CCMIN020696 - Laserfiche WebLink

date it goes into a bank account? He then asked for clarification of in-kind contributions and how the existing or proposed ordinance would affect them. Mr. Roush indicated receipt of funds is the date it is received by the candidate or committee. Some in-kind contributions (i.e. volunteers who walk precincts) do not count as cash. If an office were provided without rent, however, the value of that would have to be Mr. Brandes then referred to contributions from special interest groups. Most of the time he felt this was applied to developers. He felt there were special interest groups such as the Sierra Club and Greenbelt Alliance that have great resources that are provided to certain candidates and he felt there should be economic value placed on political consultations and other services provided. He urged Council to go back to the State requirements. Bert Felix, 2860 Garden Creek Circle, agreed that Pleasanton should go back to the State regulations. If the voters are concerned about contributions received after the last disclosure, the voters can express their displeasure at the next election. He did not think it was right to prevent a candidate from using a mechanism to pay off campaign debts after an election. He did not think there was a problem that warranted the proposed ordinance. Ms. Michelotti referred to the newspaper article and indicated there were many misstatements in it. After the election, many candidates have campaign debts and sometimes receive offers of contributions to help them. Sometimes donors are merely adding to a contribution and the name of the donor has been disclosed previously, so there are no big surprises. She agreed the $25.00 disclosure is too low and causes a lot of work, but it is something she can work with. She disagreed with denying contributions after the election. There has not been a problem and she did not see a need for the ordinance. Angelina Summers, 4750 SuRer Gate Avenue, indicated she was a treasurer for a candidate and felt it was a very difficult and time consuming job. The $25.00 disclosure will prevent some people from serving as treasurer in the future. Mr. Tarver felt that even though there seems to be no problem now, there is nothing in the current ordinance that would prevent a $40,000 contribution after the last disclosure. His point is that he wants to know who is contributing to carnpalgns before the election. Mr. Roush agreed that was correct. Under the existing ordinance, there would be disclosure, but not before the election. Ms. Dennis indicated many committees are on-going and if the proposed ordinance is adopted, when would the committee be able to receive contributions again? 02/06/96 10