HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3a: Municipal Campaign Expenditures and Financing rer
4 ot,vo U A>, 4,„
U Ir
.:fedaw�<::e
f"
n.n. s no
leg ilk*
0
%� °�
°
MEMORANDUM
Office of the City Attorney
Date: October 4, 2011
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS .
FROM: STEPHEN P. DEITSCH, CITY ATTORNEY *OA P. bil&i,..,
S UBJECT: REPORT, DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE
REGULATION OF MUNICIPAL CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES AND
FINANCING
Recommended Action: Provide Direction
SUMMARY
At the regular City Council meeting on September 6, 2011, Council Member Segal
requested City Council support to have the City Attorney research whether the City can
place a cap on campaign spending. Council Members Chandler and Amundson
supported Council Member Segal's request to have the City Attorney research this
issue and place on a future agenda for discussion. As a result of City Council direction,
the attached legal opinion dated September 14, 2011 was prepared by the City Attorney
and distributed to the City Council on September 22, 2011.
DISCUSSION
Article I, Chapter 7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code ("AMC") allows candidates running for
local office to adopt voluntarily limits on campaign spending, which was adopted by
Ordinance No. 2078 in 1997. Section 1701 permits candidates running for an elected
city office to voluntarily adopt a campaign expenditure ceiling based on a formula of fifty
($0.50) cents per city resident and Section 1702 in turn, requires the City Council to
determine and adopt by resolution not less than six (6) months prior to each general
municipal election, the number of City residents for purposes of the voluntary campaign
expenditure limit.
As set forth in the attached memorandum prepared by the City Attorney, if the City
Council desires limiting campaign expenditures voluntarily by candidates in municipal
elections, the City would have to amend Sections 1701 and 1702 of the AMC to reflect
changes in California law since their adoption in 1997. City efforts to regulate local
campaign spending must fall within constitutional boundaries and adhere to the
California Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.) ("Act"). The Act and
the regulations enacted under it set forth a comprehensive statutory scheme governing
1
campaign financing in state and local elections. However, the Act expressly permits
local agencies to some extent to enact local regulations concerning campaign financing.
The City cannot impose a spending limit on a candidate's use of his or her personal
funds in an election. A candidate who contributes personal funds to his or her own
campaign engages in protected First Amendment expression. The U.S. Supreme Court
emphasized that candidates should have the "unfettered opportunity" to air their views
so the people could evaluate candidate's personal qualities and positions on public
issues. Thus, limiting the use of a candidate's personal funds either as part of a
mandatory expenditure limit or a limit on campaign contributions is unconstitutional.
Voluntary campaign expenditure limits, on the other hand, are permissible for example
where they are conditioned on the receipt of public funds. If a candidate has accepted
to be bound by the Act's voluntary campaign expenditure limits, the Act's "bank account
rule," and other relevant regulations will count the candidate's use of his or her personal
funds towards the overall voluntary campaign expenditure limit. Further, the Act's
remedies will apply to a candidate who exceeds these voluntary limits. The only
exception to this rule according to the Fair Political Practices Commission ("FPPC") is
the use of personal funds for filing fees and for ballot pamphlet statements, which would
not count as part of any limit.
As the City is prevented from enacting an outright cap on campaign spending, if the City
is interested in regulating local campaign financing on a mandatory basis, it may instead
consider regulating campaign contributions. Unlike limits on campaign expenditures,
the courts have recognized that the government has an interest in capping the amount
of contributions to candidates for political office. Sections 1701 and 1702 of the AMC
are silent on candidates' acceptance of public funds and/or limits on campaign
contributions. However, these sections provide for voluntary limits, and such voluntary
limits have been upheld as constitutional.
It should be noted that several cities throughout California have enacted local campaign
finance regulations with contribution limitations that range from $250 in San Diego for a
city council candidate ($300 for mayoral or city attorney candidates), to $300 in Irvine, to
$500 in Los Angeles for a city council candidate ($1,000 for mayoral, city attorney or city
controller candidates).
FISCAL IMPACT
There would be no fiscal impact to the City as a result of City Council action.
