Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 3 CAMPAIGN CONT LMTS 6-20-88 ,, NEW BUSINESS --~ -' / Inter-Corn I)ATE: 'June 15, 1988 - ' ~-~_z....~ ..... ~ .-..-~-~ '~--~-">" ""~"~'"." I ~- .f--- \ . . . ,a / f...~ TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & NEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ~% ...... /azr;~-~ 4,._~ .~- SUBJECT: CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS We are in the process of assemblying the campaign contribution limitation ordinances Of various Orange County cities and as soon as we have them together we will provide copies to you. Howev=r, the June issue of the League of California Cities' magazine Western City has just been received and it contains two articles about campaign contributions, one of the articles being a brief description of the League's proposed model ordinance which the article says will be made available to cities this~ summer. The Council may wish to defer consideration, until the model ordinance has been received and distributed to you. . ,.,' (~/ / '~/. . i"' x' ,," _ Cl~y A~orne~ JGR: se: D: 06/10/88 ( 799) cc: WH Politics: Finsnce Refo. rm California's Cities and Co, ' By Robert M. Stern and Tracy Westen '~i.. ~..:_~'ore cities and counties in '1V ti California have enacted cam- J,, ~ Jlk. paign finance reform laws than all other cities, counties and states in the rest of the United States com- bined. At least 63 local California juris- ""ctions have adopted their own campaign finance laws. In contrast, fewer than ten local jurisdictions in the rest of the nation have enacted their own campaign finance ordinances. Califor- nia thus provides the most innovative ex- perimental laboratory in which to study local campaign finance reform options. Campaign finance laws are enacted to achieve many differing goals: to reduce the costs of campaigning, to ameliorate the influence of contributors on local decision making, and to diminish the fund raising advantage of incumbents. This articie will examine the wavs California cities and counties have at- tempted to reach these goals. And. be- cause California cities and counties have had little experience with ordinances which include expenditure limits, the ar- ticle will explore how such comprehen- sive campaign finance ordinances have cieveloped in three jurisdictions: Sacra- mento Count)', California; Seattle, Washington: and Tucson, Arizona. California's Political Reform Act, enr acted by the voters in 1974, ~ requires stringent public disclosure of contribu- tions and expenditures. Although the Act requires local as well as state can- didates to make mandatory disclosures, Western City/June 1988 it does not prevent local jurisdictions from adopting stricter disclosure stan- dards. Moreover, although the Political Reform Act does not impose contribu- tion limits, expenditure ceilings or matching funds limits on candidates, it allows cities and counties to enact such reforms tailored to their own unique situations. Nearly all the largest local jurisdic- tions in California -- Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco. Orange County, San Diego County, Sacramemo and Sac- ramento County -- have adopted their own campaign finance laws. Notable ex- ceptions include Los Angeles County and the City of Oakland. although Oak- land's City Council has debated adop- tion of contribution limits ordinances. California's local ordinances date back to 1970 when the City of Del Mar adopted the first local law limiting ex- penditures by and contributions to city council candidates. Nearly all of Gal- ifornia's city and county campaign (Robert M. Stern and Tracv Westen are co-directors of the California Commis- sion on Campaign Finance, founded in 1984, is a bipartisan, non-profit orga- nization funded by the Haynes, Hewlett, lrvine, Parsons and Weingart Founda- tions of California. In 1987, the Com- mission undertook a. comprehensive study o..f local campaign financing, the .first of its kind in the nation. This article is adapted from Chapter Three of the Commission's upcoming report, Money and Politics: Financing Cai(fornia;s Local Elections, to be published this summer. ) finance ordinancr:~ sit:ce have been adopted through legislative action by the city council or board o£ supervisors. A few, however, have been passed by the voters, either through the initiative pro- cess or through charter amendments placed On the ballot by tile local govern- ing board. The varieto of ordinances adopted by California's cities and counties is impressive: ~ Contribution limits, adopted by 42 local .iurisdictions, vary from $50 in Del Mar and Davis to $1,491 in Santa Monica. ~ Orange County disqualifies any of- ficial who receives more than $1,760 in campaign contributions from a contrib- utor who has business pending before the board of supervisors from voting on pertinent matters. -- San Diego and San Diego County prohibit contributions from all non-in- dividuals- corporations, unions and Poiitical Action Committees (PACsl. ~ Los Angeles prohibits officehold- ers from carrying over more than $5.000 in surplus funas from one eiection to another. ~ Sacramento Countv restricts spending by supervisoria] candidates who elect