Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09201988 - I.O.1 190 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I.O. 1 FROM INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 1. tra September 12, 1988 Costa DATE: ( o * County Election Campaign Ordinance v�+�'� �� SUBJECT: SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECCIIA1ENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Request County Counsel to provide all Board Members with a copy of all available emergency or other regulations issued by the State Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and continue to provide each Board Member with a copy of any additional regulations which interpret Proposition 73 as they may be released by the FPPC over the next few months. 2 . Request the County Administrator to determine what the rate of inflation has been since the Board of Supervisors adopted the $500 limit on contributions from an individual and advise our Committee on November 28, 1988 what that $500 contribution limit would equal in 1988 dollars. 3 . Request County Counsel to determine whether the County can lawfully require that the fact that a candidate for County office either has or has not signed the Fair Campaign Pledge . be placed on the ballot or in the voters ' handbook, and provide our Committee with a report on this subject at our meeting on November 28, 1988. 4 . Provide our Committee with direction as to whether the Board would support inclusion, as a part of the Fair Campaign Pledge, of a voluntary campaign expenditure limit of perhaps $150,000 per election as a means of encouraging all candidates for County office to voluntarily hold down the cost of running for office. BACKGROUND: On June 21, 1988, the Board of Supervisors referred to our Committee proposed amendments to the County' s election campaign. ordinance, Division 530 of the County Ordinance Code. On September 12, 1988, our Committee reviewed a memorandum from County Counsel which compares the County' s current campaign ordinance with the provisions of Proposition 73 . Our Committee also reviewed expenditure data on the campaigns for County Supervisor in this County since 1980 . A copy of County Counsel' s memo and the materials prepared by the County Administrator' s Office based on the campaign expenditure filings of all candidates are attached to this report. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR �_ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER TOO 00 5.01 SIGNATURE(S1: Sunne W. McPeak pp Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON September 20, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X Also, DIRECTED the 'Elections supervisor to transmit the ordinance to the members of the Campaign Reform Task Force. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT II, IV AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. County Administrator cc: County Counsel ATTESTED , o?o 1999 Elections Supervisor PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF District Attorney SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Elected Department Heads BY M382/7-83 ,DEPUTY Page 2 Our Committee believes that the contribution limits set by Proposition 73 are too high for county campaigns since they permit contributions of $1000 per person per year. We also believe that the proposed contribution limit contained in the draft revisions to our ordinance are too generous since they permit contributions from a single individual of $300 per year, and $600 per year if a candidate is involved in more than one election in a single year. We have asked the County Administrator' s Office to determine what the County' s current contribution limit of $500 per person per election cycle would be if it had been increased each year by the rate of inflation since the figure was agreed to in 1983 . It seems clear that the $500 figure should be increased by at least the rate of inflation since 1983 . Postage costs alone have nearly doubled in that five-year period. Our Committee is looking seriously at recommending that the current $500 limit on campaign contributions for an election cycle (generally four years) be increased by the rate of inflation since 1983 , but that it continue to be substantially below the limits permitted by Proposition 73 . Our Committee is also interested in implementing a voluntary limit on total expenditures for all purposes during an election. Since it is no longer possible to permit the in-kind donation of office space and equipment as our ordinance currently allows, most candidates for County office will see their total expenditures increase simply because they have to pay for office space and equipment. Based on the expenditures which have taken place in the past few years, it seems clear that a voluntary expenditure limit of $100,000 per candidate per election is unrealistically low, given the need to pay for office space in the future and the continuing increases in the cost of postage. We are, therefore, suggesting the possibility of a voluntary expenditure limit of $150, 000 per candidate per election as a realistic limit given cost increases which are likely to occur between now and 1990. We are also looking for the most public way of advising the voters which candidates have voluntarily agreed to abide by the Fair Campaign Pledge, including the voluntary limit on