BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 831
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 831 (Hill)
As Amended August 18, 2014
2/3 vote
SENATE VOTE :35-1
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 : Makes numerous significant changes to the Political
Reform Act of 1974 (PRA). Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits an elected officer from requesting that a payment be
made, and prohibits a person from making a payment at the
behest of an elected officer, as specified, to a nonprofit
organization that is exempt from taxation under Internal
Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4) that the elected officer knows
or has reason to know is owned or controlled by that officer
or a family member of the officer. Prohibits an expenditure
of campaign funds by an elected officer or committee
controlled by an elected officer to a nonprofit organization
that is exempt from taxation under Internal Revenue Code
Section 501(c)(4) that the elected officer knows or has reason
to know is owned or controlled by the elected officer or a
family member of the elected officer.
a) Provides, for the purposes of these restrictions, that
an elected officer is deemed to have complied with this law
if the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)
determines that the elected officer made a reasonable
effort to ascertain whether the organization is owned or
controlled by the elected officer or a family member of the
SB 831
Page 2
elected officer.
b) Provides, for the purposes of these restrictions, that
an organization is owned or controlled by an elected
officer or family member of an elected officer if the
elected officer or family member, or a member of that
person's immediate family, is a director, officer, partner,
or trustee of, or holds any position of management with,
the nonprofit organization, and is paid for his or her
services.
c) Defines the term "family member of the elected officer,"
for the purposes of these restrictions, as the spouse,
child, sibling, or parent of the elected officer.
d) Provides that the restrictions on payments made at the
behest of an elected officer do not apply to payments made
to a nonprofit organization that is formed for the purpose
of coordinating or performing disaster relief services.
2)Requires a nonprofit organization that is exempt from taxation
under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4) that makes
payments, advances, or reimbursements that total more than
$10,000 in a calendar year, or that total more than $5,000 in
a calendar year for a single person, to an elected state
officer or local elected officeholder for specified travel
related to a legislative or governmental purpose, or to an
issue of state, national, or international public policy, to
disclose to the FPPC the names of donors responsible for
funding the payments who knew or had reason to know that their
donation would be used for a payment, advance, or
reimbursement for the travel by the elected officer. Provides
that the nonprofit organization shall not report a donor if
the organization has evidence indicating that the donor
restricted or otherwise did not intend the donation to be used
for such travel. Provides that a donor knows or has reason to
know that his or her donation will be used for the travel
under any of the following conditions:
a) The donor directed the nonprofit organization to use the
donation for the travel;
b) The donation was made in response to a solicitation for
donations for the travel; or,
SB 831
Page 3
c) The donor, or an agent, employee, or representative of
the donor, accompanied the elected state officer or local
elected officeholder for any portion of the travel.
3)Requires a public official, when reporting a gift that is a
travel payment, advance, or reimbursement on his or her
Statement of Economic Interests (SEI), to disclose the travel
destination.
4)Prohibits campaign funds from being used to pay for any of the
following:
a) A personal vacation for a candidate; elected officer;
immediate family member of a candidate or elected officer;
or an officer, director, employee, or member of the staff
of a candidate, elected officer, or committee;
b) Membership dues for a country club, health club, or
other recreational facility;
c) Tuition payments, unless the payments are directly
related to a political, legislative, or governmental
purpose;
d) Clothing of any kind to be worn by a candidate or
elected officer;
e) Vehicle use not directly related to an election
campaign;
f) A gift to a spouse, child, sibling, or parent of a
candidate, elected officer, or other individual with the
authority to approve the expenditure of campaign funds held
by a committee, except for a gift of nominal value that is
substantially similar to a gift made to other persons and
that is directly related to a political, legislative, or
governmental purpose; or,
g) A utility bill for real property that is owned or leased
by a candidate, elected officer, campaign treasurer, or any
individual with authority to approve the expenditure of
campaign funds, or a member of his or her immediate family.
SB 831
Page 4
5)Makes technical and conforming changes.
6)Contains double-jointing language in order to avoid chaptering
problems with AB 1666 (Garcia) and AB 1692 (Garcia).
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, annual General Fund costs of about $175,000 to the
FPPC for one political reform consultant and an attorney
one-half time to update regulations and manuals, respond to an
increase in requests for advice, and to address any related
litigation.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "SB 831 modernizes
California's Political Reform Act by increasing transparency of
travel related gifts and prohibiting certain types of campaign
expenditures."
This bill prohibits campaign funds from being used for
expenditures for certain specified items and activities,
including personal vacations, country club dues, and gifts for
family members. Under existing law, it is likely that the
expenditure of campaign funds for these purposes would already
be prohibited in most circumstances. That's because campaign
expenditures generally must be related to a political,
legislative, or governmental purpose, and campaign expenditures
that confer a substantial personal benefit to the candidate or
to an individual who has the authority to approve the
expenditure must be directly related to a political,
legislative, or governmental purpose. It is difficult to
envision a scenario, for instance, where a personal vacation
could be deemed to be directly related to a political,
legislative, or governmental purpose. Thus, it is unlikely that
a personal vacation would be considered an allowable expenditure
of campaign funds under existing law. Similarly, even though
the PRA does not contain an explicit prohibition against the use
of campaign funds for health club dues (as this bill does), the
FPPC nonetheless has concluded that such an expenditure is
impermissible, and the campaign disclosure manuals prepared by
the FPPC for state and local candidates specifically state that
"a committee may not pay for the candidate's health club dues."
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
SB 831
Page 5
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: 0004798