HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - CAMPDISC CONTRIBUTION REFORM (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
NEW BUSINESS City Manager Approv
Item to be presented by: Cameron Sm th
DATE: September 10, 2002
SUBJECT: CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION AND DISCLOSURE REFORM
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
City Council amend the Santa Clarita Municipal Code to:
1) Limit the amount given to or received by any political action committee from any person or
committee to a maximum of $250 per election contest, and
2) Require committees to report the names and address of all persons who contribute $50 or
more to their campaign per election contest.
BACKGROUND
Section 7.02.030 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC) addresses contribution limitations,
including loans, anonymous contributions, extension of credit, personal funds and commercial
loans. The City currently limits contributions made to either candidates or committees controlled
by candidates to $250 per person per election contest. Candidates are required to report the names
and addresses of all persons who contribute $50 or more to their campaign. The Code follows the
Government Code's definition of "Person" which is "an individual, proprietorship, firm,
partnership, joint venture, syndicate, business trust, company, corporation, limited liability
company, association, committee, and any other organization or group of persons acting in
concert."' Although the Political Reform Act imposes many disclosure requirements, there is
currently none imposed by the City of non -candidate controlled Political Action Committee (PAC)
contributions.
Other cities have chosen to limit campaign contributions by PACs. Long Beach limits contributions
made to candidates, their controlled committees, and non -candidate controlled committees to $250
per primary and $250 per runoff election. In addition, Long Beach limits independent expenditures
in support or opposing of candidates to $250. The City of Los Angeles sets forth limitations on
' SCMC Section 7.02.020, which sets forth that unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the
definitions of the Government Code under Chapter 2, Title 9 shall govern.
M,0+lo� 44I -e& Agenda Item:. .
contributions to candidates and their committees to $500. The City of Berkeley limits contributions
in support or opposition to such candidate to $250.
Examples of some other cities' reporting requirements for PACs are: Long Beach requires that any
person who makes expenditures of more than $250 in support or opposition must notify the City
Clerk; Los Angeles requires that any person who makes expenditures of more than $1,000 in
support or in opposition to any candidate to notify the City Ethics Commission; Berkeley publishes
a list of all persons contributing $50 to any candidate or committee.
Based on the attached Federal and State law analysis performed by the City Attorney, the City can
amend the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC) to limit PAC contributions if the PAC operates
only within the jurisdiction of the City. Further, The City can amend the SCMC to limit the
amounts contributors give to a PAC in support or opposition of a candidate, and require the
identification of contributors and amounts contributed to a PAC. This amendment will ensure that
candidate -controlled PACs, non candidate -controlled PACs, and individual contributions are
equally regulated to provide a level competitive field for candidates for political office.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact to the General Fund is anticipated by this action. This action is likely to lessen the
amount of funds raised by PACs for candidates.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Suggested amendment of Chapter 7.02, Section 7.02.030 of the SCMC
Exhibit B: Federal and State law analysis performed by the City Attorney
CS:JAF:js
\09-10-02\Campaign Cont. Lim. Ref.c
Suggested amendment of Chapter 7.02, Section 7.02.030 of the SCMC
Proposed additions are in italic type.
7.02.030 Contribution Limitations
A. Contributions. No person shall make, and no candidate for elective office, or
campaign treasurer, or committee shall solicit or accept any contribution which would cause
the total amount contributed by that person to that candidate, or committees controlled by
that candidate or committees not controlled by that candidate to exceed $250 per election
contest.
B. Disclosure of Contributors. Candidates and committees shall report the names and
addresses of all persons who contribute $50 or more to their campaign. Such disclosure
shall also include the name and address of the contributor's employer. If the contributor is
self-employed, the candidate shall report the name and address of the contributor's business.
