HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/10/2008 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.D. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
t��P A L/H Sp4
iy
41
V N
M
x# ryup
c9<i F^O Ra�P
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION
December 10, 2008
City Council Subcommittee Members
Rick Hutcheson, Councilmember
Lee Weigel, Councilmember
City Staff Liaisons
Douglas Holland, City Attorney
James Thompson, City Clerk
Item No. 1 . D .
INTRODUCTION
Concerned with the escalating fundraising and expensive costs of running for
elective office in the City of Palm Springs, the Palm Springs City Council appointed a
City Council Subcommittee, of Councilmember Hutcheson and Councilmember Weigel,
to study and make recommendations to the City Council with respect to Campaign
Finance Reform, for Palm Springs local elections for the directly elected Mayor and
Members of the City Council.
Campaign funds enable candidates to disseminate their messages and
communicate with voters. While technology and internet usage have reduced costs of
running a campaign, the overall price of running for office has increased significantly
over the past few decades. Campaign finance laws are typically advanced to promote
more open, honest, and accountable government. In addition, certain techniques are
emphasized as a means to achieving the constitutional ideal of political equality. These
techniques include: 1) disclosure requirements that inform voters about potential
influences on elected officials; 2) contribution limits that help to mitigate the potential
real and perceived influence of donors on those public officials; and 3) expenditure
limits and perhaps public incentives and/or enhancements that preserve the significance
of voters' voices in the political process and may assist in leveling the playing field
among serious candidates.
On November 6, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 208, an initiative
statute amending provisions of the Political Reform Act pertaining to campaign
contributions, campaign spending limitations, and lobbyist activities. Proposition 208,
- 1 -
among other things, attempted to impose contribution limits and expenditure limits for
local elections and cities. The Palm Springs City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1544',
regarding election campaigns, and subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 1562,
suspending the previous provisions of Ordinance No. 1544, pending judicial review of
Proposition 208. Most of the provisions of Proposition 208 were essentially invalidated
by the Courts.
At the statewide election in November, 2000, the California voters adopted
Proposition 34, the State Legislature's proposal for campaign finance regulations. The
proponents of Proposition 34 argued that it was intended to impose a reasonable
system of campaign finance reform, addressing some of the constitutional problems of
Proposition 208, Proposition 34 was aimed, for the most part, at elections for state
offices, and the measure expressly repealed the majority of Proposition 208, including
all limits on contributions applicable to local elections, and a mandate to adopt local
voluntary expenditure limits.
Cities retain the statutory authority to adopt local ordinances regulating local
campaign finance issues to the extent the local ordinance does not prevent compliance
with the Political Reform Act.
In addressing the issues related to local campaign finance reform, the
Subcommittee notes, the United States Supreme Court has held that political
contributions are a form of political speech; therefore, are protected by the First
1 Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 2.04.100, while suspended by Ordinance No. 1562, remains
codified in the Municipal Code. During this review, staff recommends that an Ordinance be dratted to
remove these election campaign regulations from the Code.
- 2 -
Amendment provisions of the Constitution. Contribution limitations necessarily infringe
on the contributor's ability to engage in free communication and association,
Restrictions on contributions may be sustained if the city demonstrates a
sufficiently important governmental interest and employs means closely drawn to avoid
unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms. To date, the courts have
recognized only: 1) corruption; 2) the appearance of corruption; and 3) circumvention of
otherwise valid campaign finance regulations, as sufficiently important governmental
interests to support restrictions on campaign contributions.
Unlike limits on contributions made directly to candidates or their committees,
restrictions on contributions to committees that make independent expenditures in
support of or opposition to a candidate would be reviewed under a "strict scrutiny"
standard. The theory behind "independent expenditures," is that the people may enact
laws limiting direct contributions to candidates in order to avoid the possibility or the
appearance of undue influence over the candidate, but "independent expenditures" are
not in furtherance of a governmental interest, because the money is not being given
directly to the candidate [even thought the money may be being spent to benefit the
candidate].2
In the context of ballot measures, the Supreme Court has invalidated municipal
efforts to limit contributions supporting or opposing local initiatives and referenda,
finding no sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating such contributions.
2 For a detailed discussion on "independent expenditures" see Independent Ex enditures — The Giant
Gorilla in Camoaion Finance, California Fair Political Practices Commission, June 2008.