2
RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the City Council would like to continue to regulate campaign expenditures by
candidates in municipal elections on a voluntary basis, the City would have to amend
Sections 1701 and 1702 of the Arcadia Municipal Code to reflect changes in California
law since their adoption in 1997. Alternatively or together with any such voluntary
expenditure limit, the City Council could consider limiting campaign contributions to City
Council candidates (separate and apart from and not counting personal contributions by
the candidate).
CONCUR:
Donald Penman
City Manager
Attachment: City Attorney Memorandum dated September 14, 2011
3
OF All
��4 zALiroe rii'4,d
c). riP714 il
.reap` ::ril,
o lna•n.puwl.G
u■u.l 3,1303
CO4 o4� OS`b
MEMORANDUM
Office of the City Attorney
Date: September 14, 2011
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE MATERIAL
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: STEPHEN P. DEITSCH, CITY ATTORNEY St-014K Q' DSA c'L..
SUBJECT: REGULATION OF MUNICIPAL CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES AND
FINANCING
BACKGROUND
Chapter 7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code ("AMC") allows candidates running for local
office to adopt voluntarily limits on campaign spending. Section 1701 of the AMC
permits candidates running for an elected city office to voluntarily adopt a campaign
expenditure ceiling based on a formula of Fifty Cents per city resident. Section 1702 of
the AMC in turn, requires the City Council to determine by resolution and not less than
six months prior to each general municipal election, the number of City residents for
purposes of the voluntary campaign expenditure limit. As the foregoing ordinances
were adopted and have gone unchanged since 1997, the City has requested the City
Attorney's opinion as to what options it has available in further regulating municipal
campaign financing in accordance with changes in law.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. May the City enact mandatory campaign expenditure limits in municipal
elections?
2. May the City continue to regulate campaign expenditures by candidates
for the City Council in municipal elections through Sections 1701 and 1702 of the AMC?
Short Answers
1. Likely not. Any such regulations would meet heightened constitutional
scrutiny and likely fail. If the City is interested in regulating the amount of money spent
in municipal elections, it is more likely to be met with success, instead, by regulating the
contributions to candidates for City Council.
1 A copy of Chapter 7 of the AMC is attached hereto at the end of this memorandum.
1
2. Yes, however, the City must amend Sections 1701 and 1702 of the AMC
to reflect changes in California law since their adoption. Moreover, the City might want
to consider amending said provisions to incentivize candidates to limit their campaign
expenditures in municipal elections.
DISCUSSION
1. Local Regulation of Campaign Financing
City efforts to regulate local campaign financing must fall within constitutional
boundaries and adhere to the California Political Reform Act (Government Code §
81000 et seq.) ("Act"). The Act and the regulations enacted pursuant thereto set forth a
comprehensive statutory scheme governing campaign financing in state and local
elections. However, the Act expressly permits local agencies to enact local regulations
concerning campaign financing. Specifically, Government Code2 Section 81013
provides as follows:
"Nothing in this title prevents the Legislature or any other
state or local agency from imposing additional requirements
on any person if the requirements do not prevent the person
from complying with this title."
The only limitations on local campaign financing regulations are that the regulations
may only be applied to candidates seeking election in the local agency's jurisdiction.
The regulations may also only be applied to the candidates' controlled committees and
general purpose committees3 active only in that local agency's jurisdiction.4
According to Section 81013, the City may enact its own campaign finance regulations,
which may include provisions to voluntarily limit campaign expenditures or limit
campaign contributions to a specified dollar amount.
Limiting Campaign Expenditures
Ordinances or regulations that restrict campaign contributions or expenditures implicate
First Amendment rights.5 Restrictions on campaign expenditures face the highest
constitutional scrutiny which requires, to be valid, that such restrictions must be both
"narrowly tailored to the evil that may legitimately be regulated,"6 and necessary to
serve a compelling state interest.'
2 All further statutory references are to the California Government Code unless otherwise specified.
3 Political Action Committees are considered general purpose committees and are subject to the same rules and
regulations. Gov. Code§§ 82027.5, 82013.
4 Gov. Code § 81009.5,subd. (b).
5 See Buckley v. Valeo(1976)424 U.S. 1, 19.
6 Federal Election Comm'n v.National Conservative PAC(1985)470 U.S.480,496.
7 Federal Election Comm'n v.Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc. (1986)479 U.S.238,251; See also Citizens
United v. Federal Elections Comm'n 2010 U.S.LEXIS 766.
