HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-2016 Item 11 - Democracy Voucher Funding for Municipal Elections
Meeting Date: 3/15/2016
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Prepared By: Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: DEMOCRACY VOUCHER FUNDING FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss the citizen proposed “Ordinance to create a system of Democracy Voucher funding for
municipal elections” and provide direction whether the Council desires staff to further review
and analyze the proposed ordinance for further Council consideration.
DISCUSSION
Report in Brief
The City Council received a request from Mr. William Ostrander to consider an ordinance
regarding the public funding of municipal elections. The ordinance proposes to amend Chapter
2.40 of the City’s Municipal Code and establish a comprehensive structure to allow public
funding of municipal elections via a “democracy voucher” system. This system would allow
registered voters to “assign” their $20 democracy voucher to any candidate that elects to
participate in this system. The voucher is proposed to be funded from the City’s General Fund,
although other potential sources of revenue are identified. A candidate who elects to participate
in this program may only use the voucher funds to pay for his or her campaign, and may not
receive funds from other sources, with a few exceptions. Candidates who do not elect to
participate in the program can continue to receive campaign contributions subject to existing law.
In addition, the proposed ordinance establishes an ethics committee which, among other things,
investigates ethics violations, including violations of the City’s election campaign rules.
Background
At its August 18, 2015 meeting, the City Council received a request from Mr. William Ostrander
to consider an ordinance regarding the public funding of municipal elections. The o rdinance is
entitled “An Ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo Amending the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code to Create a System of ‘Democracy Voucher’ Funding for Municipal Elections
and to make other Revisions to the City’s Election Campaign Regulations” (the “Ordinance”). A
copy of the Ordinance is attached as Attachment A. During the meeting, the City Council
directed staff to place the Ordinance on the agenda for Council discussion.
11
Packet Pg. 100
This report provides a high level overview of the Ordinance, as follows:
1. Current City Election Regulations;
2. Breakdown of how the Ordinance functions;
a. The Democracy Voucher Fund;
b. The Democracy Voucher Program;
c. Creation of the Ethics Commission and Oversight controls;
d. Other modifications;
3. Organizational Impacts;
a. City Clerk’s Office;
i. Needed staff;
ii. Needed equipment;
b. City Attorney’s Office; and
c. Other Departments.
This report is intended to provide a high level analysis of the Ordinance. What this staff report
does not do is provide a detailed analysis or review of the legalit y of the Ordinance or any of its
components. Further, at this time, City staff is not making any recommendations or suggested
changes to the Ordinance in regards to operation, management or consistency with the City’s
other functions and rules and regulations. If the City Council directs staff to place the Ordinance
on the agenda for further consideration, a more detailed review and analysis of the Ordinance
will be performed and modifications will be recommended if deemed necessary.
Project Analysis
Current City Election Regulations.
The City’s current election campaign regulations are set forth in Chapter 2.40 and are attached to
this report as Attachment B. The main components of these regulations are as follows:
1. Contribution limitations (§ 2.40.040): This section limits the amount each person can
contribute to any candidate or controlled committee1, or the amount each candidate or
controlled committee can solicit from or accept from any person, to $300. These
limitations do not apply to contributions from the candidate’s “immediate family.” This
section further limits the amount any candidate can accept from anonymous contributions
to $50.
2. Election campaign accounts (§ 2.40.050): This section mandates individuals who run for
a city elective office to open a campaign bank account with a bank located within the
City. This section further requires that such accounts be open to the City Clerk.
1 A “controlled committee” is defined as a committee that is controlled directly or indirectly by a
candidate or state measure proponent or that acts jointly with a candidate, controlled committee, or state
measure proponent in connection with the making of expenditures. A candidate or state measure
proponent controls a committee if he or she, his or her agent, or any other committee he or she controls
has a significant influence on the actions or decisions of the committee. See SLOMC § 2.40.030 and Gov.
Code § 82016.
