The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.3 ContribOrd&Prop 208 , ~' I ;. . . ~ CITY CLERK File # OrzaBl[Zl]-[g][?2] AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 3, 1998 SUBJECT: Campaign Contnbution Ordinance and Proposition 208 (Report prepared by Elizabeth H. Silver, City Attorney) EXHffiITS ATTACHED: Chapter 2.28 of the Dubfui. Municipal Code Relating to Campaign Contribution Limitations and Expenditures for Elections 'RECOMMENDATION: 1"/1. Receive staff presentation \ 2. Provide direction to staff FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: Existing Campaign Contribution Expenditure Limitations Ordinance Chapter 2.28 of the Dubfui. Municipal Code provides limits on the amounts which may be contributed to political campaigns in municipal elections. No person may make and no candidate or committee may accept more, than $100 from anyone person with respect to a single election. In addition, candidates have the option of accepting voluntary expenditure limits in the amount of$1 per resident. Finally, the current ordinance includes a ban on contributions more than six months in advance of an election and 90 days following an election to pay debt. Chapter 2.28 was amended in 1997 in response to the passage of Proposition 208, which imposed the $100 contrIbution limit, the pre-election ban, and voluntary expenditure limits. The amended Chapter 2.28 repealed the previously existing Chapter 2.28 which provided campaign limits higher than those permitted by Proposition 208. The prior ordinance provided that no person could make and no candidate or committee could accept more than $300 from anyone person with respect to a single election. The ordinance did not limit campaign expenditures. The only change made in 1997 that was not precipitated by Proposition 208 was a requirement that candidates report the name, address, and occupation of contributors for contributions received in excess of $25.00. The Council decided to delete that requirement from the ordinance to make it consistent with state law reporting requirements, which require that information to be disclosed for contrIbutions over $99.00. ~____~__~......~~_~_._____~__.____._+.________r_&&___~___."""'_____--.-------------.-------------..---------..--..----..-...-.--.---.--.-.--++-.--.--.....-..-...--.--.------....-..- COPIES TO: ITEMNO.~ (- ,.- I r , r ~ i l. ,. j r t t ~ r. . .,' " Status of Proposition 208 Several lawsuits were filed challenging the constitutionality of-Proposition 208. Federal District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton in Sacramento held a trial on the validity of Proposition 208. On January 6, 1998,. Judge Karlton issued an injunction prohibiting the Fair Political Practices Commission from enforcing Proposition 208 in its entirety. He held that the contnbution limits in the initiative were too low to permit candidates to campaign effectively, and that the expenditure limits were coercive and thus invalid. Judge Karlton did not permanently rule on Proposition 208. Instead, he instructed the FPPC to ask the California Supreme Court to determine whether any other parts of the initiative could be separated from the unconstitutional portions and remain in effect. At this time, Proposition 208 is indefinitely on hold until the California Supreme Court rules on whether parts of the initiative may remain in effect. The FPPC has appealed Judge Karlton's ruling to the federal Court of Appeal It is unlikely that a decision will be reached for many months. Impact of the Ruling on Municipal Code Chapter 2.28 fudge Karlton based his rumig on the contribution limits on a factual question. He decided that, based on the evidence presented, the contnbution limits in the initiative were too low. He did not hold that contrIbution limits in general were unconstitutional; in fact, he reaffirmed that contribution limits are permissible. However, he did rule that the $100 limit for jurisdictions under 100,000 residents was unconstitutionally low. Given Judge Karlton's ruling, therefore, it is arguably unconstitutional for Dublin to have a limit as low as $100. Judge Karlton did rule that the voluntary expenditure limit scheme in Proposition 208, which is included in . Chapter 2.28, was unconstitutional. The voluntary expenditure scheme in Chapter 2.28 is identical to the procedure in Proposition 208 and thus also unconstitutional. It is possible that the Court of Appeal might overturn Judge Karlton's rumig, but it is unlikely. The ruling was accompanied by literally hundreds of factual findings in support ofbis conclusion. Also, the United States Supreme Court has generally not upheld constitutionally questionable campaign finance ordinances and struck down a Colorado statute as recently as 1~96. To conclude, Judge Karlton's ruling invalidated the voluntary expenditure portions of Chapter 2.28 and called into question the $100 contrIbution limit imposed by Chapter 2.28. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council provide direction to the staff to (1) prepare an ordinance to repeal the current provisions of Chapter 2.28 and reinstate Chapter 2.28, as it existed prior to Proposition 208, (a $300 limit on contributions with respect to a single election; no expenditure limits; reporting requirement for contributions in excess of $25); or (2) notify all candidates and potential candidates that the City will not enforce its ordinance pending resolution of the lawsuits challenging Proposition 208; (which would mean no contnbution limits) or (3) provide other direction as appropriate. K2/G/cc-mtgs/2-3-98/as-208.doc . -;2- . ~. '. ,...,; {' i ~. ~. r J . . ,. -.. Chapter 2.28 CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS Sections: 2.28.010 2.28.020 2.28.030 Findings and purpose. Definitions. Limitations on contributions. Declaration re: compliance. Voluntary expenditure ceiling. Violation-Penalty. 2.28.040 " .. 2.28.050 2.28.060 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 finds that it is in the public interest to place realistic and enforceable limits on the amounts which may be contributed to political campaigns in municipal elections and to allow candi- dates to voluntarily limit their expenditures. (Ord. 11-97 ~ 1 (part)) 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. (Ord. 11-97 ~ 1 (part)) 2.28.030 Limitations on contributions. A. No person shall make to any candi- date for local office. and no candidate shall accept from any person. a contribution or contributions totaling more than one hun- dred dollars ($100) for each election in 2.28.010 which the candidate is attempting to be on the ballot, or is a write-in candidate. 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 prohibi?ons 'apply to contributions made by a candidate to his or ber campaign. (Oni 11-97 ~ 1 (part)) .r. 'j 2.28.040 . Declaration re: compliance. A. To. ensure full compliance with this chapter. each candidate shall execute a dec- laration under penalty of peIjury on a form provided by the City Clerk stating that such candidate did not receive any contribution or contributions totaling more than one hundred dollars ($100) 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 eacb pre-election statement filed pursuant to state law and with the semi-annual statements required to be filed pursuant to state law. (Ord. 11-97 ~ 1 (part)) 2.28.050 Voluntary expenditure ceiling. A. A voluntary expenditure ceiling is established for candidates for local office of one dollar ($1) per resident (as of January 1 of the election year. based on State De- partment of Finance figures) for each elec- tion in which the candidate is attempting to be on the ballot or is a write-in candidate. B. Each candidate shall file a statement of acceptance or rejection of the voluntary expenditure ceiling with the City Clerk before accepting any contributions. C. If a candidate accepts the voluntary 31 (Dublin 12-97) 2.28.050 ~ :-0" l !\ t .: expenditure ceiling. the contribution limit specified in SeCtion 2.28.030(A) shall be raised to two hundred fifty, dollars ($250). (Ord. 11-97 ~ 1 (part)) ; t ~ f 2.28.060 Violation-Penalty. A Violation of' any provision of this chapter is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) or imprisonment for a teon not ex- ceeding six (6) months. or by both such fine 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- tef. (Ord 11-97 ~ 1 (part)) ,,~.' t r: ~.: k j' "< f l. \. {." (Dublin 12-97) 32 '0' " . .., . - .. .