HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-2014 B5 Amendments to Election Campaign RegulationsCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Anthony Mejia, City Clerk
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S ELECTION CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, amending Chapter 2.40 of the Municipal Code related to Election Campaign
Regulations,” to incorporate the recommendations of the Election Campaign Regulations
Committee, as modified by Council.
DISCUSSION
Background
On February 4, 2014, the City Council considered the recommendations of the Election
Campaign Regulations Committee. Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance to reintroduce
the City’s election campaign regulations and incorporating the recommendations of the
committee. In addition, Council directed staff to amend Sections 2.40.050(A)(1) to read as
follows: “to promote integrity, honesty, fairness and <transparency> in municipal election
campaigns”.
Legal Analysis
Since the Committee made its recommendation, the United States Supreme Court decided the
case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (full case available in the Council reading
file or online), which presented a First Amendment challenge to a federal law placing aggregate
limits on the total amount of money that an individual can contribute to candidates in federal
campaigns. The Court held that statutory aggregate limits on how much money a donor may
contribute in total to all political candidates or committees violated the First Amendment and are,
therefore, invalid. The Court did not invalidate current per-donation limits, or the “base limits”
on how much an individual can directly contribute to a single candidate. Those limits at the
federal level are $2,600 per election to a candidate (with primary and general elections treated
separately), $32,400 per year to a national party committee, $10,000 per year to a state or local
party committee, and $5,000 per year to a regular political action committee (but that cap does
not apply to the new “Super PACs” that only spend independently and do not give money to
candidates).
In evaluating the validity of contribution limits, the McCutcheon Court stated that “…the
analysis turns on the fit between the stated governmental objective and the means selected to
achieve that objective.” Thus, the Council should consider its own elections experience in the
community, as well as public testimony and input in determining whether the contribution limits
proposed further the Council’s intent and purpose to minimize the presence and perception of
05/06/2014
B5
B5 - 1
General Municipal Election – November 4, 2014 Page 2
corruption, as set forth in the statement of purpose and intent in Section 2.40.020 of the City’s
Municipal code. Another consideration, as analyzed at length in the McCutcheon decision, is the
extent to which the proposed limits burden the rights of free expression and association. To
assist the Council in evaluating whether the limits proposed present an undue burden, staff has
provided a summary of election expenditures in comparable cities, some of which have
contribution limits and some of which do not. The expenditure summary suggests that the limits
proposed here would not present any significant burden on a candidate’s ability to raise sufficient
funds to effectively communicate with the voters and to run a competitive campaign. Moreover,
under the City’s regulations, an individual who wishes to support a campaign is free to do so
both via direct contributions to the candidate or candidate controlled committee and via
contributions to other non-candidate controlled committees, subject to other applicable state law.
FISCAL IMPACT
Costs to codify the amendments were already anticipated in the City Clerk
Records/Administration budget. Therefore, introduction and final adoption of the ordinance will
not result in a significant financial impact.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Agenda Report of February 4, 2014 (without attachments)
2. Excerpt of the Council Minutes of February 4, 2014.
3. Legislative Draft of Chapter 2.40 of the Municipal Code
4. Draft Ordinance
5. Comparable City expenditure summaries
COUNCIL READING FILE
McCutcheon v. FEC case
t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-05-06\1st reading - amendments to election campaign reg (dietrick-mejia)\edrc recommendation - car.docx
B5 - 2
FROM: Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S ELECTION CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Election Campaign Regulations Committee, direct staff to prepare an
ordinance with the following components:
1. Amend Chapter 2.40 of the Municipal Code to eliminate the City Supplemental Campaign
Statement.
2. Amend Sections 2.40.040(A) and (B) to increase contributions by persons to candidates
and/or controlled committees and acceptance of said contributions to not exceed the sum of
three hundred ($300) dollars.
3. Delete Sections 2.40.050(C) and (D) of the Municipal Code related to the closing of
campaign accounts and disbursement of unexpended campaign funds.
4. Clarify Section 2.40.060(D) of the Municipal Code to indicate that the City Clerk will cause
publication of one display ad, informing the public how, when, and where to access
campaign statements, at the time mail ballots are distributed for said election.
DISCUSSION
The City's Election Campaign Regulations were first adopted in 1974. These regulations were
intended to place realistic and enforceable limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, to
ensure fairness and full disclosure, and to provide an opportunity for all citizens to become
candidates for public office unhindered by exorbitant campaign costs and the reality or perception
of undue influence over elected officials. The regulations specifically call for a periodic review of
such regulations in order to ensure they are consistent with the original intent and with state and
federal law. The last review was conducted in 2009 and revised Election Campaign Regulations
were adopted by the Council on January 19, 2010.
Section 2.40.160 of the Municipal Code provides that at least nine months prior to the expiration of
Chapter 2.40 the Council shall appoint a committee of at least five citizens to study the efficacy of
the City's Election Campaign Regulations and report its deliberations to the City Council. On
August 20, 2013 the City Council appointed a citizens committee consisting of the following: Ty
Griffin (Chairperson), Allen Settle (Vice Chair), Jeri Carroll, Andrea Devitt, Wilda Rosene, and
Bob Shanbrom. This committee met on October 3, October 24, and concluded its business on
November 7, 2013 and said meeting minutes are Attachment 1.
Meeting Date
Item Number
02/04/2014
B2
Attachment 1
B5 - 3
Election Campaign Regulations Committee Recommendations Page 2
Summary of the Meeting of October 3, 2013
Prior to their initial meeting, members of the committee were provided with a Facts/History Sheet
related to past committees (Attachment 2). In addition, Kevin Rice submitted correspondence,
dated October 3, 2013, to the committee for its consideration (Attachment 3). The committee
provided direction to staff related to items for future consideration and established its meeting
schedule.
Summary of the Meeting of October 24, 2013
At the meeting of October 24, 2013, the committee received a report from City Attorney Dietrick
summarizing her memo, dated October 23, 2013, and the implications of the McCutcheon v.
Federal Election Commission case on the future of campaign finance regulations (Attachment 4).
Committee discussion ensued relative to the City’s ability to establish campaign limits on
Independent Expenditure Committees and Political Action Committees (PACs). City Attorney
Dietrick advised that the City is precluded from establishing such limits and the committee agreed
no further discussion was necessary.
The committee then discussed specific elements of Mr. Rice’s letter including the mandatory
closure of campaign bank accounts and the City Supplemental Statement requirements. The
committee discussion focused on the possible rationale for enacting regulations which require the
closure of campaign accounts and it was agreed that it should be eliminated due to its inconsistency
with Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regulations and its negative impacts on treasurers,
candidates, and staff. The committee questioned the purpose of the City Supplemental Statement
and whether it furthers the intent of the campaign regulations. The majority of the committee
agreed that the supplemental statement should be eliminated, but Committee Member Shanbrom
requested that the matter be further discussed at the next meeting.
Committee discussion then ensued relative to contribution limits on candidate controlled
committees with focus on the City’s inability to regulate PACs, whether such limits impede a
candidate’s campaign, and whether limits should be reduced, increased, eliminated, or remain
unchanged. Following straw poll votes, the committee tentatively agreed that contribution limits
should be raised to $300, but at Committee Member Shanbrom’s request the committee agreed to
table the matter to the next meeting. It was noted that Committee Member Devitt strongly felt that
contribution limits should be eliminated and Committee Member Shanbrom felt that limits should
remain unchanged at $200. It should also be noted that considerable discussion was given as to
whether the Council would approve an increase above $300, but ultimately it was the consensus of
the committee that if Council desired to increase the limits that it may do so regardless of the
committee’s recommendation.
The committee agreed that Section 2.40.060(D) of the Municipal Code should be clarified that the
City Clerk will cause publication of one display ad of a notice advising citizens how to obtain
campaign disclosure information. The committee also discussed whether the City should use public
funds for campaigns financing, but the committee agreed to not move forward with such a proposal.
Attachment 1
B5 - 4
Election Campaign Regulations Committee Recommendations Page 3
Summary of the Meeting of November 7, 2013
At the meeting of November 7, 2013, at the City Attorney’s request, the committee discussed the
City Attorney’s role as prosecutor of campaign regulations violations and the potential for the
public to perceive a conflict of interest when required to enforce regulations against incumbent
Council Members. City Attorney Dietrick advised that because the City and the Council as a
whole, and not any individual Council member, is her client she does not feel any tension between
her role as City Attorney appointed by the Council and City Prosecutor representing the People in
this context. Moreover, she advised that if any actual conflicts did arise, she would seek
independent outside counsel in accordance with her state bar ethical obligations. The committee
recommended no changes to the ordinance related to the City Attorney’s prosecutorial role related
to election campaign regulation violations.
Committee Member Shanbrom was unable to attend the majority of the meeting and sent a
correspondence to the committee (Attachment 5). The committee discussed Mr. Shanbrom’s
recommendation to amend the purpose and intent statement (Code Section 2.40.02) to include the
term “transparency”. The majority of the committee felt that the statement already expressed the
sentiment of transparency and that it was unnecessary to revise.
The committee further discussed the value of disclosing contributions between $50 and $99
pointing out with the raise of inflation the impact of these contributions are lessened. By
unanimous consensus of the members present determined that the City Supplemental Statement
should be eliminated, with Committee Member Shanbrom absent.
The committee had an in depth discussion related to contribution limits and the discussion focused
on the following: 1) whether contribution limits should be eliminated, 2) whether contribution limits
should remain at $200, 3) whether contribution limits should be increased to $300 or $400. The
committee had earlier discussed a correspondence from Stew Jenkins which indicated that
individual contribution limits are effectively not going to withstand constitutional scrutiny over time
and should be rescinded (Attachment 6). Committee Member Devitt expressed “grave concern”
that the committee appeared to be moving forward with retaining contribution limits despite the risk
of litigation by Mr. Jenkins. Following its discussion, the committee recommended that
contribution limits be raised to $300, with Committee Member Devitt opposed and Committee
Member Shanbrom absent. Chair Griffin requested that it be pointed out that the committee read
and reviewed the letter from Mr. Jenkins and still recommends retention of contribution limits.
Attached to this report is an article published on SCOTUS Blog, by a very well respected
constitutional scholar, Erwin Chemerinsky, discussing the distinction between expenditure and
contribution limits and providing further analysis of the issues staff believes Mr. Jenkins to be
raising.
Attachment 1
B5 - 5
Election Campaign Regulations Committee Recommendations Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
Costs to codify the amendments were already anticipated in the City Clerk Records/Administration
budget. Therefore, introduction and final adoption of the ordinance will not result in a significant
financial impact.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may reject the recommendations of the Election Campaign Regulations Committee or
modify as appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Election Campaign Regulation Committee Minutes of 10/03/13, 10/24/13, and 11/07/13
2. Facts/History of the Election Campaign Review Committee
3. Correspondence from Kevin Rice, dated October 3, 2013
4. Memo from City Attorney Dietrick, dated October 23, 2013
5. Correspondence from Bob Shanbrom, dated November 6, 2013
6. Correspondence from Stew Jenkins, dated November 5, 2013
7. Article from Erwin Chermerinsky
8. Regulations from Other Cities (Council Reading File)
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-02-04\Election Campaign Reg Report (Mejia)\CAR ECRC
Recommendations.docx
Attachment 1
B5 - 6
Excerpt of the MINUTES
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Regular Meeting – 6:00 p.m.
Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on
Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Dan Carpenter, Kathy Smith,
Vice Mayor Carlyn Christianson, and Mayor Jan Marx
Council Member
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager, Christine Dietrick, City Attorney,
Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager, and Anthony Mejia, City
Clerk, were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented
reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
B2. AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S ELECTION CAMPAIGN
REGULATIONS
Election Campaign Regulation Committee Chair Ty Griffin summarized the
recommendations of the committee.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, questioned whether municipal elections
are nonpartisan; noted that the Democratic Club made large expenditures
in a past election; voiced support for raising contribution limits.
Robert Shanbrom, Election Campaign Committee Member, urged Council
to include the term “transparency” in the regulation’s purpose statement;
voiced opposition to the elimination of the City’s Supplemental Campaign
Statement or to raising contribution limits.
Attachment 2
B5 - 7
City Council Meeting Minutes – February 4, 2014 Page 2
Kevin Rice, San Luis Obispo, expressed gratitude to the Committee for
considering his recommendations; voiced support for eliminating the City
Supplemental Campaign Statement and mandatory closure of campaign
accounts; opined that contribution limits should be eliminated.
Stewart Jenkins, San Luis Obispo, questioned the constitutionality of
imposing contribution limit; recommended that Council allow the proposed
regulations to expire and to consider a public campaign financing system.
In response to public comments City Attorney Dietrick addressed the
constitutionality of imposing contribution limits, noting that the U.S.
Supreme Court has made recent decisions indicating that at some future
point contribution limits may be eliminated.
Following discussion, MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH,
SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCIL
MEMBER CARPENTER VOTING NO), to:
1. Amend Chapter 2.40 of the Municipal Code to eliminate the City
Supplemental Campaign Statement.
2. Amend Sections 2.40.040(A) and (B) to increase contributions by
persons to candidates and/or controlled committees and acceptance of
said contributions to not exceed the sum of three hundred ($300)
dollars.
3. Delete Sections 2.40.050(C) and (D) of the Municipal Code related to
the closing of campaign accounts and disbursement of unexpended
campaign funds.
4. Clarify Section 2.40.060(D) of the Municipal Code to indicate that the
City Clerk will cause publication of one display ad, informing the public
how, when, and where to access campaign statements, at the time
mail ballots are distributed for said election.
5. Amend Sections 2.40.050(A)(1) to read as follows: “to promote
integrity, honesty, fairness and <transparency> in municipal election
campaigns”.
Mayor Marx noted for the record that she supports contribution limits to
ensure that wealthy individual do not have undue influence on local
elections.
Attachment 2
B5 - 8
Attachment 3
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Chapter 2.40
Election Campaign Regulations
2.40.010 Title.
This chapter may be cited as the election campaign regulations of the city.
2.40.020 Purpose and intent.
A. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter:
1. To promote integrity, honesty, and fairness, and transparency in municipal election
campaigns.
2. To prevent corruption, or the appearance of corruption, which results from the real or
imagined influence of large contributions on the conduct or actions of candidates elected
to office.
3. To ensure a level of discussion of public issues adequate for a viable campaign by
providing voters with the information necessary to make an assessment of each candidate
or measure before voting.
4. To require public disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures made in support
of or in opposition to candidates or measures in municipal elections.
5. To place realistic and enforceable limits on the amounts persons may contribute in
municipal election campaigns.
6. To ensure that funds contributed to a campaign committee are used solely for campaign
purposes.
7. To provide full and fair enforcement of all the provisions of this chapter.
B. By enacting this chapter, the council does not intend to deprive or restrict any citizen of the
exercise of rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution and the California
Constitution.
C. The city council takes specific notice of the findings and declarations made in the Political
Reform Act and finds and declares them applicable to San Luis Obispo and a basis for
enacting this chapter.
D. It is the intent of this chapter to impose limits on the amount of money that may be
contributed to a candidate or controlled committee to achieve the purposes specified in this
section. This chapter is not intended, and shall not be construed, to establish any reporting,
filing, or procedural requirement in addition to, or different from, the Political Reform Act or
the regulations adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), except as
specifically set forth in Sections 2.40.050 and 2.40.090 infra.
2.40.030 Definitions.
The terms used in this chapter shall have the same definitions as specified in the Political Reform
Act and FPPC regulations. In those cases where definitions in the Political Reform Act or FPPC
regulations contain a specific reference to any state election, candidate, or electoral criteria, the
B5 - 9
Attachment 3
definition shall be modified to reflect the municipal equivalent, or, in the absence of a municipal
equivalent, to delete the specific reference.
2.40.040 Contribution limitations.
A. Contributions by Persons to Candidates and/or Controlled Committees. No person shall make
any contribution to a candidate and/or any controlled committee connected with that
candidate, with respect to any single election, which would cause the total amount
contributed by such person to the candidate and any controlled committee connected with
that candidate, when combined, to exceed two three hundred dollars.
B. Acceptance or Solicitation by Candidates or Controlled Committees. No candidate or
controlled committee shall solicit or accept any contribution from any person which would
cause the total amount contributed by such person, with respect to any single election, to the
candidate and/or any controlled committee connected with that candidate, when combined, to
exceed the sum of two three hundred dollars.
C. Contributions by Candidates. The provisions of subsections A and B of this section shall not
apply to contributions from a candidate or from his or her immediate family to any controlled
committee connected with that candidate, nor to the expenditure, by the candidate, of his or
her personal funds. For purposes of this section, “immediate family” means a candidate’s or
elected officeholder’s spouse or domestic partner, and/or dependent children.
D. Anonymous Contributions. No candidate or controlled committee shall accept anonymous
contributions, with respect to any single election, which exceed fifty one hundred dollars.
Subject to the provisions of state law, in the event a candidate or controlled committee
receives an anonymous contribution that would result in a violation of this subsection, the
candidate or controlled committee shall promptly pay that sum to the city for deposit into the
general fund to be used to defray the costs of municipal elections.
2.40.050 Election campaign accounts.
A. Campaign Bank Accounts. An individual who plans to run for a city elective office and who
plans to accept contributions and make campaign-related expenditures must set up a
campaign bank account at a financial institution with a branch located in the city of San Luis
Obispo.
B. Access to Records by City Clerk. The city clerk shall have full access at all reasonable hours
to the bank’s records concerning all election campaign accounts.
C. Closing of Account. No later than ninety days following the election, the campaign treasurer
shall close the election campaign account in accordance with state law.
D. Disbursement of Unexpended Campaign Funds. If, following the election, the final campaign
statement for any committee discloses an unexpended campaign surplus, the campaign
treasurer shall disburse the whole of the surplus to the city and/or a nonprofit charitable
organization (qualified for federal income tax exemption) of the candidate’s or campaign
treasurer’s choice. This shall be done no later than ninety days after the election.
Alternatively, surplus funds may be used by an unsuccessful candidate for a future election to
the same office, provided a form setting forth the intent to run for such office is filed no later
than ninety days after the election.