DRAFT
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: CKN
FROM: LAB
DATE: August 30, 2002
CC:
FILE NO. 02012-0423
RE: Amending the City's Campaign Contribution Limitations and Disclosure Laws
This memorandum is in response to your inquiry regarding possible amendments to Santa
Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC or Code) chapter 7.02, Campaign Contribution Limitations and
Disclosure. The following discussion will focus on issues relating to campaign contributions to
political action committees (PACs) that are not controlled by a candidate and disclosure
requirements of those contributing to PACs.
Questions Presented
1) Can the City amend the Ordinance to specifically limit contributions to PACs?
2) Can the City limit the amount that contributors to a PAC give to the PAC for the benefit
of a candidate?
3) Can the City require identification of contributors and amounts contributed to PACs for
the benefit of a candidate?
Brief Answers
1) Yes, the SCMC can be amended to specifically state that there are limitations to PAC
contributions if the PAC operates only within the jurisdiction of the City.
2) Yes, the SCMC can be amended to limit the amount that contributors give to a PAC in
support or opposition of a candidate.
LA #94325 vl
Memo to CKN
August 30, 2002
Page 2
3) Yes, the SCMC can be amended to require identification of contributors and amounts
contributed to a PAC in support or opposition of a candidate.
LA #94325 vl
Memo to CKN
August 30, 2002
Page 3
Leval Discussion
In brief, SCMC § 7.02.030 limits contributions to candidates and candidate -controlled
committees setting forth that no person shall make contributions that exceed $250. The Code
follows the Government Code's definition of "Person" which is "an individual, proprietorship,
firm, partnership, joint venture, syndicate, business trust, company, corporation, limited liability
company, association, committee, and any other organization or group of persons acting in
concert."' Therefore, the Code limits all contributions from any individual or group that fits into
the above definition to $250. However, as will be noted below, the City can amend its Code to
specifically provide that non -candidate controlled committees are limited in the amounts of
contributions it is allowed to receive. As for its disclosure requirements, the Code requires that
candidates report the names and addresses of all persons who contribute $50 or more to their
campaigns .2 Although the Political Reform Act imposes many disclosure requirements, there is
currently none imposed by the City of non -candidate controlled PAC contributions.
The following discussion is in two parts: the first discusses limiting contributions to
PACs, and the second pertains to requiring disclosure of PAC contributors. The U.S. Supreme
Court has repeatedly stated that these issues involve Constitutional safeguards provided by the
First Amendment such as the right to free speech and freedom of association, as well as the right
to make political contributions and expenditures.3 Federal and state courts have attempted to
interpret the permissibility of regulations in these areas, and in turn some holdings have resulted
that are either inconsistent or difficult to follow in light of previous holdings. Government
agencies have been challenged because it is somewhat difficult to enact laws that pass
Constitutional muster with confidence. Since the area of campaign regulation is continuously
undergoing interpretation and adjustment, the following provides an examination of the holdings
as they exist today.
Modern campaign finance regulations began with the Federal Election Campaign Act
Amendments of 1974 (FECA.) These basically regulated four primary areas: disclosure; limits
on the size of campaign contributions; limits on campaign expenditures; and public financing of
campaigns. Although the Act only applies to congressional and presidential elections, most
states adopted comparable laws that included some or all of the regulations of FECA.4
' See SCMC § 7.02.020, which sets forth that unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the
definitions of the Government Code under Chapter 2, Title 9 shall govern. Government (Gov't) Code § 82047.
2 SCMC § 7.02.030(D.)
3 Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1.
4 Daniel Hays Lowenstein and Richard L. Hasen, Elections Law,. 2001, Second Edition, Carolina Academic Press,
page 747.
LA #94325 v1
Memo to CKN
August 30, 2002
Page 4
The seminal case in elections law is Buckley v. Valeo.5 In that case, the United States
Supreme Court reviewed the FECA regulations. Even though the high court only reviewed the
federal election laws, the case contained an extensive discussion of the Constitutional application
to campaign issues, which does extend to federal, state, and local campaign finance regulation.
Relevant to the discussion in this memorandum, Buckley set forth that most campaign disclosure
requirements were Constitutional, and that limits on contributions amounts were permissible,
however, expenditure limits were not.
