BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1666
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1666 (Garcia)
As Amended August 13, 2014
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |78-0 |(May 15, 2014) |SENATE: |31-1 |(August 26, |
| | | | | |2014) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: E. & R.
SUMMARY : Increases existing restitution fines for the crime of
bribery and prohibits the use of campaign funds to pay for such
fines. Specifically, this bill :
1)Increases the restitution fines for any member of the
Legislature or any member of the legislative body of a city,
county, city and county, school district, or other special
district who asks for or receives a bribe, as specified, in
exchange for influence over his or her official action as
follows:
a) Doubles restitution fines, in cases where no bribe has
been actually received, from a minimum of $2,000, and a
maximum of $10,000, to instead a minimum of $4,000, and
maximum of $20,000; and,
b) Doubles restitution fines, in cases in which a bribe was
actually received, from a minimum of the actual amount of
the bribe received or $2,000, whichever is greater, and a
maximum of double the amount of any bribe received or
$10,000, or whichever is greater, to instead a minimum
amount of the bribe received or $4,000, whichever is
greater, and a maximum of not more than double the amount
of any bribe received or $20,000, whichever is greater.
2)Prohibits campaign funds from being used to pay a restitution
fine as described above.
The Senate amendments add double-jointing language to avoid
chaptering problems with AB 1692 (Garcia) of the current
legislative session and SB 831 (Hill) of the current legislative
session.
AB 1666
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : In 2001, the Governor signed and the Legislature
passed SB 923 (McPherson), Chapter 282, Statutes of 2001, which
increased the fines for specified bribery offenses involving
public officials. According to the author's background material
provided to the committee, these fine thresholds have not been
adjusted since they were implemented in 2001. This bill doubles
the fines in a case where no bribe has actually been received
from a fine of not less than $4,000, instead of $2,000, to not
more than $20,000, instead of $10,000. In addition, this bill
makes corresponding changes in the case where the defendant
actually received a bribe, and doubles the minimum fine amount
from the greater of the amount of the bribe received or $2,000
to $4,000, as specified, and doubles the maximum fine from the
greater of double the amount of the bribe received or $10,000 to
$20,000, as specified.
Furthermore, the author contends that if a member of the
Legislature is convicted of one of the bribe scenarios described
above, nothing in current law prohibits use of campaign funds to
pay a restitution fine. In other words, restitution fines
imposed from a bribery offense could be paid out of the
officeholder's campaign funds, instead of their personal funds.
This bill strengthens the penalties associated with bribery
offenses and prohibits campaign funds from being used to pay a
restitution fine as described above.
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 Political Reform Act (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
proposition and require a two-thirds vote of each house of the
Legislature.
The Senate amendments add double-jointing language to avoid
chaptering problems with AB 1692 and SB 831. This bill, as
amended in the Senate, is consistent with Assembly actions.
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
AB 1666
Page 3
319-2094
FN: 0004728