HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.5 AmendMuniCdChapt2.28 (2)
.
..":
.-
.CITY CLERK
File # 1J~[3l(QJ-lZl[Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 11, 1996
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing: Amendment of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter
2.28 Relating to Campaign Contribution Limitations
(Report prepared by Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney & Kay Keck,
City Clerk)
EXIDBITS ATTACHED:
(1) Draft Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.28 of the
Municipal Code relating to Campaign Contribution
Limitations
(2) Red-lined version of current Chapter 2.28 showing changes
(3) Agenda Statements from May 28,1996 (Item No. 6.6),
May 14, 1996 (Item No.7.!), and April 23 (Item No. 8.1)
Council Meetings
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open public hearing
2. Receive Staff presentation
/7 ^~ 3. Receive public comment
/ \U \i 4. Close public hearing
5. Deliberate
6. Waive reading and adopt ordinance or take other appropriate
action
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION: At the April 23, May 14 and May 28,1996, Council meetings, the
Council considered the issue of campaign contribution limitations for the office of Councilmember and
Mayor. At the May 28 meeting the Council introduced an ordinance (Exhibit 1) which would make the
following two changes to the City's existing campaign contribution limitation ordinance (Chapter 2.28,
Dublin Municipal Code):
1. Dollar Limit on Contributions
The current ordinance limits contributions for both the office of Mayor and the office of Councilmember
to $1000 "with respect to an election."
The draft ordinance would impose a $300 limitation for both offices "with respect to an election." Thus,
once an individual has filed a Statement ofIntention to run for the office of Mayor or Councilmember, as
required by the Political Reform Act, or files nomination papers with the City Clerk, he or she can collect
a maximum of $300 from any pers,on at any time prior to the election.
---------------------------------------------------~---------------
COPIES TO:
\ ITEMNO.~
The change in the dollar limitation from $1000 to $300 will impact the reporting requirements for the '
November 1996 election. Candidates who have collected monies in excess of $3-00 will have to segregate
such monies in their statement filed pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.28.040 in order to enable the
City Clerk to detennine whether there has been compliance with the existing ordinance and the new .'~."
ordinance's requirements during the time periods each ordinance is in effect.
2. Disclosure of Amounts Contributed
The current ordinance relies on state law for reporting requirements. State law requires candidates to
report amounts received in excess of$100 from any contributor. '
The proposed ordinance would require candida~es f~r City office to report amounts received in excess of
$25. It would do so by requiring Campaign Statements filed pursuant tp Government Code Section
84211 to coritain information regarding all contributions in excess of$25. This information would be
included in the Campaign Statements filed wi~ the City Clerk.
Effifctive Date'
The draft ordinance can take effect immediately because it relates to an election. Govenunent Code
Section 36937 provides that ordinances take effect 30 days after their final passage except for five
categories of ordinances which take effect immediately. One of the five categories is an ordinance
"relating to an election." Accordingly, the Council may provide that the draft ordinance shall take effect
imme4iately.
-If the draft ordinance is adopted, it will apply prospectively only. 'Hence, if an individual has, as of the ...
effective date of the amendments to the Municipal Code, collected contributions for the upcoming .;':"
election in November 1996 for either the office of Mayor or the office of Counciln1ember from any person
in excess of$300 (but no more than $1000), there is no requirement that suchmonies be returned and no
violation of the Municipal Code has occurred.
Recomme)1dation
Staff recommends the Council conduct the public hearing and, following the close of the public hearing,
waive the, reading and '.aWmt the ordinance - OR - take other appropriate action. The draft ordinance
requires a three-fifths vote for passage and will take effect on June 11.
A:\AGNDASTM.S20
K /6-J J .96/as$300.doc
e:...
ORDINANCE NO. - 96
.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
***************
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING
CHAPTER 2.28 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
LIMITATIONS FOR ELECTIONS
TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Section 2.28.030 Amended -- Contribution Limit Revised
Subsection A of Section 2.28.030 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
.'.-
. -
"A, No person shall make any contribution or contributions to a candidate
or committee which exceed the cumulative amount of three hundred dol-
lars ($300), nor shall any such contribution or contributions which exceed
the cumulative amount of three hundred dollars ($300) be accepted by any
candidate or committee from any person with respect to a single election."
SECTION 2.