2
U.S. Supreme Court cases addressing the issue have held that campaign spending
limits are unconstitutional restrictions on First Amendment rights.8 According to the U.S.
Supreme Court, these types of restrictions violate the First Amendment because they
limit the number of issues a candidate or group can discuss and affect the depth of
expression that a candidate or group can explore, while limiting the number of people a
candidate or group can reach.9 Unlike campaign contribution restrictions, the
government's interest in ridding the electoral process of the corruption and appearance
of impropriety is insufficient to justify campaign-related expenditure limits.lu Also an
insufficient justification to limit campaign-related expenditures is equalizing the amount
of funds spent by the candidates and their committees or equalizing competing
candidates' financial resources.11 Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has suggested that
no governmental interest thus far expressed has sufficiently justified the restriction on
the quantity of political expression imposed by campaign expenditure limitations.12
Similarly, the City cannot impose a spending limit on a candidate's use of his or her
personal funds in an election.13 A candidate who contributes personal funds to his or
her own campaign engages in protected First Amendment expression.14 The U.S.
Supreme Court emphasized that candidates should have the "unfettered opportunity" to
air their views so the people could evaluate candidate's personal qualities and positions
on public issues.15 The government's interest in preventing the appearance of
impropriety and actual corruption cannot justify placing burdens on the candidates
expenditure of his or her own personal funds because the problem of undue influence
on candidates is'inapplicable to this context.16 Thus, limiting the use of a candidate's
personal funds either as part of a mandatory expenditure limit or a limit on campaign
contributions is unconstitutional.17
Voluntary campaign expenditure limits on the other hand, are permissible where they
are conditioned on the receipt of public funds.18 If a candidate has accepted to be
bound by the Act's voluntary campaign expenditure limits, the Act's "bank account
rule,"19 and other relevant regulations 0 will count the candidate's use of his or her
personal funds towards the overall voluntary campaign expenditure limit. Further, the
Act's remedies will apply to a candidate who exceeds these voluntary limits.21 The only
8 Randall v. Sorrell(2006)548 U.S. 230,241-242[affirming Buckley].
9 Id.
1°Buckley,supra, at p.46.
11/d.
12 Randall, supra,at p. 242.
13 Buckley, supra,at p. 54, 57 n65.
14/d. at p. 52.
15 Id. at p. 52-53.
16 Id. at p. 53.
17 Id.
I B Id.
19 Codified at Gov. Code§ 85201.
20 Cal. Code Regs.,tit.2§ 18540,subd. (d).
21 See Gov. Code§§ 85400,85403. Penalties under the Act include charges of a misdemeanor for knowing and
willful violations(Gov. Code§ 91000,subd.(a).);fines and penalties up to the greater of$10,000 or three times the
amount that the candidate failed to report properly or unlawfully contributed,expended,gave or received(Gov.
3
exception to this rule according to the Fair Political Practices Commission ("FPPC") is
the use of personal funds for filing fees and for ballot pamphlet statements.22
Thus, while the City may not outright cap campaign spending, it may condition
campaign spending limitations on the acceptance of public funding or support. Sections
1701 and 1702 of the AMC are silent on candidates' acceptance of public funds.
However, these sections provide for voluntary limits, and such voluntary limits have
been upheld as constitutional.
Limiting Contribution Amounts
As the City is prevented from enacting an outright cap on campaign spending, if the City
is interested in regulating local campaign financing on a mandatory basis, it may instead
consider regulating campaign contributions. Unlike limits on campaign expenditures,
courts have recognized that government has an interest in capping the amount of
contributions to candidates for political office. Concerns regarding corruption, the
appearance of corruption, and circumvention of otherwise valid campaign finance
regulations have all been upheld as sufficiently important governmental interests to
support a restriction on campaign contributions.23 However, the goal of equalizing
political opportunities between candidates and parties has been rejected as a
sufficiently important governmental interest, and cannot be used as the basis for a
limitation on campaign contributions.24
In determining the specific dollar amount, the courts have cautioned that it cannot be so
low as "to render political association ineffective, drive the sound of a candidate's voice
below the level of notice, and render contributions pointless."25 The Courts have
reasoned that campaign contribution limitations that are set too low violate the
constitutional free speech and association rights of candidates. Additionally, local
campaign contribution limitations should be supported by some showing of local
concern regarding the appearance of corruption in the local agency's elections.26 The
specific amount of local campaign contribution limitations will necessarily vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction based upon the size of the jurisdiction, media costs, news
media coverage, and other similar factors.27 Several cities throughout California have
enacted local campaign finance regulations with contribution limitations that range from
$250 in San Diego for a city council candidate ($300 for mayoral or city attorney
candidates), to $300 in Irvine, to $500 in Los Angeles for a city council candidate
($1,000 for mayoral, city attorney or city controller candidates).
