HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 CampaignContrib&ExpLimitations
.~
.'
.
- ~4
CITY CLERK
FILE # D~!:3J[Q]-~[QJ
-.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE MAY 14, 1996
SUBJECT:
Campaign Contribution Limitations and Campaign
Expenditure Limitations
(Report prepared by Elizabeth H. Silver, CiO' Attomry,
and Kay Keck, CifY Clerk)
EXHIBITS
ATTACHED:
1) San Ramon Ordinance and Resolution
2) Agenda Statement for April 23, 1996 (Item 8.1)
RECOMMENDATION:
,?,vP"
,
1) Consider Motion to "Take From the Table"
2) If Motion Passes,
provide appropriate direction to staff
FINANCIAL
STATEMENT:
None
DESCRIPTION:
Background
This matter came before the Council at the April 23, 1996 meeting. Mter discussing
the issue, staff suggested that the item be continued to this meeting to research issues
which were raised in the discussion. The Council voted to "table" the item. Staff has
interpreted this to be a motion to continue the item inasmuch as no motion was pend-
ing when the motion to "table" was made.
The two issues which staff has researched are:
(1) Can the City limit the source of campaign contributions .made to,
candidates running for city office to City residents and/or non-residents who work in the
City?; and
ITEM NO.
r.1
\~
..
(2) Does the City of San Ramon have in effect campaign expenditure
limitations? -.
Validity of Contribution and Expenditure Limitations
Both contribution limitations and expenditure limitations are subject to strict scrutiny
and will be upheld only if narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
Austin v. Michigp.n Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 660, 657, 110 S. Ct. 1391, 1396
(1990), citing.Buckley v. Valeo. 424 U.S. 1,44-45, 96 S. Ct. 612, 646-647 (1976).
At issue in the leading case of Buckley v. Valeo were provisions of the 1971 Federal
Election Campaign Act (the "Act"), as amended in 1974, which placed limitations on
both political contributions to, and expenditures by, candidates for federal office. The
Act limited contributions by individuals or groups to $1,000, and contributions by
political committees to $5,000, for any single candidate per election. The Act limited
expenditures by an individual or a group "relative to a clearly identified candidate" to $-
1,000 per candidate per election, and by a candidate from personal or family funds to
differing amounts, depending on the office sought by a candidate.
The primary purpose advanced as justification for the Act's contribution and
expenditure limitations WaS the government's interest in eliminating the appearance of /A
impropriety and actual'corruption associated with large financial contributions. - .
Although contribution limitations infringe on a contributor's freedom of association
and expression rights, the Supreme Court found the contribution limitations
constitutional because the governmental interest advanced justified the burdens placed
on the rights. The contribution limitations were one of the "Act's primary weapons a-
gainst the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of
candidates on large campaign contributions. . . [which] serve[d] the basic governmental
interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging
upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and
discussion." Buckley, 424 U.S. at 58, 96 S. Ct. at 653.
While the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional the Act's contribution limitations, it
determined that the expenditure limitations unconstitutionally infringed on the
guarantees of the First Amendment. Because they are considered to be a more direct re-
straint on freedom of expression and association, expenditure limits require a more
compelling justification than do restrictions on contributions.. California Medical A-
ssociation v. Federal Elections Commission, 453 U.S. 182, 194, 196-197, 101 S. Ct.
2712,2722-2723 (1981). In determining whether or not a restriction on expenditures
can be constitutionally applied, therefore, a court will "ascertain whether it burdens the
exercise of political speech and, if it does, whether it is narrowly tailored to serve a '.
compelling state interest." Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 660,
.
.
.
'.
657, 110 S.Ct. 1391, 1396 (1990), citing Buckley, 424 U.S. at 44-45, 96 S.Ct. At 646-
647.
In finding the expenditure limitations to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court in
Buckley reasoned that the expenditure limitations substantially restrained the "quantity
and diversity of political speech," by restricting the number of issues that would be
discussed during a campaign, the depth to which they would be explored and the size of
the audience that would be reached. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 19,96 S. Ct. at 634-635.
