BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2692
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2692 (Fong)
As Introduced February 21, 2014
2/3 vote
ELECTIONS 6-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Donnelly, Bonta, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, |
| |Hall, Perea, Rodriguez | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| | | |Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, |
| | | |Holden, Jones, Linder, |
| | | |Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, |
| | | |Weber |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires a person who improperly benefits from the
personal use of campaign funds to forfeit the value of the
personal benefit received, as specified. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Provides that if the Fair Political Practices Commission
(FPPC) determines in an administrative action that an
expenditure was made that confers a substantial personal
benefit to a person who had the authority to approve that
expenditure, but the expenditure is not directly related to a
political, legislative, or governmental purpose, that the
individual who received the substantial personal benefit shall
pay to the General Fund (GF) of the state an amount equal to
the substantial personal benefit that he or she received.
2)Provides that a payment to the GF of the value of the benefit
received, as required by this bill, shall be in addition to
any penalty imposed by the FPPC.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, negligible costs to the FPPC and unknown, likely
minor GF revenue from penalty payments.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "California law recognizes
that ethical concerns may arise when a candidate personally
AB 2692
Page 2
benefits financially from contributions received by his or her
campaign. For that reason, the Political Reform Act (PRA)
prohibits campaign funds from being used to compensate a
candidate or elected officer for the performance of political,
legislative, or governmental activities, except for
reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred for political,
legislative, or governmental purposes. Additionally, state law
prohibits candidates and committee officers from using campaign
funds for personal expenses.
"Individuals who violate the 'personal use' provisions of
California law are subject to civil or administrative fines, but
existing law does not require a person to forfeit the personal
benefit that he or she received from the illegal expenditure of
campaign funds. The purpose of California's 'personal use'
restrictions on campaign funds is to ensure that funds solicited
for campaign purposes are used for those purposes, and are not
used to personally enrich candidates, officeholders, and
political committee officers. To further that purpose, and to
provide a greater disincentive against the improper use of
campaign funds, AB 2692 requires individuals who violate the
'personal use' laws to forfeit the improper benefits that they
received, in addition to any fines they face for violating state
law."
Existing law generally prohibits campaign funds from being used
for personal expenses, and instead requires campaign
expenditures to be reasonably related to a political,
legislative, or governmental purpose. When a campaign
expenditure results in a personal benefit of more than $200 to
an individual who had the authority to approve the expenditure,
the expenditure must be directly related to a political,
legislative, or governmental purpose. These provisions are
intended to ensure that campaign funds are not used as a method
of personally enriching candidates and officers of political
committees.
As is the case with other suspected violations of the PRA, the
FPPC may bring an administrative enforcement action if it
believes that an individual or a committee has improperly used
campaign funds for personal purposes. When the FPPC determines
that a violation has occurred, it can impose a monetary penalty
of up to $5,000 per violation. Because the maximum monetary
penalty available in an administrative enforcement action is not
AB 2692
Page 3
dependent on the value of the personal benefit received, it is
possible that a person could receive an improper personal
benefit from campaign spending that exceeds the maximum penalty
that the FPPC can impose through the administrative process.
The FPPC does have the ability to bring a civil lawsuit for a
violation of the personal use provisions of law, in which case
the maximum monetary penalty available is three times the amount
of the unlawful expenditure. Such civil lawsuits, however, are
uncommon, and the FPPC deals with a substantial majority of
enforcement cases through its administrative enforcement
process. By requiring a person to forfeit the value of an
improper personal benefit that he or she received, this bill
will ensure that a person who uses campaign funds for personal
purposes does not receive a benefit in excess of the maximum
possible administrative fine.
California voters passed an initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974
that created the FPPC 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0003372