BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1391|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1391
Author: Leno (D)
Amended: 3/29/05 in Assembly
Vote: 27
SENATE ELEC.TIONS, REAP. & C. A. COMMITTEE : 6-0, 7/13/05
AYES: Bowen, Battin, Dunn, Murray, Poochigian, Romero
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 71-0, 4/21/05 (Passed on Consent) - See
last page for vote
SUBJECT : Campaign disclosure: general purpose
committees
SOURCE : Fair Political Practices Commission
DIGEST : This bill requires that any general purpose
committee determine, for registration and reporting
requirements, whether it is a state, county, or city
general purpose committee based on where the committee
makes a majority of its contributions and independent
expenditures.
ANALYSIS : General purpose committees are defined as
those formed to support more than one candidate or ballot
measure. According to the author's office, this bill, which
is sponsored by the Fair Political Practice Commission
(FPPC), closes a loophole in state reporting requirements
CONTINUED
AB 1391
Page
2
by clarifying the definition of state, county, and city
general purpose committees.
The author's office states, 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. 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.
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.
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
AB 1391
Page
3
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 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.
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
AB 1391
Page
4
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/15/05)
Fair Political Practices Commission (source)
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aghazarian, Arambula, Baca, Benoit, Berg, Bermudez,
Blakeslee, Bogh, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez,
Chu, Cogdill, Cohn, Coto, Daucher, De La Torre, DeVore,
Dymally, Emmerson, Evans, Frommer, Garcia, Goldberg,
Hancock, Harman, Haynes, Jerome Horton, Shirley Horton,
Houston, Huff, Jones, Karnette, Keene, Klehs, Koretz, La
Malfa, Laird, Leno, Leslie, Levine, Lieber, Liu,
Matthews, Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Mullin, Nakanishi,
Nava, Negrete McLeod, Niello, Parra, Plescia, Richman,
Ridley-Thomas, Sharon Runner, Ruskin, Saldana, Salinas,
Spitzer, Strickland, Torrico, Tran, Umberg, Vargas,
Villines, Wolk, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bass, Gordon, La Suer, Montanez, Nation,
Oropeza, Pavley, Walters, Nunez
DLW:do 8/17/05 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****