On that basis it held that the limitations impermissibly infringed on the First
Amendment right to freedom of expression while failing to serve the substantial
governmental interest of stemming corruption or the appearance of corruption.
Response to Ouestion (1)
The Council asked whether or not the City can limit the source of campaign
contributions to candidates for city office to city residents and non-residents who work
in the City. For the following reasons, it is my opinion such a restriction on
contributions would fail to pass the constitutional tests established by the Supreme
Court in Buckley.
Buckle~ and the line of cases following it note that the right to associate is a
fundamental right protected by the United States Constitution. Any governmental
restriction on the right to associate must be "closely drawn to avoid unnecessary aM
bridgement of associational freedoms." Fair Political Practices Com'n v. Superior Court
(1979) 25 Cal.3d. 33, 45,157 Cal.Rptr. 855, 862. A compelling governmental interest
must be advanced that would justify the First Amendment infringement. It is my
opinion that an ordinance restricting campaign contributions to city residents or non-
residents employed within the City would fail to meet this test. Additionally, it is likely
that such a restriction would also be found to impermissibly affect the constitutionally
protected right of contributors to travel. (See ~., CEEED v. Cal. Coastal Zone
Comm'n, 43 Cal.App.3d 306, 332-333, ll8 Cal.Rptr. 315,330-331 (1974); Dunn V.
Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 338, 92 S.Ct. 995, 1001 (1972); (The right to interstate
travel is a fundamental constitutional right that includes the right to take up residence
in any state.) .s.e.e.als.Q, Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1096-97,40
Cal.Rptr.2d 402,419 (1995). (The right to interstate travel includes intra-municipal
travel). )
Responses to Question (2)
The Council asked whether the City of San Ramon has in effect an ordinance limiting
campaign expenditures. We have obtained from San Ramon its ordinance which sets
forth a policy encouraging voluntary expenditure limitations for citywide campaigns.
In addition, we have obtained a recent resolution which sets a limitation on
expenditures which candidates in the November 1995 election could voluntarily follow. .
(Exhibit 1.)
The City of San Ramon adopted Ordinance No. 58, an ordinance "Establishing Election
Fair Campaign Practices," on July 9, 1985. Its stated purpose is to "preserve and foster
an orderly political forum in which persons may express themselves effectively; to place
realistic limits on the amounts of money that may be spent in political campaigns for
City Council elections; to decrease the cost of campaigns; and to prevent the appearance
of improper iIuluence." It seeks to accomplish these purposes through the voluntary
cooperation of candidates for city office.
The ordinance sets forth a candidate's fair campaign pledge, which candidates for city
council may voluntarily sign. By signing the pledge, a candidate agrees to attempt to
limit expenditures for his or her campaign to an amount set forth by City Council
resolution for the upcoming election. Last year, by Resolution No. 95-57, the City
established a voluntary expenditure limit of $11,500.00 for the 1995 municipal
election. This figure represented approximately $.50 per registered voter in the prior
election.
It should be noted that neither the City of Pleasanton nor the City of Livermore has an
ordinance limiting expenditures for campaigns.
.
J:\WPD\MNRSW\114\MISOCAMPAlGN,96
'.
.
.
.
"-.L I I """I II" 1'1 II 1'-'1"
. .,-. -- --
RESOLUTION NO. 9So!'
A KESOLunON OF THE CITY COUNCIL Oil' THE CITY OF SAN RAMON
ESTABLISHING A VOLUNTARY CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE LIMITA nON FOR
THE 1995 MUNICIPAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, inherent in the high cost of eJection campaigns is the possibility and the
appearance of improper influence real or potential, exercised by campaign contributors over
elective officials; and
WHEREAS, the City Counell. through the voluntary actions of City Council candidates,
seeks to preserve and foster an orderly political forum in which persons may express themselves
effectively, to decrease the cost of campaigns, and to prevent the appearance of improper
influence; and .
