BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2191
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2191 (Norby)
As Amended June 25, 2012
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |71-2 |(May 14, 2012) |SENATE: |37-0 |(August 23, |
| | | | | |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: E. & R.
SUMMARY : 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. 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). Prohibits a local
government agency from imposing any filing requirements on
such members and candidates.
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.
The Senate amendments correct a technical error.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version approved by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
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
AB 2191
Page 2
'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 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.
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,
AB 2191
Page 3
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.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0004415