to receive partial public matching funds for small contributions. Ordinances adopted by California cities and counties fall into four basic categories: limits on the size of contri- butions, prohibitions on contributions from certain contributor groups, addi- tional disclosure reauirements bevond those contained in the Political Reform Act and miscellaneous provisions. ~continued on next page) Money & Politics (continued) ' Limits on the Size of Contributions -- Most campaign finance ordinances limit contributions to city council, may- oral or board of supervisor candidates. The amounts allowed by the limits vary: However, of the 42 cities and counties which have adopted contribution limits, all but three have placed the amount at $500 or less. The exceptions are santa Monica, Sonoma County and Tracy. Santa Mon- andidates such as mayor can give $1000. San Francisco. which began with a $500 limit, raised it to $750. and taen to $1,000, but recently has dropped it back to $500. At the other end of the scale, thre~ local jurisdictions limit contributions to $50: Del Mar (pop. 5,000), Davis (pop. 40,000), and Walhut Creek (pop. 56,000). The contribution limits most often adopted by California cities and coun- ties are $250 (twelve jurisdictions) and $500 (also twelve jurisdictions). Popu- Gardena: Gardena's campaign finance law prohibits contributions from anyone doing business with the city; even a local hardware store which sharpens the blades o£ parks department lawnmowers is prohib- ited from making any contributions. Despite the stringency of the ordinance, Gardena's city attorney and its city council report that they feel this provision is the most important part of the local law. They believe it reduces any possible appearance of bias on the part of the council when making contractual decisions. In a sense, the ordinance serves as a politcal protection mechanism for council members. ~' II I ica (pop. 90,000) has fixed its limit at two cents times the voting age pop- ulation of the city -- or $1491 per candi- date in 1986. Two Northern California communities -- Sonoma County (pop. 315.000) and Tracy (pop.22,000)- limit contributions to $1.000 per can- didate. In addition, although San .lose, Los Angeles and Sacramento limit in- dividual contributions to city council campaigns to 5500, donors to citvwide I I II I I1 I lation clearly is not a factor; some of the largest cities and counties have low lim- its, while some of the smaller cities per- mit the highest amounts. Some local jurisdictions recently have increased their Iimits; others have lowered them. A few -- San Rafael,' Santa Cruz, West- minster and Cypress -- have repealed their contribution limits altogether. Officials from no city or county sur- veyed could state why it chose its partic- SPECIAL DISTRICTS Formation · Financin; · ~ans~;.ement Need help financing your Infrastructure and Services with Annexations E' New Development B ExDan0ed Demanci E; Replacements with Mello Roos Community Facility. Districts 1913 and 1911 Municipal Improvements Acts 1972 Lan0scape and Lighting Districts ancl others. ESi CONSULTANT~, INC. can heil~. Call (714) 558-1952 1415 E. Seventeenth Street Santa Aha, CA 92701 SERVING CALIFORNIA AND THE W[Z~T (619) 451-6100 · (619) 32z~-1111 . (805) 495-98~ 2 · {415) 893-4940 Corporate Office: 16880 West BernarOo Drive, San Diego, CA S2127 contribution limit. Many local .cials merely said, "The limits just feel ri,,hte for our city." None had exten- sively studied contribution sizes from past elections; most simply referred to past campaign disclosure statements for guidance. Two jurisdictions ~ Concord and Contra Costa County ~ allow contrib- utors to make in-kind (non-monetary) contributions in larger amounts than cash contributions. Concord limits mon- etary contributions to $500 but permits candidates to receive up to $1.500 in non-monetary contributions from all sources. Contra Costa County also limits monetary contributions to $500. but al- lows candidates to receive up to $10.000 in non-monetary donations from all con- tributors combined. Differences beteen Contributions from Individuals and Contributions from PACs and Organizations ~ Most cities and counties impose uniform limits on ali contributors. Seven. how- ever, allow PACs and other organiza- tions to give higher amounts. Contra Costa County has ti~e most unusua! PAC provisions. Individual contributors can give candidates no more than $500 per election, but a PAC can give a candidate up to $15,000. PACs are defined as any committee which receives contributions. Thus, two people can form a PAC in Contra Costa County and potentially give a supervisoriai candidate $15,000 per election provided that the candidate has not received other PAC contributions. In other words, candidates are limited to $15,000 from all PACs combined. Most other jurisdictions which limit individual and organization contribu- tions have enacted provisions similar to federal law, which limits individuals to $1.000 per election and PACs to $5,000 per election, l,J antington Beach, for ex- ample, permits individual contributions up to $300 but allows organizations to give up to $1.500. Santa Cruz County and the City of Sacramento have similar provisions. West Covina and Belmont distinguish between types of organizations. Be!