B5 - 10
Attachment 3
2.40.060 Campaign statements.
A. Required Filing Schedule. Every campaign treasurer shall file with the city clerk :
1. Ccampaign statements as required by the provisions of the Government Code and in a format
acceptable to the city clerk.
2. Supplemental city campaign statements on forms provided by and in a format acceptable
to the city clerk at the same time campaign statements are filed as required by the
provisions of the Government Code.
B. Contents. Each state campaign statement filed shall contain the information required under
the provisions of the Government Code. Each supplemental city campaign statement shall set
forth the name, address and amount of the contribution for each person who contributes
greater than fifty dollars, but less than one hundred dollars, and the total expenditures made
by each committee.
C. Filing. Each document required to be filed in this chapter shall be filed with the city clerk
during business hours, and elsewhere as may be required by the Government Code.
D. Publication. The city clerk shall promptly, following receipt for filing, post a copy of each
campaign statement and supplemental city campaign statement on the city of San Luis
Obispo’s website for public inspection, redacting personal information in accordance with
state law. The city clerk shall report on the website of any candidate and/or committee that
has failed to comply by the required deadline with the campaign statement requirements
pursuant to this section or state law. In addition, upon receipt of each campaign statement
and supplemental city campaign statement, the city clerk shall timely cause to be published a
display ad in a newspaper of general circulation advising the public how and where to access
copies of the filed campaign statements and supplemental city campaign statements on the
city of San Luis Obispo’s website, at the time mail ballots are distributed for said election.
2.40.070 Campaign signs.
A. Severability. This section is a separate and severable provision of the election campaign
regulations.
B. Campaign Signs. Campaign signs shall not exceed three square feet per sign in residential
zones and ten square feet per sign in nonresidential zones, and shall be removed no later than
ten days following the election.
C. Definition. “Campaign sign” means a sign intended to draw attention to or communicate a
position on any issue, candidate, or measure in any national, state, local, college or university
campus election, the placement of which is in conformity with Section 15.40.300 (Prohibited
signs); and which otherwise is not subject to regulation under Chapter 15.40 (Sign
Regulations).
2.40.080 Responsibilities of city clerk.
A. Duties. In addition to any other duties required of the city clerk under this chapter, the city
clerk shall:
1. Prescribe and furnish, without charge, appropriate forms for all campaign statements,
documents and reports required to be filed by this chapter.
B5 - 11
Attachment 3
2. Determine whether required statements and declarations have been filed and, if so,
whether they conform on their face with the requirements of this chapter.
3. Promptly notify all persons who have failed to file a statement in the form and at the time
required by this chapter.
4. Report, in writing, apparent violations of this chapter to the city attorney.
5. Promptly, following receipt for filing, post a copy of each campaign statement on the city
of San Luis Obispo’s website for public inspection. The city clerk shall report on the
website of any candidate and/or committee that has failed to comply by the required
deadline with the campaign statement requirements pursuant to this section or state law.
In addition, upon receipt of each campaign statement and supplemental city campaign
statement, the city clerk shall timely cause such to be published in aone display ad in a
newspaper of general circulation advising the public how and where to access copies of
the filed campaign statements and supplemental city campaign statements on the city of
San Luis Obispo’s website.
6. Compile and maintain a current log of all filed statements pertaining to each reporting
committee.
2.40.090 Criminal misdemeanor actions.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person
who causes any other person to violate any provision of this chapter, or who aids and abets any
other person in the violation of any provision of this chapter, shall be liable under the provisions
of this section.
2.40.100 Civil actions.
A. Any person who intentionally or negligently violates any provision of this chapter shall be
liable in a civil action brought by the city attorney or by a person residing within the city for
an amount not more than three times the amount of the unlawful contribution or expenditure.
B. If any person files an original city campaign statement after any deadline imposed by this
chapter, he or she shall pay, in addition to any other penalties provided for under this chapter,
the sum of one hundred dollars per day after the deadline until the statement or report is filed.
Liability may not be enforced if on an impartial basis the city clerk determines that the late
filing was not willful and that enforcement of the liability will not further the purposes of this
chapter. Liability shall not be waived if the supplemental city campaign statement is not filed
within five days of the deadline after the city clerk has sent specific written notice of the
filing requirement. In addition, the city clerk may assess any applicable fines in accordance
with state law.
C. If two or more persons are responsible for any violation, they shall be jointly and severally
liable.
D. Any person, before filing a civil action pursuant to this section, shall first file with the city
attorney a written request for the city attorney to commence the action. The request shall
contain a statement of the grounds for believing a cause of action exists. The city attorney
shall respond within ten days after receipt of the request indicating whether he or she intends
to file a civil action. If the city attorney indicates in the affirmative and files a suit within
B5 - 12
Attachment 3
thirty days thereafter, no other action may be brought unless the action by the city attorney is
dismissed without prejudice.
E. In determining the amount of liability, the court may take into account the seriousness of the
violation and the degree of culpability of the defendant. If a judgment is entered against the
defendant or defendants in an action, the plaintiff shall receive fifty percent of the amount
recovered. The remaining fifty percent shall be deposited into the city treasury. In an action
brought by the city attorney, the entire amount shall be paid to the city treasury.
F. No civil action alleging a violation of any provision of this chapter shall be filed more than
four years after the date the violation occurred.
2.40.110 Injunctive relief.
The city attorney or any person residing in the city may sue for injunctive relief to enjoin
violations or to compel compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
2.40.120 Cost of litigation.
The court may award to a plaintiff or defendant who prevails in any action authorized by this
chapter his or her costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; provided, however, no
costs of litigation or attorneys’ fees shall be awarded against the city.
2.40.130 Construction of provisions.
A. This chapter shall be in addition to all other city and state laws applicable to municipal
elections. Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the definitions and
terms set forth in the Government Code shall govern the interpretations of terms used in this
chapter. This chapter shall be construed liberally in order to effectuate its purposes.
B. If any provision of this chapter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is
held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the chapter and the applicability of such
provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
2.40.140 Council study committee.
A. Appointment. At least nine months prior to the expiration of this chapter, the council shall
appoint a committee of at least five citizens to study the efficacy of this chapter. The
committee shall complete its deliberations and report its findings to the city council on or
before January 31, 2014.
2.40.150 Expiration of provisions.
Unless readopted, this chapter shall expire on June 30, 20142018.
B5 - 13
Attachment 4
ORDINANCE NO. (2014 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.40 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO ELECTION CAMPAIGN
REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public meeting in
the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 6,
2014, for the purpose of considering changes proposed to update the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. After considering the meeting minutes and recommendations of
the Election Campaign Regulations Committee and public input and testimony, and having
considered arguments and authority supporting and opposing modifications to and continuation
of the City’s campaign regulations, the Council makes and adopts the following findings in
support of the regulations adopted herein:
A. San Luis Obispo is a small and engaged community wherein residents closely
follow and scrutinize elections processes and closely monitor the amounts and sources of
campaign contributions to individual candidates for elected office;
B. In the City’s last election cycle citizens raised and the City investigated and acted
upon complaints of contribution limit violations and there was a great deal of public concern and
debate about the potential for large campaign contributions and expenditures to adversely impact
the public perception of and confidence in the local electoral process; the tone and tenor of
public discourse on this issue demonstrated a high level of community interest in strict adherence
to adopted contribution limits.
C. Based on an evaluation of campaign expenditures in comparable cities, the
Council finds the direct contribution limits adopted herein are consistent with those in place in
comparable jurisdictions and, notwithstanding the existing limitations or lack thereof in
comparable jurisdictions, that the limitations adopted herein would permit candidates to solicit
and accept contributions far in excess of historical expenditures by candidates in the City of San
Luis Obispo and comparable cities.
D. The Council has considered and affirms the statement of purpose and intent set
forth herein and determines the amended and increased contribution limits adopted herein further
and support the stated purpose and intent.
SECTION 2. That the following sections of the San Luis Municipal Code Chapter 2.40
are hereby amended to read as follows:
B5 - 14
Ordinance No. (2014 Series) Page 2
2.40.010 Title.
This chapter may be cited as the election campaign regulations of the city.
2.40.020 Purpose and intent.
A. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter:
1. To promote integrity, honesty, fairness, and transparency in municipal election
campaigns.
2. To prevent corruption, or the appearance of corruption, which results from the real or
imagined influence of large contributions on the conduct or actions of candidates elected
to office.
3. To ensure a level of discussion of public issues adequate for a viable campaign by
providing voters with the information necessary to make an assessment of each candidate
or measure before voting.
4. To require public disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures made in support
of or in opposition to candidates or measures in municipal elections.
5. To place realistic and enforceable limits on the amounts persons may contribute in
municipal election campaigns.
6. To ensure that funds contributed to a campaign committee are used solely for campaign
purposes.
7. To provide full and fair enforcement of all the provisions of this chapter.
B. By enacting this chapter, the council does not intend to deprive or restrict any citizen of the
exercise of rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution and the California
Constitution.
C. The city council takes specific notice of the findings and declarations made in the Political
Reform Act and finds and declares them applicable to San Luis Obispo and a basis for
enacting this chapter.
D. It is the intent of this chapter to impose limits on the amount of money that may be
contributed to a candidate or controlled committee to achieve the purposes specified in this
section. This chapter is not intended, and shall not be construed, to establish any reporting,
filing, or procedural requirement in addition to, or different from, the Political Reform Act or
the regulations adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), except as
specifically set forth in Sections 2.40.050 and 2.40.090 infra.
2.40.030 Definitions.
The terms used in this chapter shall have the same definitions as specified in the Political Reform
Act and FPPC regulations. In those cases where definitions in the Political Reform Act or FPPC
regulations contain a specific reference to any state election, candidate, or electoral criteria, the
definition shall be modified to reflect the municipal equivalent, or, in the absence of a municipal
equivalent, to delete the specific reference.
2.40.040 Contribution limitations.
B5 - 15
Ordinance No. (2014 Series) Page 3
A. Contributions by Persons to Candidates and/or Controlled Committees. No person shall make
any contribution to a candidate and/or any controlled committee connected with that
candidate, with respect to any single election, which would cause the total amount
contributed by such person to the candidate and any controlled committee connected with
that candidate, when combined, to exceed three hundred dollars.
B. Acceptance or Solicitation by Candidates or Controlled Committees. No candidate or
controlled committee shall solicit or accept any contribution from any person which would
cause the total amount contributed by such person, with respect to any single election, to the
candidate and/or any controlled committee connected with that candidate, when combined, to
exceed the sum of three hundred dollars.
C. Contributions by Candidates. The provisions of subsections A and B of this section shall not
apply to contributions from a candidate or from his or her immediate family to any controlled
committee connected with that candidate, nor to the expenditure, by the candidate, of his or
her personal funds. For purposes of this section, “immediate family” means a candidate’s or
elected officeholder’s spouse or domestic partner, and/or dependent children.
D. Anonymous Contributions. No candidate or controlled committee shall accept anonymous
contributions, with respect to any single election, which exceed one hundred dollars. Subject
to the provisions of state law, in the event a candidate or controlled committee receives an
anonymous contribution that would result in a violation of this subsection, the candidate or
controlled committee shall promptly pay that sum to the city for deposit into the general fund
to be used to defray the costs of municipal elections.
2.40.050 Election campaign accounts.
A. Campaign Bank Accounts. An individual who plans to run for a city elective office and who
plans to accept contributions and make campaign-related expenditures must set up a
campaign bank account at a financial institution with a branch located in the city of San Luis
Obispo.
B. Access to Records by City Clerk. The city clerk shall have full access at all reasonable hours
to the bank’s records concerning all election campaign accounts.
2.40.060 Campaign statements.
A. Required Filing Schedule. Every campaign treasurer shall file with the city clerk campaign
statements as required by the provisions of the Government Code and in a format acceptable
to the city clerk.
B. Contents. Each state campaign statement filed shall contain the information required under
the provisions of the Government Code.
C. Filing. Each document required to be filed in this chapter shall be filed with the city clerk
during business hours, and elsewhere as may be required by the Government Code.
D. Publication. The city clerk shall promptly, following receipt for filing, post a copy of each
campaign statement on the city of San Luis Obispo’s website for public inspection, redacting
personal information in accordance with state law. The city clerk shall report on the website
of any candidate and/or committee that has failed to comply by the required deadline with the
campaign statement requirements pursuant to this section or state law. In addition, the city
B5 - 16
Ordinance No. (2014 Series) Page 4
clerk shall cause to be published a display ad in a newspaper of general circulation advising
the public how and where to access copies of the filed campaign statements on the city of
San Luis Obispo’s website, at the time mail ballots are distributed for said election.
2.40.070 Campaign signs.
A. Severability. This section is a separate and severable provision of the election campaign
regulations.
B. Campaign Signs. Campaign signs shall not exceed three square feet per sign in residential
zones and ten square feet per sign in nonresidential zones, and shall be removed no later than
ten days following the election.
C. Definition. “Campaign sign” means a sign intended to draw attention to or communicate a
position on any issue, candidate, or measure in any national, state, local, college or university
campus election, the placement of which is in conformity with Section 15.40.300 (Prohibited
signs); and which otherwise is not subject to regulation under Chapter 15.40 (Sign
Regulations).
2.40.080 Responsibilities of city clerk.
A. Duties. In addition to any other duties required of the city clerk under this chapter, the city
clerk shall:
1. Prescribe and furnish, without charge, appropriate forms for all campaign statements,
documents and reports required to be filed by this chapter.
2. Determine whether required statements and declarations have been filed and, if so,
whether they conform on their face with the requirements of this chapter.
3. Promptly notify all persons who have failed to file a statement in the form and at the time
required by this chapter.
4. Report, in writing, apparent violations of this chapter to the city attorney.
5. Promptly, following receipt for filing, post a copy of each campaign statement on the city
of San Luis Obispo’s website for public inspection. The city clerk shall report on the
website of any candidate and/or committee that has failed to comply by the required
deadline with the campaign statement requirements pursuant to this section or state law.
In addition, the city clerk shall cause to be published one display ad in a newspaper of
general circulation advising the public how and where to access copies of the filed
campaign statements on the city of San Luis Obispo’s website.
6. Compile and maintain a current log of all filed statements pertaining to each reporting
committee.
2.40.090 Criminal misdemeanor actions.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person
who causes any other person to violate any provision of this chapter, or who aids and abets any
other person in the violation of any provision of this chapter, shall be liable under the provisions
of this section.
2.40.100 Civil actions.
B5 - 17
Ordinance No. (2014 Series) Page 5
A. Any person who intentionally or negligently violates any provision of this chapter shall be
liable in a civil action brought by the city attorney or by a person residing within the city for
an amount not more than three times the amount of the unlawful contribution or expenditure.
B. If any person files an original city campaign statement after any deadline imposed by this
chapter, he or she shall pay, in addition to any other penalties provided for under this chapter,
the sum of one hundred dollars per day after the deadline until the statement or report is filed.
Liability may not be enforced if on an impartial basis the city clerk determines that the late
filing was not willful and that enforcement of the liability will not further the purposes of this
chapter. In addition, the city clerk may assess any applicable fines in accordance with state
law.
C. If two or more persons are responsible for any violation, they shall be jointly and severally
liable.
D. Any person, before filing a civil action pursuant to this section, shall first file with the city
attorney a written request for the city attorney to commence the action. The request shall
contain a statement of the grounds for believing a cause of action exists. The city attorney
shall respond within ten days after receipt of the request indicating whether he or she intends
to file a civil action. If the city attorney indicates in the affirmative and files a suit within
thirty days thereafter, no other action may be brought unless the action by the city attorney is
dismissed without prejudice.
E. In determining the amount of liability, the court may take into account the seriousness of the
violation and the degree of culpability of the defendant. If a judgment is entered against the
defendant or defendants in an action, the plaintiff shall receive fifty percent of the amount
recovered. The remaining fifty percent shall be deposited into the city treasury. In an action
brought by the city attorney, the entire amount shall be paid to the city treasury.
F. No civil action alleging a violation of any provision of this chapter shall be filed more than
four years after the date the violation occurred.
B5 - 18
Ordinance No. (2014 Series) Page 6
2.40.110 Injunctive relief.
The city attorney or any person residing in the city may sue for injunctive relief to enjoin
violations or to compel compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
2.40.120 Cost of litigation.
The court may award to a plaintiff or defendant who prevails in any action authorized by this
chapter his or her costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; provided, however, no
costs of litigation or attorneys’ fees shall be awarded against the city.
2.40.130 Construction of provisions.
A. This chapter shall be in addition to all other city and state laws applicable to municipal
elections. Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the definitions and
terms set forth in the Government Code shall govern the interpretations of terms used in this
chapter. This chapter shall be construed liberally in order to effectuate its purposes.
B. If any provision of this chapter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is
held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the chapter and the applicability of such
provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
2.40.140 Council study committee.
A. Appointment. At least nine months prior to the expiration of this chapter, the council shall
appoint a committee of at least five citizens to study the efficacy of this chapter. The
committee shall complete its deliberations and report its findings to the city council on or
before January 31, 2014.
2.40.150 Expiration of provisions.
Unless readopted, this chapter shall expire on June 30, 2018.
