BILL ANALYSIS
AB 9
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 9 (John A. Perez)
As Amended June 24, 2009
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |72-3 |(May 18, 2009) |SENATE: |38-0 |(September 3, |
| | | | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: E. & R.
SUMMARY : Provides that a payment of public moneys by a state or
local government agency can be a contribution or an independent
expenditure for the purposes of the Political Reform Act (PRA)
if certain conditions are met.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill,
and instead:
1)Provide that a contribution, for the purposes of the PRA,
includes the payment of public moneys by a state or local
governmental agency for a communication to the public that
satisfies both of the following conditions:
a) The communication expressly advocates the election or
defeat of a clearly identified candidate or the
qualification, passage, or defeat of a clearly identified
measure, or, taken as a whole and in context, unambiguously
urges a particular result in an election; and,
b) The communication is made at the behest of the affected
candidate or committee.
1)Provide that an independent expenditure, for the purposes of
the PRA, includes a payment of public moneys by a state or
local government agency if that payment would otherwise be an
independent expenditure under existing law.
EXISTING LAW makes it unlawful for any elected state or local
officer to use or permit others to use public resources for a
campaign activity.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill provided that a payment of
public moneys by a state or local government agency for a
AB 9
Page 2
communication regarding a ballot measure was an expenditure for
the purposes of the PRA unless certain conditions were met.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Existing law states that no
agency or department of the state may use its publications to
advise state employees of any constitutional officer's choice of
candidates for public office or for recommending positions on
specific ballot propositions not related to the functions of
that agency or department. (Elections Code Section 18390.) This
past election cycle concerns were raised that some local
agencies were blurring the line between providing information
and "advocating" on behalf of certain measures on the ballot.
In Los Angeles, the LA Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has
posted a page on its website devoted to the Measure R half-cent
sales tax increase campaign. It stopped short of urging people
to vote for Measure R but said of transit resources, "more is
needed" to reduce traffic congestion. Under pressure, MTA
removed the [Web page]. Similar concerns were raised by the
Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) on campaigns across
the state. In order to address this issue, AB 9 clarifies
existing law that an expenditure includes the payment of public
moneys by a state agency or local government agency, or by an
agent of that agency, for a communication to the electorate
within the jurisdiction of that agency regarding a clearly
identified measure, except if the communication constitutes a
fair and impartial presentation of the facts relating to the
measure or the communication is otherwise required by law."
At its December 2008 meeting, the FPPC adopted a regulation that
is similar to the policy proposed by this bill, and the FPPC is
considering amendments to that regulation that would make it
even more similar to the policy proposed by this bill. Given
the FPPC's actions, the need for this bill is unclear.
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 generally must further the
purposes of the initiative and require a two-thirds vote of both
houses of the Legislature.
AB 9
Page 3
This bill was substantially amended in the Senate and the
Assembly-approved provisions of this bill were deleted.
However, while the text of this bill has changed entirely from
the text of the Assembly-approved version, this bill, as amended
in the Senate, is consistent with Assembly actions. As approved
by the Assembly, this bill would have explicitly specified that
certain payments by governmental entities may be considered
expenditures under the PRA if certain conditions are met; as
amended in the Senate, this bill instead provides that such
payments are either contributions or independent expenditures
under the PRA. Both versions of the bill have the same effect
of explicitly specifying in state law that certain payments made
by governmental entities in connection with candidates or ballot
measures may be subject to the requirements and restrictions of
the PRA.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0002143