A. Limiting Contributions to PACs
There are two areas involving PACs or other groups of people acting in concert that are
the main source of regulation. One area is limiting the amounts that can be contributed to PACs,
and the other is limiting the amount PACs spend, or expenditure limits. It appears that courts
have supported limitations on the contributions PACs can receive. However it does not appear
that expenditure limits pass Constitutional muster unless the expense is made to a candidate or a
candidate -controlled committee.
1. Federal Law
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that contribution limits adversely affect representative
government by restricting resources available for political dialogue.6 Accordingly, the high court
held that government may limit political contributions to candidates to prevent quid pro quo
corruption, or the appearance of it.
Generally, in order for contribution limits to pass Constitutional muster, they must satisfy
two considerations, one is that of First Amendment rights of contributors, and the other is the
right of candidates. The Supreme Court set forth that limits placed on contributions are subject
to strict scrutiny because they infringe upon the rights of political speech and association .7
Restrictions on contributions may be sustained only if the state demonstrates a sufficiently
important interest and employs means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgement of
associational freedoms.s However, in advancing the government's interest, the limit may not be
set so low that they prevent smaller contributors who pose no threat of corrupting candidates.
In challenges to restrictions enacted by governments, the state must prove that
contribution limits are necessary to prevent corruption and that the regulations do not infringe
'Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1.
6 Id.
7 Id. However, the 9th Circuit has imposed a seemingly lessor test in that a "rigorous" level of scrutiny applies and
that restrictions will be upheld when the government demonstrates that a sufficiently important interest exists and
employs means closely drawn to avoid the unnecessary abridgement of associational freedoms. Vanetta v. Keisling
(9th Cir. 1988) 151 F.3d 1215.
'Buckley, 424 U.S. at 24.
LA #94325 vl
Memo to CKN
August 30, 2002
Page 5
upon substantially more political speech and association than is necessary. Although the Court
has upheld some contribution limitations to PACs, there are arguments being made by courts and
those in opposition to limits that if a PAC does not contribute funds to a candidate or a
candidate -controlled committee the danger of a quid pro quo relationship is not an concern and
that the issue is ripe for challenge.
In one case, the high court held that a ban against contributions more than $250 to
committees that were formed to support or oppose a ballot measure infringed upon the right of
association and the individual and collective rights of expression.9 The law prohibited any
contribution that would cause the total amount by a person in a single election to exceed $250.
The Court expressed that to place a limit on individuals wishing to act in concert but not limiting
individuals acting alone was a restraint on the right of association. Further, the limit
automatically affected expenditures which is a direct restraint on freedom of group expression.
The Court held that Buckley's limits only sustained those on contributions to candidates and their
committees.
Courts appear split on whether it is Constitutional to place contribution limits on
independent expenditure committees. For example, in one case, the court struck down a $500
limit on contributions to independent expenditure committee because it could not find evidence
that large contributions to the committees has attributed to actual or perceived corruption in the
state's political process. 10 However, in a case coming out of California, the U.S. Supreme Court
upheld a $5,000 limit on contributions to PACs that was designed to prevent an individual from
channeling funds through a multicandidate PAC to avoid the $1,000 limit on direct contributions.
However, Justice Blackmun explained that he probably would not have upheld such a limit on
independent expenditure committees because a multicandidate committee makes contributions to
five or more candidates, whereas contributions to a committee that makes only independent
expenditures pose no such threat. Generally, the state may not restrict independent expenditures
made by individuals or committees which are not controlled by any candidate or committee.
In another matter, a federal court struck down a $200 limit on contributions to a PAC
because "there is ... less of a danger of quid pro quo corruption, such as the sort one might
presume from large contributions given directly to candidates, when a contribution is given to a
PAC that does not itself wield legislative power.'" t In another case, the court found that
contribution limits actually contributed to corruption, and therefore, if the state cannot prove that
the limit actually inhibits corruption or the appearance of it, then the state's interest is no longer
valid. 12
s Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981) 454 U.S. 290.