expenditures. We have, therefore, asked County Counsel to advise as to the legality of the County including a footnote or other notation either on the ballot itself, or in the voters ' handbook, which would clearly identify which candidates have and which have not signed the Fair Campaign Pledge, including the voluntary limit on campaign expenditures. While we recognize that it would be difficult to absolutely monitor a candidate' s adherence to the voluntary expenditure limit, we believe that the pressure of public scrutiny would force most candidates who said they would voluntarily limit their campaign expenditures to actually do so. County Counsel advised our Committee that the FPPC has issued some regulations interpreting Proposition 73 and is holding hearings on more regulations this month. We have, therefore, asked that County Counsel keep all Board Members up-to-date on the issuance of these regulations and then report back to our Committee in November on the status of the implementation of Proposition 73 . We plan to report back to the Board in more detail after our November 24 meeting. lr�l3�f"f t ��i1�31 ' COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE r y CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA SEP 0 c 1988 Dote: September 6, 1988 Oil 0'r To: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator -�. From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Arthur W. Walenta, Assistant County Counsel Re: Effect of Proposition 73 on Contra Costa County Fair Campaign Ordinance This responds to your memorandum dated August 1, 1988, requesting County Counsel's comments on the effect of Proposition 73 on the Contra Costa County Fair Campaign Ordinance. 1 . Does Proposition 73 preempt any provisions of the Fair Campaign Ordinance? Yes, as follows: a. Section 530-2 .402(a) will be preempted insofar as it permits up to five hundred dollars in contributions - attributable ontributions -attributable to more than two election cycles in a single fiscal year. Insofar as the Fair Campaign Ordinance permits five hundred dollars in campaign contributions in election cycles, two of which will encompass a fiscal year, the County's Ordinance is consistent with, and even more restrictive than the One Thousand Dollar fiscal year contribution limit expressed in Proposition 73. But to the extent (as might be the case respecting a special election) that more than two "election cycles" could occur under the County ordinance within one fiscal year, the limits under the County ordinance are preempted. b. Section 530-2 .402(b) , will be preempted insofar as it permits a person to contribute up to ten thousand dollars in in-kind contributions of office space or equipment in an election cycle. Proposition 73 prohibits contributions, even from broad- based committees, exceeding five thousand dollars in value per fiscal year. "Contribution" is defined in Government Code section 82015 to include, inter alia, payments . "Payment" is defined in Government Code section 82044 to include a "rendering of . . . property . . . or anything else of value There is sparse authority as to whether or not the donation of the use of property such as office space of office equipment constitutes a "contribution" under the statute (compare 58 Ops .Cal .Atty.Gen. 546 ( 1975 No. CV 75-87) and 5 FPPC 18, which involve "in-kind" contributions supported by payments of funds) . The FPPC has stated in a letter opinion that an in-kind contribution of property not involving payments of money was a 'contribution' under the statute. (No. A-85-044, Feb. 1985) In our opinion, I Phil Batchelor =2- September 6, 1988 under Proposition 73, in-kind. contributions of the use* of property are probably governed by the same limits which apply to other contributions . However, that part of section 530-2 .402(b) which limits aggregate in-kind contributions of office space or equipment to ten thousand dollars in an election cycle may not be preempted if that provision qualifies as a campaign contribution limitation under Proposition 73 . Government Code section 85101 protects lower campaign contribution limitations enacted by local governmental agencies. c.. Section 530-2 .404, will be preempted insofar as it permits political action. committee contributions up to fifteen thousand dollars per election cycle. As noted above, Proposition 73 prohibits contributions, even from 'broad based' political committees, exceeding five thousand dollars in value per fiscal year. But that part of section 530-2 . 404 which limits aggregate limitations by political action committees to fifteen thousand dollars in an election cycle will probably not be preempted. Government Code section 85101 protects lower contribution limitations enacted by local governmental agencies . d. Section 530-2 .405, which permits candidates and campaign treasurers to avoid all. "penalties by returning excess contributions within thirty days after receipt, will be preempted. No' such provision.. exists under Proposition 73 where its limits are exceeded. : e. Section 530 . 2 . 214,. which provides for exemptions from the local regulation of political contributions, will be preempted- effective January- 1, 1989 . Contributions that are regulated under Proposition 73 are regulated without exemptions . 