- mom allows organizations to give up to $200, but PACs can contribute up to $600. West Covina reverses Belmont's distinctions: PACs can give oniv $500. but organizations are permitted to con- tribute up to $1.000. Three jurisdictions -- San Diego. San Diego County and Santee -- allow for individual contributions, but prohibit any organizational contributions. Federal law requires PACs to have at leas: 50 members, be in existence six I Illl I I Illl June 1988/Western City months and contribute to at lea candidates." But only one local (;ml,or- nia jurisdiction defines organiza ions or PACs by the number of their members. Sacramento County, which based its pro- visions on the Model Law proposed by the California Commission on Campaign Financing in The New Gold R'ush,3 re- quires organizations to have a specified number of members before they are eli- gible for higher contribution thresholds. Two cities have unique provisions which permit candidates to receive con- tributions above their contribution lim- its. The City of Sacramento allows candidates to collect their first $10,000 in money raised in amounts ex~ceeding the various limits imposed. In 1985, Los Angeles adopted a charter amendment which attempts to assist opponents of wealthy candidates. (Under the U.S. Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo deci- sion, wealthy candidates cannot be lim- ited in spending their own money.'~) If a Los Angeles· candidate spends more than $50.000 of his or her own money on a campaign, the wealthy person's op- ponents are freed from the contribution limits up to the amount spent by the wealthy candidate in excess of the $50,000. A few jurisdictions prohibit contri- butions from certain donors altogether. San Diego, San Diego County aM Say- tee (located in San Diego County) prohibit contributions from any non-in- dividual. These may.be the toughest contribution restrictions in the coun- try. The Commission is unaware of any other jurisdiction m federal, state or local -- that prohibits contributions from non-individuals (except in the Presidential general election where ne one may make contributions to those candidates who agree to finance their campaigns completely with federal money.) These unique restrictions have not been challenged in court. Other cities and counties forbid con- ~ributions from specified donors. Berke- ley forbids donations from business trusts, and the County of Santa Cruz prohibits contributions from partner- ships, business or labor organizations. Belmont. Gardena, Poway. and Rancho Mirage forbid city contractors from making any contributions to city can- didates. South San Francisco forbids do- nations from city licensees; and Palp ,~,lto, during the time it was awarding cable television contracts, prohibited contributions from cable television com- panies and their employees. State law prohibits anonymous con- tributions of $100 or more -- the same IIIII I Western City/June 1988 threshold used to require the disclos, ur, of contributions.: Without a ban on anonymous contributions, candidates could claim, as they did in the early 1970s, that they did not know the source of their funds. A state law requiring can- didates to turn over anonymous money to the Secretary of State has encouraged candidates to track down the names their donors. Half of the cities and counties whic[: limit contributions also place more re- strictive conditions on anonymous con- tributions. Three local entities -- Sa:'_ .lose, Newport Beach and Sonc~.:? County -- prohibit all anonymous contributions. Cities and counties limit anonyr;.c~: contributions in two ways. Eight &.ties and counties lower the amount of any single anonymous contribution a didate may receive to over $10; to or more; or to $50 or more. Nine and counties restrict aggregate anon? mous contributions to amounts rang:, from $50 to $500. More Stringent Disclosure merits ~ The Political Reform Act quires all candidates running in an' California election to disclose contribu- tions and expenditures of $100 or mot: including the name, address, occupa'~$:. ~' ·, ~v'~r~LT_T2 ' .;5.2' - '~~~ ~ ,d employer of the contribut'or.~ . Nineteen cities and counties have passed local laws lowering their disclo- sure thresholds. ~ Of these. 15 also impose limitations on contributions.8 Cities and counties which have adopted stricter disclosure requirements range in population size from Rancho Mirage (pop. 7,200) to Contra Costa County (,pop. 645.000). Local disclosure thresholds vary from a requirement that all contributors be disclosed (Newport Beach) to ordinances mandating disclosure of contributors giving $75 or more. Berkeley requires candidates to item- ize contributions of $50 or more up to the first $1,500, but after candidates raise $1,500 they must list the names of all contributors, no matter the.amount. Of the 19 local jurisdictions which re- o. uire itemization of contributions under $100, 13 mandate disclosure in amounts under $50? The most common disclo- sure threshold is $25, required by nine -jurisdictions. Not all jurisdictions which impose iower contribution disclosure thresholds also require reporting of expenditures of under $100. ~o Newport Beach mandates disclosure of all vendor payments. Four ~continued on next page) Fimt System Price $6000.00 6000.00 6000.00 5500.00 5500.00 5000.00 600,.3.00 ~ [[cro-Munfa> Mort Singie Family/Fl'l). ?i Student Loan Finar,:~.:..' Collateralized Mortga.7 . L ~.. 