CCMIN020696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Item 6d Review of cam_v_a_itm disclosure ordinance regarding time limit on contn'butions and ~lisclosure limit. (SR 96:31) Michael Roush presented the staff report. Ms. Mohr inquired whether under the proposal a candidate who loaned money to his/her committee could have a fund raiser after the election to get reimbursed. Mr. Roush said no. Mr. Tarver stated that is one of the reasons he recommended this action. Winners are more likely to get contributions than losers. The issue is, do we want full disclosure or not and do we want a level playing field? Prior to the most recent ordinance, there were cases when significant amounts of money were contributed to candidates prior to the election. Mr. Roush indicated prior to the addition of the extra reporting date, approximately $39,000 was received between October and December and was not disclosed until January 31st. By changing the ordinance, the contributions which were not reported were reduced to approximately $5,000 from November 1st to the end of December. Ms. Michelotti believed tightening of disclosure to seven days before the election has made the disclosure issue moot. All but 3 % was disclosed prior to the election in 1994. Prior to that all but .2% was disclosed. It seems we are trying to fix something that isn't broken. She has been on both sides, successful and unsuccessful candidate, and both times she faced the same situation: campaign debts that did not get reimbursed. The person who does not have the advantage of being an incumbent and puts up personal funds for a campaign is at a real disadvantage after the election if you limit when funds can be received. She felt the disclosure was fine as it is. Even Committee Treasurers have said, however, that the $25.00 disclosure is a nightmare. Mr. Taxvex disagreed. Frank Brandes, 6889 Corte Sonada, said that the subject of campaign contributions has been discussed frequently by Council over the years. The intent to have full disclosure is good. He has talked to other communities regarding campaign regulations and most have gone back to the state requirements. He felt the Pleasanton City Council should do the same. The $25.00 contribution disclosure is almost impossible to do accurately, especially near the end of the campaign period when things get very hectic. He felt the $25.00 disclosure may intimidate some people from contributing, because they prefer to maintain their privacy. Mr. Brandes felt the proposed regulation would be more helpful to incumbents. He also asked for clarification on when a contribution is received: the date of the check, the date the check is received, or the 02/06/96 9