BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1107|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1107
Author: Allen (D), et al.
Amended: 8/15/16
Vote: 27
SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/19/16
AYES: Allen, Hancock, Hertzberg, Liu
NOES: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/27/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
SENATE FLOOR: 26-12, 5/31/16
AYES: Allen, Beall, Block, Cannella, De León, Galgiani,
Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Jackson,
Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning,
Pan, Pavley, Roth, Wieckowski, Wolk
NOES: Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Fuller, Gaines, Huff,
Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hueso, Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-22, 8/30/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Political Reform Act of 1974
SOURCE: California Common Cause
DIGEST: This bill provides, within the Political Reform Act
(PRA), an exception to the existing ban on use of public moneys
for the purpose of seeking public office and a requirement that
an officeholder who is convicted of specified crimes to forfeit
any remaining campaign funds to the general fund.
SB 1107
Page 2
Assembly Amendments add coauthors; add findings and
declarations; delete language regarding foreign contributions;
and delete language which would have caused the bill to be
placed on the ballot.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides, pursuant to the PRA as amended by Proposition 73 of
1988, that no public officer shall expend and no candidate
shall accept any public moneys for the purpose of seeking
elective office.
2)Provides, pursuant to the California Constitution, that every
person shall be disqualified from holding any office of profit
in this state who has been convicted of having given or
offered a bribe to procure personal election or appointment
and that laws shall be made to exclude persons convicted of
bribery, perjury, forgery, malfeasance in office, or other
high crimes from office or serving on juries.
3)Provides that a person shall not be considered a candidate
for, and is not eligible to be elected to, any state or local
elective office if the person has been convicted of a felony
involving accepting or giving, or offering to give, any bribe,
the embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of public
money, perjury, or conspiracy to commit any of those crimes.
4)Provides that campaign funds under the control of a former
candidate or elected officer are considered "surplus campaign
funds" on the 90th day after the person leaves office, or on
the 90th day following the end of the postelection reporting
period following the defeat of the candidate, whichever occurs
last.
SB 1107
Page 3
5)Permits surplus campaign funds to be used only for the
following purposes:
a) The payment of outstanding campaign debts or elected
officer's expenses.
b) The repayment of contributions.
c) Donations to a bona fide charitable, educational, civic,
religious, or similar tax-exempt, nonprofit organization,
where no substantial part of the proceeds will have a
material financial effect on the former candidate or
elected officer, any member of his or her immediate family,
or his or her campaign treasurer.
d) Contributions to a political party committee, provided
that the campaign funds are not used to support or oppose a
candidate for elective office. However, contributions made
pursuant to this provision may be used by a political party
committee to conduct partisan voter registration, partisan
get-out-the-vote activities, and slate-mailers.
e) Contributions to support or oppose a candidate for
federal office, a candidate for elective office in a state
other than California, or a ballot measure.
f) The payment for professional services reasonably
required by the committee to assist in the performance of
its administrative functions, including payment for
attorney's fees and other costs for litigation that arises
directly out of a candidate's or elected officer's
activities, duties, or status as a candidate or elected
officer.
SB 1107
Page 4
6)Provides that the PRA may only be amended or repealed in the
following manner:
a) Amended to further its purposes by a statute passed in
each house of the Legislature by a two-thirds vote and
signed by the Governor.
b) Amended or repealed by a statute that becomes effective
only when approved by the electors. The Legislature may
place a PRA amendment on the ballot by majority vote in
each house and signed by the Governor.
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
SB 1107
Page 5
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.
Background
Where does the public funding ban apply? The state itself and
most California local governments do not have the option to
offer any public funding to electoral campaigns, under the
existing statewide ban. While charter cities are exempt under
autonomy granted by the state Constitution, general law cities,
counties, districts, and the state government are covered by the
current state ban. In fact, after voters in Sacramento County
enacted public financing several years ago, the courts struck it
down under Prop. 73. Currently, six charter cities provide
limited public funding to match small campaign contributions
(Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Richmond, Sacramento, and San
Francisco). Proponents of these programs describe them as
intended to provide candidates with an alternative to relying on
large campaign contributions and amplify the voices of
Californians who make small donations. Other local governments
are prohibited from offering public campaign funding, due to a
provision of Proposition 73 of 1988.