75~.~.tions : i~cro-Nunf® Debt h;icro-Muni® ,~efun,'L ,~,'*;cro- u"?@ Bidd[nr: ,Our Micro-Munie' Mot, software ;<. ~.3rr,, (~'.:::,'~, is divioed into three stand alone packages: Sinoie Farniiy/FHA Financing, s[U~3nt [.c-;n Financing & CMO's. Each package can De pur[;naseo separately. The other so~..,are r:~ckages incluoe such features as structunng of Oebt oblioations via MMD, crsating oordoiios ic;: aOvanceo retundings via MMR, Oetermining bond coubons tot cornDetitiv~ bidding via MME and sizin~ of bOng issues via MMS. When ourcna, sm9 rnui'ii:;~,'a copies ol any one o~ our seven software packages, you can ta~e ?,var'~sge oi our individual sliding price scales. Call or write for more information 71nancia! Management Systems, Inc. E90 108th Ave. N.E., Suite 1090 Dellevue, Washington 98004 ?'hone (206) 646-8686-Sam Bisignano IBM is a re<~.tslered tr~Oemar~ of IBM Com. Money & Politics (continued) of the eight cities with lower contribution thresholds set the expenditure threshold at $25 or more. Most jurisdictions logi- cally place expenditure thresholds at the same level as their contribution thresholds. The Political Reform Act mandates candidates to file two campaign disclo- sure statements before, and one follow- ing. each election. The dates for filing these statements vary,.depending on whether the election is held in JUne, November or at some other time. ' ~ Some cities and counties have adopted ordinances which impose an additional filing requirement just before the elec- tion to cover contributions-and expend- itures made immediately before the vote. State law compels candidates to file late contribution reports for any contri- bution of $1000 or more received in the last two and a half weeks before the elec- tion (after the last required pre-election statement is filed). These late contri- bution statements must be filed within 24 hours after the contribution is re- ceived, either by overnight mail, tele- gram or personal delivery.~2 Six cities Arthur Young, with one of the largest government consulting practices in California, has a staff of specialized consultants dedicated to serving local government organizations. Ou? consultants are results-oriented, government services professionals, with extensive experience in all areas of municipal, county, and special district operations. Specific areas of expertise include: · Financia; A~"iatysis ahd Planr',;ng · Information Systems Evaluation, Design and: -:;':.&i~,&tioF ,' Management Audits of Organizations and Proceeures ~ Human Resources Studies, includfng,...,'"' ¢..~""'~;::3¢i :,o~, ,_o'~,-: Compensation Plans For more information on now we can he!r: yoL', CS.i S n'.' O'i OU:' Government Consulting leaders: San Francisco Southern Nadine Levin Larrv Seiget (415) 951-3227 (213'/977-3200 (714i 850-9409 Joe Hill ~. :andidates to file late contribution · ,.orts which differ from the state re- ports.~'~ The six cities lower the $1.000 threshold to as little as $10 in San Luis Obispo and to as much as $500 in Concord. Two cities ~ San Diego and Carlsbad ~ require candidates to obtain all the necessary disclosure information (name. street address, occupation and employer or principal place of business if' self- employed) on any contributor of $100 or more before depositing the check in the committee's bank account. Miscellaneous Provisions ~ Eight local jurisdictions require candidates to dispose of excess funds left over after the campaign has ended. TM The purpose of this provision is to prevent candidates from accumulating large unspent war chests during an election or carrying them over to the next election. The pro- vision is designed to give challengers a better chance to compete against in- cumbents, allowing both to start from comparable fundraising positions for upcoming elections. Two cities ~ Los Angeles and Commerce -- permit can- didates to retain no more than $5.000 in surplus funds from one election to an- other. But five cities and Sacramento County require that all surplus funds be given to a charity or turned over. to the city's coffers. Although such restric- tions deter carryover war chests, they also encourage candidates to begin fund- raising immediately after the election to build up funds for the next election. A few jurisdictions restrict the times when contributions can be received. Two cities -- Livermore and Walnut Creek -- prohibit candidates from r~.