Code§ 91000,subd. (b).);a four-year disqualification from holding elected office(Gov.Code § 91002)and permit
injunctive relief and the award of attorneys fees to the prevailing party(Gov.Code § 91003.).
22 Telephonic Conference with FPPC official,September 12,2011. Note,the Act's voluntary campaign expenditure
rules apply to candidates for state office(Gov.Code§ 85400.).
23 Id. at p. 26.
24 Id at p. 48.
25 Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC(2000)528 U.S.377,397.
26 Id. at pp. 391-394.
27 California Prolife Council Political Action Committee v.Scully(E.D. Cal. 1998)989 F. Supp. 1282, 1298.
4
Therefore, pursuant to the authority granted to the City under Section 81013 and the
constitutional limits prescribed by court decisions, the City may limit campaign
contributions, provided that candidates are not thereby prevented from complying with
the Act, and the City can justify the limitation with findings concerning the potential for
corruption in the City's elections.
It should also be noted that the Act also provides authority for the City to limit the
amount of campaign contributions that a candidate may accept from a PAC.28 In
limiting campaign contributions, there does not need to be a distinction between
contributions that are given by an individual and contributions that are given by a
committee. Both individuals and committees are considered and defined as "persons"
for purposes of the Act.29 A regulation limiting local campaign contributions could,
likewise, apply to all persons, which would include individuals, committees and PACs.
The only restriction, according to Section 81009.5(b), is that the local campaign
contribution limitations can only be applied to City candidates and their committees and
to general purpose committees that are only active in the City. Contribution limits will
also not apply to a candidate's contribution of his or her own funds to his or her
campaign.3°
2. The AMC Ordinances
AMC Sections 1701 and 1702 reference former Section 8500(c), enacted pursuant to
California Proposition 208, which specifically gave local jurisdictions the right to enact
voluntary expenditure ceilings for candidates and controlled committees of such
candidates for elective office not to exceed one dollar for every resident for each
election in that jurisdiction in which the candidate sought election.3 In 2000, California
voters passed Proposition 34 ("Prop. 34") which repealed all of Proposition 208's limits
on contributions applicable to local elections, along with the statutory authority to adopt
local voluntary expenditure limits.
However, pursuant to the Act as amended by Prop. 34, cities have the power to adopt
local ordinances regulating campaign finance issues provided they do not prevent
compliance with the Act.32 Section 85703 specifically states that any local regulation of
campaign financing must not conflict with the provisions of section 85312. Section
85312 in turn, states that payments made to communicate the support or opposition of a
candidate or ballot measure will not be subject to limits on contributions provided that
(1) the communications are made to certain individuals,33 and (2) they are not made for
general public advertisement such as broadcasting, billboards, and newspaper
23 Gov.Code § 81013.
29 Gov.Code § 82047.
30 Gov.Code § 85301,subd. (d);Buckley,supra, at p. 53.
31 Gov.Code § 84500 now only governs voluntary campaign contribution limits for state elected office and
subdivision(c)exempts contributions from political parties made on behalf of a candidate from the expenditure
limit.
32 Gov. Code § 81013;Elec.Code § 10202.
33 Included are"members,employees,shareholders,or families of members,employees, or shareholders of an
organization..." Gov. Code §85312.
5
advertisements.34 Pursuant to Section 85703, local jurisdictions with ordinances
regulating local campaign financing must provide for this exception in some fashion. As
Chapter 7 of the AMC inaccurately cites a repealed and replaced government code
section which no longer supports the ordinance, the City may want at the very least to
amend Chapter 7 to reflect that its authority to regulate campaign expenditures is in
accord with Sections 85703 and 8512.
