Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SR-061907-8E
Cf'~~/ COUf1C1~ R@p01"t City of Santa Monica Gity Gouncil Meeting: June 19, 2007 Agenda Item: ~~, To: Mayor and City Council From: Maria M. Stewart, City Clerk Subject: Report on Community Meeting held: improving the Electoral Process Recommended Action Staff recommends that Council review the information contained in this report and provide direction to staff. Executive Summary At the March 13, 2007, City Council meeting, the City Council directed the City Attorney to return with advice on how the intent of the existing campaign contribution laws can be better implemented and enforced and directed the City Clerk to hold a community workshop to receive public comment on means to improve the electoral process. This report complies with Council's direction as to the results of the community workshop. The City Attorney will respond to the direction related to improved implementation of the intent of the existing campaign contribution laws in a separate report. Discussion During the March 13th meeting, the City Council discussed the idea of implementing a Public Financing of Elections program in the City. There were approximately 34 members of the public who commented generally in favor of public financing of elections. Issues raised by members of the public and by Councilmembers during discussion included but were not limited to: negative, false, or misleading campaign 1 literature during the election season; Pack of women and minority candidates; need to maintain voter-owned elections; the possibility of adjusting the focal $250 contribution limit; political sustainability; ranked voting and instant runoff voting; public financing of electoral campaigns; the effect of unlimited independent expenditures on elections; sources of the bulk of contributions to candidates; and also the question as to whether elections are working well in Santa Monica. After considerable discussion, Council opted to direct staff to hold a community meeting and receive feedback on how residents felt the electoral process is working in the Ci#y and on ways to improve the process. Background Staff scheduled the meeting for Monday, May 14, 2007, from 7:00 p.m., to g:00 p.m. The event was held at the Ken Edwards. Community Center. In addition to scheduling the event, staff also created a survey for residents who might not be able to attend the meeting but who might be interested in opining on the subject. Fiord copies of the survey were distributed to a large distribution list and were also placed on the Gity"s website to be ~ampleted online. The May 14th meeting was attended by 70 residents. In order to estatrlish a base for the meeting, staff distributed a fact sheet that included information on the City demographics, voter turnout in Santa Monica and other cities, existing local campaign reforms, regulations for City office candidates, and on campaign regulations including contribution and expenditure limits. A copy of the fact sheet is attached as Exhibit A: Staff secured the assistance of a facilitator for the meeting from the firm Moore, lacofano & Goltsman. Although no funds were approved for expenditures related to this meeting, staff felt it was important to have an experienced facilitator to make the most of the event, and to maintain the impartiality and neutrality of the subject matter. Also, the cost was mihimal. Attached as Exhibit A61 is a chart created at the meeting. 2 The meeting began with the City Glerk reviewing the information in the fact sheet as a basis for the discussion. The facilitator then opened the discussion by asking the attendees what they felt was currently working well in the electoral process. After some discussion and feedback on the question of what is working well, the discussion moved on to what could be improved. Below is a summary of the discussion. What is working wait in Santa A9onica's electoral process? The attendees felt that the City was providing helpful and timely information to new potential candidates and that the information assisted individuals in their decision to run for office. The timeliness and depth of election information on the City's website was also noted, including the quick .availability of campaign statements, candidate information, and election process information. Residents indicated their support for the existing $250 contribution limit, although there were comments made for both increasing and decreasing the limit. The term "transparency" of existing information was repeatedly used in a positive manner. The debates and public forums held throughout the election season were also discussed favorably. in a show of hands, the majority of attendees indicated that the process was working relatively well in the City. What can be improved in the electoral process? The remainder of the time scheduled for the event was spent on discussing the question of how to improve the electoral process. The majority of residents participated wifh thoughtful comments, opinions, ideas and suggesfions. Generally, the issues raised by participants at the cammunity meeting mirrored the issues raised during public comment and discussed by the Gity Council at the March 13th meeting. ECection Campaigns As related to election campaigns, attendees discussed the following: accountability and civic responsibility regarding the use of contributions by candidates; the need for fact- checking and monitoring of campaign literature and the need for the ability to censure or expose candidates and committees that send out misleading literature; the need for 3 more substantive debates; more free media containing election information such as a hard copy "city newspaper" sent out to residents on a regular basis (for those that do not have access to the newspapers ar have computers at home). Reference was made to the possibility of creating an independent entity with a charge similar to the existing "Campaign Watch Commission" created by the League of Women voters of Los Angeles. The