CCMIN 03162021 - Laserfiche WebLink

lacked name recognition in not being previously elected so the discussion is about disenfranchising someone like himself. He called for transparency through timely and accurate candidate disclosure statements. Councilmember Balch expressed concerns regarding adjusting the $4,900 contribution limit noting it can create legal challenges. He doubts the City would want to incur the expense and suggested seeing what results from the FPPC during the 2022 cycle. He commented the number itself is less concerning than the increased regulation. Councilmember Narum recalled the voluntary expenditure limit rules were aimed at exposure and transparency in 2008 and noted that Pleasanton was one of the first in the State to put Form 460 online, so disclosures were instantaneous. She noted the package included having to disclose donations or expenditures of at least $25 instead of the State's $100 minimum. She expressed support for resetting the expenditure limit to $1.00 per voter. Councilmember Narum explained this will be Pleasanton's first campaign contribution limit. She expressed support for staying at $4,900 and seeing how it will work. She expressed reservations on signing a $55,000 enforcement contract with the FPPC knowing it could go even higher. She noted it would be new this year and the City could always set lower limits if need be. She expressed support for giving the state limit a try and questioned using City money for the FPPC. She explained the $4,900 limit covers four years for an incumbent. Councilmember Narum remarked that limiting either contributions or expenditures stacks things in favor of incumbents. She explained a first-time candidate probably will not have name recognition, so limitations do a disservice to the challenger. She acknowledged a challenger does not have the same chances for the publicity as incumbents. She noted Livermore had issues in the past because the limit was too low for candidates to combat independent expenditures against them leading to the elimination of their limit. She restated her support for trying out the $4,900 contribution limit and resetting the voluntary expenditure limit to simply $1.00 per voter. Councilmember Testa expressed her support for sending a message and setting an example in limiting both Pleasanton's contributions and expenditures. She explained she has never spent more than $6,000 on a campaign and has handed back donation checks because she felt she had enough. She commented that the spending on Council elections in the past is unnecessary. She agreed it should be voluntary with no worries about enforcement. She believes a violation of the agreements would backfire on the candidate and cause more harm than good. Councilmember Testa suggested a new expenditure threshold of 50 cents per voter but stated she could agree to $15,000. She acknowledged that incumbents will always have an advantage and agreed having voluntary limits does level the playing field. She expressed support for a contribution limit of $1,000 but also believes $2,000 would also be reasonable. She suggested it should be voluntary and without the need for enforcement. Mayor Brown reported that many candidates in 2020 spent more money on newspaper advertisements because the pandemic required creativity with fewer opportunities for direct public interactions. She expressed support for bringing down the limits stating it is easy to run a campaign for $15,000. She agrees incumbents have a benefit if they do their job right which is why term limits exist. She expressed support for a $15,000 expenditure limit for City Council elections and $25,000 for Mayoral elections. She expressed support for either a $1,000 or $2,000 contribution limit. She encouraged staff to bring back more clarity on carry-over funds from a previous campaign. City Manager Fialho requested more direction on the voluntary expenditure limit in the form of a motion which can become an ordinance. He also requested clarity on whether a contribution limit would be mandatory or voluntary as it relates to the State's threshold for what is a mandatory maximum. City Council Minutes Page 13 of 15 March 16, 2021