HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Regulate Campaign Contributions -2Q
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 9, 1984
SUBJECT Ordinance Regulating Election Campaign Contributions
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Draft Ordinance (will be delivered Friday)
F Memorandum from City Attorney dated December 27 , 1983
V'
RECOMMENDATION Consider
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION At its meeting of December 12 , 1983 , Councilmember
Drena requested Staff to prepare an ordinance which would limit campaign
contributions made to candidates for municipal office for City Council
consideration . The City Attorney has prepared a draft ordinance which has
two major features . The first would limit campaign contributions made to
any one candidate to fifty dollars ( $50 . 00 ) . The second requires the source
of all contributions in excess of ten dollars ( $10 . 00 ) to be disclosed. The
present campaign contribution disclosure amount is $100 . 00 as established by
State law. State law does not limit the amount of campaign contributions
any candidate may receive .
Since the nomination filing period commences on January 12 , 1984 , it would
be necessary to adopt this ordinance as an urgency ordinance in order to be
effective for the April 10 , 1984 election .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
/
ITEM NO. /
Item 6. 1 Exhibit Missing
Draft Ordinance
CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568 (415) 829-4600
December 27 , 1933
MEMO TO: RICHARD C. AMBROSE , City Manager
FROM: MICHAEL R. NAVE, Citv Attornev C,•..
RE : LIMITATION 'ON CAPIPAIGN EXPENDITURES
A. auestion has been raised rec'rarding whether the
City Council can limit expenditures in local elections .
The answer is "No" .
Although the Political Reform Act (Government
Code §85200 et sea. ) (commonly known as Proposition 9)
contained provisions limiting campaiqn expenditures , those
provisions were declared..unconstitutional by the.. California
Supreme Court in-Cit-izens, for' 'Job's-z 'W. Enercry v.' Fa-ii-r!-Pol-itical
- Practices (1976) 16 C. 3d 671 and-Hard ie,-v.'-Eu (1976') 18 C.
3d 371 . In declarincT campaign exvenditure limitations
unconstitutional , the California Supreme Court followed the
earlier holding of the United States Supreme Court in
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U .S . 11 96 S .Ct. 612 , in which
tFe-U. S . Supreme Court held that campaign expenditure
limitations in the Federal Election Campaign Act were uncon-
stitutional . The U. S . Sunreme Court ' s holding in-Buckley v.
�- Val'eo was based on the First Amendment, Right of Free
Speech
jIn Buckley- v.- Va-l-eol
"We held, inter alia , that the limitations
placed by the Act on camnaign expenditures
violated the First Amendment in that thev
directly restrained the rights of citizens ,
candidates , and associations to engage in
.protected political sneech. Id. , 424 U.S . ,
at 39-59 , 96 S .Ct. , at 644-654 . Nonethe-
less , we unheld the various ceilings the
Act placed on the contributions individuals
and multicandidate nolitical committees
could make to candidates and their -political
committees , and the maximum aggregate amount
anv. individual could contribute in any
calendar year. We reasoned that such con-
tribution restrictions did not directly
infringe on the ability of contributors to
MEMO TO: RICHARD C . AMBROSE, City Manager
FROM: MICHAEL R. NAVE
RE: LIMITATION ON CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES
express their own political views , and that
such limitations served the important
governmental interests in preventing the
corruption or appearance of corruption of
the political process that might result if
such contributions were not restrained .
Id. , at 23-38 , 96 S .Ct. , at 636-644 . "
California Medical Association-v. Federal
-Election Commission (19 81) S ,Ct. 27T7,
2721 .
Thus , the state of the law currently is that
expenditure limitations are unconstitutional while
contribution limitations to candidate ' s campaigns are
valid.
MRN
MRN:mr