WHEREAS, the CitY COWlcU finds eleven thousand five hundred dollars ($11,SOO.DO),
which approximates the sum of fifty centl ($.50) per registered voter in the last general election.
is a reasonable limit for funds to be spent in the succeedinS municipal election.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI1Y
OF SAN RAMON, pursuant to Ordinance 58, adopted July 9, 1985, the sum of eleven thousand
five hundred dollan (511,500.00) is established II the campaisn expenditure limit for the 1995
municipal election.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 13th day of June 1995 by the
following vote:
AYES: COIIncilmemMrs Boom, Kinney, O/iwr, Welm and Mayor Carr
NOES: NOM
ABSENT: NoM
ABSTAIN: No"e
~~L1
. Gr ~ Cm, Mayor
ArrEST:
~~~~
155
L.L 1 T ;:)HI'l KHI'IUI'l
t"dX.;:l.LlJOOO.Lq,JO
Chapter II
Campaigns
A!~l1. Purpose or pro,"isions.
A. Inherent in the high cost of election cam-
raigns is the possibility and the appearance of im.
proper influence. real or potential, exercised by
campaign contributors over electivt: officials.
B. The intent and pwpose of this chapter,
through the voluntary action of city council candi.
dates. is to:
1. Preserve and foster an orderly political forum
in which persons may express themselves effective-
I)':
2. Place realistic limits on the amounts of mon-
ey that may be spent in political campaigns for city
council elections;
3. Decrease the cost of campaigns: and
4. Prevent the appearance of improper influence.
(Prior code f A4.11)
A3-12. Dennitions.
Definitions codified in the PQlitlcaJ Reform Act.
beginning at SecLion 82000 et seq. of the Govern-
ment Code, shall apply to this chapter except:
"Committee" (Section 82013 of the Government
Code) means:
1. A committee. person or group of persons
soliciting. receiving andlor expending contributions
intended to:
a. Aid or oppose the election campaign of a
candidnte for city council: or
b. Support or defeat any measure quaUfied on
the bQllot by the city.
2. Any committee. person or group of persons
aiding or opposing, directly or indirectly, any candi-
date. or committee. as det'ined in suhdivil.ion t of
this subsection Or support or oppose any measure
,qualified on the ballot by the city, whether or not
me committee was originally organized for election
purposes. (Ord. t 89 ~ 2 (part). 1990)
A3w13. candidate's pledge-Form.
A. The city clerk when he or She issues the
M~I ~~ ~v ~~~LJ
, ..Vv
A3-11
declaration of candidacY, shall also issue to each
candidate for dty council. a copy of the resoldtion
of the city council establishing the campaign spend-
ing limitations for the current election and a form
fot' a voluntary campaign pledge which shall read as
follows:
.
Fair Campaign Pledge
1. I shall conduct my campaign for City Coun-
cil openly and fairly.
2. . I shall discuss the issues and participate in
fair debare with respect to my views and
qualifications.
3. I shall not engage in. or pennit to the extent
possible. defamatory attacks on the character
of my opponents; nor !!hall I engage in un-
warranted invasions of penonal privacy
unrelated to campaign issues.
4. I shall not at any time use or permit the use
of any campaign material or advertisement
which misrepresents. distortS. or otherwise
falsifies the facts regarding any candidate or
the candidate's position on issues.
S. I shall clearly identify myself, or my eam.
paign comm1nM(s), as the sender of all of
my campaign mailings.
6. I shall personally approve In writin~ all of
my campaign material. advertisements,; or
mailings. prior to their use.
7. I shall publiCly repudiate support derived
from any individual or group whose activities
would violate this Fair Campaign pledge.
8. 1 shall file all campaign statements as re.
quired by the California Political Reform Act
and the City of San Ramon Campaign Ordi-
nance, on time and with full disclosure of
campaign contributions and expenditures.
9. J shall not duplicate or use any lists of conm-
burars filed by any other candidates for the
purpose of compiling ~y Qytn mailing tisrs
without the pennission of the other candidate.
