CCMIN 03162021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None Absent: None 14. Local campaign finance options; review new State contribution limits and existing City of Pleasanton voluntary expenditure limit Assistant City Attorney Larissa Seto reported the Council last discussed campaign finance regulations in 2008. She advised the public interest is ensuring donors do not gain an unfair level of access or influence over elected officials. She noted the 1974 Political Reform Act limits contributions, requires disclosure of contributions, and established the Conflict of Interests Code. She noted there has been supplemental state legislation and applicable ballot propositions since then along with local-level regulations adopted by cities and counties. Assistant City Attorney Seto reported Assembly Bill 571 (AB 571) was adopted in 2019 and took effect on January 1. She advised it imposes limits on individual contributions for local elections with a very broad definition of "individual." She explained the limits will be adjusted regularly by the State's Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and advised it will be $4,900 for the 2021-22 election cycle. She noted AB 571 allows for municipalities to set their limit either higher or lower than the state limit. She reported Dublin set a $500 per person limit in 2009 while Livermore repealed its $250 limit in 2017. She reported neither Danville nor San Ramon has a contribution limit. Assistant City Attorney Seto reported a review of the Pleasanton campaign filing information found all contributions were below the new state limit of $4,900. She advised contributions made by individuals to their campaign are not subject to this limit but AB 571 limits the amount an individual can loan to their campaign to $100,000. She noted Political Action Committees (PAC) are also subject to the $4,900 limit. Assistant City Attorney Seto requested direction for preparing an ordinance for consideration at a subsequent meeting if Council wishes to consider either a higher or lower contribution limit than state law. She advised if the City keeps its limit at the state level the state will provide enforcement but if a different local figure is used the City would need to either contract with the FPPC for enforcement or find its own method. Assistant City Attorney Seto advised Pleasanton adopted a voluntary campaign expenditure limit of $1.00 per registered voter with an inflation adjustment in 2008. She explained the $1.00 limit is based on the cost of a single postcard mailer to encourage candidates to engage voters in person. She advised no other Tri-Valley cities have a local expenditure limit and noted Pleasanton's limit is voluntary and carries no penalties. She explained courts have ruled expenditure limits are subject to strict scrutiny due to restrictions on protected political speech, lack of government interest in ensuring candidates all spend the same amounts, and that the spending itself does not implicate corruption. Assistant City Attorney Seto reported Pleasanton's voluntary campaign expenditure limit in 2020 was $55,325 based upon 45,723 registered voters and a 21% inflation adjustment since 2008. She advised no candidate exceeded this limit in 2020. She requested direction for preparing an ordinance to present at a subsequent meeting should the Council wish to adjust the limit. Councilmember Arkin clarified she brought up the voluntary expenditure limit under Matters Initiated and not the contribution limit. In response to Councilmember Arkin's inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Seto advised the FPPC provided a sample enforcement contract from the City of San Bernardino which cost $55.000 at the beginning of an election cycle to enforce San Bernardino's local limit. She explained it has a clause stating there could be additional costs if extensive enforcement or legal action was required. She advised there are City Council Minutes Page 10 of 15 March 16, 2021