- 3 -
Finally, expenditure limits require a more compelling justification than restrictions
on contributions. Expenditure limits are a much more direct form of restraint on
expression and association. In general, the city's interest in ridding the electoral
process of the corruption and appearance of impropriety is insufficient to justify the
restrictions on campaign-related expenditures. Moreover, the city has no legitimate
ancillary interest in equalizing the amount of funds spent by the candidates and their
committees. The United States Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to
limit a candidate's personal expenditures, [unless conditioned on the acceptance of
public funds].
DISCUSSION POINTS
Introduction
In general, the City Council Subcommittee was supportive of implementing
campaign finance regulations and program(s) that: 1) kept the "status quo" in terms of
the current financing of running for elective office [indexed with a cost inflator
mechanism], not wishing to perpetuate the current trend of fundraising considerable
more amounts each election; 2) enact voluntary expenditure limits; 3) further regulate
campaign finance reporting requirements; 4) provide limited public incentives that
enhance voter education to further assist in the transformation of city elections into
contests of ideas and merit, rather than fundraising prowess.
Contribution Limits
Should the City of Palm Springs enact contribution limits?
- 4 -
The Subcommittee recommends contribution limits and recommends the City
Council discuss contribution limits of $2,500 to $3,6003 for the office of Mayor and
Member of the City Council. Such limits would be congruent with the Subcommittee's
overall goal of maintaining the current condition, and would mitigate the perceived
influence of donors on the elected officials. Contribution limits within the proposed
range (indexed for inflation), would only affect a small percentage of current donors,
may provide for smaller community based contributions and support, would not preclude
candidates from soliciting sufficient funds for effective advocacy and education, and
may open the process to more candidates, by curbing the costs of campaigns.
Voluntary Expenditure Limits
Should the City of Palm Springs enact Voluntary Expenditure Limits?
As discussed above, the Courts have determined that limits on contributions and
expenditures differ significantly in their impact on speech and association. Mandatory
expenditure limits may represent substantial restraints on the quantity and diversity of
political speech. As such, the Subcommittee recommends Voluntary Expenditure
Limits, as opposed to mandatory expenditure limits. The Subcommittee recommends a
voluntary spending limit of $150,000 per election cycle (indexed for inflation), surmising
that such a limit would continue with the current spending status in a fully funded
campaign, and would not have a severe impact on political dialogue for candidates that
would agree to and accept voluntary expenditure limits. A candidate accepting
3 $3,600 is the current Stale mandated limit for state office as in Government Code Section 85300 and
the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Title 2, Division 6, California Code of
Regulations.
- 5 -
voluntary spending limits would be permitted certain identified public incentives as
discussed below in the Public Education/Public Incentives Section.
Cam ai n Finance Reporting Requirements
Should the City enact enhanced reporting and disclosure requirements, including
a requirement for electronic filing of campaign statements that could be posted on the
City's website, and mandatory reporting of all campaign contributions?
Should the City enact more frequent and timely campaign reporting requirements
than provided in the Political Reform Act?
One of the most important tools for public participation and education in the
election process is campaign finance reporting and disclosure. Reporting requirements
provide the electorate with information about where money comes from and how it is
spent, to assist voters place candidates on the political spectrum and identify the
interest to which candidates are likely to be responsive.
Currently, campaign finance reports are available for public inspection and
copying at City Hall, during business hours. The City does not currently post campaign
finance reports on the City website, due in part to regulations that may prohibit a
government agency from posting some personal information contained in the report on
the website. The Subcommittee recommends that the City require candidates to file
campaign finance reports electronically and in paper version (such as the State requires
and a recent provision for electronic filing in Riverside County). Electronic filing would
redact personal information and provide for immediate access to campaign reports on
the City's website.
- 6 -
Electronic filing does have a cost to the City. City staff does not have the
expertise to perform or create a program and/or database for such (and the constant
updates for each law, limit or form change). Most jurisdictions contract out this task,
and the estimated cost to City would be $10,000 on an annual basis.
Contributors express their political opinions and affiliate with like-minded persons
by giving money in connection with electoral campaigns. Under current law, only
contributions (or accumulated contributions) of $100 or over are required to be reported
individually. If the act of a campaign contribution is political speech, the Subcommittee
recommended the threshold be reduced and all contributions be reported individually,
hence eliminating "anonymous contributions." Further disclosure would also indicate
the number and breadth of small contributors, as an indicator of broad based local
community support for a candidate.
Currently, the Political Reform Act requires campaign disclosure reports be filed
twice annually, with a stepped-up reporting period during an election cycle. During an
election cycle the first pre-election campaign statement is due 40 days prior to the
election, a second pre-election statement is due 12 days prior to the election, and 24-
hour reporting of contributions of $1,000 or more (or aggregate thereof) 15-days prior to
the election. The Subcommittee recommends the 24-hour reporting of contributions at
30 to 35 days out.
