HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-13 Kevin RiceKevin P. Rice
2013 October 3
Election Campaign Regulations Review Committee
San Luis Obispo CA
Via: Electronic Mail through City Clerk
SUBJECT: ITEMS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Dear Committee Members:
Thank you for representing our city on this committee. Following my experience and
participation as a council candidate, I wish to bring several items to your attention
pertaining to Chapter 2.40 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC).
For some items, I offer a recommendation; others, I will leave for you to debate.
I. Contribution limitations ( SLOMC 2.40.040)
Question: Should the current $200 contribution limit be raised or rescinded?
Background: Presently, contributions to candidates from any one source are generally
limited to two hundred dollars, whether monetary or non - monetary. Many feel this limit
prevents undue influence from large money sources and allows all candidates to compete
on a more even playing field.
However, during the campaign period for the recent June 18 special municipal election, a
large $4,159.64 contribution from the SLO County Democratic Party ( SLOCDP) occurred
benefitting a single candidate. (See Exh. A.) Because the SLOCDP is a state committee and
political party, it cannot be regulated by our local campaign limit ordinance.'
1 See Government Code §§ 85312, 85703, 81009.5(b) (Political Reform Act); also FPPC opinion, In re Olson (2001),
15 FPPC Ops. 13, 0 -01 -112 (http: / /www.fppc.ca.sov /opinions /olsonfinal.pdf). The interpretation of this issue is
complex; I would be pleased to provide further information on this topic, upon request, or you may wish to
contact the FPPC directly.
Items for Committee Consideration (Kevin Rice)
Election Campaign Regulations Review Committee
Discussion: Contributions from state committees, not subject to our local ordinance, will
certainly play a role in future city elections. Such contributions effectively defeat the
purpose of our local ordinance. As a result, the contribution limit causes disparity for
candidates not backed by an exempt organization, but who might otherwise be fully
capable of soliciting and receiving comparable donations locally.
II. Mandated closure of campaign bank account (SLOMC 2.40.050(C))
Recommendation: Rescind this mandate. Require candidates to be able to show all
campaign were properly expended or disposed instead.
Background: SLOW 2.40.050(C) requires a campaign treasurer to close election
campaign accounts no later than ninety days following the election. Compare this with state
law, which requires only that all campaign funds must be spent for the purpose they were
contributed —on the present election.
Discussion: It is an unreasonable hardship to require candidates to close a bank account
which they are otherwise legally entitled by state law to reuse for future campaigns. State
law requires excess campaign funds must be expended, donated to charity, returned to
donors, or disposed of via other particular means.
It is also a hardship on bankers to close an account, only to re -open a new account. A
candidate must then amend FPPC filings simply to change an account number, then reorder
checks and bank cards.
Presently, it is my understanding that the City Attorney has interpreted our ordinance
mandate in a way that allows candidates to simply "zero" their account balance. The
ordinance should be amended to require candidates to be able to demonstrate all campaign
funds were properly disposed. The mandate to actually close bank accounts should be
removed.
III. Supplemental city campaign statements (SLOMC 2.40.060)
Recommendation: Rescind the supplemental city campaign statements requirement.
Background: SLOW 2.40.060(A)(2) and (B) requires campaign treasurers to file
"supplemental city campaign statements" disclosing contributions "greater than fifty
-2-
Items for Committee Consideration (Kevin Rice)
Election Campaign Regulations Review Committee
dollars, but less than one hundred dollars ". State law otherwise requires disclosure of
cumulative contributions totaling one hundred dollars or more. (Gov. Code § 84211(c).)
Hence, the "gap" filled by the supplemental city statements mandates disclosure of
contributions totaling between $50.01 and $99.99. Greater amounts are already required
to be reported by the Political Reform Act.
Discussion: There are a number of reasons to eliminate the requirement for supplemental
city campaign statements:
• When the supplemental city form was created, I believe the campaign contribution
limit was $100 (please check me on this one). Thus, it was imperative to have a
supplemental form to get any reporting at all. That is no longer the case, and most
donors are in the $100 -$200 category reportable under state law.
• The supplemental city form creates extra hassle for city staff.
• The supplemental city form creates extra hassle for candidates.
• The "gap" ($50.01- $99.99) filled by the supplemental statements is small.
• In looking at recent city candidates, the number of donors in this category is also
fairly small; thus, the value of disclosing this information offers little. The vast
majority of donations of interest are over $100.
• The value of the dollar has decreased over time.
Due to all of the above, I believe the public disclosure provided by the supplemental city
form has substantially decreased in value and necessity. I would like to see this extra
"nuisance" filing eliminated from our ordinance.
IV. Disclosure of local campaign ordinance to FPPC (Gov. Code § 81009.5)
Recommendation: Ensure copy of SLOMC 2.40 is filed with FPPC.
Background: The Political Reform Act requires "[a]ny local government agency which has
enacted, enacts, amends, or repeals an ordinance or other provision of law affecting
campaign contributions and expenditures shall file a copy of the action with the
commission." (Gov. Code § 81009.5(a).)
Sincerely,
Kevin Rice
-3-