BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2191|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2191
Author: Norby (R)
Amended: 6/25/12 in Senate
Vote: 27
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONST. AMEND. COMM. : 5-0, 7/3/12
AYES: Correa, La Malfa, Gaines, Lieu, Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 71-2, 5/14/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Political Reform Act of 1974: county central
committees
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill provides that candidates for political
party central committees who receive contributions and make
expenditures of less than $1,000 in a calendar year are not
required to file campaign disclosure reports.
ANALYSIS : The Political Reform Act of 1974 requires
elected officers, candidates for elective office, and
committees to prepare and file various campaign finance
reports, as specified. Specifically, this bill: (1)
provides that an elected member of, or a candidate for
election to, a county central committee of a qualified
political party who receives contributions of less than
$1,000 and who makes expenditures of less than $1,000 in a
calendar year is not required to file any campaign
statements required by the Political Reform Act (PRA).
CONTINUED
AB 2191
Page
2
Prohibits a local government agency from imposing any
filing requirements on such members and candidates, and (2)
prohibits a local jurisdiction from imposing contribution
limitations or prohibitions on elected members of, or
candidates for election to, a county central committee of a
political party, or on a committee primarily formed to
support or oppose a person seeking election to a county
central committee of a qualified political party.
Comments
According to the author, "As written, the �PRA] places a
costly and time consuming burden on thousands of political
party volunteers in California. The PRA defined any
person who appears on the ballot as someone running for
'elective office.' The intent of this action was to
capture all governmental elected officials, and it
succeeded. This action also lumped in thousands of
political party volunteers into new expensive and
cumbersome reporting requirements. Political volunteers
serve no governmental function. They do not handle any
public money, they don't vote on policy or budget issues,
and they conduct no public business." The author argues,
"that in light of the fact that central committee members
do not conduct public business, they should not be subject
to the same campaign disclosure provisions of the PRA as
other elected officials and candidates."
The campaign disclosure requirements of the PRA are
designed to ensure that public officials perform their
official duties in an impartial manner and to protect
against disproportionate influence over governmental
decisions by campaign contributors. Although elections for
county central committee for political parties are publicly
conducted, state courts have held that the elective offices
of political parties are not public offices, because those
offices do not involve the exercise of the sovereign
functions of government. (See Moore v. Panish (1982) 32
Cal.3d 535, 545, Azevedo v. Jordan (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d
521, 528, and Stout v. Democratic County Central Committee
(1952) 40 Cal.2d 91, 94.) Because central committees do
not exercise the sovereign power of the government, it is
unclear whether the purposes of the PRA are served by
requiring candidates for central committee to comply with
AB 2191
Page
3
the PRA's disclosure provisions.
On the other hand, the California Constitution explicitly
requires that the Legislature provide for partisan
elections for county central committees. Even though
central committees do not exercise governmental powers, the
fact that the Constitution guarantees publicly conducted
elections for these offices seems to weaken the argument
that candidates for such offices should not be subject to
the same disclosure requirements as all other candidates
who appear on the ballot in California at a
publicly-conducted election.
Although there are hundreds of candidates for county
central committees statewide in each even-numbered year, it
is relatively rare for candidates for county central
committees to raise and spend more than a nominal amount of
money for their campaigns. Even candidates who do not
raise or spend large amounts of money on their campaigns,
however, may be required to file certain campaign
disclosure documents. Because of the number of candidates
statewide for county central committee, these requirements
can result in hundreds of pages of campaign disclosure
reports being filed in each election year that disclose
little or no campaign activity.
In at least a few situations, however, candidates for
central committees have raised and spent significant
amounts of money. For instance, at the June 2010 primary
election, at least six candidates for central committee in
San Francisco made expenditures of over $30,000. In many
cases, candidates who raised and spent significant amounts
of money on their campaigns for central committee also ran
for other elective offices in San Francisco within a year
of the campaign for central committee. This may suggest
that, in some cases, candidates for central committee in
San Francisco are using their campaigns to help raise their
profiles for subsequent campaigns for public office. If
that is the case, there may be a rationale for requiring
candidates for central committee to comply with the
disclosure requirements in the PRA, since people may be
making contributions to candidates for central committee
with the intention of helping those candidates get elected
to public office at a subsequent election.
AB 2191
Page
4
California voters passed an initiative, Proposition 9, in
1974 that created the Fair Political Practices Commission
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, such as those contained in
this bill, must further the purposes of the initiative and
require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the
Legislature.
Membership on a county central committee has been
considered an elective office under the PRA since
Proposition 9 was adopted in 1974. As a result, an
argument could be made that excluding certain candidates
for central committee from the requirement to file campaign
disclosure reports does not further the original purposes
of the PRA. To the extent that this bill does not further
the purposes of the PRA, the Legislature has no authority
to enact its policies without submitting it to the voters.
On the other hand, because this bill maintains campaign
reporting requirements for candidates for and members of
county central committees that raise and spend more than
$1,000 in a calendar year, an argument can be made that the
bill furthers the purposes of the PRA, since it would
significantly reduce burdensome reporting requirements that
result in little or no campaign activity being reported,
while ensuring that candidates for central committee who
have significant amounts of campaign activity will continue
to file campaign disclosure reports.
Previous/Related Legislation
AB 1200 (Ma), Chapter 8, Statutes of 2012, eliminates the
requirement for elections officials to issue a certificate
of election to each elected member of a political party's
county central committee, and authorized central committee
officials to administer the oath of office to central
committee members. A primary purpose of these changes was
to reduce the workload for county elections officials to
conduct central committee elections, and part of the
justification for these changes was that central committees
AB 2191
Page
5
are not public offices.
SB 1272 (Kehoe) provides for central committee elections to
be conducted every four years, at the presidential primary
election, instead of every two years, at the statewide
direct primary election, and specifies that a county
central committee may select its members at any time by
holding a caucus or convention, or by using any other
method of selection approved by the committee. The bill is
currently in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/6/12)
California Association of Clerks and Election Officials
Duf Sundheim, former Chairman, California Republican Party
Michael Schroeder, former Chairman, California Republican
Party
Robert W. Naylor, former Chairman, California Republican
Party
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 71-2, 5/14/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eng,
Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth Gaines, Galgiani,
Garrick, Gordon, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Hall,
Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso,
Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell,
Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, V.
Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Silva, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A.
P�rez
NOES: Gatto, Skinner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Atkins, Brownley, Campos, Fletcher, Pan,
Perea, Valadao
DLW:do 7/6/12 Senate Floor Analyses
AB 2191
Page
6
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****