11
Packet Pg. 101
3. Campaign statements (§ 2.40.060): This section requires campaign treasurers to file
certain statements with the City Clerk.
4. Campaign signs (§ 2.40.070): This section sets forth certain size, time, place and manner
restrictions on the placement of campaign signs within the City.
In addition to the City’s campaign regulations, the City regulates “Municipal Advocates” which
is defined as “Any person, business entity or other organization, including an individual contract
lobbyist, which contracts for economic consideration to communicate with any officer or
employee of the City of San Luis Obispo for the purpose of influencing local legislative or
discretionary action on behalf of any other person.” With some exceptions, Municipal Advocates
are required to register with the City.
The Proposed Democracy Voucher Ordinance.
The Ordinance is being proposed by Mr. William Ostrander of Citizens Congress, 2014 Inc., a
non-profit organization devoted to campaign finance reform. The proposed Ordinance would be
one of the first in the Country to utilize a “Democracy Voucher” system for publicly funded
elections.2 Some states and other cities, however, do have some form of publicly financed
campaigns including: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Richmond, Seattle, Tallahassee,
Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Boulder, and New York.
The following is a breakdown of the various components of the Ordinance:
1. The Democracy Voucher Fund. Section 6 of the Ordinance proposes a new section
2.40.082 be added to the City’s Municipal Code. This section establishes the “Democracy
Voucher Fund” and appropriates $20 per registered voter per year from the City’s General Fund
for this account. The City currently has 24,971 registered voters which would equal a fund
amount of $499,420. Section 6 also authorizes “other sources of revenue” to be deposited into
the fund including: (a) unspent voucher funds from the prior election; (b) fines levied against
candidates for violations of election laws; (b) voluntary donations; (c) other funds appropriated
by the Mayor and City Council; (d) interest made on deposits; and (e) other sources of revenue
designated by the Mayor and Council.
It should be noted that Section 7 of the proposed Ordinance includes a $50,000 limit that
any candidate may receive in Democracy Voucher funds for any single election. The result is
that this limit acts as a stop gap measure for this fund. For example, in order for the fund to be
pretty much fully depleted in any election, there would need to be ten candidates, each of whom
elect to participate in this program, and each of whom obtain the maximum amount of voucher
funds. The corollary would be that each of the 24,971 register voters would use his or her
voucher. In the November 4, 2014 general election, the City of San Luis Obispo had eight
candidates for one Mayoral seat and two council seats and experienced an approximately 46%
and 79% voter turnout, respectively.
2 In early November of last year, Seattle passed a similar democracy voucher program.
11
Packet Pg. 102
2. The Democracy Voucher Program. Section 7 of the Ordinance proposes a Democracy
Voucher Program wherein a $20 pre-loaded “Democracy Voucher Debit Card” is mailed to each
registered voter for each election within the City’s jurisdiction. Candidates may then only receive
funds from holders of the Democracy Voucher via a secure online assignment if the candidate
meets certain eligibility requirements, files a statement with the City Clerk to participate in the
program and agrees that the sole source of the candidate’s campaign funds will be from
Democracy Vouchers assigned to the candidate by the registered voter and the candidate’s
personal funds.3
The Democracy Voucher Program includes certain limitations on the amount of and
when assigned funds may be redeemed by the candidate. Specifically, the Ordinance provides
the following redemption schedule for each candidate who chooses to participate in the program:
(a) No more than $10,000 in funds may be redeemed prior to September 1st of
the municipal election year; and
(b) No more than $50,000 in funds may be redeemed in any election year.
Democracy Voucher Funds may only be used for campaign costs or debts and any unspent
proceeds must be returned to the City. In the event a candidate uses such funds for non-campaign
related expenses, enforcement action would be needed in order to recover the costs.