SECTION 2. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 5th day of May 2014, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 20th day of May 2014, on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Jan Marx
B5 - 19
Ordinance No. (2014 Series) Page 7
ATTEST:
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
B5 - 20
City of San Luis Obispo
Contribution limits?Yes¹
Total Expenditures
Candidate 1 $19,600.20
Candidate 2 $25,980.00
Candidate 3 $4,499.00
Candidate 4 $6,889.00
Candidate 5 $16,323.43
Candidate 6 $22,259.00
Candidate 7 $4,046.87
Average $14,228.21
¹San Luis Obispo has a $200 individual or group
contribution limit
Attachment 5
B5 - 21
City of Chico City of Napa
Contribution limits?Yes²Contribution limits?No
Total Expenditures Total Expenditures
Candidate 1 $12,494.27 Candidate 1 $47,429.04
Candidate 2 $27,636.92 Candidate 2 $21,199.00
Candidate 3 $8,421.73 Candidate 3 $0.00
Candidate 4 $25,072.33 Candidate 4 $41,484.57
Candidate 5 $7,526.32 Candidate 5 $33,642.97
Candidate 6 $27,342.31 Candidate 6 $4,433.48
Candidate 7 $36,822.73 Candidate 7 $2,584.44
Candidate 8 $520.50 Candidate 8 $4,049.01
Candidate 9 $40,928.00 Candidate 9 $1,573.32
Candidate 10 $15,919.00 Candidate 10 $51,068.35
Candidate 11 $22,517.80 Candidate 11 $19,398.19
Average $20,472.90 Average $20,623.85
²Chico has a $500 per individual contribution
limit. They also have full disclosure where any
contributor (even of $1) needs to be disclosed
Attachment 5
B5 - 22
City of Santa Maria City of Santa Cruz
Contribution limits?No Contribution limits?Yes³
Total Expenditures Total Expenditures
Candidate 1 $89,798.25 Candidate 1 $11,069.00
Candidate 2 $76,010.82 Candidate 2 $24,846.00
Candidate 3 $31,527.18 Candidate 3 $3,000.72
Candidate 4 $16,735.86 Candidate 4 $6,487.00
Candidate 5 $16,895.51 Candidate 5 $2,360.00
Candidate 6 $27,399.00
Candidate 7 $23,175.35
Candidate 8 $43,193.00
Average $46,193.52 Average $17,691.26
³Santa Cruz has voluntary contribution limits of
$325 per individual and $780 per organizational
entity. There are benefits to following the
limits: being featured at no cost on the city's
website and having the filing fees for campaign
finance records waived.
Attachment 5
B5 - 23
City of Ventura City of Santa Barbara
Contribution limits?Yes⁴Contribution limits?No
Total Expenditures Total Expenditures
Candidate 1 $346.58 Candidate 1 $79,921.43
Candidate 2 $13,492.00 Candidate 2 $91,932.57
Candidate 3 $2,046.40 Candidate 3 $45,921.69
Candidate 4 $30,850.91 Candidate 4 $81,232.75
Candidate 5 $27,751.72 Candidate 5 $9,707.17
Candidate 6 $21,056.04 Candidate 6 $58,747.22
Candidate 7 $19,762.61 Candidate 7 $875.00
Candidate 8 $38,007.00 Candidate 8 $68,639.80
Candidate 9 $103,712.23
Candidate 10 $77,169.20
Average $19,164.16 Average $61,785.91
⁴Ventura has a $300 (single source)
contribution limit if the candidate volunteers to
limit spending to $31,000. If they do not limit
their spending then the single-source
contribution limit is $150.
Attachment 5
B5 - 24
City of Davis City of Paso Robles
Contribution limits?Yes⁵Contribution limits?No
Total Expenditures Total Expenditures
Candidate 1 $33,250.38 Candidate 1 $3,713.13
Candidate 2 $19,017.55 Candidate 2 $9,835.89
Candidate 3 $240.00 Candidate 3 $7,573.06
Candidate 4 $32,194.14 Candidate 4 $9,441.00
Candidate 5 $12,472.25 Candidate 5 $7,695.87
Average $19,434.86 Average $7,651.79
⁵Davis has a $100 individual contribution limit
per candidacy period
Attachment 5
B5 - 25
Page intentionally left
blank.
B5 - 26
Kremke, Kate
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:12 PM
To: Kremke, Kate
Subject: FW: 5 -6 -14 SLO Council Meeting Agenda Item 63 - SLOMC Chapter 2.40MAY 0 6 2014
Attachments: Jenkins 5 -6 -14 Letter Agenda B3.pdf
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
cill y of sail Ims ommpo
Sj90 Palm Street
San i uis Obispo, CA 93401
tel 1 80.5.78'1,7102
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date U item #_!3_L_
From: info [mailto:info(�bstewjenkins.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:46 AM
To: Mejia, Anthony
Cc: Marx, Jan; Christianson, Carlyn; mavourneen(5charter.net; dancarpslo @yahoo.com; jbashbaugh @charter. net
Subject: 5 -6 -14 SLO Council Meeting Agenda Item 133 - SLOMC Chapter 2.40
Mr. Mejia, Council Members,
Please find attached a digital pdf copy of the letter I am about to drop off to the City Clerk concerning the
proposed re- adoption and modest amendment of sunsetting SLOMC Chapter 2.40 being considered by the City
Council this evening.
What is not included here, but which is included in the five hard copy versions of the letter, is the backup
attachment showing the costs related to campaigning for local City office in the San Luis Obispo media market;
modest evidence that the extremely restrictive campaign contribution limit set by Chapter 2.40 impair
constitutionally protected speech and associational rights of individuals in the City.
Best Regards,
Stew Jenkins
Law Office of Stewart D. Jenkins
1336 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Phone: (805) 541 -5763
Fax: (805) 547 -1608
E -Mail: infogstewjenkins.com
STEW JENKINS
ATTORNEY
_,.
1336 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Phone: (805) 541 -5763 FAX: (805) 547 -1608
May 6, 2014
Anthony Mejia, City Clerk
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
For the City Council: SLO City Municipal Code, Chapter 2.40, ELECTION CAMPAIGN
REGULATIONS; Council Agenda Item B3,
Dear Council Members:
As a charter city's Council, with all the powers of the state legislature concerning nr►unicipal
affairs, your oath to support (to give effect to) the United States Constitution is brought into sharp
focus when legislating political speech and associations through campaign finance restrictions. That
the Council has not pursued a constitutional public campaign financing option is no excuse for
defending and re- enacting a set of unconstitutionally restrictive campaign finance ordinances.
Specifically the case of Randall v. Sorrell (2006) 126 S.Ct. 2479 held that restriction of
donors to contributing; no more than $200 to the campaign of a candidate 'for state representative
(tantamount to California's State Assembly) so unpaired these important inalienable rights that they
had to be struck down. Before concluding that there is a distinction between Vermont state
representative campaigns and San Luis Obispo City Council campaigns it would be wise to look at
the population of state representative districts and compare them to the number of residents
represented by a SLO council member or mayor. According to the 2010 census and publically
available information from Vermont that state's "state representative" districts contained barely over
40,000 residents. Each council member of San Luis Obispo represent over 45,000 residents; and
exercises all the powers of the state legislature concerning municipal affairs not in conflict with the
preemptive state laws [Cal. Const. Art. XI, §§ 5 &7]. Randall v. Sorrell also holds that $300 and
$450 campaign contributions restriction were unjustified impairment of every citizen's right to
speech and political activity.
To summarize Justice Bryer's lead Opinion: The interests underlying contribution limits,
preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption, "directly implicate the integrity of our
electoral process. McConnell, supra, at 136, 124 S.Ct, 619. Yet that rationale does not simply mean
the lower the limit, the better." [Emphasis added] Contribution limits that are too low harm the
electoral process by preventing challengers from mounting effective campaigns against incumbent
officeholders, thereby reducing democratic accountability. A court must exercise independent
judgment when a statute that seeks to regulate campaign contributions is so severe that it could itself
prove an obstacle to the electoral fairness it purports to promote. Contribution limits "implicate
www.stewjenkins.com
fundamental First Amendment interests" including freedom of expression and association. Justice
Bryer observed that the lowest campaign contribution upheld by the Supreme Court was $1,075, and
Vermont's severe limits on campaign contributions prevented candidates from `amassing the
resources necessary for effective [campaign] advocacy,' terns nzagnifjying the advantages of
incumbency to the joint that challengers were prat to such a significant disadvanlcrge that the statwe
could not survive First ,Amendment scrtditry. Justice Bryer's opinion was joined by Chief Justice
Roberts and Justice Alito, and the result was joined in by dissents authored by both Justice Kennedy
and Thomas. Justice Bryer carefully extrapolated the cost of living index to show that in 2006 the
lowest defensible campaign contribution was well over $1,200 (approximately the cost of a one
quarter page advertisement in a local news paper serving a population like that of San Luis Obispo).
In San Luis Obispo, where a one quarter page advertisement in the primary daily paper costs
$1,232, or one sticker ad addressed to the City's circulation on a Sunday is $1,229, a $300 campaign
contribution limit for city office can not withstand First Amendment scrutiny. The cost of radio,
television, mailings, and door hangers amplifies how unreasonably low such an extreme campaign
limitation is constitutionally. See attached records showing costs related to local campaigns.
Re- adoption of Chapter 2.40 of the Municipal Code with a restriction of campaign
contributions to only $300 violates individual and collective speech and assembly rights to
participate in candidate campaigns. The Chapter also unconstitutionally criminalizes free speech by
restrictions on political yard signs — with a daily exposure of an individual to 6 months in jail for
posting two signs, or a sign a few inches too high or too wide. The Chapter seeks in a variety of
ways to unconstitutionally impair the amount of political speech and association a resident or citizen
engages in for campaign purposes.
As the Council knows the nation's highest court has actively addressed campaign finance
limits. In keeping with the Roberts' Court's avoidance from deciding issues not directly challenged,
the recent opinion in McC'utc•heon v, Federal Election Commission declined to reach the issue of
limits on individual contributions (as invited by several anlicus briefs). interestingly file Court relied
on Congress leaving set a $2,600 limit on individual campaign contributions to show that
contributions of up to $2,600 did not pose a risk of corrupting public officials, or give the
appearance of corrupting public officials. This reinforces the reasoning of'Justice Bryer, the author
of Randall v. Sort-ell, which is applicable to striking down proposed SLOMC Chapter 2,40,
Justice Bryer's dissent in McCutheon recognized that the reasoning of Justice Roberts'
opinion leads to the conclusion that limits on individual campaign contributions must be struck
down. The decision in McCutcheon provides that individual contribution limits may not be imposed
for any reason other than prevention of actual corruption or an appearance of corruption. Randall v.
Sorrell shows that even Justice Bryer believes that in a district (like the City) containing over 40,000
people, a $1,200 contribution causes no opportunity for actual or apparent corruption of an elected
official. And Justice Bryer's opinion holds that courts have an independent duty to review the
judgments made by legislative bodies imposing limits as low as those imposed by Chapter 2.40.
Berth the MeC utheon and Randall opinions hold that a legislative body, like the City Council,
has the burden of showing that an individual campaign contribution limit is both necessary to
prevent corruption and the least restrictive inethod for preveriting corruption. The purported
www.stewjenkins.com
justification presented for readopting Chapter 2.40 entirely fails in that burden. McCutcheon
provides the following guideposts.
Limits on expenditures "'necessarily reduce[ ] the quantity of expression by restricting the
number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.' ....
The Court thus subjected expenditure limits to `the exacting scrutiny applicable to limitations on
core First Amendment rights of political expression.' .... Under exacting scrutiny, the Government
may regulate protected speech only if such regulation prornotes a compelling interest and is the least
restrictive means to further the articulated interest." McCutcheon v FEC (2014) 134 S.O. 1434,
1444. In short, a campaign contribution limit with the pur1)ose of limiting expenditures is
unconstitutional, even under the older case gf'Ruckley.
Even a majority vote establishing "collective speech" limitations restricting free speech to
protect a government infringe the First Amendment. McCutcheon v I -EC (2014) 134 S.Ct. 1434,
1449,
The degree to which speech is protected cannot turn on a legislative or judicial determination
that particular speech is not useful to the democratic process. McCutcheon v FEC (2014) 134 S.Ct.
1434, 1449.
The only compelling governmental interest in limiting campaign contribution is the
collective interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption in the electoral process,
but this must be accomplished in the least restrictive manner available so as not to infringe an
J ndividual's right to freedom of speech. McCutcheon v FEC (2( }l4) 134 S.Ct. 1434, starting* at 1450,
and throughout the lead opinion.
"Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an
effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to such gnid pro
quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner
`influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties. .... And because the
Government's interest in preventing the appearance of corruption is equally confined to (lie
appearance of quid pro quo corruption, the Government may not seek to limit the appearance of'
mere influence or access." McCutcheon r FEC (2014) 134 S.Ct. 1434, 1450 -1451 [F.,rnphasis the
Court's].
Chapter 2.40 should be allowed to sunset as an indefensible unconstitutional restraint can your
constituents' free speech. 1 urge the Council to reject the proposed amendment and extension this
evening.
www.stewlenkins.com
STEW JENKINS
ATTORNEY
-- h /�n Y p 6 ?014
` f(PBIf'f
two ! t4le, Aa zld l
1336 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Phone: (805) 541 -5763 FAX: (805) 547 -1608
May 6, 2014 AGENDA
Anthony Mejia, City Clerk ^ �;C,' "1 RES P®NDENCE
990 Palm Street d,11
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
For the City Council: SLO City Municipal Code, Chapter 2.40, ELECTION CAMPAIGN
REGULATIONS; Council Agenda Item B3.
Dear Council Members:
As a charter city's Council, with all the powers of the state legislature concerning municipal
affairs, your oath to support (to give effect to) the United States Constitution is brought into sharp
focus when legislating political speech and associations through campaign finance restrictions. That
the Council has not pursued a constitutional public campaign financing option is no excuse for
defending and re- enacting a set of unconstitutionally restrictive campaign finance ordinances.
Specifically the case of Randall v. Sorrell (2006) 126 S.Ct. 2479 held that restriction of
donors to contributing no more than $200 to the campaign of a candidate for state representative
(tantamount to California's State Assembly) so impaired these important inalienable rights that they
had to be struck down. Before concluding that there is a distinction between Vermont state
representative campaigns and San Luis Obispo City Council campaigns it would be wise to look at
the population of state representative districts and compare them to the number of residents
represented by a SLO council member or mayor. According to the 2010 census and publically
available information from Vermont that state's "state representative" districts contained barely over
40,000 residents. Each council member of San Luis Obispo represent over 45,000 residents; and
exercises all the powers of the state legislature concerning municipal affairs not in conflict with the
preemptive state laws [Cal. Const. Art. XI, §§ 5 &7]. Randall v. Sorrell also holds that $300 and
$450 campaign contributions restriction were unjustified impairment of every citizen's right to
speech and political activity.
To summarize Justice Bryer's lead Opinion: The interests underlying contribution limits,
preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption, "directly implicate the integrity of our
electoral process. McConnell, supra, at 136, 124 S.Ct. 619. Yet that rationale does not simply mean
the lower the limit, the better." [Emphasis added] Contribution limits that are too low harm the
electoral process by preventing challengers from mounting effective campaigns against incumbent
officeholders, thereby reducing democratic accountability. A court must exercise independent
judgment when a statute that seeks to regulate campaign contributions is so severe that it could itself
prove an obstacle to the electoral fairness it purports to promote. Contribution limits "implicate
www.stewjenkins.com
fundamental First Amendment interests" including freedom of expression and association. Justice
Bryer observed that the lowest campaign contribution upheld by the Supreme Court was $1,075, and
Vermont's severe limits on campaign contributions prevented candidates from `amassing the
resources necessary for effective [campaign] advocacy,' thus magnifying the advantages of
incumbency to the point that challengers were put to such a significant disadvantage that the statute
could not survive First Amendment scrutiny. Justice Bryer's opinion was joined by Chief Justice
Roberts and Justice Alito, and the result was joined in by dissents authored by both Justice Kennedy
and Thomas. Justice Bryer carefully extrapolated the cost of living index to show that in 2006 the
lowest defensible campaign contribution was well over $1,200 (approximately the cost of a one
quarter page advertisement in a local news paper serving a population like that of San Luis Obispo).
In San Luis Obispo, where a one quarter page advertisement in the primary daily paper costs
$1,232, or one sticker ad addressed to the City's circulation on a Sunday is $1,229, a $300 campaign
contribution limit for city office can not withstand First Amendment scrutiny. The cost of radio,
television, mailings, and door hangers amplifies how unreasonably low such an extreme campaign
limitation is constitutionally. See attached records showing costs related to local campaigns.
Re- adoption of Chapter 2.40 of the Municipal Code with a restriction of campaign
contributions to only $300 violates individual and collective speech and assembly rights to
participate in candidate campaigns. The Chapter also unconstitutionally criminalizes free speech by
restrictions on political yard signs — with a daily exposure of an individual to 6 months in jail for
posting two signs, or a sign a few inches too high or too wide. The Chapter seeks in a variety of
ways to unconstitutionally impair the amount of political speech and association a resident or citizen
engages in for campaign purposes.
As the Council knows the nation's highest court has actively addressed campaign finance
limits. In keeping with the Roberts' Court's avoidance from deciding issues not directly challenged,
the recent opinion in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission declined to reach the issue of
limits on individual contributions (as invited by several amicus briefs). Interestingly the Court relied
on Congress having set a $2,600 limit on individual campaign contributions to show that
contributions of up to $2,600 did not pose a risk of corrupting public officials, or give the
appearance of corrupting public officials. This reinforces the reasoning of Justice Bryer, the author
of Randall v. Sorrell, which is applicable to striking down proposed SLOW Chapter 2.40.
Justice Bryer's dissent in McCutheon recognized that the reasoning of Justice Roberts'
opinion leads to the conclusion that limits on individual campaign contributions must be struck
down. The decision in McCutcheon provides that individual contribution limits may not be imposed
for any reason other than prevention of actual corruption or an appearance of corruption. Randall v.
Sorrell shows that even Justice Bryer believes that in a district (like the City) containing over 40,000
people, a $1,200 contribution causes no opportunity for actual or apparent corruption of an elected
official. And Justice Bryer's opinion holds that courts have an independent duty to review the
judgments made by legislative bodies imposing limits as low as those imposed by Chapter 2.40.
Both the McCutheon and Randall opinions hold that a legislative body, like the City Council,
has the burden of showing that an individual campaign contribution limit is both necessary to
prevent corruption and the least restrictive method for preventing corruption. The purported
www.stewienkins.com
2
justification presented for readopting Chapter 2.40 entirely fails in that burden. McCutcheon
provides the following guideposts.
Limits on expenditures "'necessarily reduce[ ] the quantity of expression by restricting the
number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.' ....