10. I shall attempt to lImJt all expendirures on
behalf of my campaign to a sum not to ex-
ceed the campaign limit expenditure amount
set for the current election by Resolution of
.
35
(5'" R_.. U-P')
.
.
.
.
-\3-13
the City Council. a copy of which is included
il\ the packet distributed with the nomination
papers.
11. I shall, il\sofar as is practical. pani~ipate in
joint mailing activities with other City Coun-
cil candidates.
12. I shall not post nor permit to be posted on
my behalf any signs. posters or other displays
on any public or utility owned propeny or
public rightS of way.
13. [ shall remove all signs, posters or other dis-
plays within ~even days after the municipal
election in which I was the candidate.
14. I, the undersiened candidate for ele~tion to
the San Ramon City Council, hereby volun-
tarily endorse, subscribe to. and solemnly'
pledge myself to conduct my campaign in
accordance with the above principles and .
practices.
Date
Signature
Date of Election
Print Name
B. Each candidate may choose !9- sig!LQr not
sign the campaign I'liedge. """,--,y:,.,..~,~' ---.... --==
C. Any candIdate may file the pledge. with his
. declaration for candidacy. (Qrd. 239 ~ 2. 1993; prior
code ~~ A4.12, A4-17. A4-18)
A3.14. Candidate's pledge-A vaillablllty;'
At the close of the nomination period for city
office. the city clerk shall:
A. Issue a general press release stating the name '
of each candidate for city office who has. and who
has nOlo subscribed to the pledge of Fair Campaign
Practices;
B. Make available to the public. press and other
news media, upnn receipt. the statements filed pur-
!:Uatlt to paragraph 14 of the candidates fair cam-
paign pledge. (Prior code ~ A4.24)
,-San Ramoo 12.931
A3.1S. QunpaJgn statement.
In addition to any filings required by the Political
Reform Act of 1974, as amended. and this code,
every candidate for city council and treasurer of the
committee as defined In Section A3-12 shalt also.
for the period commencing seventeen days before
the election and ending at five p.m. of the Frida~
immediacely preceding the election. ~hall' file with
the city clerk, no later than twelve noon of the
Monday immediately preceding the election. Item.
ized Schedules A (monetary), B (loans received) and
C (nonmonetary) to Form 490 for all contributions
or loans received in excess of ninety-nine 9011atS
and ninety-nine cents for such periods. (Ora. 239 ~r. I. 1993: Ord. 189 ~ 2 (part), 1990)
36
L 1 I Y :::>HI'l I<HIYIUI'l
r-aX;~lV0001~')O
A3-16. Enforcement.
A. Any person who. knowingly violates any
provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor.
B. Any person residing in the city may sue for
injunctive relief to enjoin violations or to c~~pe.
compliance with the provisions of this chapter. The
court may award a plaintiff or defendant who pre-
vails his or her COSts of litigation. including'reason-
able attOrney's fees: provided. however. no such
award may be granted against the city.
C. The city clerk is authorized to apply the
provisions of Government Code Section 91013 to
violations of this chapter' re~arding'latc filings. (Ord.
189 fi 2 (part), 1990)
A3-11 through A3.%O. Reserved.
37
Mpl ~~ ~u Lv'vU
I.V....,J
A3-16
ISM Rom"n ',92)
.
.
.
. . '
CITY CLERK
File # D~la][QJ-~laJ
.
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 23, 1996
SUBJECT:
Campaign Contribution Limitations
(Report Prepared by Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney)
EXHmITSATTACHED:
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 2.28 (Campaign Contributions)
RECOMMENDATION: ~ Receive report and provide appropriate direction to Staff
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION: Under discussion of "Other Business" at the March 26, 1996, City
Council meeting, Councilmember Barnes requested that Staff place on a future agenda, the issue of
campaign contribution refonn.
The Council first adopted an ordinance limiting campaign contributions in 1987 (Ordinance No. 21-87).