3. Ethics Commission and Oversight Controls. Section 8 of the Ordinance proposes the
creation of a City Ethics Commission. The Commission would be a five member body whose
duties and responsibilities are to:
(a) Audit disclosure statements and investigate violations of the City’s
elections rules and to report findings to the City Attorney and other
appropriate agencies;
(b) Make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding
campaign finance reform;
(c) Make adjustments based on CPI4;
(d) Prescribe forms related to the Democracy Voucher and campaign
regulations;
(e) Prepare and public manuals and instructions related to campaign
regulations;
(f) Develop an education program related to campaign regulations;
(g) To develop and approve its own budget; and5
(h) To receive grants and other appropriations.
3 The amount of personal funds is limited to $300.
4 It is unclear from the proposed Ordinance what section 2.40.086.C.3 means, however, any fees or other
similar City charges are usually set and/ or amended by Council Resolution.
5 Article VIII of the City’s Charter sets forth the process for budget adoption and specifies that the Budget
is to be adopted by the Council after public hearing.
11
Packet Pg. 103
In addition to the above duties, the Ordinance includes specific provisions related to
“Investigations and Enforcement Proceedings.” See proposed section 2.40.086.F. This section
provides that the Commission shall investigate alleged violations of state law, City Charter or
City ordinances related to “…campaign finance, lobbying, conflicts of interest and governmental
ethics” upon the determination of “sufficient cause” of such violation based on the receipt of a
sworn complaint or on the Commission’s own initiative. This section creates an administrative
enforcement process separate and apart from the City’s administrative citation process.6 The
Ordinance also proposes provisions related to the appointment of a special prosecutor and the
establishment of a separate fund in an undetermined amount to finance those services.
Section 8 of the proposed Ordinance also establishes an Executive Director who would
serve at the will of the Commission. As written, the salary of the Executive Director would be set
by Council based on a recommendation of the City Manager.
4. Other Modifications. The Ordinance also proposes certain modifications to the City’s
existing campaign regulations set forth in sections 2.40.040 and 2.40.060. The most significant
modification to these sections is the proposed requirements related to “independent
expenditures.” As defined by this Ordinance, an independent expenditure means an a payment or
a promise of payment totaling $500 or more “…that clearly identifies a candidate for elective
City office, or for a communication that clearly identifies a candidate for elective office, but does
not expressly advocate the election or defeat of the candidate, and that is disseminated,
broadcast, or otherwise published within 45 days of an election…” The Ordinance requires any
person who makes such an expenditure to file a report with the City Clerk within 48 hours of
making or promising such payment disclosing the “name of the person, address, occupation, and
employer, and the amount of the payment.”7 This section also has reciprocal reporting and
disclosure requirements by the person receiving the payment or the promise of payment for an
independent expenditure.
CONCURRENCES
The Finance and Information Technology Department concurs with the analysis in this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
The following is an educated estimate of the minimum additional resources that will be needed
in order to implement the proposed Ordinance.
6 Please note that this process has not been evaluated for legality under Government Code section
53069.4.
7 It should be noted that this provision would need to be revised to be with internally consistent
Government Code section 82031.
11
Packet Pg. 104
START UP COSTS (ONE-TIME)
Democracy Voucher Fund $499,420
Webpage design $20,000
Public Education/ Outreach $20,000
Equipment: (two workstations, Valuecard equipment
(tablet reader @ $400) and software development to
work with City computers)
$12,500 - $16,000
Democracy Voucher Cards ($.60 each)
$15,600
Software development for “secure online assignment”
program
$15,000 to $25,000
Program Manager
.5 FTE Special Projects Manager
$54,234
TOTAL: $636,754 - $650,254
OPERATIONAL COSTS (ONGOING)
Amount needed to “replenish” the fund after
initial funding: 8
$124,855@50% disbursement9
$49,942 @20% disbursement
$24,971@10% disbursement
Staff:10
City Clerk’s Office:11
.3 FTE City Clerk
.2 FTE Assistant City Clerk
.5 FTE Deputy City Clerk
.75 FTE Admin. Assistant
$37,500
$18,000
$35,438
$45,000
8 It is unclear how much of this fund will be consumed for each election. Citizens Congress has proposed
a figure of a 20% consumption rate which would require bi-annual “replenishment” of approximately
$99,884, or annual replenishment rate of $49,942, as noted above.