The Court thus subjected expenditure limits to `the exacting scrutiny applicable to limitations on
core First Amendment rights of political expression.' .... Under exacting scrutiny, the Government
may regulate protected speech only if such regulation promotes a compelling interest and is the least
restrictive means to further the articulated interest." McCutcheon v FEC (2014) 134 S.Ct. 1434,
1444. In short, a campaign contribution limit with the purpose of limiting expenditures is
unconstitutional, even under the older case of Buckley.
Even a majority vote establishing "collective speech" limitations restricting free speech to
protect a government infringe the First Amendment. McCutcheon v FEC (2014) 134 S.Ct. 1434,
1449.
The degree to which speech is protected cannot turn on a legislative or judicial determination
that particular speech is not useful to the democratic process. McCutcheon v FEC (2014) 134 S.Ct.
1434, 1449.
The only compelling governmental interest in limiting campaign contribution is the
collective interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption in the electoral process,
but this must be accomplished in the least restrictive manner available so as not to infringe an
individual's right to freedom of speech. McCutcheon v FEC (2014) 134 S.Ct. 1434, starting at 1450,
and throughout the lead opinion.
"Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an
effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro
quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner
`influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties. .... And because the
Government's interest in preventing the appearance of corruption is equally confined to the
appearance of quid pro quo corruption, the Government may not seek to limit the appearance of
mere influence or access." McCutcheon v FEC (2014) 134 S.Ct. 1434, 1450 -1451 [Emphasis the
Court's].
Chapter 2.40 should be allowed to sunset as an indefensible unconstitutional restraint on your
constituents' free speech. I urge the Council to reject the proposed amendment and extension this
evening.
www.stewjenkins.com
3
i•
KSBY -TV
ORDER
Flight Dates 05/07/12- 05/09/12
. 4 Product
Contract / Revision 21954 / Pol 2012
Ori inal Date / Revision Agency Com %
04/23/12 04/23/12 Billinq Contact
Advertiserlssue
New till 04/18/13
Agency Issue!
Buying Conti
Sales Office SLON
Sales Region NAT
Agency Ref
Primary Account Executive
Ray Spellerberg
Account Executive Order% Start Date End Date
Ray Spellerberg 100%
Print Date 04/23/12
Order Sep 00:20:00
Estimate #
Alt Order #
Market Value
Billing Tvpe
Cash
Order Tvpe
GENERAL
Billing Cycle
EOM /EOC
Billing Calendar BROADCAST
Demographic
A35+
Rev Codes
DIR POL
Product Codes PLS06
Priority P -03
Advertiser Ref
Page 1 of 2
ISS
Ln Ch Start End Inventory Code Break Start/End Time Days Len Spots Rate Pri Rtg Type
rviuni uerurll2 UWUUI1z Daybreak 6a -7a GM 6a -1.)
Channels: SB,SLOSM
KSBY News Daybreak 6a
Start Date End Date Weekdays Spots/Week Rate
Week: 05 /07/12 05/13/12 111 - - -- 3 $150.00
z iviwn U5 /U /112 05/09/12 KSBY News at 5p
Channels: SB,SLOSM
KSBY News 5
Staff End Date Weekdays
Week:05 /07/12 05/13/12 111 - - --
111 - - -- :30 3 $150.00 P -03 0.00 NM
Rating
0.00
Toil
Spots Amount
3 $450.00
CM 5p -530p 111 - - -- :30 3 $200.00 P -03 0 00 NM 3 $600.00
Spots /Week Rate Rating
3 $200.00 0.00
N a malt, u5 /U(/12 05/09/12 KSBY News at 6p CM 6p -7p 111 - - -- :30 3 $275.00 P -03 0.00 NM 3 $825.00
Channels -. SB,SLOSM
KSBY News a 6 Ros
Order Share %
Market Value
Competing Station
% of Order Amount
CABLE
K07TA
KADY
%
KCOY
KEYT
KKFX
KPMR
%
KTAS
KTSB
NSBY
Order Totals
Billing Plan
Month # of Spots
Net Amount Gross Amount
Rating Start Date End Date # Spots Net Amount Gross Amount
May 2012 9
$1,875.00 $1,875.00
0.00 04/30/12 05/09/12
9 $1,875.00 $1,875.00
Totals 9
S1.875.00 $1.875.00
0.00
Ln Ch Start End Inventory Code Break Start/End Time Days Len Spots Rate Pri Rtg Type
rviuni uerurll2 UWUUI1z Daybreak 6a -7a GM 6a -1.)
Channels: SB,SLOSM
KSBY News Daybreak 6a
Start Date End Date Weekdays Spots/Week Rate
Week: 05 /07/12 05/13/12 111 - - -- 3 $150.00
z iviwn U5 /U /112 05/09/12 KSBY News at 5p
Channels: SB,SLOSM
KSBY News 5
Staff End Date Weekdays
Week:05 /07/12 05/13/12 111 - - --
111 - - -- :30 3 $150.00 P -03 0.00 NM
Rating
0.00
Toil
Spots Amount
3 $450.00
CM 5p -530p 111 - - -- :30 3 $200.00 P -03 0 00 NM 3 $600.00
Spots /Week Rate Rating
3 $200.00 0.00
N a malt, u5 /U(/12 05/09/12 KSBY News at 6p CM 6p -7p 111 - - -- :30 3 $275.00 P -03 0.00 NM 3 $825.00
Channels -. SB,SLOSM
KSBY News a 6 Ros
KSBY -TV
E
P
Contract / Revision 21954 Flight Dates 05 /07/12- 05/09/12
Original Date / Revision 04/23/12/ 04/23/12
Adv ert_ Isar Issu Product Pol 2012
Print Date: 04/23/12
Hiatus Dates
Ord_-, er Sep 00:20:00
Estimate #
L n Ch Start End Inventory Code Break Start /End Time Days Len Spots
3 Multi 051{77/12 05/09112 KSBY News at 6p CM 6p -7p 111 -... - 30 3
Channels: S13,SLOSM
KSBY News a 6 Ros
Start Date End Date Weekdays Spots /Week Rate Rating
Week: 05/07/12 05/13/12 111 - - -- 3 $275.00 0.00
Rate Pri Rtg Type
275.00 P -03 0,00 NM
Totals
Page 2 of 2
S Amount
3 $825.00
9 $1,875.00
El Dorado Broadcasters
KSLY -FM, KSTT -FM, KURQ -FM, KVEC -AM
KSMX -AM, KSMY -FM, KSNI -FM, KXFM -FM
Josoph Azar, Business Manager
Ronlit To: 51 Zaca Lane, Suite 100
Smi Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Phono: 805 545 -0101
NotP 1, _ - KVEC POLITICAL
Irtvolce Summary:
J7 0 ;ij,l',f!i 42
("Ili J! s :"J"rrl n111iml 10858. GG
;�.l,• ',:y >o GO
-E1-L O - 0
tlAncnra-rI Rs
INVOICE: 80456
Advertiser No.: 4272
POL/I
Order A3244 Invoice Date: 05/3012012
Co -op: No Payment Due: 06/29/2012
AD: FIENNING, JUDY
Billing Type: Calendar
CPL• !POLITICAL
'I 11M involrc in accordance with the official log and the announcements /programs indicated below were aired on the datos
I :Ind lho limes shown, Per your advertising agreement, the actual times may have run within 10 minutes of the scheduled
I llnlo.
T11e parties to this advertising agreement affirm that nothing in this agreement, or any of the actions, benefits and
Oblig,,tions relating to it, discriminate in any way on the basis of race or ethnicity
ti
Flag(, 1 q' 4
r1V0iG,' 110455 Advertiser: POL
roarI(et: SsI11 LUiS obis?o /santj Station KVEC -.AM
Mofria
Older Ling Days By Week Revenue Type
1 MTWThF 13 Local Direct
2 MTWThP 14 Local Direct
1,5G1, r - P Q T
y
Ordered
Commercial
AIR G
Corimarclal
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
CemnlerG3l
Commercial
Commercial
AIRED
Cornrnercial
Coinniorcial
Coil) n ercial
Comillerclal
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Comrneru.il
ci_ minerual
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
3 MTVIThF 5 Local Direct Commercial
ISGI 1_5r?QT i 1�rJ f IF2F'D
Cornrnerc:lal
Commercial
Comrn� >rCla
Page 2 of 4
Bind To
06 :00:00- 10:00:00
DATA, M..1
051/07'12 08:47,Atrl
05207112 07 57 ANI
051'08112 06.57 Ah11
05;08112 07 33 AN-1
0508112 09 32 At,!
05'09112. 06:25 ANI
0500C?112 08 i5 ANI
05109/12 04102 ANI
05110/12 013:57
6;110112. 07151 Aid
05110112 091 :;6 AM
0511 1112 00:43 4,1
05111112 07 18 ANI
15 :00 :00 -19 :00:00
DATF Mi t
011.107112 03:17 Pi41
05,•'07+'12 04 -18 PNI
05/07112 0!1.03 PNI
05f08112 03.34 Phi
05108112 0`1:14 PNI
05+08/12 (I G:16 FPvi
05109112 03:/44 pid
05109'12 05:55 PI'd
0:5109112. 06:34 PhJ
05110/12 03:31 FP;1
051G.112 04 F,ii Pf.1
0511012 06:49 Pl,l
0511112 03:33 F I 1
6511 1,`12 05:48 F'fJ
08:00:00.10:00:00
DATE' i NI
1}:,, I.1:1 j
0 1!i ,%IVJ
05115M
0 31 Aitil
05ilo,,Q,
0732A*,-.I
Ralc
$251,00
LLN it f_' /1 I i_
6025 CCI
GO i5 i!f,1
6l ac,
60 Gfi
130
1.101
S 2 5
136 S!:�.Or
GO r;r
S25 •:i0
0
60
�0 's25 x;0
$17, OO
60 17 L`0
60 11, co
130 1
60 „17i;C
60
60 ,;17 0'1
C. 0 f Dl7
GO
60
� 517 %;j
liU >1 i' il;
60 ti 17 O;J
60
$25.00
31 i
6,0 i, %ri [lit
hlvalro 804Gr)
Advertiser: POL
Mo i k. r,-! I. &III l..rll5 ("Ampo/s"111to
Station: KVEC AM
Mm'll
Ardor Linn Day%
By Week Revenue Type Ordered
Bind To
. . ....
Ralo
Commercial
05117112
09:04 Atil
60
CornmerdA
05/18112
09 58 P",il
60
25.00
4 MTWThF
10 Local Direct Commercial
15:00:00.19:00:00
�E-QL r I r L F-
AIRrD
D—AIE
JALVU"o
11 N
Commercial
05,14.12
03:55 Pf-,I
60
1"A
Commercial
0514/12
04.52 PP,l
60
r'.00
Commercial
05115112
05:18 PlVI
(i0
51
Commercial
05115,112
06:34 Ptyl
60
S1700
Commercial
Vi 16/ 12
03:32 Pi'd
60
17 o!.)
Commercial
05116/12
04:12 PI'd
60
; %17 On
Commercial
050 7,112
04 03 PNI
G0
(JO
Commercial
05i'l 7112
)6 V-) PI'd
CIO
Commerbal
05.18/12
05'32 P(vi
Is 0
Commercial
0511$/12
06:32 Pil
Gil.)
S'.:,cn
f0l' "4"-Itiorl KVEC-AM
... . . ................. ------- ...........
No of Spots/Misc: 42/0
. .................
. . . ..... - .... . .........
GrosF, Aril.
. —
158"A 00
Iolsrls for Mol 1, m SAll Luis Obispo /Santa Maria No of Spots/Misc: 4210
Gross Aml
00
1,01,119 far 111VOICO:
No- of Spots)Misc— 4210
Gross Aim:
Page 3 of .1
Account Activity
Onto try
OntoNo,
Station
Order
Description
Total
Current 31 -60 61.90 91.120 1,20+
Gaff ?;3!I;'
KVEC•AM
Q
Check #90-4M
($1,126 -00)
($1,12600)
';rir w I
KVEC•ANI
0
Check 490.4252
($1,680.00)
($1,680.00)
(1,:10112
804; +5.1
KVEC-AM
432.44
Invoice
$858,00
$85800
l,'3!1 +12
8094 -1
K'Vr.0Af,,1
43435
Invoice
$1,512.00
$1,51200
($436.00)
(5436,00) $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0,00
4.
Page 4 of 4
r--a 41c.,Tz --uaz 'r r- cx -arZtma Ad ad a ara rr il,,e,,_m�
— CNIII k S4- P C-1 e%
1-1-rie Cernra-,-I %,,coast
New Tim-es amd t Su.i -,a-e -nbHshed e-,;'s.—y
''F—rsdayt`
and Xcrtherri Santa I—Sarbal-11i Con--,ty.
3-Pm-
52477
52230
51980
51833
s1783
51709
5360
1850
1665
1480
1369
1332
1277
300
1408
1268
1127
1042
1014
972
300
1284
1155.
1027
950-
924
886
300
38 -3
1007
906
805
745
725
695
220
513
875:
787
700
647:
630
604
220
114
706,
636
565:
523
508
487
220
3816
560
505'
449
415
404
387
110
380
344
306
283
275
264
110
217;
195
173:
160:
156
149
75
CLASSIFIEDS
ONLY
1132 7:
113,
100.
90:
82-
80
72
1/6,64
57
527
46:
42'
40
38
— CNIII k S4- P C-1 e%
1-1-rie Cernra-,-I %,,coast
New Tim-es amd t Su.i -,a-e -nbHshed e-,;'s.—y
''F—rsdayt`
and Xcrtherri Santa I—Sarbal-11i Con--,ty.
3-Pm-
San Luis Obispo County's
News & Entertainment Weekly
4 i
1010 Marsh St.
2540 Sliyway Drive. Suite A
San L•is Obispo, CA 93401
Santa Maria, CA 93455
605-546-8208
S05-347-1968
San Luis Obispo County's
News & Entertainment Weekly
Northern Santa Barbara County's
News & Entertainment Weekly
The Restaux-ant and Wime Guide
to the Central Coast
Rate Card tll JANUARY 2012
'Lie.
rx
Northern Santa Barbara County's
News & Entertainment Weekly
The Restaux-ant and Wime Guide
to the Central Coast
Rate Card tll JANUARY 2012
phone S05 -54 "208 iaxS05- 540 -8041
web wwwmew—t1h-'negslo.Coia
phone 805 -- 347 -19'18 fax805 -347-9589
weber - .san aii1 ia.8un.com
r
- f/v irr r
t-
}
12 Page [h]
f Xl 10 1 '8 x 6 1 '4"
122 Page [v;
'!15x123,4
Insertion order and
ad copy: 3pm the Friday prior.
Ad cancellation: rpm the Friday prior.
t
Full Page 314 Page [v] 3.'4 Page [s] Junior Page -
POP
}
101 18x123/4" M71 /2x 12 1W [- ]101'8x91 %2" rs] 71!2x91/2"
[h] [hl [h] [h] 1/16 Page [s] [v] [hi
1/16 Page
-] 2 3/8 x 3" [v] 1 U8 x 6.25"
IIl h]5xIW
[sj [v] [v] . +ru,.. Ja
Is] IV] 1;'32 Page
ml [v] rhi
318 Page [v' IS Page [s] ale Page 114 Page 316 Page 1;8 Page 1,32 Page
!'.}5x91_ rS]71'2x61:4" ['1;5x8" °]1018x3' u]7t;2x3" rH!5x3- M'1.Bx3"
= ';]tC1'8x4 •'8' 71r2x45r8 7238x1234' 723'8x91!2" [`:23 %8x61;4" ]23!5x1318"
r- ,5x61' Sj5x45;8" 1,64 - 11/8x13'8"
_Je. = When available.
specific page position is guaranteed
tiN.ri a 15 placement charge.
Mini- um ad size: 3/16.
Bach page: 20 =, additional charge.
_ . S— Insert rates are S 4 5 per z: : -y Color of the days a:a 'able fos
1,000 for 10 -000. S40 per 1.000 for up 550 each. Prices are per paper.
to 19.000 and S35 for 20,000 or More.
VInin:um inserts: 10.000.
C41'_ fcr rnulT ple-:)al-e insert p:•ic ng.
51547
51392
51237
51145
51114
51067
5250
-- u_page
51033
5930
5827
5765
5744
5713
5250
3/
1153
1038
922
853
830
796
200
3 %
775
697
620
573
558
535
200
�.
882
794
706
653
635
609
200
J
585
526
468
433-
420
404
200
1/12
798
718
638
591
575
551
200
1,12
540
486
432
399
390
372
200
3;`8
627
564
501
464
450
433
150
3/8
422
380
338'
312
304
291
150
5/16
553
498
443
409
398:
382
150
5/16
357
321
286,
257
246
150
1/14
446
402
357
330
320
308
150
1/4
289
260
231
214
208
199
150
3/16
344
310
276
255
2481
238
75
3/16
240
216
192
178
173:
166
75
1/8
233'
210
186
172
168
161
75
1;'8
166
149
133:
123.
120
114
75
1/16
134
121
108
99
97:
93
50
1/16
91
82:
73
68
66
63
50
CLASSIFIEDS OtiLY
CLASSIFIEDS ONLY
1/32
67
60
54
50
48:
43
1/32
50
45
40:
36
35
32
1/64
34
30
27
25
24
23
1/64
26
24
21'
19:
18'
17
r
- f/v irr r
t-
}
12 Page [h]
f Xl 10 1 '8 x 6 1 '4"
122 Page [v;
'!15x123,4
Insertion order and
ad copy: 3pm the Friday prior.
Ad cancellation: rpm the Friday prior.
t
Full Page 314 Page [v] 3.'4 Page [s] Junior Page -
POP
}
101 18x123/4" M71 /2x 12 1W [- ]101'8x91 %2" rs] 71!2x91/2"
[h] [hl [h] [h] 1/16 Page [s] [v] [hi
1/16 Page
-] 2 3/8 x 3" [v] 1 U8 x 6.25"
IIl h]5xIW
[sj [v] [v] . +ru,.. Ja
Is] IV] 1;'32 Page
ml [v] rhi
318 Page [v' IS Page [s] ale Page 114 Page 316 Page 1;8 Page 1,32 Page
!'.}5x91_ rS]71'2x61:4" ['1;5x8" °]1018x3' u]7t;2x3" rH!5x3- M'1.Bx3"
= ';]tC1'8x4 •'8' 71r2x45r8 7238x1234' 723'8x91!2" [`:23 %8x61;4" ]23!5x1318"
r- ,5x61' Sj5x45;8" 1,64 - 11/8x13'8"
_Je. = When available.
specific page position is guaranteed
tiN.ri a 15 placement charge.