- ceiving contributions in the final five days before the election. The purpose of this provision is td discourage pumping last-minute money into a campaign. Two other cities lower their contri- bution limits for last-minute monev. Modesto limits contributions received in the last week before the election to no more than $99, but it places no limits on contributions given at other times. San Luis Obispo prevents contributors from giving more than $10 to a candidate in the last seven days before the election, ,et allows contributions of $100 if given before the seven-day period. Some local entities limit the timing of contributions early in the campaign. Sacramento County severely restricts off-year fundraising to no more than $250 per contributor and no more than a total of $10.000. In contrast, candi- dates in an election year can receive con- I Ill June 1988/Wester. n City tributiov, s of $500 per individual $I.000 per organization. Two j!,.risdictions- Los Angeles and San Fra~::isco --do not allow candidates to collect any campaign contributions until they have filed Declarations of In- tent to Run for a specific office. These provisions are designed to force candi- dates to declare for specific offices before they start gathering campaign money. But this goal has not been achieved. In both cities, incumbents have set up "Friends" committees or. ?ACs to receive campaign money before they declare for a specific office. Incum- bents also have used these Friends com- mittees or. PACs to collect money in excess of the contribution limits, al- though they cannot use these funds for direct candida:e expenditures. Most cities and counties impose crim- inal misdemeanor penalties on candi- dates and committees violating local campaign finance laws. In about two- thirds of the jurisdictions which impose criminal penalties, candidates violating. the law automatically are stripped 'of office. In eight cities, infractions -- similar to parking, tickets -- are substi- tuted for'misdemeanor penalties. '~ One city -- Gardena -- does not spec- ify penalties but provides thatall-the en- forcement provisions of the Political ?,eform Act should apply. Carlsbad ap- plies the provisions of the Poliucal Reform Act to its violators, but also specifies that violations of its ordinance are subject to misdemeanor penalties. 'Fhe Political Reform Act contains an ex- tensive range of penalties: misdemean- ors, fines for failure to file on time, and civil actions brought by prosecuting .au- thorities and by private citizens.'6 Thirteen cities and counties.do not mention any enforcement actions in their ordinances. ]~ Most local jurisdic, dons, however, have a general provision which states that any violation of a local ordinance-is a misdemeanor. Unpaid bills, if not regulated closely, can be disguised campaigntoans by yen-. dots. A few.local jurisdictions regulate such credit. In San Diego County, for example, vendors are. prohibited from extending credit bevond 30 days. ~ alifornia jurisdictions have little experience with expenditure "~--,,/ limitations, partly because the 3upreme Court's decision in the Buckle), '~'. Valeo case indicated such restrictions ere unconstitutional on First Amend- ment grounds unless they are voluntary end accompanied by some form'of pub- ~ic financing of campaigns. III ~' V:estern 'City/June 1988 Nationwide, four cities and counties in the United States have enacted com- prehensive systems of expenditure ceil- ings, contribution limits and-partial matching funds: Sacramento County, California; Seattle, Washington; Tucson, Arizona: and New York City. Seattle has held three elections and Tucson one elec- tion under their new systems, with a number of candidates receiving public matching funds. In February 1988, New York City became the largest local jurisdiction to adopt expenditure ceil- ings and matching funds. While the New York City system has been adopted too ne ordinance contained the following ojectives: to encourage the widest par- ticipation of the public in thte electoral process: to encourage small contributions by individuals: and to free the electoral process from the influence of individuals and groups making large contributions. ]~ Seattle's ordinance governed city elections in 1979 and 1981'. The city council then allowed it to lapse (under a "sunset" clause) but re-enacted it in 1984. The first year Seattle's law was in effect, all candidates agreed to abide by the expenditure limits. Some candidates ~ including three incumbents up for Alturas and Modoc County: Some political observers would say that the politics of Alturas and Modoc County are the politics of yesteryear. They harken back to an era when community reputation and family history were as c:itical to a candidate's success as fundraising ability in larger cities and counties. Candidates in both Modoc Co'ant3 and Alturas spend little on campaigns and rarely accept contributions. Suc- cessful candidates must simply be well-known and liked in the com- munity ~ "by being in the fire department, Rotary Club, working in the barber shop, or anywhere else where people 'know you and see you." recently to evaluate, the uniqueness of the other city approaches and the prox- imity of the Sacramento County effort makes them worthy of study. in 1978, Seattle adopted the first com- prehensive local campaign finance re- form law in the' country. Based on the. federal presidential system, the law lira-.' ired expenditures by candidates accept-: lng public matching funds, and it imposed: contribution limits on all candidates.: I I I I I I II II II re-election---declined to accept pub- lic findS. Some of' those who accepted matching funds announced they were opposed to the law. One said he philo- sophically opposed public fvnding but took it because his opponents were receiving 'matching funds. ]9 About $150,000 in public funds was distributed to all-the candidates in the election. One supporter said, "!