"Arkansas Right to Life PAC v. Butler (w.D. Ark. 1998) 29 F.Supp.2d 540.
" Day v. Hayes (D. Minn. 1994) 863 F.Supp. 940, 953, affil in part, rev'd in part, Day v. Holahan, (8th Cir. 1994)
34 F.3d 1356.
12 California ProLife Council PAC v. Scully (E.D.Cal. 1998) 989 F.Supp. 1282.
LA #94325 vl
Memo to CKN
August 30, 2002
Page 6
2. State Law
In conjunction with abiding by the U.S. Constitution, general law cities are obligated to
conduct general municipal elections in accordance with the provisions of the California
Elections Code and the Political Reform Act (PRA.) 13 A city may by ordinance or resolution
limit campaign contributions in municipal elections. i4 Local campaign limit ordinances are
evaluated by analyzing the facts specific to the jurisdiction, such as the size, available news
media coverage, cost of media, printing and staff support. 15
The Fair Political Practices Commission -
In researching this issue, the FPPC was contacted, which is generally regarded as the
state campaign watchdog agency. A representative researched the issue and responded that a
city can impose contribution limits to PACs if the PAC operates only within the city and is for a
matter that is only within the jurisdiction of the city. 16 According to FPPC personnel, there is
nothing in the Political Reform Act that limits cities from enacting laws that restrict the amount
of contributions made to PACs that only operate in their individual jurisdictions. According to
the FPPC, a city can enact an ordinance that restricts the amount of contributions that go to a
PAC that makes contributions to a candidate or a candidate -controlled committee, and a city can
limit the amount contributed to a PAC that makes independent expenditures as well.
In an opinion issued by the Commission, it stated Gov't Code § 81013 provides that the
PRA does not prevent a local agency from imposing additional requirements on any person if the
requirements do not prevent the person from complying with the Act, and that the local laws can
impose obligations beyond those set forth in the Act. 17 Gov't Code § 85703 provides that
nothing in the act shall nullify limitations or prohibitions of any local jurisdiction that apply to
elections for local elective office. 18
Analysis
It appears from reading the federal and state court holdings as a whole that there are a lot
of questions as to what are the actual guidelines for how cities are supposed to impose
contribution limitations. One problem is that the Buckley decision was more than twenty-five
13 See California Elections (Elec) Code §§ 10101 and following and see California Gov't Code §§ 81000 and
following.
14 Elec. Code § 10202. Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. City of Berkeley (1981) 102
S.Ct.434.
"California Prolife Council Political Action Committee v. Scully (1998) 989 F.Supp.1282.
6 The FPPC can be contacted by anyone for advice at 1-866-ASK-FPPC.
2001 WL 909209 3 (Cal.Fair.Pol.Prac.Com.)
8 Provided the ordinances do not conflict with Gov't Code § 85312, which pertains to payments for communication
purposes with an organization that supports a candidate or ballot measure and those do not constitute independent
expenditures used for certain media advertising.
LA #94325 vl
Memo to CKN
August 30, 2002
Page 7
years ago and only one justice remains on the Court from that time. 19 Even though the Court
upheld a $1,000 contribution limit, there is reason to suspect that that amount would be looked
upon as unconstitutional today. Based upon the Court's own reasoning that a candidate has a
right to assemble funds so he or she can communicate their message as well as the right of
people to express their political support through contributions, it is unknown whether Buckley
would be upheld if reheard today.
Although the federal regulations do not directly limit constitutionally protected
independent expenditures, they do indirectly limit them by limiting the dollar amount that a
person may donate to a committee formed to make independent expenditures. The challenge lies
in that the government may not indirectly deny speech that it may not directly prohibit, therefore
since the government may not limit independent expenditures by PACs, neither can it limit
contributions made for the purpose of them. At this time, based upon the foregoing case
holdings and information from the FPPC and state statutes, it appears that the City can limit the
amount of contributions that individuals give to PACs that operate only within the City's
jurisdiction. Below are some examples of how other cities address these limitations.