Public Education/Public Incentives
Should the City provide public education and/or limited public incentives to
candidates that accept voluntary spending limits?
- 7 -
In order for candidates to accept voluntary expenditure limits, it is common
practice to provide public incentives to ensure that candidates accepting expenditure
limits, be provided limited benefits necessary to run a campaign and be afforded a low
or no cost vehicle to disseminate their message.
The Subcommittee recommends that certain public incentives be provided to
candidates that accept voluntary expenditure limits.
• No charge for the candidate to print a candidate statement in the official
sample ballot.
• Each candidate accepting expenditure limits would be provided access to
record a "video candidate statement," and free media time on the City's
public access Channel 17 to air such statement.
• Each candidate accepting expenditure limits would be afforded a
"biographical candidate statement" (or similar qualification document at
least as detailed as the City's Commissioner Application), that would be
posted on the City's website.
• Each candidate accepting expenditure limits may be designated as such
on the sample ballot.
Each of the public incentives indicated above also provides for additional public
participation and more information on the candidates for a better educated voter.
Additionally, the Subcommittee wanted the City to provide at no-cost: facilities,
access to public access television and staff, and any other support for at least two-
candidate debates during the election cycle.
- 8 -
Clearly there is a need for some limited public incentives in the form of such
educational resources. Candidates are eager to communicate with voters in a cost
effective manner, and voters want more objective information about candidates.
However, each of the public incentives discussed may have a fiscal impact to the City
and impact to staff resources and/or programs.
Other Reforms
Should the City enact regulations more restrictive than the California Election
Code for the number of signatures required to be nominated for public office and should
the City charge a filing fee?
Under current Election Code, to run for office of the directly elected Mayor or
Member of the City Council, a candidate is nominated to run for office by obtaining not
less than 20, nor more than 30 signatures of qualified electors.
The Subcommittee recommends the City enact requirements that provide a
candidate is nominated to run for office by obtaining not less than 200, nor more than
300 signatures of qualified electors. Such a requirement would indicate a qualified base
of support to signify a qualified candidate. Additionally, should the City start to provide
public incentives, the City should ensure candidates are viable and have some level of
community support.
Currently, the City does not charge a filing fee for nomination documents.
Should the City enact regulations requiring additional signatures, the cost of verifying a
nomination paper would increase dramatically. The Subcommittee recommends the
City charge a fee to file a nomination paper, not to exceed the cost of providing the
- 9 -
service. Additionally, the Subcommittee recommends that the fee be waived as a public
incentive for any candidate accepting voluntary expenditure limits.
The Subcommittee requested that staff provide brief comments on the conduct of
City elections, as the conduct and type of election may have an impact on how a
candidate would communicate with voters, and may impact campaign finance reform.
Currently, the City conducts its municipal election in November of odd numbered
years, and consolidates with Riverside County on an established election day in the
California Election Code. The election date is codified in the City's Charter and may
only be changed by a vote of the people in Palm Springs. Counties, as a political
subdivision of the State, are generally prohibited from conducting all mail ballot
elections on state established consolidated election days.
If the City were to continue to conduct the municipal election in November of odd
numbered years, and wanted to conduct an all mail ballot election, it would have to do
so on its own accord and not consolidate or have the County conduct its election_ This
would mean a voter would receive a City ballot (by mail) and would also receive a
sample ballot from the County (for all other election contests), and either vote by mail or
in person at a designated polling location for the other election contests.
If the City were to change the election date to other than a consolidated election
date, the City may have additional options to conduct its election, such as a City
conducted election, or conduct an all mail ballot election 4
4 The City of Rancho Mirage conducts its Municipal Election in April of even numbered years. In April
2008, the City of Rancho Mirage choose to conduct its successful Municipal Election in-house, vis-a-vis
the City Clerk and an election consultant, rather than have County Registrar of Voters conduct the
Rancho Mirage Municipal Election.
- 10 -
CONCLUSION
The proposals outlined in this Report are made sufficiently in advance of the
2009 City of Palm Springs election cycle that will ensure that any approaches the City
Council may adopt can be fully implemented and any prospective candidate can be
appropriately informed of any changes and requirements. The Subcommittee believes
that the City Council has a unique opportunity to adopt meaningful campaign finance
reform for City elections now, and encourages the Members of the City Council to direct
the preparation of a local campaign finance ordinance consistent with the concepts and
approaches provided in this Report and as may be augmented through collective
deliberation.
_ fit _