Comments
According to the author, SB 1107 would restore control to local
governments and the state to enact new options for election
campaign funding. Voters are increasingly concerned about
SB 1107
Page 6
political mega-donors in our elections. Most Americans think
that money has too much influence in our political campaigns
today and they believe that campaign finance should be reformed
so that the influence of special interest money is reduced.
To address voters' concerns, governments are increasingly
considering new approaches to campaign financing. In November
2015, voters in Maine and Seattle approved ballot measures that
put power back into the hands of voters and small donors. In
Maine, 55% of voters approved strengthening that state's Clean
Elections Act, which provides public funds to candidates for
state office. In Seattle, 63% of voters approved creating a
program to offer public financing for local candidates through a
voucher system that empowers voters to decide which candidates
receive public money that the voters themselves control.
Six California cities already had laws similar to those recently
approved by voters in Maine and Seattle. Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, and Richmond offer
limited public funds to match small campaign donations. These
laws amplify the voices of everyday Californians who make small
contributions and provide candidates with an alternative to
relying on large contributors.
Unfortunately, such programs are currently prohibited in other
California jurisdictions. Unlike charter cities, state law bans
counties, districts, general law cities, and the state itself
from offering public campaign funds, under a provision enacted
by Proposition 73, a 1988 initiative that had virtually all of
its other provisions invalidated in federal court.
Much has changed since 1988 when it comes to campaign finance.
Voters in 1988 could have not envisioned the multi-million
dollar Super PACs that exist in 2016. It is time for the
Legislature and voters to bring our campaign finance laws into
the 21st Century.
SB 1107
Page 7
SB 1107 removes the ban on voluntary public campaign financing
programs. Because the ban was originally instituted by ballot
initiative, this bill refers the issue to the ballot for voters'
approval. SB 1107 does not create a public financing program or
require any government to offer public financing. It does not
spend any public funds or raise any taxes or fees. It simply
amends the ban to permit local governments or the state, if they
so choose, to enact laws that create public financing programs.
Local governments would have the flexibility to tailor policies
to local concerns and conditions, while requiring basic
protections for fairness and accountability.
This bill also includes another common sense reform to increase
the accountability of our elections. When an elected official
is convicted of a felony that includes the abuse of their
office, such as bribery or embezzlement, they are disqualified
from running for office again. In these rare but serious cases,
this bill requires the convicted official to return any unused
campaign funds to donors or pay past debts, and forfeit any
surplus funds after six months to the state's general fund.
(Legal defense funds would not be affected.)
California voters passed an initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974
that created the Fair Political Practices Commission (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
analysis of how the Office of the Legislative Counsel reached
that conclusion.
SB 1107
Page 8
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."
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, any
administrative costs to the 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 PRA, which does not
provide for public financing. The state could therefore incur
significant legal costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
SB 1107
Page 9
SUPPORT: (Verified8/30/16)
California Common Cause (source)
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
American Association of Retired Persons
American Civil Liberties Union of California
American Sustainable Business Council
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - California
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
Bay Area Rapid Transit
Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Church IMPACT
California Clean Money Campaign
California Forward Action Fund
California Labor Federation
California League of Conservation Voters
California National Organization for Women
California OneCare
California Public Interest Research Group
California School Employees Association
California Voices for Progress
Campaign Legal Center
City and County of San Francisco
City of Oakland
City of Richmond
Consumer Attorneys of California
Consumer Watchdog
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Courage Campaign
Daily Kos
Democracy for America
Franciscan Action Network
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of the Earth
League of Women Voters of California
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor
Lutheran Office of Public Policy - California
MapLight
SB 1107
Page 10
Money Out, Voters In
National Council of Jewish Women-California
PICO California
Placer County Democratic Center
Public Citizen
Represent California
Represent.Us
RootsAction.org
Sierra Club California
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
UFCW Western States Council
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/30/16)
California Taxpayers Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-22, 8/30/16
AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta,
Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chiu, Chu,
Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier,
Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina,
Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams,
Wood, Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chávez, Dahle,
Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Harper, Jones, Lackey,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson,
Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Kim, Linder, Olsen
Prepared by:Darren Chesin / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106
8/30/16 20:09:27
**** END ****
SB 1107
Page 11