Properly drafted voluntary expenditure limits as well as contribution limits have been
determined by the FPPC as neither conflicting nor preventing compliance with the Act.35
For example, a City of Santa Cruz ordinance, attached to this memorandum, which both
regulates the amount of money that may by contributed to a candidate running for city
office and incentivizes candidates to adhere to voluntary campaign expenditure limits,
was determined by the FPPC to be in accord with the Act as amended by Prop. 34.36
The Santa Cruz Ordinance, unlike the AMC, incentivizes candidates to opt into its
voluntary expenditure limits by offering to pay for the candidates' costs of maintaining
electronic filings with the Secretary of State, as well as prominently displaying a 400-
word statement by the candidate on the city's website. The use of public funds by
chartered cities and counties for purposes such as these is permitted by California Code
of Regulations, title 2, section 18530.37 Because courts have thus far only recognized
voluntary campaign expenditure limits as constitutionally valid, candidates must be
incentivized to opt in if such restrictions are to be effective. Thus, similar to the City of
Santa Cruz, Arcadia might want to consider adopting similar incentives.
Attachments:
(1) Arcadia Municipal Code Chapter 7 - Elections
(2) City of Santa Cruz Voluntary Campaign Expenditure and Contribution Limitations
For City Council Candidates Ordinance
34 These expenditures are still subject to the Act's reporting requirements. Schwartz Advice Letter,No.A-10-034.
35 Barisone Advice Letter,No.I-01-201(2002).
36 Id.
37 Cal.Code Regs.,tit.2 § 18530,subd. (a)(the Act's prohibition on the use of public moneys in the form of
matching funds or cash subsidies,for the public financing of elections does not apply to public officers and
candidates in chartered cities and counties);See also Vargas v. City of Salinas(2009)46 Ca1.4th 1 (only in the
absence of clearly unmistakable language specifically authorizing a public entity to expend public funds for
campaign-related activities or materials do public entities lack the authority to make such expenditures.).
6
ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 7
CHAPTER 7. - ELECTIONS
1700. - ELECTION DATES.
1701. -ADOPTION OF VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE CEILING.
1702. - RESOLUTION DETERMINING NUMBER OF CITY RESIDENTS.
1700. - ELECTION DATES.
Sections 2500 —2563 of the Elections Code of the State of California and any
amendments thereto do not apply to elections conducted under the authority of the City
of Arcadia. Subject to adoption of the appropriate resolutions, municipal elections in
Arcadia may be held on dates other than those set forth in Section 2500 of the State
Elections Code.
(Article I, Chapter 7, Section 1700, added by Ordinance No. 1843, adopted 10-21-86)
1701. -ADOPTION OF VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE CEILING.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 85400(c), a voluntary expenditure ceiling of Fifty
Cents ($.50) per resident is established for candidates and controlled committees of
such candidates for elective office for each election in the City in which the candidate is
seeking elective office to a City elective position. As of the effective date of the
Ordinance codified in this section, the number of residents in the City for purposes of
the voluntary expenditure limit is fifty thousand (50,000) people. Accordingly, no
candidate for an elective municipal office in the City of Arcadia who voluntarily accepts
expenditure ceilings, and any controlled committee of such a candidate shall make
campaign expenditures exceeding Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) per
election.
(Added by Ord. 2078 adopted 10-7-97)
1702. - RESOLUTION DETERMINING NUMBER OF CITY RESIDENTS.
With reference to elections for City office that occur subsequent to April 1998, the City
Council shall determine, by resolution adopted not less than six (6) months prior to each
general municipal election, the number of residents in the City for purposes of the
voluntary expenditure limit.
(Added by Ord. 2078 adopted 10-7-97)
7
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 2.10
VOLUNTARY CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE AND CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS FOR
CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES
Sections:
Article I. 2.10.010 Purpose and intent.
Article II. 2.10.020 Voluntary campaign expenditure and contribution limitation
election.
Article III. 2.10.030 Benefits and incentives.
Article IV. 2.10.040 Repealed by 2004-16 § 2.
Article V. 2.10.050 Repealed by 2004-16 § 2.
Article VI. 2.10.055 Other city council candidates' statements on city's website.
Article VII. 2.10.060 Calculation of voluntarily limited campaign expenditures.