Section 2.28.040 Amended -- Declaration re Compliance
Subsection A of Section 2.28.040 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows: .-
"A, To ensure full compliance with this chapter, each candidate shall exe-
cute a declaration under penalty of perjury on a form provided by the City
Clerk stating that such candidate did not receive any contribution or con-
tributions totaling more than three hundred dollars ($300) from any person
with respect to an election."
SECTION 3.
Disclosure of Amounts in Excess of $25
Section 2.28.040 is added to the Dublin Municipal Code to read as follows:
.
"When filing the Campaign Statement required by Article 2 of Chapter 4
of Title 9 of the Government Code, commencing with Section 84200, each
candidate for the office of Mayor and Councilmember shall include in
such Campaign Statement the same information required by subdivision
(f) of Government Code section 84211 for contributions (including loans)
in excess of $25 received from any person."
EXHIBIT
SECTION 4.
Renumbering
Section 2.28.040 of the Dublin Municipal Code, entitled "Filing of Verified Declara-
tion" is renumbered as "Section 2.28.050," and Section 2.28.050, entitled "Violation Pen-
alty" is renumbered as "Section 2.28.060."
.
SECTION 5.
Severability
If any part of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person is held invalid,
the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons
shall not be affected thereby.
SECTION 6.
Immediate Effect
This ordinance imposes restrictions on monetary contributions to candidates for office
at municipal elections and thus relates to an election. Pursuant to Government Code sec-
tion 36937(a), this ordinance shall take effect immediately.
SECTION 7.
Posting
The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least
three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Gov-
ernment Code of the State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on
this I Ith day of June, 1996, by vote as follows:
.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
A:\CAMPAIGN.ALT
.
e
e:.
e
(Excerpts from Chapter 2.28 [Campaign Contributions] of the Dublin
Municipal Code indicating proposed changes)
2.28.030 Limitations on contributions.
A. No person shall make any contribution or contributions to a candidate or
committee v,rhich exceed the cumulative amount of onc thousar.d ($1,000) three
hundred ($300), nor shall any such contribution or contributions which exceed the
cumulative amount of onc thousand ~$l,OOO) three hundred ($300), be accepted by
any candidate or committee from any person with respect to a single election.
B. The prohibition stated in subsection A of this section shall not apply to
contributions 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 S 2: Ord. 21-87 S 3)
2.28.040 Disclosure of amounts in excess of $25
When.filing the Campaign Statement required by Article 2 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of
the Govemment Code, commencing JIIlith Section 84200, each candidate for the office of Mayor
and Councilmember shall include in such Campaign Statement the same info7711ation required
h)l subdivision (j) of Govemment Code section 84211 for contributions (including loans) in
excess of $25 received from alry person.
2.28.040 50 Filing of verified declaration
A. To ensure full compliance 'With this chapter, each candidate shall execute a
declaration under penalty of pe1iury on a form provided by the eit:y Ciry Clerk stating
that such candidate did not receive any contribution or contributions totaling more
than OllC thousar.d ($1,000) three hundred ($300), from any person 'with respect to an
election.
B. The declaration required by subsection A of this section shall be filed 'With
the City Clerk with each preelection statement filed pursuant to state law and with
the semi-annual statements required to be filed pursuant to state law. (Ord. 10-93 S
3: Ord. 21-87 S 4)
2.28.05G 60
Violation--Penalty.
ONLY NUMBERING CHANGES IN THIS SECTION.
A:\MUNICODE.EXC
EXHIBIT
t;.
./
CITY CLERK
File # @J~w~-[f]~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: l\1A Y 28, 1996
.
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing: Amendment of Dublin Municipal Code
Chapter 2.28 Relating to Campaign Contribution~""
Limitations (Report prepared by Elizabeth Silver, City /.
Attorney & Kay Keck, City Clerk) ~ . "
...
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
RECOMME1\'DATION:
\l~
FINANCIAL STATKMENT: None
1.
Draft Ordinance !unending Chapter 2.28 of the
Municipal Code relating to Campaign Contribution
Limitations
Red-lined version of current Chapter 2.28 showing
changes
Agenda Statements from April 23 (Item 8.2) and
May 14, 1996 (Item 7.2) Council meetings
Agenda Statement from September 13, 1993
meeting
Copy of Government Code Section 84211
PJternate Draft Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.28
2.
..,
;).
4.
5.
6.
l.
2.
.
..,
;).
4.