~ broadens the pool of (continuea.o;, next page) Syn'e ze wi o ur'expe, to create'solutions £or 3/o ur 'Proj Fin an cin g EST~klS~ED 1931 SAN FRANCISCO 94104 , 415 / 421-8900 57'~'ears Serving California ...... I I I ..... I--- -~ ~, Illl lqoney & Politics :continued) people who run for local office. And I think that's worth the expense. In 1981, fewer candidates accepted public funds, primarily because a court challenge to the law was pending during the campaign and because a question had arisen whether the city council ac- tually would supply the funds. Late in the campaign, the city council voted to block distribution of funds to can- didates, but the mayor vetoed the ac- tion. Finally, the city council freed the money, and the court rejected the chal- lenge, holding that public financing was a permissible use of public funds. The law was allowed to sunset by a vote of the city council in 1982, despite strong support from some of the candi- dates who had accepted public funds. In t 984, however, the council voted to rein- state the law for the 1987 election. The council acted after the Seattle Office of Election Administration issued an ex- tensive study comparing the 1979 and 1981 elections m held when the law was in effect m with the 1975, 1977 and 1983 elections ~ held when the law did not apply.TM For elections held under the compre- ['~ensive law in 1979 and 1981, the study -- The number of contributions to candidates in closely contested city council campaign increase& m The size of the average contribu- tion to these candidates decreased. -- The number of individual cam- paign contributors increased. --The numerical and financial par- ~icipation of individuals and groups making large contributions decreased. The study found that candidates were motivated to seek small contributions because public funds were available only to match contributions of $50 or less. After the law was repealed, a different pattern emerged. Although contribution iimits still were in. effect during the 1983 election, the number of contributions to candidates decreased, the average size of contributions increased and the num- ber of large contributions rose. The study concluded that the combination of expenditure ceilings and limited public matching funds had improved campaign financing practices significantly. For the 1979 and 1982 elections, pub- ~ic funds came from the city's general fund. The 1984 ordinance established a check-off system in which residential (continued on page I8) __ __, Commission Recommendations The California Commission on Campaign Financing will be recommending that cities and counties in California consider the- following comprehensive reforms in their campaign finance laws: ( Limits should be impo~ed on how much a candidate can spend in any one campaign. The Commission has found that contribution limits by themselves do not reduce the high cost of spending. Contribution limits also force candidates to spend more time raising the funds necessary to mount effective campaigns. The only solution to the high cost of campaigns is expenditure limits. ( Limits on how much a person or PAC can give to a candidate for local ~ffice_ should be set. Contribution limits help reduce the influence of big givers on governmental decision making. These limits will reduce.the public perception that large contributors influence city councih'nembers. ( Partial matching funds should be available only to those candidates who accept expenditure limitations (constitutionally required by the U.S. Supreme Court decision gl £uckley v. Itaieo), raise a threshold amount in small contributions and who are faced with a serious opponent who has also raised significant sums. Limited matching funds are constitutionally necessary in order to impose expenditure limits. Matching funds will encourage candidates to seek smaller contributions and will reduce the time they spend fundraising. ( [:,estrictions should be placed on funflraisin.e in non-election years. E;anning off vear fundraising will stop'the practice of raising enormous sun's in order to scare off opponents. It also will reduce the linkage between decision making and fundraising. ~ Contributions from persons who have contracts wffn the city or are negotiating such contracts should De prohibite~. Tills ban has worked in those cities which have imposed it (such as Gardens.) .. Disclosure requirements for contrinutions and expenditures should b~ [t~,ered in small iurisdictions. For some cities, the current $100 disclosure threshold is too high. These cities should lower their disclosure thresholds if they find that a large percentage of contributions are unreported at the $100 thresiaoid. ~ Touo~ criminal an6 civil remedies should be imposed on tl~ose who violate provisions o! the ordinance. The Political Reform Act contains touch remedies for disclosure violations. The same remedies should apply to violations of campaign, reform measures. T I I dune 1988~Western City