Mini- um ad size: 3/16.
Bach page: 20 =, additional charge.
_ . S— Insert rates are S 4 5 per z: : -y Color of the days a:a 'able fos
1,000 for 10 -000. S40 per 1.000 for up 550 each. Prices are per paper.
to 19.000 and S35 for 20,000 or More.
VInin:um inserts: 10.000.
C41'_ fcr rnulT ple-:)al-e insert p:•ic ng.
AD',v ERTISING R l r �
New Times Media Group is hereby authorized, to publish the advertising
0 iT• � hander the_ffofldvvii g terrris and conditions:
J New Times Q Santa Maria Sun ❑ Classifieds ❑ Online ❑ Consecutive Q EOW
A li SIZE: 116 8 -��16 1�4 5116 318 1�2 ' �3 3/4 FULL $,, I� V
O1ri -I11It
1481 --QUI NCY:
BEGINNING:
C 1LO it:
RAI'E: $
N Tf.4S:
1x
2x 6x 13x 26x 39x 52x
f ENDING: ,'�' � . i
PLACEMENT:
COMBO RATE: New Times: $ Stan: ,$
GENFILAI,1NFORMAr'ION
11116 cotllract represents the agreement between the two parties. New Times Media Group reserves the right to refuse, edit, alter, or on.lt any acivcltke- ;
11INUR nubntlticd for publication and assumes no responsibility for advertising deadlines not met by the Advertiser, including neglll;ence by 1110, Advert kpr
to ftroof all copy or artwork. Typographical errors or omission of copy must be corrected before copy deadlines; liability by New T'lnies Media Group tilnll
1101 exceed the wst of that portion of space occupied by such error. It is the Advertiser's responsibility to notify New Times Media Group of my published f
errnl's; we will be responsible for only one incorrect insertion of an ad. The Advertiser is responsible for the quality of all camera -ready ads or artwork,
No canrlellatIons can be accepted after deadline each Friday prior to the day of publication. Advertisers not fulfilling multiple -ad cons reel, will hn blllyd
ill the earned rule for the number of ads run, New Times Media Group is not liable for delays in delivery or production In any manner whr.rti condalons
cannot be controlled:
All ativrrtimileno; created by New Times Media Group arc: copyrighted by New'n"es Media Groue; no pcslntss'ton is gratitcd for we 64cwhere, Drxlgll
work fur ime In other papers is available at an hourly rate. Advertiser and/or advertising ageney or agetit agtvm in atgannte. any And all 111thiilty roc all Voill•
poill"lts of advmisentcnts stilsmilted to New Times Media Group, including text, graphics, photus, claims, etc, Tats InrhMlcr, bat Is not lhniteil trt, ally
clttllntr cif libel, ululation of rights of privacy, pligiaristn, unfair bt.5lne.SS practices, copyright andlor tradematrlt Infringement. All odvettisetntnt:t that New
Tivio Mcdht Grott i derinjs [night be mistaken ror editorial copy will be marked "Advertiument" nt the top of the ad.
INITIAL "� Ne-z
fill
,
r- INANCIA1.1NFORMATION � t�" - �L.�+ (i) `, L y. � it 7-
Tefinat All ada are pre -paid. Finance charges on unpaid balances over 30 days will 1.5 per month. (annual rate of 18 %). Short rates will he clilorcrd
for failure to fulfill contractual requirements. Accounts more than 60 days overdue may be terminated and short -rate charges enforced. Any rebates clue hill
be, f:retlited to the advertiser's account. Advertiser agrees to pay court costs and attorney's fees if suit is brought for payment of bills. The Publisher i eset ves
Ilse Ilgllt Its revNc rates arld firrrns upon 30 days written notice to the Advertiser; noncontract rates are subject to change without notice, To gat lI11lsl1 u
30-filly Milling Isce I1l-(0n11i[t the business department.
INITIAL.
SPACE RESERVATFON
FRIDAY, 5:O0 PM
F71FsAl)t.INL5
AD COPY/PREPAYMENT
.. _
FRIDAY, 5:00 PM
....
All deadlinew are prior to the following Thursday's publication date.
CAMERA -READY
MONDAY, 9:00 PM
Special Issues, inserts, and holidays may have earlier deadlines. INiTIAIM
AD FINAL (NO CHANGES)
TUESDAY 12:00 PM
ACCEPTED FOR
1'Itisiness Narne � Y
Vu
1 1tisiness Address I~cw'firneslleriitC7nxrle
Aclvertiyitlg Agent,
Adventism Ett1Rt
1y11t7nt, Fax
Sl�,ni;tttrr
PI.111t Nttlrte
Illiii�Y� Cnutact imam
>1llillin i Mull
ACCEPTED BY
New Times Media Group
1010 Marsh Street, Sin Lids Obispo, QA 93 °101
Signtlime
Print Name.-
SANTA MARiA
1010 Marsh Street, San Luls Obispo, CA 93401 2640 Skyway Drive, Suite A, Santa Marla, CA 03455
805 - 546 -8208 • FAX 805- 546 -8641 805 -347 -1968 a FAX 805- 347.0880
EMAIL advertising ®newtimessio.com EMAIL advorllshlg0sanlamariasun.com
E| Dorado Broadcasters
KS[Y-FM, KSTT-FK0.KURQ-FK0'KVEC,4K8
N8N1X^AK0, KSMY-FM, KSN/-FK0'KXFM-FPN
jmsp�p)1 Azar, BUSiMessManager
Ro8dtTo: 51Zacm Lane, SUiba1OO
San Lu|m Obispo, CAS34O1
Phono' 805 545-0101
'
Atli
)Mir
t4omI KVEC Political /pro-e
mvm|oo gmnmnry.
' '---' '—-
1
0
INVOICE: 80594
Advertis, r No.: 4272
POL
0nler. 43435 |nwoiooOake- 05/30/2012
Co-op- No Payment Ouo� 06/29/2012
Billing Typc�Calendar
CpE /Political /Pm,om»|
invalro m in nc'cordonce with the official log and the announcements/prograrns indicated � km* ~e�~wwere oio~ oil lilt '"uo|rdu uondUmho�nshown Per your n�ve�isingagreenen� the m�va|Umoo may have mnw��n1 minutes o[ma
^
. . _
l|�rpxd/au\o(h|aadvertising agreement affirm that nothing |n this agreement, or any Of the actions, benefits and
oWlgnUony ne|ahoV |o i1, discriminate in any way on the basis of race or ethnicity
�
��� / of s
S I S 1 rW
0
INVOICE: 80594
Advertis, r No.: 4272
POL
0nler. 43435 |nwoiooOake- 05/30/2012
Co-op- No Payment Ouo� 06/29/2012
Billing Typc�Calendar
CpE /Political /Pm,om»|
invalro m in nc'cordonce with the official log and the announcements/prograrns indicated � km* ~e�~wwere oio~ oil lilt '"uo|rdu uondUmho�nshown Per your n�ve�isingagreenen� the m�va|Umoo may have mnw��n1 minutes o[ma
^
. . _
l|�rpxd/au\o(h|aadvertising agreement affirm that nothing |n this agreement, or any Of the actions, benefits and
oWlgnUony ne|ahoV |o i1, discriminate in any way on the basis of race or ethnicity
�
��� / of s
Invoice. Advertiser.- P
I I k ("I 0bjsr)o/sanf,-.i Statiori: KVEC-AM
mmi!"l
Oi(lor Line Days By Week Revenue Type Ordered
MriArrl r
LV Loc Dir Pol
T-1 1A
2
VlTWThF 20 Loc Dir Pol
_C_ Lt —'s - 1 -1. 0... L I. [ —I �(:
Commercial
AIRED
(Afillnercial
Ccnimerdil
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Cornmerciai
Con i me. I Gia I
I'lommeidni
Collmlefdal
Commercial
Commercial
Con,mierciil
Commercial
Comn.nercial
Commercial
Commercial
C.omrnercial
Conimprolal
Commercial
AIRED
Commercial
Coml-nerclal
Commercial
t.0!11 Clt.i 01,31
Conlmerclal
comlneI"Jal
C01111"le"•ill
commerciLlI
Commercial
Page 2 of 5
Bind To Rate
06:00M-10:00:00
DATE Poll
05/21112 01 25 lV.1
05,21:12, ON74,1
05!21.12 08Z M.1
0 512 1 i'l 2 09:30 M.1
05: 1 22/12 0,'-) 25 ANI
05/22112 01717 Al•,I
0!')1;2 2/ 12 Ci7 57 •1
05,22'12 08i55 AN)
0523;12 C(3 2,1
C5123112_ 0 17 All
05123/12 68 53 NJ
050il 2 01D 56 AiA
051'24112 06 53 klivl
05124!12 07M XtA
05124/12 08 65 )M"I
05174/12 09 56 ANN
0501 12 06:43 XJ
0512`!112 07-53 ANN
05125/1 2 08:41 ANI
05125112 09.56 AM
15:00:00. 19:00:00
LiAll. IINK
G 5 12 V 12 03:46 PNI
05121112 04 "A FINI
05,21/12 05. 1 li PI'd
(i5; .':,' 1 i 12 pt"I
05122.12 0103 5.1,1
0,51122112 04:22 Pid
05i22112 04 44 PM
MWII 2 05 43 3 NJ
05123112 03,53 Pf,l
05123!12 05 04 pf'.1
0512311 12 06:04 pk l
115'2.3112 06:54 P 1,, 1
0504:' l 2 (03,011, P(Ill
$25,00
j!
130
60 2.
S25 CC)
2 5
6 2.
60
60
S
30
5C
60 15 0 I.'
517,00
136.11
S17
i1ii.,
C0
GO ;y
r-l" 0 7
IIIVCalce: 80594 Advertiser: POLMNaft
f4wket Sill hits COhIs "P 1 /Santa Station KVEC -AM
M�-ma
Otclor Linn Dayg By Week Revenue Type Ordered
3
MTWThF 20 Loc Dir Pol
I—` (2-L0-IUL I'IILL
MTWThF 20 Loc Dir Pol
T rlrl
Commercial
Ccmmercial
Commercial
Ccmnlercial
C'onunerclal
ComfilefCl7l
0011 morclal
Commercial
AIRED
COrnmercl7l
Comnlorciai
Colnmerbal
Cornnicriaall
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
camnlerclal
CQllll1F'fC181
Colllnlerd"'ll
Coma»ercill
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
AIRED
Com.merlr..ial
C, ox. mcrcial
C'oatltlorcia!
Collimerclll
Cc, mn1erc.ia1
Comlmelcini
("a III[IILrGl: ?'
CoI"mIE)I'ci al,
Commercial
CCl;tnterCh!1
Page `)
Bind To
051W,12 03:50 Ph;l
05124112 05:02 Pl,,l
051:24 112 0'3 53 P10
05i2`:i! 12 04:02 Pt•;I
05.;251'l 2 05:32 Pr;l
05i2E5r12 06 02 Ph,l
05/25/12 0(:,:49 PLI
06:00:00. 10:00;00
L]LVH Tlh•11:x
0512802 06 13 AM
C5:2£3r'12 07 22 AlJ
0'5;•2$!12 WY) X"I
05:28112 09 5C At,l
05.0112 06 17 Aid
05129/ 12 07 52 .Al•;l
05129/12 082,1 AM
0 12912 09 25 ANN
05.130il2 C3 25 Ald
65/30112 08 24 Mll
05!30!12 06:55 A %!
06130"12 09:55 Ai"A
05!31112 V 2,5 AM
05i5V12 07:57 A 0
05!31112 0° 47 Ally!
05131/12 0 9:5G A,,1
15:00:00. 19:00;00
11512!5! 12 0. 113 PM
05.f26!!2 03A18Pi,l
0;1123! 12 0503 PM
05123;'2 0555t'i %'
C '2')i 12 03 48 Pf,1
051 2912 Obi 17 P1"1
05-:'29:12 013 19 P'•,1
05;29 "i2 0646PiVI
5;317!12 03 1E? PM
051301/2 01133 R.1
Rate
6f) 17.Ci)
C(' 1ici
;17i'tl
io :j 17'1;1
60 ;y 17 I;=�
$25.00
'30 a2Ci (i,a
ill
$25 I;:I
::2:71 )
Gi "j f;�l
'r'S r C7
i0 c:5
ISO u
517.00
1.t;N r,P:� r�ni1
60
;0 ',17 C'
ail) :l•I;i
111vDiCcl: 80504
Advertiser: POL
Market 8�3n Luls Obiepcj/Sinta
Station KVEC-AM
tj if im
Wier Loo Drys
By Week Revenue Type Ordered
Bind To
RMe
Commercial
05/30/12
05 16 Pki
w
17 00
Commercial
05/30112
06 34 PtJ
Go
S 17 PC,,
Commercial
05i31 M 2
030,1 PI-v1
150
v 17.Q;
r
Account Activity
On tee
fnvfRof
No.
Station
Order
No.
Description
Total
Current 31.60 61.90 91.120 17.4i^
0p4)310
Y,VCC.AM
0
CheckiM -4252
(S1,126.00)
(S 1, 126 00)
O,° I,(.; 12
KVCC AM
0
Chcck *0 -4252
(S1,68000)
(51,680.00)
5'y%12
$'j,456.1
KVCC•Ahl
43244
Invoice
$858.00
S85800
0100,,+12
B ,594 -1
KVEC Akl
43435
Invoice
S1,512.00
S1,512 00
(5436.00)
($436,00) $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0,00
A
Page 5 of 5
1 -1 IJ1 ` rl'1�113UN I Tim CAmBRr�v s a`tTe�" CI I Cj I tc� �
con,
® in partnership with rrj
0
SanLu*1s0b1SP0.16
The most - visited. news website in San Luis Obispo County
2012 Monthly Unique Vistors and Page Views
W
• ' 6 p el b9 flow
l 1�1,1111h 91 m" ,r;
11 U YI,IAI
111p01 ,Il;af r�r rar 1 +f rri
Avg. „ Avg.
MONTHLY MONTHLY
Unique „ , . Page
Visitors views
Avg. Monthy Unique Visitors:
3959147 *
Avg.
DAILY
DMA'
Unique ,
Visitors
Avg. Monthly Page Views:
390699385*
Average of Jai i -0d 2012, Oinnifure, Inc
MAP
J'•r "�'h2 tl 'E < ",'s �C:H:<lt =.l.t"
Run of Site ............ ........................ /Cpm
Run of Site - ABOVE THE SCROLL .............. . ........
8 /cpm
Run of Channel .......................................
8 /Cpm
Run of Channel - ABOVE THE SCROLL ....
9/cpm
Home Page .................................... .....
$10 /Cpm
Home Page - ABOVE THE SCROLL .......................$11
/Cpm
Run of Site ........... ...............................
$1/Cpm
Run of Channel .............
8/Cpnl
Run of Site ....... ...............................
5 /cpm
Run of Channel ...........
Home Page .......... ...............................
j6ftm
8 /COO
Run of Network ......... .............................$6
/Cpm
Geography OR Demographic ... , ..... I ..... . .. . ........$1
/cpm
Geography AND Demographic ......................
. . .$8 /cpm
Behavior, Geography OR Demographic ...... ..............
$10 %pm
Behavior, Geography AND Demographic ...................$12/Cpm
Content Targeting .......... . ................. .......
$15/Cpm
':f-
,Y
�ctr:.a...
�"'.faYt.u'7.
.i7� .: .C� ... _- .5..�1u
[Phone App Sponsorship* (includes print promotion) ....$10001m0
�•ti
Droid App Sponsorship* (includes print promotion) ....
$2501
Mobile Site Sponsorship` (includes print promotion) ....$1000/mo
2012 Daily DMA Unique Vistors
Avg. Daily DMA Unique Visitors:
8,342*
Visit www.SanLuisObispo.com/archive/media—kit for animaled examples.
Floorboard ............................... +........$250 /day
Billboard Take Over ................. + ................$32'5 /day
Corner Peel ......... ............................... $325 /day
Side Scroll 300x250 . + .... ...........................$200 /day
Video ................... .$13 /cpnll
Roll Over /Expanding................. ................. $13 /cpm
Floating Flash .....,....... ...........................$'13 /cpm
Flyout............. ............................... .$13 /qnm
Pop Up /Under .......................... ..........$154111
Floating Video . ...........................$500 /day homepage
$300 /run of channel
Email Newsletter (2 positions available) 300x250 ... $115 /month
}',.I�g Nr
Pixel Size. Ma..x .g.if, .jpgs..ize Max Flash file size
Medium rectangle: 300x250 40k 40k
Leaderboard: 728x90 40k 40k
Ruler: 300000 40k 40k
For all other ad sizes and specs, contact your Marketing Specialist
To advertise, call one of our offices:
San Luis Obispo: 805 - 781 -7816
The Cambrian: 805 - 927 -8652
Heather Hovde, Digital Sales Manager . , + .. + . , ........805 -781 -7831
Terrie Banish, VP, Advertising ............ + + , . , , .....805- 781 -7841
"I See separate marketing piece for full desoiplion of mohilo Iru k ige,s
(01/07/13)
010W
ONLINE
I
i v" > t�..,�h2s�
To see live examples, v'Hsi ,m
( w W
C7 al I;d � , �le�_i, k < pl,,,d E� � "i~���. ilrl�l�m� ?; ✓�i'� i� � �'� +i ,,�.I �e�„�� f.11.� k =. f �e�' It �i u.,�!�I, � I': .,�.