3. How Other Cities Limit Contributions to PACs
Research of other cities' codes was done to investigate how they controlled such
contributions. Some sections are described briefly below.
City of Long Beach Municipal Code
The City of Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) sets forth limitations on the
contributions to candidates and their controlled committees as well as non -candidate controlled
committees. Section 2.01.3 10 provides:
A. "For primary and general elections, no person shall make to any candidate for
office or the controlled committee of such a candidate, and no such candidate or
the candidate's controlled committee shall accept from any such person, a
contribution or contributions totaling more than two hundred fifty dollars for the
primary election and two hundred fifty dollars for the runoff election if the
candidate is on the runoff ballot or is a write-in candidate for the office of City
Councihmember ...
B. "For primary and general elections, no person shall make to any committee which
supports or opposes any candidate and no such committee shall accept from each
such person a contribution or contributions totaling more than two hundred fifty
""Constitutional Limits on Campaign Contribution Limits" by James Bopp, Jr. 11 Regent U.L. Rev. 235, 1999.
LA #94325 vl
Memo to CKN
August 30, 2002
Page 8
dollars for the primary election and two hundred fifty dollars for the runoff
election for City Councilmembers ... "
The LBMC defines a "person" as "any individual, organization or political action
committee whose contributions or expenditure activities are financed, maintained or controlled
by any corporation, labor organization, association, political party or any other person or
committee, including any parent, subsidiary, branch, division, department or local unit of the
corporation, labor organization, association, political party or any other person, or by any group
of such persons. This code finther specifies when two or more entities and an individual and a
general partnership shall also be considered as "one person."20
Long Beach also addresses contribution limitations on independent expenditures. Section
2.01.610 provides that any person who makes independent expenditures supporting or opposing
a candidate shall not accept any contribution in excess of the amount in their contributions
limitations code section, which is currently $250.
City of Los Angeles Municipal Code
Los Angeles sets forth limitations on contributions to candidates and their controlled
committees at $500. Also, the code sets forth an additional limitation on any person making a
contribution to an2y committee which supports or opposes any candidate for city council to $500
per calendar year. 1
The City of Los Angeles also provides limits on contributions to independent expenditure
committees. The code provides that any person or committee who makes an independent
expenditure supporting a candidate shall not accept any contribution in excess of $500.22
Therefore, this section does not limit the amount that is spent in an independent expenditure,
however, it limits the amount that can be pooled for an independent expenditure.
City of Berkeley
The Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) sets forth the following limitation, "No person
other than a candidate shall make and no campaign treasurer shall solicit or accept any
contribution which will cause the total amount contributed by such person with respect to a
single election in support of or in opposition to such candidate to exceed $250.23 A person is
defined as any individual, proprietorship, firm, partnership, joint venture, syndicate, business
20 LBMC § 2.01.210 "Definitions."
21 LAMC § 470.
u LAMC § 49.7.24.
" BMC § 2.12.415. The difference between this ordinance and that discussed in the Citizens Against Rent Control
case, supra, is that in the case, the law struck down was in the campaign for a ballot measure, which is not
vulnerable to corruption like candidates.
LA #94325 vl
Memo to CKN
August 30, 2002
Page 9
trust, company, corporation, association, committee, and any other organization or group of
persons acting in concert. 24 The code also defines "committee," "controlled committee,"
"independent committee," "contribution" and "expenditure," and "independent expenditure."