Commission, made up of 9 members, was created in 1999 to encourage a pos"stive and productive electoral process. According to the information on the League`s website, its charge is to review complaints submitted by candidates who think their opponent has "breached the standards of campaign ethics set forth in the Commission's Mission Statement." It further reads: "The opponent is provided an opportunity to rebut the complaint, after which the Commission weighs the submitted evidence and issues a response. The response is provided to both the complainant and the opponent, and to the media." The City of Malibu has established a similar commission. Staff contacted both the L.A. League of Women Voters Commission and the Malibu Commission for a review of the effectiveness of the programs. Representatives from both entities reported that initially their respective commissions received complaints regularly and the members met to discharge their duties. However, Malibu reported that during the 2006 election the Commission did not receive any complaints because candidates were not willing to participate for various reasons. The League of Women Voters reported that in March 2006 only one complaint was received and it was received too late for the Commission to properly act upon it. Rttached as F~chibit 6 is a copy of the mission statement and the webpage for the City of Los Angeles Campaign Watch Commission created by the League of Women Voters. Attached as Exhibit C is a description of Malibu's similar commission. 4 Limits on Contributions Residents spoke in favor of public financing of elections in order to provide a level playing field, but some also spoke in opposition noting that public financing of elections would not affect or curtail independent expenditures. Other issues discussed on this subject were the need for mare transparency from contributors and PACS; public funding to allow for rebuttals; clarification of policy for independent expenditure committees; immediate reporting of expenditures when incurred; enforcement of viola- tions of existing haws and regulations and notification to the public of same; and enforcement of the Oaks initiative. After the community meeting staff received additional feedback. on the subject of public financing of elections in the form of a written proposal submitted by VOTE4SM, which is described in the proposal as "a Santa Monica citizen electoral reform coalition." A copy of the proposal is attached as Exhibit d: Exhibit D-1 consists of four related newspaper articles submitted by Vote4SM with the proposal. Election Process Attendees spoke both in favor and in opposition of term limits, an elected mayor, and ranked voting. Comments were made in favor of a "full-time" Council, more youth participation, mentoring of new candidates by incumbents, more minority and women candidates, and support staff for individual Counciimembers or appointment of a City ombudsman. There were also comments made regarding the need for more accessible polling sites for the disabled and issues with voting machine accuracy. Messaaina and Communications Although initially the majority of attendees rated City information and transparency high, comments were made in favor of more information and disclosure, and more debates and public forums. Seascape was noted as an important source of information that should be used to disseminate election information during the election season. 5 There was a perception with members of the public of a lack of enforcement by the City of election law violations. Staff would like to clarify that during every election season the City Clerk and the City Attorney receive complaints of possible violations of election law from candidates, committees, and members of the public. The complaints are promptly reviewed and investigated by the City. When appropriate, the alleged violator(s) is notified in writing of the exact nature of the violation and is requested to correct the same. When deemed necessary, the complaint is referred to the Fair Political Practices .Commission (FPPC) or to the t?istrict Attorney's OfFce (t)AO) with a request for enforcement of the alleged violation. The investigation processes of the FPPC and of the DAO are lengthy and it may be tiveeks or months before the City is notified of any resolution of a complaint, and it is likely that such a resolution will come about Tong after the election is over. In order to address the public's perception of lack of enforcement of election lamp violations, Council may wish to consider directing staff to implement a policy of noticing the receipt of complaints and of their respective reso{utions to the public. Residents also indicated interest in seeing some kind of tracking of the voting records of candidates once they have been elected, sa as to monitor the candidate's commitment to his/her campaign promises. Free wireless service citywide and extended public library hours for access to computers were also favored. Survey Results A fotal of 113 surveys were received through June 11, 2Q07. Of these, 1Q9 indicated they were city res"sdents. Again, the majority of comments mirrored issues raised at the City Council meeting on Mareh 13th, and issues raised at the community meeting. Other issues raised through the surveys were as fellows: 6 Campaigns - get rid of slates - campaign contributions favor PAC'stslates rather than individual voices - need electronic filing of campaign statements - limit the length of time for active campaigning - either enforce violations of illegal signs, or exempt regulation during election (have incumbents lead by example} - tax incentives for business to support individuals Public Financing - city contributions to candidates' campaigns - limit public campaign money to non-incumbents only - create a tax to pay for public financing - no taxpayer funding of elections - no public financing, it won't stop special interests" political advertising Electoral Process - encourage young people to be poll workers - parking at