-
V)(,-)diL1vn Rectangle
• Located on Homepage, Section Fronts, In -Story
• Most I)opular size
• Sold by impression or fixed position
RL dON'
Locatod on Homepage, Section Fronts, In -Story
• 8orvod above- the - scroll
Sole by Impression or fixed position
I aRtrlF;j �,.�ya
(7r28x90)
• Located on all pages, except Homepage
• Positioned at the top of the site
• Sold by impression or fixed position
r t3f
WA pF
M I..� •
1501�, W. -
Z •'� :- - r• I)r1 n5,1
`' pt. 1
ra
ao�. � k.p.. n .fir iYL - • v v.�.;:rur':•'
�rrivl �.
�fppe� [I yp
( rev (,,'J .x., "bIW pq"�p Y ..-. -. i,k�. -°' '6" [ 7'"'.:i.� S' m^_"! l:: `.7�1^.:rt_".'.yR'.^^'^'1'n•.-"
• Located on Homepage and Section Fronts
• Appoars under the active browser windows "' `` rrttl�
• Sold by impression Y �,, t�h�i :� i` II° ',
am
....•. •. • •9 I .. •. .........•.....r...ss••......•. ,. ,........... n.....•........•...... ..•.• ..........................
TO ADVERTISE, CALL YOUR SALES REPRESENTATIVE OR ONE OF OUR OFFICES:
kti `- <'�1�� "�' r�I�g San Luis Obispo County The Cambrian
"THE'�r r TRIBUNE 781 -7872 Retail: 927 -8852
L 1 1D�J Classified; 781 -7840
RA9 u
.I .......................... ........................................................... ...............................
13- et een- the - ac
• Takes over the entire browser page
• Appears `between' one page and the next
• OP0115 for .115 or until user closes window
Sold by impression or fixed position
� a
. l'
... ...--...... .............• ................. .............. .. ... ......................•.•.a.... . .. ,.
Billboard Take Over
(960x 3O expands to 96Ox470) VW1
• Pushes content down to reveal a 96Ox470 ad panel
Opens for:03, Collapses to 964x3O at top of the page Plcio fv,
,
• Subject to availability and requires approval -°
• Sold by the day in a fixed position ,,, ,� .�
Ptr�i ,'�k�"SrE��I�,i3�dY'Rq�E� C-��1� '�/ �.�,�'ri►��, '' -
F' I y o t
(300;c250 05, s
Ad Components) move across the page mow` .. #
K,
St..
r (resolve into the main banner ad position
• Ad plays once per day per unique visitor
• Sold by impression or fixed position
Roll Ovei/Expanding Ad
C3003(250 or 72 x O)
• Expands when users move their mouse over the ad
Larger panel expands over the content
r-nables advertiser to deliver more information y� y
m g R s',e D
-
I1,
................. .. ...... ............. .r............................. .
TO ADVERTISE, CALL YOUR SALES REPRESENTATIVE OR ONE OF OUR OFFICES:
San Luis Obispo County The Cambrian
"T1 �' L TRIBUNE rBU'j1�� 781 -7872 Retail: 927-8652
1, L V L Classified: 781 -7840
a ONLINE 1� ETI
FSil�u. nr "" � B , k;,� r. � �� �ri�� "'�+yD' `L',,�u�• Ir.� r��, ��? �� A� �;; I: � i ti
................... .............................................................................................................................
F'ki ating Flash
Plays like a movie dominating the user - experience
Can feature sound, motion and custom effects
Ad is stationary and plays for a maximum of :10
• Ad plays only once per day per unique visitor
i rr�
n"A '
Corner Peel/Paq
Prominont placement on homepage
• Ad is displayed with a `[Page Peel' effect.
Stf ys open for .03
• Ad Activates on page load and again on mouse -over
• t-Npanded urea is 800x550 in a triangle shape.
...........
........................ ...........
..
Floating Video
• Video ad takes over the browser
• Site fades out to gray while playing video
• Stays open until the user closes it or video finishes
Vidoo is IS to :30 in length
'Il IjIuIPNI_}i
Side Scroll
(300x250 or 300x100)
• Homopage only
• Ad opens when user scrolls 70% down the page
• Usor c7n close the ad
• A small lonve- behind tab appears
'rko lonve- behind tab follows the user down the page
PRO...
FARM %i VTW_
L' jAdli
q �f •
- � i!.'rl illit.�i�i . .I. .�f•"fJ rif �� - �,•
6 Y
MA
.. ...................... ............................... .
t a Iip,Y�I;cxt f�w gy TO ADVERTISE, CALL YOUR SALES REPRESENTATIVE OR ONE .
OF .
OUR OFFICES: ....
fa�t "9�� San Luis Obispo County The Cambrian
a TRIBONE 781 -7872 Retail: 927 -8652
"THE Classified: 781 -7840
ARBiTRON
Proposed schedule
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA (Metro Survey Area)
FA11 / SP11
P 18+
Flight A: 1 Week
- No Dates
Flight A� 1 Week -
No Dates
W -F 3p -7p
6
60 $40.00
$240.00
Ga -Su Ga -7p
4
60 $32.00
$128.00
W -F 6a -10a
6
60 $40.00
$240.00
One Week Total
16
$38.00
$608.00
Flight Total
16
$38.00
$608.00
$584.00
Flight Total
16
$36.50
Flight 0: 1 Week
(614)
mica
=VRAW
W11
M 6a -7p
6
60 $40.00
$240.00'
One Week Total
6
$40.00
$24000
Flight Total
6
$40.00
$240.00
Qs
Flight A� 1 Week -
No Dates
W -F 3p -7p
6 60
$40.00
$240.00
Sa -Su 6a -7p
4 60
$26.00
$104.00
W -F 6a -10a
6 60
$40,00
$240.00
One Week Total
16
$36.50
$584.00
Flight Total
16
$36.50
$584.00
M 6a -7p 6 60 $4000 $240.00
One Week Total 6 $40.00 $240.00
Flight Total 6 $40.00 $240.00
Grand
KKJG -FM 22 $3855 $848.00
KIQO -FM 22 $37.45 $824.00
Sohoclulo
ARQITRON
Grand Totals
F' tla., ,6 Ott} Raft Irlvea nian'}
:.00 �,..
ACCOpted By Slatlon
Arcopled By C'llent
Dato
Date
1111w wltllioll dooli not discriminate in the sale of advertising time, and will accept no advertising which is placed with an intent to
dkerimilloto coil IIIC basis of'racc, gender or c(hniclty. Advertiser hereby certifies that it is not 1)llying broadcasling air link: tinder this
tali' rtising vales contract for a discriminatory purpose, including but not limited to decisions ]lot to place advertising, oil particnlor ,vlatiolls
olt the basis ol, rncc, gender, national origin, or ancestry.
ARBITRON
i"& 4M;C_*` TMr�eo-.* *.t.ev4:2ttR;h'��.$�CF:4@3.w:7i. ..��..�riV:�'•' -�•` w..�
Schedule Detailed Sourcing Summary
Market: SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
&Urvey: Average of Arbitron Fall 2011, Arbitron Spring 2011
Googrfiphy: Metro
Drlypart: Multiple Dayparts Used
Demo /Intab /Population:
Ago /Odntlor Population Intab
Adult 19+ 219,400 1,391
Statiolts: User Selected
Additional Notices:
I:r:[01111oto -� roporlod for dayparts whicl'1 start and end between 12m and 5a are based on the 5a -5a broadcast day. Estimates for all other doyporw ern
I)MOd do 111011)11112m calendar day,
f'Idtt:rl nolo; 'I`ho Intob ropor(od ie for the full twelve weeks of the survey. Users should note that reports run on fewor than twolvo wooke are hn5od on
r rnflllr�r homplo rfl;, art,
)IN11011ti (lunllfy to be rmpnrIr)d If they have received credit forfive or more minutes of listening in at least 1 in -tab diaries In the survey aina, Monday -
f. >lutddy Midtilfjlit "Midnight, during the survey perlod.
L, §111110106 tiro rlorlvod from lho dlarios that provided the audience data for the Market Report and are subject to the qualifications and limitations 51,1(0(1
Ili llm( wn)orl. "fl'In TAIaSCAN Web software product is accredited by Media Rating Council and reports both accredited and non- accrodi(o(1 claln, For
of Ilnl Of 11W occrodllod and non- accrodilod Arbitron markets and data available through TAPSCAN, click here:
lillo, lwww.nrhition rom /hornehnrc accrediIn lion. asp
t ,Ilmtllos tiro derived from panelists that provided the listening data for the PPM Service and are subject to the limitations slated within that Service
11dpori: I he Rotich and Frequency Model utilized by Arbitron is formulated on the bases of the Harris Model, a Linear Frequency ranch- and- froquency
WO(Irl, and 1110 811do Rulo audience (curve) growth model.
ASdrllillon Wdbslto: hltp://ascription aibitron, cam
Ilb(I 09 llaliabillly r-stimnlor Mips: //no ail)itron.com
Ali eflook 81)oclol Notico.n and Station Activities document has been generated for each survey. Please select the hyperlink to 010 Survey Thal Inlorosls you,
hilpr:;haboole,nrhilron corn /. Secure /RR3/2011FAI -10556 /1)clfs /SpecialNullces pdf htlpsWeboolcaibitron coin! secure/ RREi/ 2011 Ili if
ARBITRON
- �. r.. �s�r�: ��tn�a�. �r*: rt�s�^ �xrs� :a�.��r,?�s�sn^.�.x�*.;'c�rr� •+ --�- -
Proposed schedule
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA (Metro Survey Area)
FA11 / SP11
P 18+
Flight A: I Week
(517)
. i }• - L
7
KKJG -FM 12 $40.00
$480,00
KIQO -FM 12 $40.00
$480.00
Tu-F 3p -7p
12 60
$40.00
$480'00
One Week Total
12
$40.00
$48000
Flight Total
12
$40.00
$48000
rO
Flight A: I Week
r. .c
(517)
Tu -F 6a -10a
12 60
$40.00
$480.00
One Week Total
12
$40.00
$480.00
Flight Total
12
$40.00
$480.00
.ca )tod l'nn
Accepted By Client
Date
2.012 -05-07
Date
1'I114 sollioll dooq not discrina iulle in the sale (.)1'adveltising tinge, and will. accept no advertising which is Place(l will, ;tn inlcnl to
dkwl hniliniv on the basis ol'tace, Ft ider or e1111licily. Advertiser hereby certifies that it is not buying br0acicustiljg air tinge unt.ler llliS
llclwok'111g, m1cw c nnlrllct I'or a discriulinalrlry 11111'I MSC. lndl.iding but not limited to clecisi011s not tee Place adve14i5ing bn lrarlieular slnliollS
on tlic h"Isi a of rice, gV11dcr, nrllitul;ll origin, or ,lnceslry.
Schodulo
. i }• - L
7
KKJG -FM 12 $40.00
$480,00
KIQO -FM 12 $40.00
$480.00
Total 24 $40.00
$960.00
.ca )tod l'nn
Accepted By Client
Date
2.012 -05-07
Date
1'I114 sollioll dooq not discrina iulle in the sale (.)1'adveltising tinge, and will. accept no advertising which is Place(l will, ;tn inlcnl to
dkwl hniliniv on the basis ol'tace, Ft ider or e1111licily. Advertiser hereby certifies that it is not buying br0acicustiljg air tinge unt.ler llliS
llclwok'111g, m1cw c nnlrllct I'or a discriulinalrlry 11111'I MSC. lndl.iding but not limited to clecisi011s not tee Place adve14i5ing bn lrarlieular slnliollS
on tlic h"Isi a of rice, gV11dcr, nrllitul;ll origin, or ,lnceslry.
Schodulo
A R B I T fl 1 a✓ 1 1
Schedule Detailed Sourcing Summary
Mirkot:
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
SLlrVgy:
Average of Arbitron Fall 2011, Arbitron Spring 2011
Geography:
Metro
Diypart:
Mulliplo Dayparts Used
Demo /Intab /Population:
Ago /Goildor Population Intab
Adl lls 18+ 219,400 1,391
Stations: User Selected
Additional Notices:
f'slinintob roporldd for dayparls which start and end between 12m and 5a are based on the 5a -5a broadcast clay. Estimates for all other doypa is aro
basbd on the 12m-12m calendar day.
r'Idasn note: The Inlah rraporled is for the full twelve weeks of the survey. Users should note that reports run on (ewer than twelve wooks are based on
tiltiolldr nonipld filloi .
Mollorlo (luitllry to be reported If they have received credit for five or more minutes of listening in at least 1 in -tab diaries in the survey afea, MoncJay-
8undhy Midnlllhl -Mldr fight, during the survey period.
Lsllnlillo� aril derlvod from the diaries that provided the audience data for the Market Report and are subject to the qualifications and limllallons staled
in that f oport, The TAP SCAN Wob software product is accredited by Media Rating Council and reports both accredited and non- accreditod data. For
Ii Ilst (it llld accrodllod and non- scrroditad Arbitron markets and data available through TAPSCAN, click here:
I it 1p: / /www.arhi l ron. (:on' ✓honiclnur..., nrrreraila l ion, asp
I`f3111Tialrati nro dorlvod from panelists that provided the listening data for the PPM Service and are subject to the limitations stated within that Oorvic(j
140,l)0rL Ilse Hoorn and Vrequoncy Model utilized by Arbitron is formulated on the bases of the Harris Model, a Linear Frequency reach - and- froquoncy
Riedel, rind tho ;:Aldo Rulo audionce (rume) growth model.
Ariolplidn Wdhtllla: IiUp: / /asraiption ai hill onX01Ti
PWIIl(Irt Nolinbillfy Enlinialnr lillps: / /rre.a +hilron.com
Ali ollook Spraclal Nwlcos and Station Activities document has been generated for each survey. Please select the hyperlink to the survey that inloror31r, you.
hllps:Nehool( m Aron rom /semrefiwi/2011FAl- 10550 /prlls /SpecialNotices.pdf hUps://ebook arbitron com/ secure/ RR3/ 2011SPR /(155G /pdfs /Sp(acialNnlic p(If
Q2 2012 KSBY RATE CARD
Internal Use Only
IteveaCrrllll aGllnrl 4 -11.9? LEVEL 3 ARE THE CURRENI CLOSE RATES, BELOW LEVEL 3 WITH MGR APPjZQytNL ONLY
Time pro rammin comments
Levc11 Level2 I-——
Early Morning Fixad G1.4. Round to closoyt 0 or 5
M•F 5 -61 KSBY News DAYBREAK $ 00 $ 61, $ 40 530•6a Isolated S 75
M•F 6.7o KSBYY —N-- .1 DAYBREAK _ $ 300 $ 225 $ 150.
M•F 7 -la Today Show ¢ -,oa ¢ . —
O time _
$ 200 %
M�FB�1oa
$ 10D
Tod
M -F 10 .11,1
- - -
$ �
M -F 12.11,
WIN In.".. w'Namc Grace $
M•F 1 -2�0
$ I
�01
M•F 2 -31r
rime
a Show fl $
$ 200 %
% 150
$ 10D
Yvdn Show III _ $
$ 130 $
$ �
WIN In.".. w'Namc Grace $
$ 40 $
$ I
�01
Nate Berkus
News at A
Nnwa at 6
....� «
Prime
Isolated T{u1,Ty v _Penoo #a NBC Primo - Q2 P, ime Tab
I,A[e Fiewa _
M F 11 ws... Ksay. News at 11 S 301] 5 225 S 150
I�rto Frfn e
M•F 1135 -12371, Toni fit Show % 200 $ 150 $ 100
M•F 1237.130a 1.010 Night wl Jlrtrm Fallen $ 70 $ 55 $ 35
M•F 130a•205a Lanl Call wl Garson Ua1 $ 4D $ 30 $ 20
M•Sn.2 -5a Ovorn hla S 20 $ 15 $ 10
Salurday
Sa Sa•pn US Form Re of t $ 70 $ 55 $ 35 -
Safia -Aa Saturday Today $ 200 $ 150 $ 10D
Sa 10a -5 NBC S orls ROS $ 150 $ 115 $ 75
Si6•G311p KSBY Nnwe nl $ $ 300 $ 225 $ 150
Sn 630.71r slomt Stories $ 100 $ 75 S 5o -
Sa'i- 7gU�>I Joo and I $ 240 $ 100 $ 120
SO 730'-91) Wheol of Fortune $ 230 % 175 $ 1115
So 11-.11301r KSBY News a111 $ 200 $ 150 $ 100
S. 1130p -1a Saturday Night Live $ 351, $ 265 S 175
S. 1-2a Oil Wine Country 50 $ 40 $ 25
Su 530.6a r _ T, vdn s Homeow
fiu fi30.7s = caflfornin counlr
Su 7.Sn— _. Sunriny� Tpr.1n r1�
sa 9 °sa _ Maul Thin Pee.0
Su'0.330aT IChrls M_a_llhews
Sa s•030P KSBY Now. at 6
SU 111131} _ KSBY News at 11
St-, II 1•'il4tlll �- Mustang Round l
Su 11401,-12,11 ISIorm Slories
Su 12,11 -1a f3nfntlAS $ 30 $ 25 $ 15
.Su 1 -2a IlMe.t The Prnss
Su 530.6a r _ T, vdn s Homeow
fiu fi30.7s = caflfornin counlr
Su 7.Sn— _. Sunriny� Tpr.1n r1�
sa 9 °sa _ Maul Thin Pee.0
Su'0.330aT IChrls M_a_llhews
Sa s•030P KSBY Now. at 6
SU 111131} _ KSBY News at 11
St-, II 1•'il4tlll �- Mustang Round l
Su 11401,-12,11 ISIorm Slories
Su 12,11 -1a f3nfntlAS $ 30 $ 25 $ 15
.Su 1 -2a IlMe.t The Prnss
Su 12,11 -1a f3nfntlAS $ 30 $ 25 $ 15
.Su 1 -2a IlMe.t The Prnss
2012 PRIME RATE CARD -KSBY
Internal Use Only
I nymallup(hitHd 4.9
PRIME IL.-II
IL.-I2
La T3
Commanr�
1AUN
0.1CIP
rHE VOICE 51,050.
