BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
SB 1101 (Padilla) - Campaign Contributions
Amended: April 30, 2014 Policy Vote: E&CA 4-1
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: May 23, 2014
Consultant: Maureen Ortiz
SUSPENSE FILE. AS AMENDED.
Bill Summary: SB 1101 amends the Political Reform Act (PRA) to
prohibit campaign contributions to a Member of the Legislature
during specified periods of time, and makes certain exceptions
for local elective offices and special elections.
Fiscal Impact:
Annual costs of approximately $85,000 to Fair Political
Practices Commission (General Fund)
The FPPC indicates the need for PY Attorney IV position for
litigation purposes.
Background: Existing law, pursuant to the Political Reform
Act, limits campaign contributions to candidates for elective
state office as follows:
To a candidate for elective state office other than a
candidate for statewide elective office, no person may
contribute more than $4,100 per election and no small
contributor committee may contribute more than $8,200 per
election;
To a candidate for elective statewide office other than a
candidate for Governor, no person may contribute more than
$6,800 per election and no small contributor committee may
contribute more than $13,600 per election;
To a candidate for Governor, no person or small contributor
committee may contribute more than $27,200 per election.
The Fair Political Practices Commission is authorized to adjust
SB 1101 (Padilla)
Page 1
these contribution limits biannually to reflect any increase or
decrease in the Consumer Price Index.
A state lobbyist may not contribute to a state officeholder's or
candidate's committee if the lobbyist is registered to lobby the
agency of the elected officer or the agency to which the
candidate is seeking election. The lobbyist also may not
contribute to a local committee controlled by any such state
candidate.
Existing law requires an individual to file a statement of
intention to be a candidate for an elective office prior to
soliciting or receiving a campaign contribution or loan but does
not otherwise place restrictions on when candidates may solicit
or receive contributions.
Proposed Law: SB 1101 prohibits any person from making a
contribution to a Member of the Legislature, and prohibits a
Member of the Legislature from soliciting or accepting a
contribution during the following periods:
1) In an odd-numbered year, on the date the Legislature
adjourns the regular session for a joint recess to reconvene in
the second calendar year of the biennium of the regular session,
during the 100 day period preceding that date, and during the
seven-day period following that date.
2) In an even-number year, the period from May 23 to September
7, inclusive.
However, the above blackout periods will not apply to a Member
of the Legislature for purposes of that member's candidacy for a
local elective office, or for that member's candidacy for an
elective state office that is to be voted upon at a special
election.
Staff Comments: This bill imposes "blackout" periods where no
campaign contributions can be made to Members of the
Legislature. This has been challenged as a violation of the
First Amendment right to freedom of speech in several states.
While several other states also have enacted blackout periods
prohibiting campaign contributions, the Oregon Attorney General
issued an opinion that its statute is unconstitutional and would
not be enforced.
SB 1101 (Padilla)
Page 2
In at least four states, state or federal courts have struck
down laws that prohibited legislators from receiving campaign
contributions while the Legislature was in session. In 1990,
the Florida State Supreme Court ruled in State v. Dodd (1990)
561 So.2d 263, that a state law that prohibited a candidate
running for legislative office or a statewide office from
accepting or soliciting a campaign contribution during a regular
or special session of the Legislature was "unconstitutional for
its overbroad intrusion upon the rights of free speech and
association." The court found a number of defects to the
Florida law, including that it placed restrictions on candidates
"who could not possibly be subject to a corrupting quid pro quo
arrangement," and that "by focusing entirely on the legislative
session, the Campaign Financing Act fails to recognize that
corrupt campaign practices just as easily can occur some other
time of the year." Additionally, the court found that the
contribution blackout period would cut off "the flow of
resources needed for effective advocacy during a crucial portion
of the election year," in violation of the test established in
Buckley .
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division considered a similar contribution
blackout period in Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin
(1996) 922 F. Supp. 1413. Unlike the Florida law, Missouri's
Campaign Finance Disclosure Law only applied during a regular
session of the legislature and it did not prohibit the
solicitation of campaign contributions during a legislative
session, but otherwise was substantially similar to the Florida
law. The Maupin court ruled that Missouri's blackout period
"severely impacts on a candidate's ability to expend funds which
in turn impinges upon the rights of individual citizens and
candidates to engage in political debate and discussion."
Two other federal courts reached similar conclusions in 1998.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, Western Division in North Carolina Right to Life
v. Bartlett (1998) 3 F.Supp.2d 675, struck down a North Carolina
law prohibiting lobbyists from making contributions to
legislators and candidates for state legislature during a
legislative session. The court ruled that the North Carolina
law "prevent[ed] candidates from amassing the resources
SB 1101 (Padilla)
Page 3
necessary for effective advocacy," in violation of the test
established in Buckley . The United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division in
Arkansas Right to Life v. Butler (1998) 29 F.Supp.2d 540, struck
down an Arkansas law that prohibited statewide elected officials
and legislators from accepting any contribution 30 days before,
during, and 30 days after any regular session of the
Legislature. The court concluded that the Arkansas law was
unconstitutional because "it does not take into account the fact
that corruption can occur at any time, and that only large
contributions pose a threat of corruption." Unlike the Florida,
Missouri, and North Carolina laws, the Arkansas law did not
apply to non-state officeholder candidates for state office, but
only to elected state officials.
While the provisions of this bill are distinguishable from the
laws in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, and Arkansas in that
it does not apply during the entire legislative session, but
only during that portion of the legislative session, this bill
nevertheless could be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge
based on other issues raised by one or more of these court
decisions.
Committee Amendments: Revise the blackout periods, and add an
urgency clause.