_he ordinance was codified in Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 2.28. Amendments were made to Chapter
2.28 in 1993, which included increasing the contribution limit from $300 to $1000 with respect to a single
election. Other changes were made to Chapter 2.28 to be consistent with state and federal laws relating to
campaign contribution limitations.
Expenditure limitations are subject to strict scrutiny and will be upheld only if they are narrowly tailored to
serve a compelling state interest. The United States Supreme Court held in the case of Buckley v. Valeo
that it is unconstitutional to limit a candidate's personal expenditures. A limitation on expenditures is
viewed as a restraint on Constitutionally-protected rights of expression and association. Spending limits
are thus not valid unless they are tied to the receipt of public funds.
J:\WPD\MNRSW\114\MISC\1ERM-LMf.SlM
.K1/g/4-23-96/ascamplls.doC
------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.1l.L
v
Chapter 2.28
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Sections:
2.28.010
2.28.020
2.28.030
Findings and purpose.
Definitions.
Limitations on
contributions.
Filing of verified
declaration.
Violation-Penalty.
2.28.040
2.28.050
2.28.010 Findings and purpose.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the
City Council in Government Code Section
81013 pennitting the imposition of addition-
allocal requirements to the Political RefQrm
Act of 1974, the City Council fmds that it
is in the public interest to ~lace realistic and
enforceable limits on the amounts which
may be contributed to political campaigns
in municipal elections. (Ord. 21-87 ~ 1)
2.28.020 Defmitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, defmi-
tions codified in the Political Reform Act,
beginning at Government Code Section
82000, et seq., shall apply with the addition
of the following:
"Election" means any municipal election,
whether. general or special, at which the
offices of Councilmember and/or Mayor are
to be filled.
"With respect to a single election"
means:
1. In the case of a contribution designat-
ed in writing by the contributor for a partic-
ular election, the election so designated,
provided that a contribution designated in
writing for a particular election may be
made after the election and prior to June
- '.
2.28.010
.
30th following the election only to the
extent such contribution does not exceed net
debts outstanding from that election;
2. In the case of a contribution not
designated in writing by the contributor for
a particular election, the next election for
the office after the contribution is made.
(Ord. 10-93 ~ I: Ord. 21~87 ~ 2)
2.28.030 Limitations on
contributions.
A. No person shall make any contribu-
tion or contributions to a candidate or com-
mittee which exceed the cumulative amount
of one thousand dollars ($1,000), nor shall
any such contribution or contributions
which exceed the cumulative amount of one
thousand dollars ($1,000), be accepted by
any candidate or committee from any per-
son with respect to a single election.
B. The prohibitions stated in subsection
A of this section shall not apply to contribu-
tions made or received in support of, or in
opposition to, a ballot measure, nor shall
said prohibition apply to contributions made
by a candidate to his or her campaign. (Ord.
10-93 ~ 2: Ord. 21-87 ~ 3)
.
2.28.040 Filing of verified
declaration.
A. To ensure full compliance with this
chapter, each candidate shall execute a dec-
laration under penalty of peIjury on a form
provided by city stating that such candidate
did not receive any contribution or contribu-
tions totaling more than one thousand dol-
lars ($1,000), from any person with respect
to an election.
B. The declaration required by subsec-
tion A of this section shall be filed with the
City Clerk with each preelection statement
filed pursuant to state law and with the
.
31
(Du~liQ 5-95)
.
.
.
semi-annual statements required to be filed
pursuant to state law. (Ord. 10-93 ~ 3: Ord.
21-87 ~ 4)
2.28.050 Violation-Penalty.
A. Violation of any provision of !his
chapter is a misdemeanor pwtishable by a
fme not to exceed five hundred dollars
($500) or imprisorunent for a tenn not
exceeding six (6) months. or by both such
fme and imprisorunent.
\ B. Whether or not a violation is inadver-
tent. negligent, or deliberate in the presence
or absence of good faith. shall be consid-
ered in applying the penalties of this chap-
ter. (Ord. 21-87 ~ 5)
; ~,
2.28.040
32-1
(Dublin 5-94)