9 Note that this amount is the annual amount. The total fund is divided by two to account for the election
cycle. Please also note the stop gap limitations discussed above in the Democracy Voucher Fund section.
10 Implementation of the Ordinance will affect other City departments both directly and indirectly. At this
time, it is difficult to estimate what additional resources will be necessary for these departments to absor b
the additional work that would result from the Ordinance, however, we believe that such additional work
will be significant. For example, the City’s Finance Department will need to oversee and manage the
Democracy Voucher Fund and the City’s IT Department will need to address software issues with the
Voucher Card. If significant investigation and/ or legal action is needed in order to enforce the
Ordinance, then those costs can also be significant.
11 It should be noted that we anticipate work flow to “ebb and flow” with the election year.
11
Packet Pg. 105
City Attorney’s Office:
.3 FTE Assistant City Attorney
Plus any additional special prosecutor and/ or
special investigator costs
$40,500
Information not available
Mailing $2,197
($4,394 per election cycle for bulk mail)
Public Education and Outreach $2,500 - $5,000 per year
Equipment maintenance/replacement $5,000
Democracy Voucher Card Replacement $7,800
($15,600 per election cycle)
Ethics Commission Compensation $0 - $6,150 (5 members @$1,230 per year,
same as PC)
Ethics Commission Executive Director $50,000
Total Annual Operational Cost12: $240,500 – $377,440
ALTERNATIVES
Because this is a discussion item only there are no proposed alternatives.
12Range of costs includes election and non-election years and will vary depending on the utilization of the
Democracy Voucher Fund.
11
Packet Pg. 106
11.a
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 117
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
11.a
Packet Pg. 122
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Chapter 2.40 ELECTION CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS*
Page 1/4
Chapter 2.40
ELECTION CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS*
Sections:
2.40.010 Title.
2.40.020 Purpose and intent.
2.40.030 Definitions.
2.40.040 Contribution limitations.
2.40.050 Election campaign accounts.
2.40.060 Campaign statements.
2.40.070 Campaign signs.
2.40.080 Responsibilities of city clerk.
2.40.090 Criminal misdemeanor actions.
2.40.100 Civil actions.
2.40.110 Injunctive relief.
2.40.120 Cost of litigation.
2.40.130 Construction of provisions.
2.40.140 Council study committee.
2.40.150 Expiration of provisions.
*Prior legislation: Prior code §§ 2800—2812, as amended by Ord. 1067 § 1, 1986, Ord. 1191 § 1, 1991, and Ord. 1254 § 1, 1994.
2.40.010 Title.
This chapter may be cited as the election campaign regulations of the city. (Ord. 1599 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 1538 §
1 (part), 2010: Ord. 1483 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 1333 § 1 (part), 1998)
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
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1627, passed December 15, 2015.
11.b
Packet Pg. 123
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
.
4
0
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Chapter 2.40 ELECTION CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS*
Page 2/4
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. (Ord. 1599 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 1538 § 1 (part), 2010: Ord. 1483 § 1
(part), 2005: Ord. 1333 § 1 (part), 1998)
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. (Ord. 1599 § 2
(part), 2014: Ord. 1538 § 1 (part), 2010: Ord. 1483 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 1407 § 1, 2002; Ord. 1333 § 1 (part), 1998)
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 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 fifty 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. (Ord. 1599 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 1538 § 1 (part), 2010:
Ord. 1483 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 1407 § 3, 2002; Ord. 1333 § 1 (part), 1998. Formerly 2.40.050)
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. (Ord. 1599 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 1538 § 1 (part), 2010: Ord.