5.
Open public hearing
Receive Staff presentation and public comment
Question Staff and the public
Close public hearing and deliberate
Take appropriate action.
DESCRIPTION: At the May 14, 1996 Council meeting, the Council
considered the issue of campaign contribution limitations for the office of Councilmember and
Mayor. By motion made by Councilmember Moffatt, the Council directed the staff to prepare an
ordinance to include the follo'wing:
1) an election period to commence 120 days prior to and following an election;
2) a $300 limit on contributions;
3) a declaration under penalty of perjury that the candidate has not collected more
than $300;
4) campaign statements shall itemize any amount over $25.01;
----------------------------~-------------------------------------~
COPIES TO: EXHIBi7' 3
ITEM NO. -~_ ~
HAy :?.S; J99~
HI cc- forms/ agdastm t.d 0 c
-!
.
.
.
5) contributions can only be accepted during an election period; and
6) if any part of the ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected.
The City Attorney has drafted an ordinance which includes the six items included in
Councilmember Moffatt's motion. (Exhibit 1.)
Summary of Draft Ordinance
The draft ordinance ~ould make the following changes from the City's current ordinance,
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 2.28 (see Exhibit 2.):
1. Election Period
The City's existing Campaign Contributions ordinance limits contributions made "with
respect to an election." This term was adopted in 1993 when the ordinance was last amended.
Prior to 1993, the City's ordinance defmed an "election period" to be the period commencing
July 1 prior to an election and end~g June 30 follov..ring an election. The Agenda Statement for
the September 13, 1993 Council meeting (Exhibit 4) explained that federal law, which has been
upheld by the courts, limits contributions "v..rith respect to an election" whereas state law, which'
limited contributions per fiscal year, has been held to violate the First Amendment.
The draft ordinance eliminates the phrase "with respect to an election" and reverts to the
concept of an "election period." Staff recommends that the Council consider retaining the
definition of "v..rith respect to an election" rather than using the term "election period" for the
reasons expressed in the September 13, 1993 Agenda Statement.
2. Dollar Limit on Contributions
The current ordinance limits contributions for both the office of Mayor and the office of
Councilmember to $1000 "with respect to an election."
The draft ordinance would impose a $300 limitation for both offices. No contributions
would be allowed except during the period 120 days prior to the election and 120 days following
the election. .
The nex1 municipal election will be held on November 5, 1996; 120 days prior to the
election is July 18, 1996 and 120 days after the election is April 5, 1997. By state law, a
candidate can take out nomination papers and officially declare his or her intent to run for office
on July 15, 1996. The proposed ordinance would result in a three-day period where a person has
officially declared his or her intent to run for office but cannot accept contributions. In addition,
a candidate can complete a form (Statement of Intention) stating the intention to run for future
office at any time which allows receipt of campaign contributions for that future designated
office.
-2.
.:
If the draft: ordinance is adopted, it will apply prospectively only. (Because violation of
the ordinance is a misdemeanor, an attempt to apply the draft ordinance retroactively would
amount to an ex post facto law which is prohibited by the Constitution.) Hence, if an individual .
has, as of the effective date of the amendments to the Municipal Code, collected contributions for
the upcoming election in November 1996 for either the office of Mayor or the office of
Councilmember from any person in excess of $300 (but no more than $1000), there is no
requirement that such monies be returned and no violation of the Municipal Code has occurred.
Similarly, an individual who has received contributions during the time the current ordinance is
in effect would not be in vi~ration of the proposed ordinance even though the receipt of such
contributions would have violated the proposed ordinance's restriction on contributions more
than 120 days prior to an election if the proposed ordinance had been in effect.
The change in the dollar limitation from $1000 to $300 will impact the reporting
requirements for the November 1996 election. Candidates who have collected monies in excess
of$300 or have collected any money during the period more than 120 days prior to the
November 1996 election (i.e., July 18, 1996) 'will have to segregate such monies in their
statement filed pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.28.040 in order to enable the City Clerk to
determine whether there has been compliance 'With the existing ordinance and the new
ordinance's requirements during the time periods each ordinance is in effect.
3. Disclosure of A..mounts Contributed
The current ordinance relies on state law for reporting requirements. State law requires
candidates to report amounts received in excess of $1 00 from any contributor.
.