Coming from the League: Model Ordinance for Financing L[mitat[or : By Jim Harrington On April 30, 1988 the League's Board of Directors .approved a Model Ordinance for Cam- paign Financing Limitations that will be distributed to all cities this summer. At the same time, the Board voted unani- mously to support Proposition 68 on the June 7, ballot, because it would enact for the state Legislature, provisions sim- ilar to the model ordinance for cities, Adoption of the League's model or- dinance concludes a project that began over avear ago when the League's 1987 President, .lane Baker, appointed a 22- member Campaign Reform Committee ro study issues related to campaign fi- nancing and develop a recommended model ordinance for cities. Baker served as Chair of this Committee. This project was initiated in response to the ez:~7...: ing campaign costs that are rapidly becoming the political equiva- lent of an arms race. The high costs of campaigns -- not limited to any one level of government -- are problematic for officials at federal, state and local levels. The California Commission on Campaign Financing issued a report in 1985, tithed "The New Gold Rush: Financing California's Legislative Cam- paigns.'' This report documented the alarming pace at which campaign costs have risen. One million-dollar plus races at the state level, first encountered in 1982, now are no longer rare. In 1984. $44.8 million was spent for 100 seats in the state Legislature. In 1986, an estimated 270 million was spent in California leg- islative and congressional races: $187 million was spent on Congressional eiections nationwide. The increasing importance of money at both the state and local levels has resulted in a divergence of elected officials' time and energies to the fundraising effort. The pressure to raise .ever-increasing amounts of money often requires year-round fund- raising and off-year fundraising. The pub- lic is often left with concerns regarding the potential corruption of elected offJ- Western Oty/June 1988 cials; the perception that grea:er access is granted to those who give most; local decisions being overturned at the state level; and a general loss of public confidence. A 1985 Field poll measured the pub- lic's receptiveness to campa".gn reform and found that: 76 percent supported limits on individual or organizational contributions to candidates; 86 percent supported limits on PAC con:ributions; 56 percent supported limits on transfers of funds from other candida~:es; and 81 percent supported expenditure limits. he League's Camrmign Reform Committee included I7 Mayors ~ and Council Members, three ~ity Attorneys, and two City Clerks. The Committee first met on April 16, 1987, and met frequently throughout the next year. The Committee first studied the issues relative to campaign financing and heard presentations from several experts in the field. Particul. arly helpful was information provided b;, staff of the California Commission or. Campaign Financing. After hearing from the experts in the field, reviewing available literature, and developing an outline of issues for cities, the Commission prepared several drafts of a model ordinance that were carefully reviewed and amended. After a year's work the Committee completed a Model Ordinance for Campaign Financing Limitations. This model ordinance was then reviewed by the League's Admin- istrative Services Policy Committee where a few mpre changes were made prior to submission to the League's Board. The final draft was then re- viewed and approved by the League's Board of Directors with a few more minor improvements. '~~ ~ 7"hen the model ordinance is / printed and distributed to all cities, it will include a nar- rative foreword that will: (1) describe how the model ordinance was devel- oped; (2) provide relevant background information on the Buckler v. Valeo de- cision of the United States Supreme Court which prohibits expenditure lira- Inless they are accompanied by at , limited public financing of cam- paigns: and (3) how expenditure limi- tations affect incumbents, i.e., a limit that is too low favors incumbents. Throughout, the model ordinance will include explanatory notes to assist each city in understanding why certain provisions are in the model ordinance and whether 'those should be applicable to a particular city. A number of sections of the model ordinance are indicated to be optional for each city while other sec- tions are specifically recommended. The following briefly outlines the con- tents of the League's Model Ordinance: Article 1: Findings and purposes. Provides suggested declarations of pol- icy, findings and reasons for a city to adopt the ordinance. Article 2: Definitions. In general all terms use~l in the model ordinance have the same definitions as the Political Re- form Act, unless specifically defined in the model ordinance. Article 3: Contribution Limitations. No specific amounts are recommended since this should be a local decision based on circumstances in each city. However, the model ordinance suggests $50-100. Article 4: Expenditure Limitations. This article is considered optional, since all cities may not wish to enact the public financing provisions (Article 5) that