BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
BILL NO: SB 739 HEARING DATE:
4/21/09
AUTHOR: STRICKLAND ANALYSIS BY:
Darren Chesin
AMENDED: AS INTRODUCED
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Campaign funds: spouses and domestic partners
DESCRIPTION
Existing law , pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974,
places specified restrictions on the use of campaign funds
for state and local candidates and officeholders. Use of
campaign funds for gifts or personal purposes is prohibited
unless they are related to a political, legislative, or
governmental purpose, as specified.
Existing law further provides that campaign funds may not
be used to compensate a candidate or officeholder for the
performance of political, legislative, or governmental
activities, except for reimbursement of out-of-pocket
expenses incurred for political, legislative, or
governmental purposes.
Existing law does not prohibit using campaign funds to
compensate a spouse, domestic partner, or other family
member for professional campaign services such as
fundraising.
This bill would provide that a spouse or domestic partner
of an elected officer or a candidate may not receive
compensation for services rendered in connection with
fundraising for the benefit of the elected officer or
candidate.
BACKGROUND
What's Mine is Yours, Dear . Candidates and officeholders
both within and outside of California often find themselves
the subject of scrutiny and controversy for paying a spouse
or other family member for professional services rendered
to, and paid by, their campaign committees. As discussed
below, the author of this bill found himself in such a
situation in 2004. The controversy usually arises from the
perception that a campaign contributor may be able to
unduly influence a candidate or officeholder if there is a
possibility that their contributions will indirectly but
ultimately wind up in the personal account that the
candidate or officeholder shares with a spouse or domestic
partner. Since current law restricts gifts and prohibits
honoraria that officeholders may accept, this type of
arrangement is often viewed as a way for candidates and
officeholders to personally benefit from the contributions
that their campaigns seek and accept.
COMMENTS
According to the author , current law allows a spouse or
domestic partner of an elected official or candidate to
receive compensation for fundraising services on behalf of
the elected official or candidate. However, this activity
does raise ethical questions since spousal incomes are
community property. This question was raised in 2004 when
Senator Strickland hired his wife's company to serve as the
campaign's professional fundraiser. A complaint was filed
with the Ventura County District Attorney's office. The
District Attorney determined all transactions were legal
and no further action was taken. While the District
Attorney determined the legality of the issues, the ethical
issues remained. The public has demanded greater
transparency in government. Campaign activities,
particularly those involving fundraising, should be
transparent.
Goose v. Gander . If the purpose of this bill is to address
the perceived impropriety of spouses and domestic partners
being compensated from campaign funds, why is it limited
only to services rendered in connection with fundraising?
Is it not equally improper for a spouse or domestic partner
to be compensated from campaign funds for any service
rendered in connection with the campaign? Furthermore,
shouldn't this bill impose the prohibition on not only
SB 739 (STRICKLAND) Page
2
acceptance of payment by the spouse or domestic partner but
also to the candidate or officeholder who makes or approves
the payment?
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: None received
Oppose: None received
SB 739 (STRICKLAND) Page
3