The proposed ordinance would require candidates for City office to report amounts
received in excess of $25. It would do so by requiring Campaign Statements filed pursuant to
Government Code Section 84211 (Exhibit 5) to contain information regarding all contributions
in excess of $25. This information would be included in the Campaign Statement filed 'With the
City Clerk.
4. No Contributions Except Durin~ Election Period
The City's existing Campaign Contributions ordinance limits contributions to $1000
'\vith respect to an election." Candidates can thus accept contributions at any time prior to an
election once they have declared their candidacy (and following the election if there are
campaign debts). .
The proposed ordinance would prohibit candidates from accepting contributions except
during the 120 days prior to and following an election. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has
struck dovm a campaign limitation law that restricted campaign contributions to fiscal years
rather than election periods on the grounds that the law would supposedly operate to benefit
incumbents (who would seek contributions each year they are in office in anticipation of seeking
re~election) over challengers (who likely would not seek contributions early on). (Service .
Emplovees Int'l Union v. Fair Political Practices Commission (9th Cir. 1992) 955 F.2d 1312.) It
~3-
.
.'
.
is unclear whether a law allowing contributions to be made for a particular election only during a
particular period and prohibiting contributions during other periods would be found to be
constitutional. Because the city could impose a limitation on contributions for the entire election
period, which is a less intrusive means of achieving the same result, it is likely that a court would
not uphold a prohibition on contributions for the bulk of the time between elections. This reason
is another the staff recommends that the Council retain the definition of "'with respect to an
election" which would allow contributions during the entire time prior to an election.
5. Effective Date
. .
.
The draft ordinance can take effect Immediately because it relates to an election.
Government Code section 36937 provides that ordinances take effect 30 days after their final
passage except for five categories of ordinances which take effect immediately. One ofthe five
categories is an ordinance "relating to an election." Accordingly, the Council may provide that
the draft ordinance shall take effect immediately. (Another of the five categories is an ordinance
for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety which contains a declaration
of the "urgency"; of the five types of ordinances which take effect immediately, this is the only
type which requires a four-fifths vote.)
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Council consider the proposed ordinance and take appropriate
action. Although the ordinance includes language stating that it 'will take effect immediately, it is
still necessary that it be introduced at one meeting and adopted at a subsequent meeting. (It is
only "urgency" ordinances which can be introduced and adopted at the same meeting.) Thus, if a
motion to waive the reading and introduce the ordinance passes tonight by a majority vote, the
ordinance can be adopted and take effect on June 11, if it contains language to that effect.
"'
An alternate version of the draft ordinance is attached (Exhibit 6) which incorporates the
staff recommendations discussed above in paragraphs 1 and 4 if the Council concurs with Staff's
recommendation.
-4-
?
CITY CLERK
FIL-E # D~l3J[QJ-~[z
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE MAY 14, 1996
SUBJECT:
Campaig-n Contribution Limitations and Campaign
Expenditure Limitations
(RepOlt prepared b)7 Elizabeth H. Silller, City Attorney,
and Kay Keck, City Clerk)
EXHIBITS
ATTACHED:
1) San Ramon Ordinance and Resolution
2) Agenda Statement for April 23, 1996 (Item 8.1)
RECOMMENDATION:
~
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. After 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 lunning for city office to City residents and/or non-residents who work in the
City?; and
.'.
.-
ITEM NO. r.!_
MAY I'tJ J Q9Ca (?
".;
"i>
.
.
.
(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. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 660, 657,110 S. Ct. 1391, 1396
(1990), citing,Buckle)'v. Valeo. 424 !.),S" 1, 44A5, 96 S. Ct. 612, 646-647 (1976).
At issue in the leading case of Budde)' 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 dearly 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
impropriety and actual corruption associated 'with large financial contributions.
Although contribution limitations infringe on a contributor's freedom of association
and e:A-pression 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.
VVhile the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional the Act's contlibution limitations, it
detennined 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 V\Till "ascel1.ain 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. Michip;an Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 660,
657, 110 S.Ct. 1391, 1396 (1990), citing Buckley, 424 U.S. at 44-45, 96 S.CLAt 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 limitati9ns impermissibly infringed on the First
.A.mendment 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.