1483 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 1407 §§ 4, 5, 6, 2002; Ord. 1333 § 1 (part), 1998. Formerly 2.40.060)
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 and any contributions greater than fifty dollars.
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
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1627, passed December 15, 2015.
11.b
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
.
4
0
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Chapter 2.40 ELECTION CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS*
Page 3/4
required deadline with the campaign statement requirements pursuant to this section or state law. In addition, the
city 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. (Ord. 1599 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 1538 § 1 (part), 2010: Ord. 1483 § 1 (part),
2005: Ord. 1407 § 7, 2002; Ord. 1333 § 1 (part), 1998. Formerly 2.40.070)
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). (Ord. 1599 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 1538 § 1 (part), 2010: Ord. 1483 § 1 (part),
2005: Ord. 1407 § 14, 2002. Formerly 2.40.080)
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. (Ord. 1599
§ 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 1538 § 1 (part), 2010: Ord. 1483 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 1407 § 8, 2002; Ord. 1333 § 1
(part), 1998. Formerly 2.40.090)
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. (Ord. 1599 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 1538 §
1 (part), 2010: Ord. 1483 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 1333 § 1 (part), 1998. Formerly 2.40.100)
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
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1627, passed December 15, 2015.
11.b
Packet Pg. 125
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
.
4
0
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Chapter 2.40 ELECTION CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS*
Page 4/4
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. (Ord. 1599 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 1538 § 1 (part), 2010: Ord. 1483 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord.
1407 § 9, 2002; Ord. 1333 § 1 (part), 1998. Formerly 2.40.110)
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. (Ord. 1599 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 1538 § 1 (part), 2010: Ord. 1483 §
1 (part), 2005: Ord. 1333 § 1 (part), 1998. Formerly 2.40.120)
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. (Ord. 1599 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 1538 § 1 (part), 2010: Ord. 1483 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord.
1333 § 1 (part), 1998. Formerly 2.40.130)
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. (Ord. 1599 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 1538 § 1 (part), 2010: Ord. 1483 § 1 (part), 2005:
Ord. 1333 § 1 (part), 1998. Formerly 2.40.150)
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, 2018. (Ord. 1599 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 1538 § 1 (part),
2010: Ord. 1483 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 1407 § 10, 2002: Ord. 1333 § 1 (part), 1998. Formerly 2.40.160)
2.40.150 Expiration of provisions.
Unless readopted, this chapter shall expire on June 30, 2018. (Ord. 1599 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 1538 § 1 (part), 2010:
Ord. 1483 § 1 (part), 2005: Ord. 1407 § 11, 2002: Ord. 1333 § 1 (part), 1998. Formerly 2.40.170)
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1627, passed December 15, 2015.
11.b
Packet Pg. 126
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
.
4
0
(
1
2
8
0
:
D
e
m
o
c
r
a
c
y
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Integrity in our Elections Ordinance
Citizens Congress
March 2016
Citizens Congress – San Luis Obispo 1
Elections must depend upon the Voters, not the Funders
Outline
•The problem
•The solution
•Benefits of the ordinance
•Projected outcomes
2 Citizens Congress – San Luis Obsipo
Money and Democracy
•Regardless of political affiliation, 84% of Americans agree
that money is corrupting our politics1
•Outside money is playing an ever greater role in influencing
elections – even local elections
•San Luis Obispo City government has an outstanding history
of being highly principled and highly effective…..
