to offer public
SB 1107
Page 2
campaign financing programs. Limits the uses of campaign funds
that are held by public officials who have been convicted of
various public trust crimes. Specifically, this bill:
1)Permits state and local governmental entities to establish
public campaign financing programs for candidates for elective
office, if all of the following criteria are met:
a) The governmental entity has established a dedicated
fund, as specified, for the purpose of providing public
campaign financing for candidates for elective office;
b) Public moneys in the fund are available to all
qualified, voluntarily participating candidates of the same
office without regard to incumbency or political party;
and,
c) The state or local governmental entity has established
criteria, as specified, for determining a candidate's
qualification.
2)Provides that an officeholder who is convicted of a felony
involving bribery, embezzlement of public money, extortion or
theft of public money, perjury, or conspiracy to commit those
crimes, as specified, may use funds held by the officeholder's
candidate controlled committee only to pay outstanding
campaign debts and expenses, and for returning contributions.
Requires the officeholder, six months after conviction for one
of the aforementioned felonies becomes final, to forfeit any
remaining campaign funds and requires the funds to be
deposited in the general fund.
3)Makes various findings and declarations, and contains a
severability clause.
SB 1107
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, any administrative costs to the Fair Political
Practices Commission (FPPC), such as for providing advice or
modifying regulations, should be absorbable. The burden of
developing and adopting a public campaign financing program
would fall on any entity that chooses do so, and would thus not
be state reimbursable.
There is a good probability that this bill could result in
litigation challenging whether the bill meets the statutory
requirement to further the purpose of the Political Reform Act
(PRA), which does not provide for public financing. The state
could therefore incur significant legal costs in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "SB 1107 would remove the
ban on voluntary public campaign financing programs. Programs
would have to meet basic criteria for fairness and
accountability. SB 1107 does not create, or require any
government to create, any public campaign financing program - it
simply restores the option for local governments and the state.
"Additionally, SB 1107? would require elected officials, who
under current law are banned from running for office due to
conviction of a specified felony such as bribery, to forfeit
their campaign funds within six months, after paying debts or
returning contributions, other than legal defense funds."
In 1988, voters approved Proposition 73, which prohibited public
funding of campaigns and set contribution limits for state and
local elections. Many of the provisions of Proposition 73 were
ultimately ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts. The
only provisions of Proposition 73 to survive legal challenge
were contribution limits for special elections, restrictions on
SB 1107
Page 4
certain mass mailings by officeholders, and the prohibition on
the use of public money for campaign purposes.
Because of the public funding ban contained in Proposition 73,
the state and most local governments in California do not have
the option to offer public financing programs for electoral
campaigns. While the California Supreme Court ruled that the
public financing ban does not apply to charter cities (Johnson
v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 389), a state appellate court has
held that the public financing ban does apply to charter
counties (County of Sacramento v. Fair Political Practices
Commission (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 687).
As a result, while charter cities in California can enact public
campaign financing programs, general law cities, all counties,
all districts, and the state government are covered by the
current ban. According to information provided by the author's
office, six charter cities currently provide limited public
funding to match small campaign contributions (Los Angeles, Long
Beach, Oakland, Richmond, Sacramento, and San Francisco).
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 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.
In a letter dated August 11, 2016, and addressed to
Assemblymember Chad Mayes, the Office of the Legislative Counsel
provided written confirmation of an oral opinion it reached in
which it concluded that "the amendments proposed to Government
Code Section 85300 by [this bill] would require voter approval
in order to become effective." The letter does not include an
SB 1107
Page 5
analysis of how the Office of the Legislative Counsel reached
that conclusion.
In response to this letter, the author's office notes that
because the letter did not contain legal analysis on which the
conclusion was based, it is impossible to address the legal
reasoning behind that conclusion. However, the author's office
also notes that "based in part on legal research conducted by
attorneys with California Common Cause, the author disagrees
with the Legislative Counsel's conclusion," and states that "at
a December 11, 2015 oversight hearing held by the Senate
Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments, Jodi
Remke, Chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission, who is
also an attorney, testified that it is her understanding that
the Legislature could amend Section 85300 of the Government Code
without placing the question on the ballot." Additionally,
California Common Cause and other supporters of this bill argue
that it furthers the purposes of the PRA, maintaining that
"academic research over the past thirty years?confirms that
[public campaign financing] programs reduce the financial
advantages of incumbency," and noting that one of the purposes
of the PRA is to abolish "laws and practices unfairly favoring
incumbents."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by:
Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN:
0004916
SB 1107
Page 6