Buckley 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 a-
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. (.s..e.e ~., CEEED v. Cal. Coastal Zone
Comm'n, 43 Cal.App.3d 306, 332-333, 118 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.al.s..Q, Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Ca1.4th 1069, 1096-97,40
Cal.Rptr.2d 402, 419 (1995). (The right to interstate travel includes intra-municipal
travel). )
Responses to Ouestion (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 e>"'Penditure limitations for citywide campaigns. .-
. -
" ".
e
e.
e
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 th~ co~t of campaigns; and to prevent the appearance
of improper influence." It seeks to acc0111plish 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\MISaCAMPAlGN.96
II
RESOLUTION NO. 95--S7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON
ESTABLISHING A VOLUNTARY CAMPAIGN EXPENDmJRE LIMITA nON FOR
THE 1995 MUNICIPAL ELECTION
e.-.
- -
. -
WHEREAS, inherent in the high COlt of election campaigns is the possibility nnd the
appeannce of improper influence real or potential, exercised by campaign contributors over
elective officials; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, through the voluntary actions of City Council candidates.
seeks to preserve and fostcr 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 .
WIIEREAS, the City CowcU find. eleven thousand five hundred dollars ($11,500.00),
which approximates the sum of fifty cent. ($.50) per registered voter in the last general election,
is a reasonable limit for funds to be spent in the succeeding municipal election.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN RAMON, pursuant to Ordinance 58, adopted JuJy 9, 1985, the sum of eleven thousand
five hundred dollan ($11.500.00) is established as the campaign expenditure limit for tbe 1995
municipal election.
e:.-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 13th day ofJune 1995 by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Boom, Kinney, Oliver, Welm and Mayor CatT
NOES: NOM
ABSENT; NOM
ABSTAIN: Non~
~c~~
AlTEST:
~mtti;;~
dy Mac lane., City If;
155
e..
/
Cl1 Y SHN f<HrH~
Fax:511j8661436
Chapter II
e
campaigns
A3.11. Purpose of pt"ovisions.
A. Inherent in the high cost of election cam-
paigns is the possibility and the appearsnce of im-
proper influence. real or potential, exercised by
campaign contributors over elective officials.
B. The intent and purpose of this chapter.
through the voluntarY action of city council c~di-
dates. is to:
1. Preserve and foster an orderly political forum
in which persons may expre!\!\ them!\elves effective-
ly:
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 ~ A4-IIJ
e--'"
,.
A3-I2. Definilions.
Pefinitions codified in the Political Reform Act.
beginning at Section 82000 et seq. of the Govern.
mem Code, shall apply to t.hls chapter except:
"Committee" (Section g2013 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
candidate for city council: or
b. Support or defent any measure qualified on
the ballot by the city.
2. A1ly committee. person or group of persons
aiding or opposing, directly or indirectly, any candi-
date. or committee. as defined in subdivision 1 of
this subsection or support or oppose any measure
. qualified on the ballot by the city, whether or not
the committee was originally organized for election
purposes. (Ord. 189 ~ 2 (part). 1990)
A3.13. C8ndi date's pledge-Form.
A. The city clerk when he or she issues the
e-
Hpr ~~ ~o l~.L~
I. v""-,,
A'3.11
declaration of canc1iC1aCY, shall also issue to each
candidate for city council. a copy of the resolution
of the city council establishing the campaign spend-
ing limitations for the current election and a form
for a voluntary campaign pledge which shall read as
follows:
Fair Campaign Pledge
1. 1 shall conduct my campaign for City Coun-
cil openly and fairly.
2. I shall discuss the issues and participate in
fair debate with respect to my views and
qualifications.
3. I shall not engnge in. or permit to the extent
possible. defamatory attacks on the character
of my opponents; nor stull 1 engage in un.
warranted invasions of pe~ona1 privacy
unrelated to campaign issues.
4. 1 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. 1 shall clearly identify myself. or my cam-
paign comminee(sJ, as me sender of ail of
my campaign mailings.
6. I shall personally approve in writing all of
my campaign material. advertisements. or
mailings. prior to their use.
7. I shall publicly repudJale suppon derived
from any individual or group whose activities
would violate this Fair Campaign pledge.
8. 1 shall file all c:unpaign statements as re.
quired by the California Politiclll 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 contri-
butor!: filed by any other candidates for the
purpose of compiling my own mailing lists
without the permission oflhe other candidate.