•…… but, the city can act now to demonstrate its leadership
and set an example for elections at all government levels
Citizens Congress – San Luis Obispo 3
1.New York Times/ CBS News poll from June 2, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/02/us/politics/money-in-politics-poll.html
Local elections are increasingly targeted…
•“Election ’15: campaign cash soars to new heights in Riverhead, NY town races”…town elections have seen the
influx of money from so-called super PACs1
•“Your State And Local Elections Are Now A Super PAC Playground”…Super PAC involvement continues even further
down-ballot: Lately, billionaires can be found influencing races for school board and district attorney in Louisiana. 2
•“Super PAC continues barrage of negative attacks in Las Cruces”…A super PAC funded by out-of-town oil, gas, ranching and
farming interests continued its barrage of negative attacks against Las Cruces Mayor Ken Miyagishima3
Citizens Congress – San Luis Obispo 4
1.https://www.riverheadlocal.com/2015/11/02/election-15-campaign-cash-soars-to-new-heights-in-riverhead-
town-races
2.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2015-elections-super-pac_5633d165e4b0c66bae5c7bbb
3.http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2015/11/super-pac-continues-barrage-of-negative-attacks-in-las-cruces/
Current City of San Luis Obispo elections
•Local participation is limited by access to finance
•Often candidates start by giving their
committees $5-10K in personal loans
•Donors circumvent contribution limits by
channeling money through parties/independent
expenditures for major campaign expenses
(phone banks, mailers, etc.)
•Parties are not the problem, but limited access
to revenue greatly limits participation
Citizens Congress – San Luis Obispo 5
Current City of San Luis Obispo elections
•Voter turnout for SLO City Council elections:
•In 2014, only 45% of those eligible to vote, voted for city
council (blank votes)
•In 2014, 24% of total council voters cast only a single vote
(undervotes)
•Donors (especially $300 donors) effectively determine
election outcomes
Citizens Congress – San Luis Obispo 6
2014 Individual Donors and Vote %
Citizens Congress – San Luis Obispo 7
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Christianson
Rivoire
Mullin
Clark
Cano
donors
vote share
San Luis Obispo recognizes the problem
•SLO City government has implemented strict contribution
limits ($300)
•Advocating Top -Down reform: In 2012, the SLO city council
passed a resolution urging our federal representatives to
overturn the Citizens United decision (RESOLUTION NO. 10395)
•SLO can take the lead in Bottom-Up reform: Democracy
voucher systems are already constitutional; encourages
candidates to seek support from larger array of donors;
increasing participation and diversity of representation
Citizens Congress – San Luis Obispo 8
Citizens Congress – San Luis Obispo 9
How to Reverse
Citizens United TheAtlantic
By amplifying the contributions of
ordinary citizens…these laws are
meant to encourage politicians to
pay attention to all their
constituents…
and by making realistic
amounts of public financing
available, the reforms
have made it possible for a
wider range of candidates
—including, so far, waitresses,
teachers, and a convenience-
store clerk—to run for office
and win.
The solution
•Citizens Congress partnered with the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, D.C. and other election law experts in drafting an ordinance specifically to the needs of San Luis Obispo
•Local citizens working with City Staff to fine tune the ordinance to the local context
•Takes advantage of civic technology to empower ordinary citizens at low cost; builds on the strength of what works in other programs; creates a force for positive change
Citizens Congress – San Luis Obispo 10
An innovative, efficient program
1.Democracy Vouchers: Sustaining a public good
(like parks, streets, etc.) by empowering
individuals; voters can swipe their card or make a
contribution online to preferred candidates
2.Disclosure – make the original source of the
funding clear to voters
3.A citizen’s ethics panel - to provide timely review
of compliance with elections laws
11 Citizens Congress – San Luis Obsipo
Actual Programs v Projected SLO Costs
Citizens Congress – San Luis Obispo
12
$8.39
San Luis Obispo
(city staff budget projections
divided by 45K residents)
Source: Center for Governmental Studies
“high” projection:
$377,440 6:1 matching
funds program
143K trust
account
4:1 matching
funds program
1:1 matching
funds program
Projected administrative
costs (no disbursement) $4.97
2014 Electoral Participation and 25% Projection
Citizens Congress – San Luis Obispo 13
24971
12943
192
6243
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
voters ballots donations 25% donors
Benefits to San Luis Obispo
•Broaden and diversify those who run for public
office, and those who participate locally
•Candidates will spend more time interacting with
all voters instead of select donors
•Help citizens to identify outside interests
influencing our elections
•Enhances citizen engagement
•Enhances transparency and accountability
•A legacy that current leaders can be proud of
Citizens Congress – San Luis Obispo 14
THANK YOU!