Article VIII. 2.10.070 No limitation on fund raising/contributions.
Article IX. 2.10.075 Requirement for third pre-election campaign filing
Article X. 2.10.080 Penalties.
Article XI. 2.10.090 Severability.
2.10.010 PURPOSE AND INTENT.
The city council, in consultation with the City of Santa Cruz Campaign Finance
Reform Task Force, finds and declares:
(a) Monetary contributions to political campaigns are a legitimate form of
participation in the American political process, but the financial strength of individuals or
organizations should not permit them to exercise a controlling influence on the election
of candidates. The rapidly increasing costs of political campaigns have forced many
candidates to raise larger and larger percentages of money from interest groups with a
specific financial stake in matters before government.
(b) The city council enacts this chapter to accomplish the following separate but
related purposes:
(1) To ensure that individuals and interest groups have a fair and equitable
opportunity to participate in the city's electoral and governmental processes.
8
(2) To minimize the potentially corrupting influence and appearances of
corruption caused by excessive contributions and expenditures in campaigns by
providing for reasonable recommended voluntary campaign expenditure and
contribution limitations for city council candidates.
(3) To limit overall expenditures in campaigns, thereby allowing city council
candidates and incumbent city councilmembers to spend less of their time on
fundraising and more of their time communicating on issues of importance to voters and
constituents.
(4) To provide impartial and noncoercive incentives that encourage city council
candidates to agree to voluntarily limit campaign expenditures.
1) (Ord. 2002-14 § 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 2002-07 § 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 2000-11 § 1
(part), 2000).
2.10.020 VOLUNTARY CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE AND CONTRIBUTION
LIMITATION OPTION.
Each candidate for election to the city council in November, 2002, and for each
city council election thereafter, shall, prior to the time he or she files nomination papers
with the city clerk, advise the city clerk in writing whether or not the candidate will opt to
voluntarily limit his or her campaign expenditures and fund raising in accordance with
the formula for voluntary campaign expenditure and contribution limitations set forth in
this chapter. The agreement to voluntarily limit campaign expenditures shall pertain to
all expenditures incurred by the candidate or the candidate's committee in support of his
or her candidacy and shall include such expenditures which a candidate or candidate's
committee is required to report pursuant to the California Political Reform Act of 1974,
as amended in 2001, whether those expenditures are made before or after the filing of
nomination papers.
2) (Ord. 2002-14 § 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 2002-07 § 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 2000-11 § 1
(part), 2000).
2.10.030 BENEFITS AND INCENTIVES.
(a) The city council candidate will receive the benefits and incentives
prescribed in subsection (b) when the city council candidate does each of the following:
(1) Voluntarily agrees to limit campaign expenditures and contributions in
accordance with this chapter;
(2) Thereafter abides by that agreement;
(3) Forms a controlled campaign committee in accordance with California
Government Code Section 84101 (without regard to whether or not the candidate
intends to make campaign expenditures in the minimum amount called for by Political
Reform Act of 1974, Chapter 4, Campaign Disclosure);
9
(4) Either spends $1,000.00 in support of his or her candidacy or procures 250
signatures of city electors;
(5) On behalf of the candidate and candidate's campaign committee, agrees
not to accept campaign contributions from an individual, corporation or other entity
(other than an "organizational contributor" as defined below) of greater than $250.00 in
value (other than contributions made by the candidate herself or himself) per election in
support of his or her candidacy indexed by the applicable cost of living adjustment
("COLA"); and
(6) On behalf of the candidate or candidate's committee, agrees to accept
organizational contributions only under the following conditions:
(i) Organizational contributions shall not exceed a total of $600.00 indexed by
the applicable COLA;
(ii) The organizational contributor has received no contributions from individuals
which exceed the limitations established in this chapter for total contributions to
candidates or committees by individuals;
(iii) The organizational contributor has reported all individual contributions
pursuant to the provisions of this chapter and any applicable provisions of state law. If
the organizational contributor is not required to formally organize under the Political
Reform Act of 1974, as amended in 2001, then the organizational contributor shall make
complete contribution information available upon written request of the city.
(b) A city council candidate who performs each of the acts delineated in
subsection (a) shall receive the following benefits and incentives at no cost to
themselves or their candidate's campaign committee:
(1) Committees formed in support of a city council candidate may maintain
electronic campaign finance records from July first through January thirty-first for each
election. The city will provide the vendor, as approved by the Secretary of State and the
city will pay for the cost of maintaining the required filings during that period.
