My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2010
>
040610
>
18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/2/2010 2:13:13 PM
Creation date
4/2/2010 2:13:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
4/6/2010
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
DISCUSSION <br /> Proposition 15 would create a voluntary system for candidates for the statewide position <br /> of Secretary of State to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to strict <br /> spending limits and accept no private contributions. Participating candidates would be <br /> prohibited from raising or spending money beyond the grant from the State. There <br /> would be strict reporting and accounting requirements. The State would fund the grant <br /> from an annual fee of $350 on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers. It <br /> would raise about $6 million per election. The law is a trial program and would sunset <br /> after elections held in 2014 and 2018. <br /> Proponents believe this test program will provide a model for future legislation that <br /> would regulate spending on campaigns for other offices in the future. Opponents <br /> believe the measure will not accomplish its intended purposes and results in a tax <br /> increase. <br /> Staff previously indicated to the City Council that the League of California Cities had not <br /> yet taken a position on this measure, and that it was expected it would be considered by <br /> some League policy committees in early April. League staff subsequently advised that <br /> a determination had been made that this measure does not have a clear impact on <br /> cities and therefore it was deemed not necessary to further study the issue. It was <br /> noted that for some larger cities that hire lobbyists, passage of the measure would <br /> increase their lobbying costs, thus suggesting that there would not be unanimity in <br /> support of the measure. <br /> As of the date of this writing, staff is not aware of a California city that has adopted a <br /> resolution regarding this measure. However, individual elected officials in many <br /> different jurisdictions and offices have personally endorsed the measure. Under state <br /> law a city cannot expend public resources on campaigning with regard to a ballot <br /> measure. A recognized narrow exception to this rule is that a city council may express <br /> its opinion about a ballot measure which relates to or impacts city government and or its <br /> operations through the adoption of a resolution of support or opposition. A draft <br /> resolution of support is provided for your consideration. <br /> Submitted by: Approved y: <br /> e <br /> Jonathan P. Lowell Nelson Fialho <br /> City Attorney City Manager <br /> Attachment: <br /> 1. Resolution <br /> Page 2 of 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.