—
7DD
525
MON ^�
!0.1111,
SMASH
THE BIGGEST LOSER
900
700
675
525
450
35U
__•_.._
TUC
_
0.10P
10L ~_
_
10 -11P
FASHION STAR
W[D
le -9pl
_
4FTNEVIARE YOU THERE CHELSEA
690
450
520
340
345
225
WI:0__
9IC1P �-
13ENT13ENT (OTO 3120 &4f4j
450
340
229
WIiYT�
•9 -IAP
ROCK CENTER WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS
_
Wi -D
!o•I Ilr
LAW & ORDER SVU
450
600
340
450
225
300
WFO
1011P
I1 -91,
BOCK CENTER WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS IOTO 3126 & 474)
60U
450
300
TIIU
COIAMONRYf30 ROCK
rI IU
Ii 7P
10 ROCK /PARKS & REC Jell. 5/311
600
000
600
609
400
400
T11U
9 -10P
1'11E OFFICE /UP ALL NIGHT
650
640
qty
r11U _
0 -111P
THE OFFICE /PARKS & REC 10TO4H0.571Uj
650
TIIU
10 -11P
.AWAKE
640
600
425
400
FR
11 -9P
'!lop
WI 10 DO YOU THINK YOU ARE
GRTMM
500
375
250
II R$
1'Rf
9 -11P
(DATELINE FRIDAY (EH -5125)
600
650
450
490
300
325
SAT
fl -OP
IIiARRY'S LAW
SAT
II -9P
(OLYMPIC TRIALS: TRACK & FIELD (OTO 6123)
450
1300
340
9
225
65
SAT
) -10P
THE FIRM
450
3475
0
225
_
SAT
".1 -lUP Y
LAW& ORDER[QTO 01101
400
300
200
SAT
10 -11P
17 & ORDER: SVU
SAT
10 -11P
LAW &ORDER JOTO.DIT &fnj
400
300
200
400
300
200
-
iUN
VaP
DATELINE
5
: / -HP
OLYMPIC TRIALS: TRACK & FIELD {OT@0724j
0
1N
__
0 -9P
.
I3AnRWR LAW
0
SUN
0 -9P
p
fllE CLOSER (0T0011'f)
=4934o
5
g
WN
9 -11P
ICELE13RITY APPRENTICE(Eff. 2112)
il1N
el -93UP
(CELEBRITY APPRENTICE lOTO4r3J
0
SUN
93U- lip
O:ELEDRITY APPRENTICE .(OT04 /1)
_
LAW & ORDER (OTC) 6/17)
500
375
250
400
30U
200
KSBY /NBC SPORTS RATE CARD
4
g Internal Use Only
419 Revised LEVEL 3 ARCTIiE CURRENT CLOSE RATES, BELOW LEVEL 7 WITH MGR APPROVAL r'«1NLY
I,.�,,,�r�,F I1IkY _ f lli}M 0 Et4EAlT OESCRIPTIOk LEVkL 1 #.l4iL 7 I[VE4 3
2012 -03-31 Sal 12N 3P Golf PGA Tour: Shell Houston Open 5200 $1501 $10(1
2012 -04 01 Sun 9:30A 12N Hockey NHL Exposure #11 1200 a.75 9150
2(112 -04 -01 Sun 3:00 PM 6:00 PM Golf PGA Tour: Shell Houston Open $250 '� 190 $1 YS
2012-04 -07 Sal 11A 12:30P Hockey NHL Exposure 412 $100
2012-04-07 Sal 12N 1:30P NBC Sports Special USSA #6 Nature Valley US Alpine Championships $71 $bO
$100 $76- $50
2012 -04 -07 Sal 1:301` 31` NBC Sports Special Road to Kentucky Derby -Wood/Bluegrass/Santa Anita $2110 $ 1!50 4,100
2012 -04 -e8 Sun 10:30A 12N NBC Sports Special PBR #3 (Tentative) $1001 $75 a;.00
2012- fJ4 -14 Sat 12N 31` Hockey NHL Conference - Quarter - Exposure 13 $150 $1 5 y7r
2012 -04 -15 Sun 9A 12N Hockey NHL Conference - Quarter - Exposure 14 $150 9115 $7!j
2012 -04 -15 Sun 12N 3P Hockey NHL Conference - Quarter - Exposure 15 $ 150 $1 15 $/5
2(112 -0q -21 5:11 12N 31` Hockey NHL Conference - Quarter - Exposure 16 $150 $1 15 $75
2012 -0422 Sun 9A 12N Hockey NHL Conference - Quarter - Exposure 17 $150 $115 1,76
2012 -04 -22 Sun 12N 3f' Hockey NHL Conference - Quarter - Exposure 16 $169 $11'1 $76
2012 -04 -26 Sal 12N 31` Hockey NHL Conference - Quarter - Exposure 19 $150 $' 1 15 $7!5
2012 -04 -29 Sun 11A 12N NBC Sports Special Equestrian Champs VV (Tentative) ;5200 $150 ${ 100
2012 -04.29 Sun 12N 31` Hockey NHL Conference - Quarler - Exposure 20 $150 $ 1 15 1; /5
2012 -04 -29 Sun 12N 3P Hockey NHL Conference - Quarter - Exposure 20 $150 $115 $75
2012 -05 -05 Sal 9:30A 1 P Hockey NHL Conference Somis - Exposure 21 $150 $ 1 15 $75
2012 -05 05 Sal i P 4P Horse Racing Kentucky Derby $700 $!i'1!i $3:;11
2012- 05 -06 Sun 12N 31` Hockey NHL Conference - Quarter- Exposure 22 $150 1; 1 I!i $75
2012 -05 -12 Sal 10:30A 11A Golf Golf Central Live $10(1 $7h 55(1
2012 -(15 12 Sal 1 IA 4P Golf The Players Championship $250 $ 190 $ 125
2012 -05 -13 Sun 10:30A 11A Golf Golf Central Live $55 $35
$7(1
2(112 -05 -13 Sun 11A 4P Golf The Players Championship $$70 $225 I 1!'0 2012 -OS -19 Sal 1.OA 1:301` Hockey NHL Conference Finals - Exposure 23 $200 $15(1 $ mo
2012 -05 -19 Sat 1:30P 3:30P Horse Racing Frankness $750 $ >Ii5 ,ti;17h
2012 -05 -20 Sun 11A 12N NBC Sports Special World of Adventure Sports #2 $10(1 $75 $Y)
2012 -05 -20 Sin 12N 3P Hockey NHL Conference Finals - Exposure 24 $200 5150 7,1()()
2012 -05 -26 Sal 11:30A 12N Golf Global Golf Adventure (working [ills) $70 $55 ;r,35
2012 -05 -26 Sal 12N 3P Golf Senior PGA Championship (Tentative Dale) $150 $115 5715
2012 -05 -27 Sun 9A 12N Tennis French Open $150 $ 11!) 175
2012 -05 27 Sun 12N G;DO PM Golf Senior PGA Championship ( Tenlative Dale) 5250 ;61!10 111n
2012 -06 -01 171 5P 6f' Hockey NHL Stanley Cup Final - Game 1 $300 $225 15150
2012 -06 -02 Sal 9A 1212N Tennis French Open (Tentative) 5150 $ 115 ;;,75
2012 -06 -02 Sal 12N 1P NBC Sports Special Prefonlaine (V tentative) $100 $75 $50
2012 -06 -02 Sal 1P 3P NBC Sports Special Collegiate Rugby Championship (Tentative) $100 S/5 $50
2012 -06-03 Sun 1 IA 3P Tennis French Open (Tentative) $ 150 $ 1 15 $75
2(11206 -03 Sun 1P 31` NBC Sports Special Collegiate Rugby Championship (Tentative) $100 $75 $50
2012 -06 -03 Sun 51` 81, Hockey NHL Stanley Cup Final - Game 2 $300 '5725 4;iS0
2012 -O6 -06 Fri 6A 11A Tennis French Open $150 $115 $75
2012 -06 -00 Sat 11A 12:30P NBC Sports Special Visa Championships - St. Louis, MO $70 1{0!3 $35
2012 -06 -00 Snl 12:301` 2P NBC Sports Special Adidas Grand Prix (VV Tentative) $70 $551 $35
2012 -06 -09 Sal 21` 3P Horse Racing Preakness $700 $!525 (1:150
2012 -06 -09 Sat GA 9A Tennis French Open (Tentative) $150 S115 $7;5
2012 -06 -10 Sun I1A 12N NBC Sports Special Ironman world Championships 70,3 (VV Tent) 5100 $75 $50
2012 -06 -10 Sun 12N 1P NBC Sports Special World of Adventure Sports #3 $100 1;7'5 $50
2012-06-10 Sun IT 31` N13C Sports Special Visa Championships - SL Louis, MO $100 $75 $'i0
2012 -06 -10 Sim 5P .61` Hockey NHL Stanley Cup Final - Game 5 $300 5225 $150
2012 -06 -10 Sun 6A 11A Tennis French Open (Tentative) $ 150 $1 15 $7 5
2012 -06 -13 Wad 5P OP Hockey NFL Slanely Cup Final - Game 6 5350 ;6'2115 $175
2012 -06 -14 1-hurs 12N 2P Golf U.S. Open Championship - The Olympic Club - San Francisco, Ca $250 $190 3125
2012 -06 -15 Fri 12N 3P Golf U.S, Open Championship - The Olympic Club - San Francisco, Ca $250 $190 $ 12:5
2012 -06 -15 I'd 5P BP Hockey NHL Stanley Cup Final - Game 7 $400 $300 $200
2012 -06 -16 Sat 11A 12N Golf Golf Central Live $100 $75 ;350
2012 06 -16 Sun 12N 61` Golf U.S. Open Championship - The Olympic Club - San Francisco, Ca $350 $205 $175
2012 -06 -16 Sal 'I P 71` Golf U.S. Open Championship- The Olympic Club - San Francisco., Ca $350 $2135 Y, 17:1
2012 -00 17 Sun 11A 12N Golf Golf Central Live $100 $75 1150
2012 -0623 Sat 1P 3P Olympics U.S. Olympic Trials: Diving $300 $225 $190
2012 -06 -23 Sat 5P 6P Olympics U.S- Olympic Trials Track 5300 6225 $ 150
2012 -06 -24 Sun 12N 3P Olympics ILLS. Olympic Trials - Diving 11300 $225 $190
2012 -06-24 Sun 4P 5P Olympics U.S. Olympic Trials Track $300 $225 111!)0
CENTRAL COAST
5 Q2 2012 Rate Card
SANTA BARBARA -SANTA MARIA -SAN LUIS OBISPO
INTERNAL USE ONLY
fdJl1(RTMEry WOG
�
LEVEL1
I,iEVEL2
LEVEL 1
GO fdEH e
i'A
—
IA I F'1 IIIA
IaLnu 1 I ..� —
HAII Y l +Uf7
HK. S1 e.Vr WII KIPS SI -IOW
fItE.Yf'T <Ih4Y ilYir!:HI7W
20
13
iD
1f
10
H
16
10
0
fAlf Vln l'lN
M r+I 1) I!'
H1)IISF OF r'AYNf
111r NYW.ArNJt'NTSlrirli Of rn.rm C}11i15TMf'
M.
16
_
10
F1
16
1p
y
Id hf l 71'
M I " +J 'l1' -, _
h1 -C+7 tI'
f.l
i (1C n1 Pn10
111E RTf` -Vr. Wlk l(US SI IOW
IlydrW'511Ir'CEI I+M1MLi!'ri$
1.11 -f f TIIF F1RiyWN:2
16
10
10
10
[1
—
1fi
10
B
rn
iWIA 11' .��.-...
`Airl !i
ti.d1:7 •1P .,.
1 urnl I'nID _
[ "1j "; I'puxlRwmilio
H1Ur IIOIIYW[1C)O','TQRY
1111- CW MOVIF
--
16
Ip
19
t0
'�n1r.i.rd'
Ii ri:W LtMr`
16
10
ry
iiuhr IN
I!WLI r'AID
-
-
if•+fFii.tlln
— —
1 +tf. +.1 )Ii1tI1Vy^;{YySf1111i
in
7
i•r /!' -HI h'HIA
i
INT0FCHMINI ^;TrUr:B
1p
7
'-
wuudn u'A
!T tr nAVIF;
., i.lf It II•
!:Iawlf:_ -0f�_ _ ^
�
KIDS r•Ytr) {:ItAMMIWtt
"inFik;.FVTI (7Fi 1
l.'W /V1'Tfi /NfX1F1 hS {'1VlC
20
13
70
16
11
A.
10
7
ti
tuanf,l l;P�_
V.W.ArTrIINOON hSPWIC
10
7
!iir�oB_7r
fool;mAnquR, Tx.
In
7
MfNa•y.y _
r FIAT !"r 4if75V
20
13
10
KrFIfiIiY1+
Tn I) ATl{
2(I
13
10
M r_ %171} -7I�
^T�
KINli (lf OUFFW;
20
13
10
51ATAl li:gll'
siAdNam Yr'
171_r)FAIi1
_
Klt•R., (A' {]1 Orr"% �
0
/
5
10
7
5
wi fl'LnP
sr. INIFFI D _...
30
20
15
5E1Ir/ iV�
!R'IMrrl n
30
2n.
15
-
r�xl+nnr
-
Si0A1N11l 01r4L r1P1FsF�tA
60
50
3B
33
30
25
iA191r10111 Ir' _
IIArtT rJI WX6 I FIRM FlV lA
70
48
35
.._
TilfUll !7f'-
1iIli1I0 rINAL.r fJ11Sl
Ho
52
AO
WYi7 Inr'
rtlN[]1-R rINAI r Af1'1
80
52
40
fuc /!I Inl'
We1rInS[p°
TI1G 1_ n. COMI'Lr_X CII. 4;; ?4 Td25
[)N[` TTi(7r HII,I�FINN p 4 41•10f+ )
60
39
30
50
3:i
75
—...._
N IY1 lBl' _
RI tdCNCn
9CT
-
50
33
2f,
- -- —" -
4'dmlhi
AILS—P-1-4
90
50
45
mwnnr'
i.lud'I III!' ...Tnr
I nel al•
liiCl
Tf ll1x"!PlI m1ii FS1n411 r1 fl9
Sr{lir i' {_uii_I r. n 12AI. Ii I 6 /n5/7
NIKITA trIN, � - r4 1H
flllPFIt�ATUf2hk�Fl,Nhl f,_rJI NT.
00
s2
4th
80
57
40
-
70
46
35
— -
Ho
r>Z
40
...
LP
Ihllltir_
•10
26
20
1111, ._. ._...
:ailvT -NI' ..aR
_
NE Jlt!Mn
40
26
zn
30
70
10
•:1n1111 II'lli
THr: f.'Nf M()Vtr.
10
h1 ;rl:'M 1II 1n:fuJ.' ,...._
KYIIY YYI:W9 Rr 10
80
52
4l1
�.
hi1'Ir111lrl Ilix1P
rll FFFATl1
30
20
1
I,1 IH! 11 vv. ,�
1SINti f)1 quxr IIS
10
7
M F/ 1 1:10 17 InA
'.;nnTH f'AUK
10
7
5
!,1!!)!Sil lllln
!i[I:iY'APINr
10
7
5
10
7
5
M I /:!.)A -�T
UYVl7lii _{ COl1RT
10
7
5
bl 111.1.17. _
IOrl i {_A1 FX
10
7
S
'.Jlrouvol liP��.�.
i TII1f' 12A -"_
I:I IAT 71r$ 8!IUW
r;nC:nIMS
10
7
5
10
r
7AV1.1 IA
rH@ JEArfAY IzYI.F SHOW
10
T
5
SATfI -JA _
n4{ IlTtPArIlS
10
7
T:A'jf1 :17FA.-
SAN 5k- .'lli� _
IFIAT 70'S SI IOW
Il lr. Nr.N_YADVI'NT17tr;`: OF OLD Cl IRIXI'(NC
10
'/
-
10
r
-
S171NIn.W1I IV
1-1 Df -ATII
1p
7
5
:f1N +l II•�I ?I.!
1.11 I� I TI IL DROWNS
1n
7
i
-
In
';31lUI :A
1 NJf1 /.111A —_.
61t7f ?pi ;lA
clnai.e CFLtrJN +#
a)I I :!. +lf DAYNr'
rlil NlfiAr+i)lfI ;, T7_[
xlNf6 UI UIIfr M.,
IHI NFW AOV7"PIIIIFN'°'; 7F OI D CrIRISTINF
T
5
10
1
5
10
7
5
In
7
6
Goodwin, Heather
MAY 0 6 2014
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:09 PM
To: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE - ITEM 65 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
(;ON 0j' °Intl 1111,; « 1WJ,,)0
�_)ro0 PaIni Street.
Sail Luis Obispo, CA ,93401
tel 1805,7817:102
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date _,�"/ Item# �3 r
From: kriceslo @gmail.com [mailto:kriceslo @gmail.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Rice
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:02 PM
To: Mejia, Anthony; Council—ALL
Cc: Kremke, Kate
Subject: AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE - ITEM 135 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS
Dear Mayor and Council,
As an elector of the City of SLO, former candidate for office and campaign contributor, I oppose the proposed
$300 limit on campaign contributions and hold that it is unconstitutional, as follows:
(1) The limit enacts unfair competition from wealthy candidates or candidates with wealthy immediate family,
whose contributions are not subject to the limit.
(2) The limit enacts unfair competition from independent expenditure committees, political parties, and other
outside expenditures not subject to the limit. This includes "non- committees" which may spend up to $999.99.
(3) The limit unconstitutionally restricts free speech and the ability to communicate with electors.
Sincerely,
Kevin P. Rice
San Luis Obispo
COUNCIL MEETING: OS o(o I ��
ITEM NO.: -S
Mejia, Anthony
From: Richard Schmidt <slobuild @yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 10:38 AM
To: Ashbaugh, John; Jan Marx; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Mejia,
Anthony
Subject: Agenda Item B -5
Attachments: council election regulations may 14.doc
Dear Council Members, MAY 0 5 2014
r`
Please see attached correspondence on this matter.
RS
Re: Item B -5
May 4, 2014
Dear Council Members:
It is said that the inevitable comes about only after a great deal of careful planning.
When it comes to clean elections, the careful planning leading to the corrupt mess that
characterizes American elections today takes the form of incremental nibbling away at
rules which previously enforced clean, honest, open, non- money- dominated elections.
