CCMIN 03162021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Assistant City Attorney Seto clarified the FPPC has advised if the City's contribution limit is voluntary then the state limits will apply for actual enforcement under AB 571. Councilmember Arkin moved to have staff draff an ordinance with a voluntary contribution limit of $1,000, a voluntary expenditure limit of $15,000 for City Council elections, and a $25,000 for Mayoral elections. Councilmember Arkin agreed that campaigning during the pandemic was challenging but all candidates faced the same challenges, so it does not have any bearing on this matter. She noted that electoral success can be achieved even when the candidate is not well-known and has been previously elected. She agrees this should be voluntary. Councilmember Arkin advised Alameda County reported there were 48,000 registered voters in Pleasanton. She explained $1.00 per voter without the inflation adjustment would be $48,000 which is not much different than $55,000. She acknowledged the City Council cannot solve the national and state issues of campaign finance reform, but this may be a step in the right direction regarding the money in politics issue. In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiries, City Manager Fialho advised staff would phrase the voluntary contribution limit like the voluntary expenditure limit. He confirmed the voluntary contribution limit would be presented as a gentleperson's agreement. He advised that if a candidate chose not to agree the State's limit of $4,900 would be the default and be enforced by the FPPC at no out-of-pocket cost to the City. Councilmember Balch questioned if the candidate can only contribute $1,000 to their campaign. He does not believe incumbents should have an advantage through having a war chest they can rollover. He believes this is not the intent of a transparent government and feels it should be one where people can step-up and raise funds. He advised the numbers presented are all arbitrary. Councilmember Narum advised she cannot support the motion. She remarked that no one would not sign the voluntary agreement and get beat up in the press but there is no limit to people giving money to PACs and dodging the intended transparency. She noted $15,000 is just 25 cents per voter. She remarked that while Councilmember Arkin only spent $6,200, she had the advantages of name recognition from 12 years on the School Board and the Democratic Committee dropping a door hanger supporting her campaign. She questioned if driving funding to PACs is in the best interests of transparency, disclosure, and good government, and noted this is headed in the wrong direction. Mayor Brown remarked that having Form 460 online is transparent and tells a lot about the candidate. She advised she does not have a party preference and ran against those who had a party preference and noted they all have different backgrounds they bring to the Council. She stated it is time to get big money out of Pleasanton's governmental offices. She expressed great respect for each Councilmember and noted she ran for an empty seat which makes it easier than challenging an incumbent. She reiterated the City has term limits. She noted she must be extra diligent about campaign finances for being re-elected every two years instead of every four years for Councilmembers. Mayor Brown expressed her opposition to the $55,000 figure and noted she still has money left over from an expensive mayoral campaign and feels is time to retire that amount. In response to Mayor Brown's inquiries, Assistant City Attorney Seto clarified courts have said there should not be limits on what candidates can self-fund because it does not implicate the public concern about donors having undue influence. She advised the State has set a limit at a $100,000 loan to a candidate's campaign and you cannot charge your campaign interest on the loan. She explained the Council could also discuss having a voluntary self-funding limit but noted courts have been strongly City Council Minutes Page 14 of 15 March 16. 2021