Laserfiche WebLink
Staff also assembled information regarding amounts raised for elections which has continued to <br />grow. Contributions by individuals remain the largest source, but recently there has been an <br />increase in PAC's and other committees and groups. <br />Regarding voluntary expenditure limits, these implicate the issues of freedom of speech and <br />freedom of association and because of this, these limits can be voluntary only for Pleasanton as <br />a General Law city. San Ramon has a volunteer expenditure limit and recalculate every election <br />what they estimate the cost of two mailings would be. Other cities such as Hayward have a <br />voluntary expenditure limit of $50,000; Newark is $1 per resident or $43,000; and Oakland's <br />expenditure limit varies. They are a Charter City with 400,000 voters, for Mayoral candidates it <br />is $.70 per resident or $300,000, and for Councilmembers it is $1.50 per resident within that <br />Councilmember's district. <br />Ms. Seto said if the Council is interested in pursuing a voluntary expenditure limit, staff would <br />recommend setting it on the amount of registered voters in the City. If the amount was set at $1 <br />per registered voter, the limit would be slightly more than $36,000. Staff would require discretion <br />on: 1) how to calculate the limit such as $1 per registered voter; 2) when a candidate must make <br />a pledge to adopt the voluntary expenditure limit. Staff recommends this be done within 5 days <br />of filing the nomination papers; 3) what period should expenditures be counted. Staff <br />recommends this be the 113 days prior to an election because this is when a candidate can first <br />file their nomination papers; and 4) whether there should be penalties for any types of violation. <br />Staff recommends no penalties, as public scrutiny would be sufficient. San Rafael is a city who <br />once had in place a penalty for violating pledges and the fine was $20,000. <br />Councilmember McGovern requested that contributions collected for those committees <br />established outside an election date be made public. <br />Councilmember Sullivan asked if the pledge would apply for someone who has a committee and <br />raised or spent funds prior to the 113 days. Assistant City Attorney Seto said the Council could <br />choose to extend the timeframe back to capture the entire time which would capture all funds or <br />make the period shorter. <br />Councilmember Thorne confirmed that the Council has the traditional guideline of requiring 3 <br />reporting periods, as well as a fourth reporting period 4 days prior to the election and it was felt <br />that any more reporting periods would be burdensome on treasurers. <br />Regarding local contribution limits, Assistant City Attorney Seto said Dublin has a contribution <br />limit of $300; Livermore of $250 and other Alameda cities have larger amounts. Danville does <br />not have any limit. Staff recommends a limit of $250 because there was a strong interest to <br />retain the $25 contribution reporting threshold. <br />She said staff would need policy direction regarding what election period the limit would apply <br />to, every option can be modified to address various interests, and one option could be to start a <br />month after the last election but end contribution acceptance 7 days before the election starts, <br />and all contribution would be reported on the final campaign statement filed 4 days prior to the <br />election. Another option could be to shorten the period in which contributions are received, such <br />as 12 months prior to the election taking place, but it could include the election date. Another <br />option could be to have contributions continue to be received after the election date, which <br />helps to retire campaign debt. <br />City Council Minutes 4 December 18, 2007 <br />