It is up to you to weigh in here and tell us what side you are on. Are you stalwart in
protecting election honesty? Or are you going to nibble away, as your staff report has
set you up to do, and bring about the "inevitable" corruption of our municipal elections?
1. One new item in the staff report is telling, though not in the manner staff probably
intended. This is the list of "comparable cities," though how they are comparable is
entirely unclear as they seem to have been pulled at random out of a hat, not with any
actual thought about comparability. In any event, you will note several things of interest:
• San Luis Obispo, with its election contribution limits, has one of the lowest costs of
election. That is testimony that contribution limits do in fact make election chances more
democratic.
• Davis, with the lowest contribution limit ($100 total, which is where SLO started before
the rats began nibbling at the cheese), exhibits NONE of the supposed problems that
proponents of change in SLO cite for their preferred loosening of regulations. Davis has
a robust and competitive electoral process. Davis is widely regarded as one of the best -
governed, most resident - centric and resident - responsive cities in existence, and that is
undoubtedly underwritten by regulations that prevent big money from having out -sized
influence in elections. (By contrast, SLO has become resident - contemptuous and
makes life for residents miserable, while pretending otherwise, and is actually turning
more and more power over to business and developers, who are able to exert large
influence over elections — soon to be even larger if you adopt the proposed changes.)
Because Davis is resident - responsive, it has found solutions to problems we are unable
to solve, like town -gown conflicts, like resisting pressures to downgrade residential
neighborhoods nearest campus, like meaningful sustainable -city measures, etc. If SLO
wanted to be more like Davis, and the Council claims it does while management takes
us more and more towards a corrupt LA model, you should restore the $100
contribution limit, ratchet down the cost of elections, make them more democratic and
our city more resident - responsive.
2. Three major changes before you merit being turned back. These are
• Raising the contribution limit to $300 from its original $100. This corrupts by doing
three things: first, it empowers those with money to pour resources most don't have into
influencing elections with the expectation of future profitable payback. I've pointed out
previously that a couple with business interests to advance with the city can put $1,800
into influencing future decisions, and that's before the perfectly legal additional
contributions from the kids, dog, and maid. These rich people expect, and get, payback
on their "investment." Second, the larger limit induces candidates to seek out these
larger contributions since it's easier to finance your campaign by cozying up to 10
developers than reaching out 200 ordinary people to raise the same amount of funds,
and this corrupts future decision - making. And third, the larger clout of some contributors
wipes out the impact of small contributors, which is what most people are. This will
discourage the little guy from making contributions, and transfer power still more
towards the corrupt end of the contribution spectrum.
• Elimination of supplemental city contribution reports. This is openly corrupt. I know the
rationalizations for it, but that's all they are — rationalizations. The fact is, the public
desires to have the light of day cast into dark corners, like where candidates' money
comes from. At present, an arbitrary $50 cutoff has been established. That should be
kept, or, better yet, lowered to the original $25 or even lower. There should be a public
record of who's supporting whom, and to what extent.
• Perpetual campaign bank accounts. Closing a bank account when a campaign is over
makes sense. Why have a campaign account when there's no campaign? Where's the
problem? On the other hand, perpetual campaign accounts mean perpetual campaigns.
Kevin Rice talks of the "two -year campaign cycle," but in SLO there is no two -year
campaign cycle, there's a several- months campaign cycle. That's all that's needed for
our city elections. Opening up the possibility for two -year campaign cycles or longer is
an invitation to money- dominated corrupt elections. There's no good reason for
perpetual accounts, other than to cause electoral mischief and corruption.
3. I've written to you previously on this (attached below). You shined on everything
said. So, here's my response, and I think it's likely to be widely shared by others:
• I will support no incumbent for re- election who votes for these changes. Since I've
supported almost all of you in the past, that is no threat without consequences.
• I will cease to contribute to any incumbents' campaigns since my small contributions
cannot compete with those from wealthy individuals, and I don't wish to waste my
money putting it into a piggy bank from which I will get zero return. In the future, I'll only
contribute to a candidate who forswears large contributions.
• I will fund candidates who pledge to fight the big- contribution electoral system you're
about to enact.
Please don't enact this very bad election- corrupting ordinance.
Richard Schmidt
(Attached below: previous letter on this subject.)
Feb. 3, 2014
Re: Campaign Finance Protections
Dear Council Members:
I urge you to totally reject the outrageous recommendations coming from the committee
you appointed to "review" San Luis Obispo' campaign finance protections. This
committee has gone rogue, and as the history presented to them by the previous acting
city clerk shows clearly, past Councils have repeatedly rejected rogue
recommendations from such a committee. You need to do the same this time around.
These protections were established to assure honest elections. I find it absolutely
incredible that in the staff report's bland recitation to you about the history of this set of
protections, they totally neglect to state the actual reasons they were enacted in 1974:
to clearly state the Council's intent to shine bright light into dark laces and to prevent
corruption. Today, more than ever, both of those needs remain. If the Council wishes to
make a strong statement of its respect for honest government and honest campaigns. it
will keep the protections that exist today.
will add that I have a lot of background and experience with what I'm writing about. I
have proudly served on the election protections committee; I have run three city
campaigns; and I have served as treasurer for numerous city campaigns. I have never
found the regulations to be onerous or a "hassle" as Kevin Rice claims them to be, I
have proudly administered them as a campaign treasurer, and was likewise proud by
following them to do my part to keep our elections open and honest. Further, when on
occasion a donor would try to do something dicey or off -key, it was really nice to just be
able to say: "That's not permitted by city law, and here's your contribution back," and be
rid of the potential problem and the icky situation. Clearly, the protections do further the
honesty of our elections.
The arguments advanced for the proposed changes don't pass any sort of test. They're
mainly libertarian nonsense:
1. Eliminating disclosure of contributions of less than the state disclosure minimum
(currently $100, but likely to be raised). This, we are told, is no longer necessary
because "times have changed." Really? In the 2012 city election, what the committee
proposes to henceforth turn into completely anonymous contributions amounted to 42%
of total amounts subject to state disclosure! How is it no longer important to shine light
into dark places where so much money comes from? (The staff report seems to indicate
the city doesn't require filings for contributions of $100 or more up to the city limit. Is that
correct? When were those dropped from the city's filing requirements? They should be
reported, as the city reports are immediate and local, the state reports harder /slower for
the public to access.)
2. Elimination of city campaign filings. There is no credible reason for this. As indicated
above, filling out the forms is NOT a "hassle" and the city clerk's rapid publication of the
filings is a public service. Without them, the public will be kept in the dark about who's
contributing to whom.
3. Raising contribution limit to $300. Let's put this another way. What the committee
proposes is green lighting higher contribution limits so that every couple in San Luis
Obispo will be free to contribute $1800 to influence people who serve on our city council
(i.e., $600 each to two winning council candidates and the mayor). $1800 is not the sort
of money normal people can or would contribute to city campaigns. It's the sort of
money that people with vested interests who want to make money off city actions will
and can contribute — sorta like a business expense, an investment. The higher the limit,
the more the forces of wealth and commerce will control the city, and the more
marginalized normal voters will become; and the more marginalized normal voters
become, the less they will respect the City and its actions and the more alienated they
become from electoral politics and the less they feel a part of the common enterprise
city government should be. Raising campaign contribution limits is just one more nail in
the coffin of the happiest place, one more thing that will send the happiest place down
the road to becoming Anaheim North.
know well that all of you think it would be neatsy keene to be able to raise more money
from fewer people, but should you put your own convenience above good government?
think not.'
4. Eliminating requirement to close campaign accounts. This makes no sense at all.
Campaign funds shouldn't be allowed to become permanent slush funds, and indeed
state law prevents that. When the campaign's over, the campaign account should be
empty. So why in the world (and for what purpose) should an empty campaign account
continue to exist? And who's paying its monthly fees? (It's not proper to comingle
personal and campaign funds, so this is a very interesting question your committee
ignores.) Unless you're Harold Stassen or Kevin Rice, why would you want a perpetual
campaign account? The city's requirement makes certain that the intent of closing out a
campaign actually gets carried out — by closing its money depository and requiring
donation of any leftover funds to charity. That's good government! Why mess with it?
Again, this is an imaginary "hassle."
In CONCLUSION, the Council would do well to reject all the recommendations of this
rogue committee, and keep things as they are — unless, of course, any of you are truly
champions of good government and clean elections to the point you'd like to shine even
more light on things by lowering the reporting threshold back to $25, which seems like a
totally reasonable and workable level, and one I've worked happily with.
' Campaigns don't have to cost what you all have paid, and don't need to be run that
way either. All the campaigns I've run were bare bones operations we weren't supposed
to be able to win, and we won them all, with tiny budgets compared to any of yours, by
being democratic, clever, smart, and strategic. If we could get money out of city
campaigns, actual democracy could thrive.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
PS. Why was Allen Settle, who lives outside the city and has been fined by a state
agency for political corruption, on this good government committee?
MAY p 6 2014
Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: Election Regulations Agenda Item
Attachments: election regs.pdf
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:16 PM
To: Kremke, Kate
Subject: FW: Election Regulations Agenda Item
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
CAIN 01 ... SAI) i €GIs L r€ l-', O
c c;C Palm Street
Sian Luis Obispo, CA 9,34 01
tel � 805,781.71.02
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date —ALL ] Item# L, _
From: Richard Schmidt [mailto:slobuild @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:14 PM
To: Ashbaugh, John; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Election Regulations Agenda Item
Dear Council Members,
This isn't the first time a council has appointed a runaway election regulations committee that needed
to be reined in. Same thing happened in 91. Attached is a story about that fiasco, rescued by a
council majority that CARED ABOUT ELECTION FAIRNESS, including a swing vote by a
conservative who wanted even stronger regulations than then existed!
What did THEY get that's missing from today's conversation?
Bill Roalman's analysis is telling. It tells exactly what will happen if you do what's proposed: Money
Will Prevail! I think you would be very foolish to do this, if for no other reason than because none of
you will be the beneficiaries of Big Money. You're just what Big Money puts up with till they can buy
their very own council.
Richard Schmidt
SLOZlNE April 1991, Page 3
Move to Raise Election Contributions Fails
The cause of good government -- and the people of San Luis
Obispo — won a significant victory just days before the
special April 9 election when a majority of the City Council
refused to raise the maximum campaign contribution limit for
council candidates from $100 to $250.
The 250 % increase in the amount one individual or entity
may contribute to a candidate's campaign was recommended
by a "citizens committee" appointed for periodic review of the
city's campaign finance regulations. Those regulations,
passed in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the
increasing Influence of big money in state and national
elections, limit maximum donations, and also require public
disclosure of all donations $25 or larger.
Appointments Appear on Late Agenda
Continued from Page 2
about Planning Commission appointments, yet one of our
acquaintances (a naively hopeful potential appointee) kept
insisting appointments were to be on that meeting's agenda.
We established late Saturday that they were indeed on the
agenda, and found a "revised" agenda had been posted on
the door at City Hall which showed the appointments as the
first agenda item. (We learned later it had been posted just
before closing time on Friday.)
When we inquired of the Telegram - Tribune's City Hall
reporter Monday morning whether he was aware of the
double agenda issue, he said: "What appointments ?" At that
late date, it was news to him, too.
The council majority dismissed our complaint filed in a
letter that morning. The agenda change, they had the city
clerk say publicly, was legal and proper.
Maybe it is, but it falls far short of the standards laid out in
California law and established by decent democratic practice.
State law is emphatic about the public's right to know, and
about public officialdom's responsibility to respect and protect
that right.
"The people of this state," says the preamble to
California's open meeting law, "do not yield their sovereignty
to the agencies which serve them. The people, In delegating
authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide
what is good for the people to know and what is not good for
them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so
that they may retain control over the instruments they have
created."
Distributing partial agendas to the public in advance of
council meetings is afundamental abridgement of the public's
right to know, and of the council's responsibility to protectthat
right. This habitual agenda abuse must end.
The committee argued that "inflation" justified the cam-
paign limit increase.
Councilman Bill Roalman, on the other hand, presented
analysis that showed in the last council election, 86 %, of the
maximum contributions in the mayoral race went to one
candidate, and that the majority of maximum contributions in
the rhufti- candidate council race also went to one candidate.
Raising the limits, Roalman said, would further unbalance
electoral races, giving candidates representing monied spe-
cial interests a big hand up on others.
Peg Pinard agreed with Roalman, while Dunin and Jerry
Reiss sided with the committee recommendation. That left
Penny Rappa in the swing position, and she came down in
favor of maintaining the $100 limit.
Another controversial change recommended by the
committee was dropping city penalties for failing to follow
campaign disclosure regulations. Those penalties, $10 per
day for late filings or failure to file, were deleted from the
committee's proposed revisions. Dunin favored dropping the
penalties, saying they were unfair to amateur campaign
organizers. Rappa suggested raising the penalty to $100 per
day rather than dropping ft. The council majority agreed to
that increase.
These decisions are not yet final. The campaign regula-
tion changes will return to the council as an ordinance, and a
public hearing will be held.
The citizen review committee was chaired by former City
Attorney Roger Picquet, now in private practice, and among
otherthings representing Pacifica Corporation, the developer
of the Islay Hill subdivision soundly defeated by voters in the
recent election. Others onthe committee were former council
member GlennaDeane Dovey, developer John French, real
estate salesperson Sally Punches, and Planning Commis-
sioner and former downtown Business Improvement Asso-
ciation manager Dodie Williams. Punches was the only
member to dissent from raising the contribution limit.
Minutes of the committee's deliberations indicate French
initiated raising the contribution limit, and was the member
who kept pushing In that direction. He wanted the limit to be
the same as the state limit ($1,000). The minutes also indicate
French wanted reporting dates to coincide with state filing
dates, which would eliminate the city's unique one-week-
before-election contribution disclosure date.
French is no stranger to bumping up against the city
campaign contribution limit. He has provided generous
support for a variety of pro- development, Republican and
"conservative" causes and candidates. For example, disclo-
sure statements show that in the 1987 council race, French
gave $100 to the campaign of Ron Bearce. His brother
Charles gave $95. The Landmark Company,, a French
business, gave another $100, and two other French busi-
Continued on Page 8
SLOZINE April 1991, Page 8
Higher Fund Limit Would Tilt the Field
Continued from Page 3
nesses, Santa Lucia Hills and French Brothers Investments
gave $90 each. (French is not alone in such multi- contribution
evasions of the existing limits: in that same Bearce campaign,
among other examples, former council member Jesse Norris
gave $100, as did his wife June and the! rSands Motel. Similar
multiple contributions can be discovered by looking at rec-
ordsof other campaigns, also.) One can surmise that it would
have been considerably easier for Bearce — or any other
candidate catering to the development faction — to raise
The Chamber Must Choose
Public Money or
Political Freedom
Continued from Page 7
And so it goes. There's been some moaning from the
losers about how few people turned out to vote. A 37%
turnout, however, is excellent for a special election — and
remember; it was the growthers on the City Council who,
decided to put all this on a special election rather than save it
for November. Besides, the turnout is about what we had
when the present council was elected.
In June, many communities in Santa Barbara County will
hold bond elections on the state project. The red- white -and-
blue "We Want State Water" bumperstickers Oust like ours- -
what a coincidence!) are already on the streets. The contest
goes on.
Here at home we have an item of unfinished business: the
Chamber of Commerce. As a private organization, the
chamber has every right to run political campaigns, whether
it be for State Water, against the Planning Commission's
version of the General Plan, or against a county growth
control initiative. But the Chamber isn't really a private
organization. It is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers of San
Luis Obispo — in excess of $80,000 peryear, and depending
on whether you really believe their paperwork which shows
certain operations to be "independent," it could be a lot more
than $80,000.
For this quasi - public organization to run political cam-
paigns !sunacceptable. This time, the Chamber has gone too
far. The Chamber must now make a choice: either it maintains
its financial ties to the taxpayers and promises to keep out of
politics, or it stands on its awn feet financially and enjoys full
political freedom. It the Chamber refuses to make the choice
for itself, the people of San Luis Obispo should take matters
into their own hands.
money had the maximum donation been 250% higher.
(In a showing of eternal gratitude for French's generosity,
a campaign newspaper for this month's special election put
out by W.A.T.E.R. and supposedly written by Bearce casti-
gates French for buying favor with "anti- growth council
members" through campaign contributions and then getting
his projects exempted from city water allocation regulations.
How to rewrite history!)
Although no one mentioned it the night of the council vote
on the campaign contribution limit, the higher limit coupled
with the newly combined city /gubematodal /presidential elec-
tions could have been devastating to lesser- funded candi-
dates. The new election date, we believe, will make local
elections much more media - oriented than in the past, simply
because campaign workers will be scarce, news media
attention will be focused elsewhere, and there will be little
opportunity to be heard any other way. Holding down the
money inputs keeps the electoral field somewhat level.
The Mayor
Boot Out ECOSLO?
Mayor Dunin was sound!ng some weeks ago as if he wants to
give ECOSLO the boot from its recycling center at the city
sewage treatment plant.
Speaking at a City Council meeting, the mayor com-
plained that the Prado Road site, which the city has let the
non- profit recycling center use since the early 1970s, is a
mess and needs to be straightened up.
Councilman Bill Roalman defended ECOSLO, saying
recycling is a messy business and it's hard to keep things neat
all the time.
But the mayor was not mollified. As he talked on, he
sounded more and more agitated. He suggested ECOSLO
should look for another home if they can't keep their place
neater. They can afford to move, he said, if they can afford the
rent for a downtown office, a reference to ECOSLO's new
home in the former Rainbow Theater on Osos Street, a half
block from city hall, and a few steps from their long -time office
in a Victorian apartment the city burned down to clear the site
for the City-County Library.
ECOSLO had long expressed frustration with being cut
off from downtown since losing its old office years ago. In the
interim, its staff worked in a recycled trailer at the recycling
yard.
Hopes for a renewed downtown presence jelled after
ECOSLO hired the savvy former County Supervisor Kurt
Kupper to be its director. The front of the office doubles as a
retail store for "environmentally - correct" goods.