BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Debra Bowen, Chair
BILL NO: AB 1391 HEARING DATE:
7/13/05
AUTHOR: LENO ANALYSIS BY
Darren Chesin
AMENDED: 3/29/05
FISCAL: YES
DESCRIPTION
Current law , pursuant to the Political Reform Act (PRA),
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. A "county general purpose committee"
is defined 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. A "city general
purpose committee" is a committee to support or oppose
candidates or measures voted on in only one city. For
these purposes, a "county" includes a city and county (San
Francisco).
This bill establishes that a general purpose committee
determines whether it's 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:
It's a political party committee;
It's not a county general purpose committee or a
city general purpose committee; or
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% 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%
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% 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.
5.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.
6.Makes a technical correction.
BACKGROUND
Purpose . This bill is intended to close a loophole in
state reporting requirements for general purpose committees
by clarifying the definition of state, county and city
general purpose committees.
Currently, a general purpose committee may register as a
state committee if it's involved in a state election. As a
AB 1391 (LENO) Page
2
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's exempt from having 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.
This bill defines a state general purpose committee as such
if 50% or more of its contributions are spent on a state
election. If a committee spends 50% or more of its
contributions in a county election, then it is considered a
county general purpose committee. If a committee spends
50% or more of its contributions in a city election, then
it is considered a city general purpose committee.
By setting out definitive contribution thresholds, this
bill clarifies the distinction between committees and
prevents a state committee from funneling a majority of
funds to a local committee without local disclosure.
State, County or City ? Under current law, 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.
However, it's unclear how a general purpose committee is
supposed to be classified if it supports or opposes
candidates or measures at the state, county, and city
levels. It's 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
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
AB 1391 (LENO) Page
3
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, 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 "whether 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% of
its expenditures within one county, the committee would be
considered a county general purpose committee. Similarly,
if a committee makes more than 50% of its expenditures
within a single city, the committee would be considered a
city general purpose committee.
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 aren't filing pre-election statements in
AB 1391 (LENO) Page
4
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.
COMMENTS
1.Better, But Not Quite Dead Solid Perfect . It is not
clear whether the 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% of its
expenditures on Los Angeles city races and 49.9% of its
expenditures on state races to be considered a city
general purpose committee? Such a policy would require
this hypothetical 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. The author and committee may wish to
consider whether this is appropriate.
2.Calculating The 50% Mark . Under this measure, committees
would use their spending in the current and prior
calendar years to determine whether they are a city,
county, or state general purpose committee. What's not
clear is what happens if, at some point during that
timeline, a committee effectively "switches" from being,
for example, a state general purpose committee to a city
general purpose committee. Will a committee have to go
back and file reports retroactively as if it were a city
general purpose committee all along? Even if such a
committee does file reports retroactively, will voters
have been deprived of critical information during the
time frame when, in this example, the committee was
classified as a state general purpose committee and not a
city general purpose committee? The author and committee
AB 1391 (LENO) Page
5
may wish to consider clarifying this issue.
3.Why Not File Reports At All Three Levels ? Given the
above noted issues, the author and committee may wish to
consider whether it would be more appropriate to require
general purpose committees that choose to get involved in
city, county, and/or state election contests to file
reports at each of those levels. While this may be more
cumbersome for the general purpose committees in
question, it may provide more useful information to
voters in a timely fashion.
4.Related Legislation : AB 1755 (Assembly Elections and
Redistricting Committee), also 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.
PRIOR ACTION
Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee 6-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee 18-0
Assembly Floor 71-0
POSITIONS :
Sponsor: Fair Political Practices Commission
Support: None received
Oppose: None received
AB 1391 (LENO) Page
6