10. 1 shall attempt to limit all expenditures on
behalf of my campaign to a sum not to ex.
ceed the campaitn limit expenditure amount
set for the current election by Resolution of
35
(5... R_. U-93)
(
U I ,( ::'HN kHr1UI~
~ ax: 5lUt:ti614.5ti
A3-13
the City Council. a copy of which is included
in the packet distributed with the nomination
papers.
11. I shall, insofar as is practical. participate in
joint mailing activities with other City Coun-
cil candidates.
12. 1 shall not post nor pcnnit to be posled on
my behal r any si gns. posters or other displays
on any public or utility owned property or
public rights of way.
13. 1 shall remove all signs, posters or other c1is-
plays within l\even days after the municipal
election in which I was the candidate.
14. I, the undersigned candidate for election to
the San Ramon City Council. hereby volun-
tarily endorse, subscribe to. and solemnly'
pledge myself to conduct my campaign in
accor~ance with the above principles and'
practices.
Dale
SignaIure
Date of Election
Print Name
_ B. EilCh candidate ma_y...~~~Sigl) orTl.~!_
sign the campaign pledge.
e. Any candidate may me the pledge. with his
. declaration for candidocy. COrd. 239 ~ 2, 1993; prior
code Q~ A4.12, A4.17, A4-18)
A3.14. Candidate's pledge-A vallublllty,
At the close of the nomination period for city
office, the city clerk shall:
A. Issue a general press release stating the name .'
lIf each candidate for city office who has. and who
ha.'i nOl, subscribed to the pledge of Fair Campaign
Pmcticesj
B. Make available to the public, press and other
news media.. urnn receipt, the statements filed pur-
suant to paragraph 14 of the candidates fair cam-
paign pledge. (Prior code 9 A4-24)
ISa. RMlDO 12.93)
Hpr LS '~6 l.5:~U
f-'.ULl
A3.I5, Qunpaign statement.
In Ildd.ltion 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
corrunittee as defined in Section A3-12 shall also.
for the period corrunem;ing seventeen days before
the election and ending at five p.m. of the Friday
immediately preceding the election, !>hall' file WiUl
the city clerk. no later than twelve noon of the
Monday immediately preceding tile election. item.
ized Schedules A (monetary), B (loam; received) and
C (nonmonetary) to Fonn 490 for all contributions
or loans received in ex.cess of ninety-nine dollars
and ninety-nine cents for such periods. (Ord. 239 ~
1. 1993: Ord. 189 ~ 2 (part), 1990)
e
.~-.
36
e-
?'
Lll) :;'HI~ KHI'IUI.
rOA....J..LUUUU..1.L..f......,lU
.
A3.16. Enforcement.
A. Any person who knowingly violates any
provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor.
B. Any pernon residing in tho city may sue for
injunctive relief to enjoin violations or to compel
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 3tlOmey"s fees: provided. however. no such
award may be granted against the city.
C. The city clerk is authorized to apply _lhe
provisions of Government Code Section 910 13 to
violations of this chapter regardinglatc filings. (Ord.
189 ~ 2 (part), 1990)
A3-17 through A3.20. Reserved.
.'.
.
"r' ""'....
A3-16
37
(S... lb.....n 5-92)
! "
CITY CLERK
File # D~(3][Q]-~laJ
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 23, 1996
.
SUBJECT:
Campaign Contribution Limitations
(Report Prepared by Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney)
EXHffiITS ATTACHED:
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 2.28 (Campaign Contributions)
RECOMMENDATION: 1;~ 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 reform.
The Council first adopted an ordinance limiting campaign contributions in 1987 (Ordinance No. 21-87)..-..- __
The ordinance was codified in Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 2.28. Amendments were made to Chapt .
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 up~eld 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\TERM-LMT.STM
::~~~~~~:~:~l:~~_______________________________________------------e-.-
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO. ~
fJpR../L ,,(3; 1'19G.
.
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 Reform
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 DefInitions.
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 ~ 1: 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 perjury 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 an)' 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
(Dublin 5-95)
/
semi-annual statements required to be filed
pursuant to state law. (Ord. 10.93 S 3: Ord.
21-87 ~ 4)
2.28.050 Violation-Penalty.
A. Violation of any provision of this
chapter is a misdemeanor punishable ~y a _
fine not to exceed five hundred dollaTS
($500) or imprisonment for a tenn not
exceeding six (6) months, or by both such
[me and imprisonment.
: 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 S 5)
2.28.040
32-1
(Dublin 5-94)
'.
.
.-.
,-
.
i