CCMIN101607 - Laserfiche WebLink

candidates. She asked if the PAC could be required to report at the same number of reporting periods as candidates do, and Ms. Soto said this issue could be researched and let the Council know. Councilmember McGovern wanted PACs to be extremely transparent and felt it would get to a point where people will see that PACs and independent people are supporting certain candidates and it becomes a flag to investigate their reasoning behind it. Councilmember Sullivan questioned the requirement for PACs to file a Form 460 and indicate they spent money on a candidate, and Ms. Soto said generally yes, but it depends on what kind of committee they are. There are some statewide committees that may not file locally and may only file at the State level. Councilmember McGovern asked Ms. Seto to look at this for control purposes. She said her campaign was not listed on the information distributed, she wished she had seen more of the campaigns of 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 because that's when PACs became more involved. She said she does not mind contribution limits from people, she would like to look at not only the cities of Livermore, San Ramon and Dublin but also at Danville, Fremont, and Union City. She would like to look at Option One and the idea that you do not allow expenditures to come in late and after the reporting period. She does not mind looking at a contribution expenditure voluntary plan, supported keeping the reporting threshold at $25, and using the website to post campaign statements. One thing that worries her the most in elections is the negative smear campaigns that happen at the very last minute because if an independent person or PAC sends out a negative smear campaign, she feels the candidate has the right to be able to put forward the true and honest story and this might be one point that should be looked at with the limit. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said the purpose of campaign finance reform is to make it transparent. Part of the trend we are seeing in Pleasanton is a nationwide trend. Federal laws have very large loopholes, sometimes there is no control over that, much of what candidates and committees do is already controlled by federal law and she would hate to see the Council, in the effort of making this more transparent. She liked the idea of putting the statements on the website. She described the differences between hard and soft money, and the contributions made to candidates from a single PAC supporting a candidate versus multiple PAC's contributing to a candidate. She said by limiting the contribution, you dilute the pool and limit the transparency. Councilmember Sullivan felt there was diversity of opinion, said he appreciated staff researching the topic and putting together the information. In looking at the graphs, this has not been an issue in Pleasanton until recently, but his concern is with that trend and what it means for the future. He felt the Council had some tools, some ideas from the public and these needed to be identified as to whether or not they will help the Council. There are issues of challengers and incumbents, issues of residents and citizens versus businesses and special interests, and how you sort through it all. He thinks this goes beyond transparency and something that needs to be improved. He felt the Council should look at all of the tools and determine what does and does not make sense for Pleasanton. He suggested looking at direct campaign limits, both from individuals and from the organizations we cannot control; whether they are PACs or committees. He felt the City could put control on those contributions. He liked the idea of a voluntary expenditure pledge but was not sure what that number is. He supported looking at the option of a spending deadline. Councilmember McGovern felt that if it is within the last 7 days, this is where a PAC and independent groups could do that to a candidate. She felt there should be some sort of safety valve to allow a candidate to publish a rebuttal. City Council Minutes 10 October 16, 2007