2 . In. what respect does the -Fair Campaign Ordinance go beyond Proposition 73? a. Insofar as the .Fair Campaign Ordinance limits personal contributions to five hundred dollars in a half-year election cycle, it is more restrictive than Proposition 73 which allows contributions up to one thousand dollars at any time in a fiscal year. 53.0-2 .402(a) . ) b. As noted above, the Fair Campaign Ordinance exceeds the limits of Proposition 73. insofar as it limits in-kind contributions to an aggregate value of ten thousand dollars in any election cycle. (S 530-2 .402(b) . ) c. As noted above, the Fair Campaign Ordinance exceeds the limits of Proposition 73 insofar as it limits the aggregate Phil Batchelor -3 September 6, 1988 of political action committee contributions to fifteen thousand dollars in an election cycle (S 530-2 .404. ) .d. The Fair Campaign Ordinance provision for a Fair Campaign Pledge exceeds the requirements of Proposition 73 . (Article 530-2. 6 . ) e. The Fair Campaign Ordinance reporting requirements exceed the requirements, of Proposition .73 insofar as they exceed the reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act. (Article 530-2 . 8 . ) f . The Fair Campaign Ordinance provisions for Clerk and District Attorney review exceed the requirements of Proposition 73 . (S 530-2 . 1002 . ) 3. - How does Proposition 73 affect the pending proposed amendments to the Fair Campaign Ordinance? a. The proposed amendment to section 530-2 . 214 which enlarges the exemptions from the County's campaign contribution limitations would be preempted by Proposition. 73 . See above. b. The proposed amendment to section 530-2 .402 would be partially valid and partially invalid when the balance of Proposition 73 becomes effective. i.. The limitation on contributions to three hundred dollars per calendar year would permit six hundred dollars in contributions per fiscal year. This is less than the amount allowed under Proposition 73 ($1,000 •per fiscal year) , and would probably be a valid enactment under pending Government Code section 85101 as a more restrictive local enactment. ii. The provision increasing the three hundred dollar calendar year limit to .six hundred- dollars in the case of two elections for the office, would be invalid to the extent that it permitted one thousand two hundred- dollars -in contributions during. a fiscal year. iii . The provision allowing up to ten thousand dollars on in-kind office space or equipment contributions, in addition to the local contribution limits, would be superceded as discussed above. 4 . What changes would there be in the rules governing local election campaigns under Proposition 73 if the County's Fair. Campaign Ordinance is repealed? o • Phil Batchelor =4- September 6, 1988 a. As to limits on campaign contributions, there would be little change. Both the County Ordinance and Proposition 73 limit personal contributions to one thousand dollars in a fiscal . year or its equivalent. b. Repeal of the Fair Campaign Ordinance would . eliminate the County's ten thousand dollar ceiling on in-kind contributions of office space or equipment. c. Repeal of the Fair Campaign Ordinance would- eliminate the County' s fifteen thousand dollar ceiling- on contributions from political action committees . d. Repeal of 'the Fair Campaign Ordinance would eliminate the -County's Fair. Campaign Pledge. e. Repeal of the Fair Campaign Ordinance would eliminate the County's local reporting requirements . f . ' Repeal of the Fair Campaign Ordinance would eliminate the special enforcement duties .of the Clerk and the . District Attorney. AWW:tb:da REVISED ANALYSIS OF COST OF SUPERVISORIAL ELECTIONS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - 1980-1988* Contributions Expenditures 1980 _ DISTRICT II Incumbent $ 24,151. 41 $ . 21, 585 .17 Challenger #1 19, 303 . 79 24, 182. 01 Challenger #2 17,266 . 99 16,070 . 00 DISTRICT III Incumbent 32,899. 00 29,757. 00 Challenger 7,058. 98 7,508. 39 DISTRICT V (No incumbent) Challenger #1 100, 621. 00*** 97,798. 00*** (eventual winner) Challenger #2 23 ,_713 ..00** 43 , 371. 00** ( in run-off) ' Challenger #3 20,563 . 24 17, 213 .79 Challenger #-4 32,248. 00 31,213 . 00 Challenger #5 . 2, 909.00 3 ,415. 00 Challenger #6 2, 058 . 00 2, 039 . 00 - - Challenger #7 765. 00 765 . 00 **includes contributions and expenditures through the primary. No disclosure statements located for run-off. 1982 DISTRICT I Incumbent $114, 092. 55 . $116, 447. 42 Challenger 11, 289. 00 12,599. 00 DISTRICT IV Incumbent 63 ,010. 48 62, 434. 19 (Unopposed) . 1984 DISTRICT I•I Incumbent 179, 537. 00*** 178, 035. 00*** Challenger #1 163 , 677. 89*** 174,607. 93*** ( in -run-off) Challenger #2 103 ,631. 68 88, 913 . 22 DISTRICT III Incumbent 10, 509. 00 4 ,776 . 00 (Unopposed) DISTRICT V Incumbent 98,160 . 00 98,590. 00 Challenger 51 ,967. 64 46,811 . 28 ***Includes contributions & expenditures for both the primary and run-off. Page 2 Contributions Expenditures 1986 DISTRICT I Incumbent $, 80,561 . 50 $ 33 ,034. 40 (Unopposed) DISTRICT IV' Incumbent 95,741. 30 114,923 . 25 Challenger 11,889 .00 17,792 . 00 1988 DISTRICT II Incumbent 138,784 . 00 58,728 . 00 Challenger . 103 ,999 . 20 100, 242. 11 DISTRICT III Incumbent 86, 226. 00 124, 453 . 00 Challenger 51 ,151. 00 73 , 491 . 00 DISTRICT V Incumbent 14,013 . 00 21,785 . 00 (Unopposed) *Includes contributions & expenditures only for the calendar year in which the election was held. .