(2) Candidates who agree to abide by the voluntary campaign expenditure and
contribution limits shall be identified prominently on the city's website with a 400 word
written statement. The statement will be printed exactly as submitted with no editing by
staff. Statements which exceed 400 words will be returned to the candidate who shall
be responsible for editing the statement to comply with the 400 word limitation and
resubmitting the statement. One photograph of the candidate supplied by the candidate
shall be allowed as part of the statement.
(i) The candidate's statement must be submitted on a computer diskette in a
form compatible with the system employed by or approved by the city clerk's
department or alternatively by e-mail to the city clerk's department.
10
(ii) The candidate's statement must conform to candidate statement guidelines
provided by the city clerk and the content shall be consistent with the requirements of
Elections Code Section 13307(a)(1).
(iii) A disclaimer shall accompany all such website postings that city council
candidate statements have been posted by the city in the form submitted by the
candidate without editing, proofreading, or spell-checking by the city, that the opinions
and statements set forth are those of the candidates to whom they are attributed and do
not reflect the city's official positions on issues addressed in the statement, that the
candidate's statement is not a city endorsement of any candidate's candidacy, that the
information is submitted to the voters by the city as a service to assist voters and for
informational purposes only, and that the statement is not intended to, and does not,
exempt any candidate or statement author from civil or criminal liability for any false,
slanderous or libelous statements set forth on the city's website.
(iv) The candidate's statement may be printed in English and/or a foreign
language of the candidate's choice; however, the city will not provide translation
services to the candidate and more than one statement in different languages will not be
permitted if cumulatively the statements would exceed 400 words.
(v) Candidates may submit one statement at any time prior to the election. The
city will post the statement within four business days of submittal.
(vi) Candidates will appear on the website in the alphabetical order drawn by
the Secretary of State for the ballot.
(vii) The website will clearly identify whether each candidate has agreed to
voluntary spending and contribution limits.
(c) Should a city council candidate agree to voluntary campaign expenditure
and contribution limitations and thereafter, whether intentionally or inadvertently, fail to
abide by that agreement, the candidate, upon discovering said failure, shall immediately
notify the city clerk who shall then, to the extent feasible, cease conferring the benefits
and incentives afforded by this chapter. Candidates who fail to abide by their agreement
shall be responsible for reimbursing the city for costs incurred by the city pursuant to
this chapter in reliance upon the agreement.
(d)(i) As used in this section the term "applicable cost of living adjustment" or
"COLA" shall refer to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers for the
San Francisco/Oakland Bay Area (all items) provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics as indexed from a base year that commences as of November 2000. Updated
COLA adjustment information shall be made available annually, and shall be rounded to
the nearest increment of five dollars.
(ii) As used in this section the terms "organizational contributor" and
"organizational contribution" shall refer to contributions made by non-commercial
organizations such as political action committees or special interest groups formed by
individuals or entities that have common interests with the objective, among others, to
11
actively participate in the political/electoral process so as to advance and foster their
organizational goals.
(e) Expenditures for legal fees and costs incurred in connection with any
litigation arising out of an election campaign shall be exempt from the contribution and
expenditure limitations of this chapter.
(f) In addition to any regular city council election, the benefits and incentives of
this chapter shall also be available in any recall election.
3) (Ord. 2004-16 § 1, 2004: Ord. 2002-14 § 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 2002-07 § 1 (part),
2002: Ord. 2000-11 § 1 (part), 2000).
2.10.040 Repealed by Ord. 2004-16 § 2.
2.10.050 Repealed by Ord. 2004-16 § 3.
2.10.055 OTHER CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES' STATEMENTS ON CITY'S
WEBSITE.
City council candidates who do not agree to voluntary campaign expenditure and
contribution limitations or who otherwise do not qualify for inclusion on the city's website
may appear on the website by tendering a fee to the city clerk. The amount of the fee
shall be equivalent to the fee charged by the county elections office for the candidates'
inclusion in the sample ballot prepared by the county elections office pursuant to
California Elections Code Section 13307.
4) (Ord. 2004-16 § 4, 2004).
