BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1391
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 5, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Tom Umberg, Chair
AB 1391 (Leno) - As Amended: March 29, 2005
SUBJECT : Campaign disclosure.
SUMMARY : Establishes that a general purpose committee
determines whether it is a state general purpose committee,
county general purpose committee, or city general purpose
committee based on where the committee makes a majority of its
contributions and independent expenditures. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Provides that a general purpose committee is a state general
purpose committee if it meets any of the following
requirements:
a) It is a political party committee;
b) It is not a county general purpose committee or a city
general purpose committee; or
c) It makes expenditures to support or oppose candidates or
measures voted on in a state election, or in more than one
county, including making contributions to state general
purpose committees, that total more than 50 percent of the
contributions and independent expenditures made by the
committee.
2)Provides that a general purpose committee is a county general
purpose committee if it makes expenditures to support or
oppose candidates or measures voted on in only one county, or
in more than one jurisdiction within one county, including
contributions to county general purpose committees in the same
county, that total more than 50 percent of the contributions
and independent expenditures made by the committee.
3)Provides that a general purpose committee is a city general
purpose committee if it makes expenditures to support or
oppose candidates or measures voted on in only one city, or in
one consolidated city and county, including contributions to
city general purpose committees in the same city or
consolidated city and county, that total more than 50 percent
AB 1391
Page 2
of the contributions and independent expenditures made by the
committee.
4)Provides that, for the purposes of calculating the percentage
of contributions and independent expenditures made by a
general purpose committee in each jurisdiction, contributions
and expenditures made to support or oppose candidates,
measures, or committees during the current calendar year and
the previous calendar year shall be counted. Provides that a
general purpose committee is not required to count
contributions or expenditures made during a prior calendar
year in which the committee was not required to file campaign
statements.
5)Makes a technical correction.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Defines a "state general purpose committee" as a political
party committee or a committee to support or oppose candidates
or measures voted on in a state election, or in more than one
county.
2)Defines a "county general purpose committee" as a committee to
support or oppose candidates or measures voted on in only one
county, or in more than one jurisdiction within one county.
3)Defines a "city general purpose committee" as a committee to
support or oppose candidates or measures voted on in only one
city.
4)Defines "county," for the purposes of the Political Reform Act
(PRA), to include a city and county.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program;
contains a crimes and infractions disclaimer.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
AB 1391 would close a loophole in state reporting
requirements for general purpose committees by clarifying
AB 1391
Page 3
the definition of state, county and city general purpose
committees.
Currently, a general purpose committee may register as a
state committee if it is involved in a state election. As
a state committee, it must follow state disclosure
requirements and deadlines. However, if the state
committee decides to heavily participate in a city or
county election, it does not need to follow city or county
disclosure regulations. There have been incidents of
general purpose committees skirting local regulations by
registering as a state committee. As a result, there is
less opportunity for campaign finance transparency on the
local level.
AB 1391 defines a state general purpose committee as such
if 50 percent or more of its contributions are spent on a
state election. If a committee spends 50 percent or more
of its contributions in a county election, then it is
considered a county general purpose committee. If a
committee spends 50 percent or more of its contributions in
a city election, then it is considered a city general
purpose committee.
By setting out definitive contribution thresholds, AB 1391
clarifies the distinction between committees and prevents a
state committee from funneling a majority of funds to a
local committee without local disclosure.
2)State, County or City ? Existing law specifies that a city
general purpose committee is a committee that supports or
opposes candidates or measures voted on in only one city.
Similarly, a county general purpose committee is one that
supports or opposes candidates only in one county, or in more
than one jurisdiction within one county. A state general
purpose committee is one that supports or opposes candidates
or measures voted on in a state election.
These definitions leave ambiguity about how a general purpose
committee is supposed to be classified if it supports or
opposes candidates or measures at state elections, county
elections, and city elections. It is not clear, for instance,
whether a general purpose committee that is almost entirely
involved in supporting or opposing candidates or measures at
county elections, but makes a small expenditure supporting a
AB 1391
Page 4
candidate for state office, is considered a county general
purpose committee or a state general purpose committee.
Should a city general purpose committee automatically be
considered (and subject to the filing and disclosure
requirements of) a state general purpose committee simply by
virtue of making a contribution to a state ballot measure
committee in support of a ballot measure to protect local
government funding?
Under existing law, there is no bright-line rule for a general
purpose committee to follow to determine if it is a state,
county, or city general purpose committee. In a 1997 advice
letter (Moll Advice Letter, No. A-97-080), the Fair Political
Practices Commission (FPPC) interpreted the existing law to
mean that, for instance, if a county general purpose committee
conducted more than de minimis activity outside the county,
that committee would become a state general purpose committee.
Similarly, a city general purpose committee that conducted
more than de minimis activity outside the city would not be a
city general purpose committee, but rather a county general
purpose committee or a state general purpose committee. The
FPPC noted that "[w]hether a given activity is de minimis will
necessarily depend on the overall activity and history of the
committee." As such, there is no objective way for a general
purpose committee to determine if it is a state, county, or
city general purpose committee, short of getting advice from
the FPPC.
This bill specifies the percentage of a committee's activity
that makes it a state, county, or city general purpose
committee. If a committee makes more than 50 percent of its
expenditures within one county, the committee would be
considered a county general purpose committee. Similarly, if
a committee makes more than 50 percent of its expenditures
within a single city, the committee would be considered a city
general purpose committee.
It is not clear whether this 50 percent threshold is the
appropriate level for a general purpose committee to make the
determination of whether it is a state, county, or city
general purpose committee. Is it appropriate for a general
purpose committee that makes 50.1 percent of its expenditures
on Los Angeles city races and 49.9 percent of its expenditures
on state races to be considered a city general purpose
committee? Such a policy would require this hypothetical
AB 1391
Page 5
committee to file campaign reports only with the Los Angeles
City Clerk, and not with the Secretary of State, as is
required of state general purpose committees.
3)General Purpose Committees in San Francisco : Because existing
law defines the term "county," for the purposes of the PRA, to
include a city and county, a general purpose committee that is
involved primarily in supporting and opposing candidates and
measures in San Francisco (a consolidated city and county) is
considered a county general purpose committee. While county
general purpose committees are required to file pre-election
statements only in connection with state election dates, city
general purpose committees are required to file pre-election
statements in connection with elections held in that city.
According to the FPPC, general purpose committees in San
Francisco are not filing pre-election statements in connection
with local San Francisco elections because, as county general
purpose committees, these committees are only required to file
pre-election statements for state elections.
This bill specifies that general purpose committees that are
involved primarily in supporting and opposing candidates and
measures in a consolidated city and county are considered city
general purpose committees, thereby requiring such general
purpose committees to file pre-election statements in
connection with local elections held in the consolidated city
and county.
4)Related Legislation : AB 1755 (Elections Committee), pending
in this Committee, among its provisions makes the identical
technical correction to Section 82048.7 of the Government Code
that is made by this bill.
5)Political Reform Act of 1974 : California voters passed an
initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974 that created the FPPC and
codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on
candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. Amendments to the PRA
that are not submitted to the voters, such as those contained
in this bill, require a 2/3 vote of both houses of the
Legislature.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 1391
Page 6
Fair Political Practices Commission (sponsor)
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094