A unique section found in the Berkeley Code is a section that prohibits any
proprietorship, firm, partnership, joint venture, syndicate, business trust, company, corporation,
including non-profit corporations, or labor unions from making contributions to any candidate or
committee supporting or opposing any candidate directly or indirectly, and no campaign
treasurer of any committee shall solicit or accept such a contribution.25
City of Signal Hill
Signal Hill has a campaign contribution limitation barring any person (other than a
candidate or the candidate's spouse) to contribute more than the specified limitation. A person is
defined as an "individual, proprietorship, joint venture, syndicate, business trust, company,
corporation, association, committee, labor union, and any other organized group of persons
acting in concert."26
The city's code also defines "independent expenditure" to mean "any expenditure made
by any person in connection which expressly supports or opposes the nomination, election,
defeat, or recall of a clearly identified candidate or candidates, or otherwise unambiguously
urges a particular result in an election for city office .,,27 Further, it provides a definition for
"Committee" as "any person or combination of persons who for political purposes relating to an
election for any city office directly or indirectly receives contributions in an amount of equal to
or greater than the campaign contribution limitation in any election cycle, or who directly or
indirectly makes expenditures in an amount equal to or greater than the campaign contribution
limitation in any election cycle. Committee includes controlled committees .,,28
B. Leval Discussion on Disclosure of Contributors to PACs
1. Federal Law
In Buckley, the high court also examined disclosure requirements .29 Under review was
the reporting obligations on political committees and candidates. Each political committee was
required to register with the Federal Elections Commission records of contributions and
expenditures, which were to contain the name and address of everyone making a contribution in
24 BMC § 2.12.165.
zs BMC § 2.12.440. This does not appear to have been challenged yet in the courts.
ze Signal Hill Municipal Code section 2.90.020(L.)
21 SHMC § 2.90.020(.1).
"SHMC § 2.90.020(D.)
29 Buckley, supra, 424 U.S. 1.
LA #94325 vI
Memo to CKN
August 30, 2002
Page 10
excess of $100 and the date of the contribution. Further, if the contribution exceeded $100, then
the occupation and the principal place of business were also to be included. The law required
direct disclosure of what an individual or group contributed or spent. The high court held that
the informational interest was significant enough that the law requiring individual disclosure was
not unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has upheld broad disclosure laws that are in the Federal Election
Campaign Act (FECA.)30 The law requires individuals or groups to file a statement with the
Federal Elections Commission if they make contributions or independent expenditures more than
$100 that are not otherwise subject to disclosure by political committees or candidates.
Although the court noted that compelled disclosure can seriously infringe on privacy of
association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment, the Court held that there are
sufficiently important government interests to justify the disclosure rules such as deterring
corruption, providing information to voters, and aiding in the enforcement of other campaign
finance laws. 31
2. State Law
The state's Political Reform Act requires the disclosure of campaign contributions and
expenditures in connection with state and local elections. In part, cities may also impose
additional or different filing requirements if they only apply to the candidate seeking election in
that city, their controlled committees, or committees formed or existing primarily to support or
oppose their candidacies, or general purpose committees active only in that jurisdiction. The law
allows local jurisdictions some flexibility to require additional or different filing requirements for
committees active exclusively in local elections. A city may enact contribution and disclosure
laws in addition to those required by the Political Reform Act :32 The state requires disclosure by
the following:
Candidates for state and local offices;
State and local elected officeholders; and
Campaign committees including:
Candidate controlled committees: local candidates and officeholders who
receive contributions totaling $1,000 or more in a calendar year;
30 Id.
" "The SurprisinglyCom lex
p Case for Disclosure of Contributions and Expenditures Funding Sham Issue
Advocacy" by Richard L. Hasen (2000) 48 UCLA L.Rev. 265, 270.
" Gov't Code § 81013.
LA #94325 v1
Memo to CKN
August 30, 2002
Page 11
Recipient committees: individuals and organizations that receive
contributions of $1,000 or more in a calendar year to support or oppose local
candidates (either primarily formed to support or oppose a single candidate, or more
than one candidate being voted on in a single election, or general purpose to support
or oppose a variety of candidates.)