Citizens Congress – San Luis Obispo 15
Source: Inter-Parlamentary Union
Democracy Voucher Funding for
Municipal Elections
Threshold Question:
Does the City Council want to move forward with
establishing a program to publicly fund municipal
elections?
Democracy Voucher Funding for Municipal
Elections
Current City Election Regulations
Breakdown of the Ordinance
Democracy Voucher Fund
Democracy Voucher Program
Creation of an Ethics Commission
Other Modifications
Fiscal Impacts
Start-up costs
Ongoing costs
Current Election Campaign Regulations
Chapter 2.40
Contribution limitations (§ 2.40.040): Limits the amount each
person can contribute to any candidate or controlled committee or
the amount each person can solicit from any person to $300.
Anonymous contribution limits are $50.
Election Campaign Accounts (§ 2.40.050): Requires individuals
who run for city elective office to open a campaign bank account
within the City and that such accounts be open to the City Clerk.
Campaign Statements (§ 2.40.060): Campaign treasures are
required to file certain statements with the City Clerk.
Campaign signs (§ 2.40.070): This section sets forth certain time,
place and manner restrictions on the placement of campaign signs
within the City.
The Democracy Voucher Fund
$20 “Democracy Voucher”
card for each registered voter
In 2014, there were 24,971
registered voters
Total Fund: $499,420
Less than 1% of General Fund
Revenue for F/Y 15-16
$50,000 cap for each
candidate
The Democracy Voucher Program
If a candidate elects to participate in the program then, with some
minor exceptions, ALL campaign funds must be via Democracy
Vouchers.
Vouchers are sent out to all registered voters who may then “swipe”
their card and allocate all or some of the Voucher to one or more
candidates.
No more than $10k in funds may be redeemed by any candidate
prior to September 1 of the election year; and no more than $50k
may be redeemed by any candidate in any election year.
Democracy Voucher funds may only be used for campaign related
purposes.
The Democracy Voucher Program
Ethics Commission
5 member body chosen at random from a pool of self nominated individuals.
Executive Director, plus City Clerk and other staff
“Investigative and Enforcement Proceedings…The Commission shall…conduct
investigations of alleged violations of state law, the Charter and City ordinances
related to campaign finance, lobbying, conflicts of interest and governmental
ethics.”
The Democracy Voucher Program
Ethics Commission - Duties
In addition, the Commission would:
“Audit disclosure statements and investigate violations of the City’s
elections rules and to report findings to the City Attorney and other
appropriate agencies;
Make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding
campaign finance reform;
Make adjustments based on CPI;
Prescribe forms related to the Democracy Voucher and campaign
regulations;
Prepare and public manuals and instructions related to campaign
regulations;
Develop an education program related to campaign regulations;
To develop and approve its own budget; and
To receive grants and other appropriations.”
The Democracy Voucher Program
City Clerk– Duties
The Ordinance states that the City Clerk shall do the following:
Make regulations and
administrative guidelines;
Prior to each election cycle, inform
the public about Democracy
Vouchers and the program;
Publish guidebooks, forms,
instructions and brochures;
Project Democracy Voucher
revenue, expenditures and funds;
Manage Democracy Voucher
Funds as a fiduciary;
Each election year, publish a
“Available Program Fund Limits”
document;
Publicly announce that Democracy
Voucher Funds Limits are no
longer available, when
appropriate;
The Democracy Voucher Program
Other Modifications
Independent expenditures: The Ordinance provides
a more comprehensive and expansive definition of
“independent expenditures” than currently regulated
by the FPPC.
Democracy Voucher
Fiscal Impact