are necessary to enact expenditure limita- tions. No specific amount of expendi- ture'limit is recommended; however, the model ordinance does include guide- lines on how to establish an expenditure limi~ based on local circumstances. Article 5: Campaign Financing. This is also an optional article, but must be included, if a city wishes to establish expenditure limitations (Buckle), v. Va- leo, United States Supreme Court). Key provisions of this article include require- ments to qualify for city financing that. a candidate must (1) agree to adhere to the expenditure limitations. (2) raise a minimum amount on his or her own from other than personal funds, (3') be op- posed by a serious candidate who also has the minimum amount of funds on his or her own. and (4) an optional require- ment that the person may not contribute more than a specified amount of his or her own personal funds to the campaign. Article 6: Public Funds. The article (continued on page 36) (Jim Harrington is the League's Assis- tant Director/Legislative Policy ,V evelopment. ) GEI~OHTY MILLER, INC. [~J~eGround. 14'ater Con.~ultants P~me Hms Bus,ness Center lY8~ C~tleton St~t. Sufle 175 c,,y of I~ustry. Calitorma 91748 II I I I I HUNTLEY MANAGEMENT SERVICES Con~ulmn'- in Or~mt~o~n -- Dr. Bob Huntley Post Office Box 430 (714) 891-3071 Westminster, CA (714) 742-2783 92684-0430 SALES TAX MANAGEMENT ~ · P~nt-of-~ ~s · ~-  ~~ Re~ · M~- lng · M~l~ti~ R~W ~ · T~ ~ ~~t · Trend ~ ~.. ~ 2K, ~. ~ 9~7~ (7~4~25-G7~ JAYKIM ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL STRUCTUf~AL AND ENVIF~ENTAL Consulting En~ineerMg Services MORTENSON-RICE-KOESTER ASSOCIATES -- CONSULTANTS TO MANAGEMENT -- LABON RELATIONS, PERSONNEL SYSTEMS · STUDIES, RISK MANAGEMENT, SELF-INSURANCE. RECRUITMENT, MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL. ORGANIZATION ANALYSIS, FINANCING STUDIES 144 MOflYCLAI~ OalVE SANTA CRUZ. CAU~OIMIIA ISM4 f4~t) 438-1632 ~ , Slllfll~ & Coil AnIIyS~S · Program ~""~"" Evaluation ' Telft'l BUIIC~IflC~ & TT~I~I~ * m Ex~utl~ R~ruttm~t & Assessm~t J Cent.s · P~tlltl~ Planning J HUGHES' HEISS ~ ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 675.Manners Islana goulevara, Su,e 108 San Mateo, Cahlorma 94404 ~4151 570-6111 R®locat~)n'& Reclevetopment Consultant 13.O. Box 574 .Sausalito, CA 94966-415-499-1045 i i i · CLASSIFICATION· INCENTIVE PI~OGRAM$ · COMPENSATION · ORGANIZATION STUDIES · JoB EVALUATION NASfl AND COMPANY, INC. MANAGEMENT CONSULTING 240 ROCKY POINT ROAD PALOS VERDEs ESTATES, CA 90274 Michael Nash. Ph. D.. l~esidenl 2 ! 3/37'/-4567 PuDIC WORKS - LanCI Develooment - Surveying CORPORATE OFFICE 10~20 VI& Ffonlef&, sift Diego. C401IM~Ii - 161g) 485-1500 Bay ArM Irvin~ Rancho Califorml Corona Ph~flixSan BMnIrC~nO Hame, Rancho Bernar0o San Dwgo PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES A P~otmmaai Corporation · Clas~iiicatlon/Job Analysis I Job [viluatmn I Com~n~tionl~netit Studl~ g ~rgemzetion/Pr~ure ~t~ Horthern ~4JiJornM ~uthern ~41florm4 (415) 630-8672 (213) 873-2434 REWARD STRATEGY GROUP, INC. Personnel and Compensation Consultants I Orgonizotmn Analysis ' · Compensatio~ · Ex~uti~ Recruit~t W Perforate Ap~oitol Comet: J~ S~fl (916) 487-15~ 3~ watt A~., ~ite I~, ~cro~to, CA 95821 FULL SERVICE INC. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PI.ANT OPERATIONS. LABORATORY SERVICES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. SEWER CLEANING AUBUr~I PALM DESERT 916 - 823-6614 619 - 340-.4,4.45 i URBAN FUTURES INC. PLANNING · REDEVELOPMENT · FINANCE - IMPLEMENTATION 801 E. Chapman Ave.. Sle. 106 Fullerton. CA 92631 (714) 738-4277 i ....... Willi&m~,-Kuebelbeck .., ...00,.,.., Pel~i0ilily StU0~IS. &cationic an~ hlc&l l~l~t Inllyl*s. ~rKe~ reseBrcn. ~ro~rty ~lS~Silion straleg~es, govern. meflt &nO Drivale hnoncJal stumes. 1301 ~y R~., S~e 317 7 Co--ate P~, ~1~ Irvi~, C) ~714 · (714) Legal Notes ('continued frorn page 24) where the injury occurred prior to the enactment of Proposition 5 I. The plain- tiff argued that Proposition 51 is uncon- stitutional and in any event should apply oniy prospectively. The Supreme Court held that the initiative is constitutional, rejecting arguments that it violates the Equal Protection Clause and is uncon- stitutionally vague. However, the Court held that Propo- sition 5I does not apply retroactively. The Court noted that generally a statute i 36 which interferes with existing rights will be applied only prospectively unless the statute was clearly intended to apply ret- roactively. However, nothing in the text of Proposition 51 or in the ballot argu- ments suggested that the initiative was intended to apply retroactively. Evan- gelatos v. Superior Court, 88 Daily Jour- nal D.A.R. 4984 (April 1988).i Model Ordinance (continued from page 9) ~ · outlines suggested, optional procedures for appropriating and administering public financing for candidates. Article 7: Campaign Statements and Audits. In general, the required statements in the model ordinance are the same as required 'by the ?olitical Reform Act. Article 8: Enforcement. Both crim- inal and civil penalties are included. Cities should expect to receive the fi- nal model ordinance early this summer.~ I I I II I I June 1988~Western City