BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 739|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 739
Author: Strickland (R)
Amended: 5/20/09
Vote: 27
SENATE ELECTIONS, REAP. & CONST. AMEND. COM. : 5-0, 4/21/09
AYES: Hancock, Walters, DeSaulnier, Liu, Strickland
SUBJECT : Campaign Funds: spouses and domestic partners
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill provides that a spouse or domestic
partner of an elected officer or a candidate should not
receive compensation from campaign funds held by a
controlled committee of the officer or candidate for
elective office for services rendered in connection with
fundraising for the benefit of the elected officer or
candidate.
ANALYSIS :
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
CONTINUED
SB 739
Page
2
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.
Background
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.
According to the author's office, 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
SB 739
Page
3
issues, the ethical issues remained. The public has
demanded greater transparency in government. Campaign
activities, particularly those involving fundraising,
should be transparent.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/19/09)
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
The Fair Political Practices Commission
DLW:do 6/1/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****