Major donor committees: individuals or entities that use their own money
(personal funds, corporate or business funds);
Independent Expenditure Committees: individuals or entities that use their
own money to make independent expenditures totaling $1,000 or more in a calendar
year to support or oppose candidates. (This would be in the case when an
individual uses personal funds to send a mailing to voters or to purchase an
advertisement supporting a candidate, not in coordination with the candidate or
his/her campaign committee.)
According to FPPC personnel, the PRA does not prohibit cities from enacting stricter
disclosure requirements of contributions made to PACs than provided for under state law. FPPC
personnel also said that according to state law, PACs must identify its contributors of anyone
who contributes $100 or more. 33 The City may amend its Code to lower the limit, however, the
City should have a sufficient basis for its determination of the amount to be recorded.
3. Examples of How Other Cities Address Disclosure Requirements of Contributions
Made to PACs
City ojLong Beach
The City of Long Beach requires "any person who makes independent expenditures of
more than $250 in support of or opposition to any candidate shall notify the City Clerk and all
candidates running for the same seat by telegram, facsimile or any other electronic means
approved by the City Clerk each time such an expenditure is made .34
The Long Beach Municipal Code sets forth additional reporting requirements, such as:
"In addition to the campaign statement required to be filed pursuant to the Political
Reform Act, commencing with Government Code Section 81000, candidates, their controlled
committees and independent committees primarily formed to support or oppose candidates in
Long Beach subject to this Act shall file a pre-election statement the Friday before each election.
This statement shall have a closing date of the Wednesday immediately proceeding the election
date; and
as Gov't Code § 84211.
34 LBMC § 2.01.630 "Notice of independent expenditures."
LA #94325 v1
Memo to CKN
August 30, 2002
Page 12
"No contribution of one hundred dollars or more shall be deposited into a campaign
checking account unless the name, address, occupation and employer of the contributor is on file
in the records of the recipient of the contribution. ,35
City of Los Angeles
The City of Los Angeles Municipal Code provides that any person who makes
independent expenditures of more than $1,000 in support of or in opposition to any candidate
shall notify the City Ethics Commission within 24 hours by telegram each time one or more
expenditures are made which meet this threshold is met .36
City of Berkeley
According to Berkeley Municipal Code § 2.12.065, the city shall publish in one or more
newspapers at least once in the seven days before each municipal election a list of all persons
contributing $50 to any candidate or committee in that election and the amounts of the
contributions. A committee is defined as any person or combination of persons that directly or
indirectly receives contributions exceeding more than $250 in a calendar year for the purpose of
influencing or attempting to influence the action of voters.
City of Signal Hill
The City of Signal Hill has a code section that addresses independent expenditure reports
that sets forth any person or committee (which includes candidates for city office, their
controlled committees, committees formed or existing primarily to support or oppose the
candidacy of a. candidacy of a candidate for city office, city general purpose committees and
other committees active only within the city) which makes independent expenditures in excess of
$500 in any calendar year shall file an independent expenditure report with the city clerk semi-
annually. Further, a supplemental independent expenditure report shall be filed for any
independent expenditure which totals in the aggregate $1,000 or more and is made for or against
any specific candidate for city office after the closing date of the prior semi-annual report period.
It is to be filed within 24 hours of the making of the expenditure. 7
35 LBMC §§ 2.01.720 and 2.01.730.
36 LAMC § 49.7.26.
37 SHMC § 2.90.085.
LA #94325 v1
Memo to CKN
August 30, 2002
Page 13
Conclusion
In sum, the SCMC can be amended to provide for limitations to PACs that are not
candidate controlled. Further, the City can impose limitations to PACs' contributions from
individuals and groups at this time, since it appears the courts have supported these if there is a
sufficient governmental interest. Lastly, the City can require PACs to identify contributors who
have given smaller amounts or to have forms directly filed with the City Clerk. Modification of
Chapter 7.02 of the SCMC to accomplish the foregoing objectives could be made by amendment
of Sections 7.02.030 set forth as Exhibit A to this memorandum. If you have any questions
about the matter discussed in this memo, please contact me.
LA #94325 v1