2.10.060 CALCULATION OF VOLUNTARILY LIMITED CAMPAIGN
EXPENDITURES.
(a) City council candidates who agree to adhere to voluntary campaign
expenditure limitations in accordance with this chapter shall be allowed to spend on
their city council campaign no more than the voluntary campaign expenditure limitation
cap as established by the city clerk prior to the city council election. The voluntary
campaign expenditure limitation cap shall be calculated at a rate which corresponds to
$0.35 per city resident. In determining the appropriate number of city residents for
purposes of this calculation, the city clerk shall use the most recent number established
by the California Department of Finance. By way of example: If the city population is
50,000 residents, a candidate who agrees to voluntary campaign expenditure limitations
will be authorized to spend a maximum of $17,500.00 ($0.35 x 50,000) on his or her city
council campaign. The $0.35 figure referenced in this section shall be adjusted by the
city clerk each year for which a city council election is scheduled. For city council
elections conducted with the city's general municipal election, the adjustment will be
made on June 1. For special municipal elections called to fill a vacant seat on the city
council, the adjustment will be made ninety days before the election. The adjustment
called for by this section shall be the cost of living adjustment (COLA) computed by
12
reference to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers for the San
Francisco/Oakland Bay Area (all items) provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
as indexed from a base year that commences in November 2002.
(b) The voluntary campaign expenditure limitation called for by this section
shall not include any expenditures made by the candidate or by the candidate's
campaign committee in connection with the preparation and publication of the
candidate's statement of qualifications in the sample ballot pamphlet published in
accordance with California Elections Code Section 13307.
(c) Any campaign committee formed by or on behalf of an indigent candidate
pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 8030.4(f) and City of Santa Cruz
Resolution No. NS-18,233 shall be responsible for reimbursing the city for any costs
incurred by the city with regard to the preparation and publication of the candidate's
statement of qualifications in the sample ballot pamphlet published in accordance with
California Elections Code Section 13307.
5) (Ord. 2004-16 § 5, 2004: Ord. 2002-14 § 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 2002-07 § 1 (part),
2002: Ord. 2000-11 § 1 (part), 2000).
2.10.070 NO LIMITATION ON FUND RAISING/CONTRIBUTIONS.
This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed to, limit the amount of
money a city council candidate may raise in support of his or her candidacy.
6) (Ord. 2002-14 § 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 2002-07 § 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 2000-11 § 1
(part), 2000).
2.10.075 REQUIREMENT FOR THIRD PRE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN FILING.
(a) In order to make certain that the voluntary campaign expenditure and
contribution limitations established by this chapter will in fact be enforceable and be
enforced, the city council determines that the reporting requirement contained in this
section is necessary. The city council hereby determines that a third pre-election
statement is necessary. The city council further determines that the requirement of this
section and chapter do not prevent any person from complying with the requirements of
the California Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended in 2002, or other provisions of
state law relating to campaign disclosure.
(b) In addition to all campaign finance disclosure requirements otherwise
imposed by law, city council candidate committees are hereby required to file a third
pre-election statement. The third pre-election statement shall be filed with the city clerk
on the Friday prior to a special or regular election for the period from sixteen days
before the election through the Thursday before the election. This statement is required
for all campaign finance committees, as defined by the Political Reform Act of 1974, as
amended in 2001.
7) (Ord. 2002-14 § 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 2002-07 § 1 (part), 2002).
13
2.10.080 PENALTIES.
(a) Willful violation of any provision of this chapter by any city council
candidate, campaign worker, or any other person, including the acceptance of benefits
conferred by this chapter to which the candidate is not entitled and including the filing of
false reports which entitle the candidate to the benefits conferred by this chapter, shall
constitute a misdemeanor.
(b) In addition to, or in lieu of, criminal penalties for violation of this chapter, the
city may seek civil or administrative remedies as provided for in this code.
8) (Ord. 2002-14 § 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 2002-07 § 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 2000-11 § 1
(part), 2000).
2.10.090 SEVERABILITY.
If any part or provision of this chapter, or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter, including the application of
such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby
and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this chapter are
severable.
9) (Ord. 2002-14 § 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 2002-07 § 1 (part), 2002: Ord. 2000-11 § 1
(part), 2000).
•
14