polling sites difficult - voting by mail - Saturday or Sunday elections - elect council by districts - Council, but at least Mayor and Mayor Pra Tem, should have field reps - have no special elections - pay Councilmembers more - works great, don't fix something that isn't broken - less corruption in Santa Monica than other municipalities - need Charter Study Committee - voters should be able to vote for or against Council's choice for Gity Manager and City Attorney 7 - average middle class voter gets last in extremes between renters and higher income voters - require ID for voting - voting on-line - there is fair, efFcient and prompt handling and distribution of election materials. Messaaina and Communication - simplify voting documents, November 2006 ballot too complicated - turnout toa low, improve voter outreach - stop last minute electioneering (ads/mailers} - have neighborhood candidate forums - excellent public participation and awareness; politically engaged residents, high voter turnout - allow (provide for} "opting out" of receiving campaign mail - encourage use of neighborhood web portal for debate between residents - city-sponsored publicity regarding false facts - create legal block to misleading literature - prohibit mailers; everything to be posted an-line (paperless} - less election-related phone calls - restore Public Electronic Network for discussion of issues on-line between residents - create virtual town hail on City's website - closed captioning of candidate debates and interviews. - candidate debates should be on the Internet. - more advertising to inform public of candidate debates A sample of the survey is attached as Exhibit E. 8 Alternatives Overall, the issues discussed at the March 13th Council meeting, at the community meeting, and the remarks received via surveys share same common threads including negative andlor misleading campaign literature, independent expenditures, spending limits, public financing of elections and a different voting process such as ranked or IRV eating. Also, same residents appear to be in favor of certain ideas that other residents oppose such as having an elected mayor and establishing terms {imits. Given the scope. of the information received so far, Council may want to consider directing staff to conduct a phone survey. A random phone survey will collect data from a broader sample of the population and may provide different views than those received from the group of residents that attended the Council meeting ar the group that took the time to complete the survey andlor attend the community meeting. The cost of a 10-minute survey that would sample 300 voters city-wide and ask 10 election process related questions will cost approximately $13,000. Public Outreach Invitations and notices of the community meeting were delivered, mailed via U.S. mail, andlor e-mailed to the following: Chamber of Commerce, major City businesses, neighborhood groups, nonprofits, local religious organizations, existing campaign committees, Senior Center mailing lists, the media, attendees and groups represented at the March 13th meeting, all City board and commission members, Rent Control Board, and College and School District administration and elected officials. Notices were posted in all parks, Senior Centers, public libraries, public counters in City offices, and in Big Blue Buses. The meeting was advertised on CityTV, the Daily Press, surfsantamonica, Seascape and the City's website. In addition, the surveys were distributed and made available to residents at the Board &~ Commission dinner, Farmers' Markets, Senior Center, and at the Santa Monica Festival. 9 Electronic Filing of Campaign Statements At the May 22, 2007 budget session Council directed staff to look into the possibility of implementing an electronic campaign filing system. Staff has researched this possibility and provides the following information. The Secretary of State's Office (SOS) has a list of authorized vendors who may provide programs and technical services for electronic filing of campaign statements, and includes a program designed and developed by the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles information Setvices staff designed and developed an electronic filing program for their own use in 2000, and have been using it since. The features of the software include the ability to data-enter (upload) statements, ability to search across filings, election totals pages, committee tracking and tools for identifying instances of potential contribution aggregation. The City has sold this program to the City of Long Beach and to the Las Angeles County Registrar-f2ecorder/County Clerk. The Gity of Los Angeles is willing and able to sell its program to other entities far appraximate[y $40,000, including installation, and has sold the program to the City of Long Beach and to Los Angeles County Clerk's Office. Once installed the purchaser would have to maintain, update, upgrade, and modify the system as needed. At the writing of this report staff does not have enough information to determine the on-going cost of maintaining such a program. Staff contacted Lang Beach and the County Clerk's office for a reference on the use of the program. City of Long Beach staff advised that overall, the system is good and allows faster public access of campaign statements,. but that the program required substantial adjustments and tweaking to tailor it to the City`s needs and on-going maintenance. The County Clerk's Office is still conducting some final adjustments and expects to have the program ready for use by Ju{y 2007 for the top eight County ofFces including the Board of Supervisors, Assessor, District Attorney and Sheriff. 10 A company named NetFile is being used by the cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, San Diego, Anaheim, and recently by San Francisco, as well as by the counties of Santa Clara and Alameda. NetFile hosts and maintains the program with the city linking to its account. Preliminary research indicates a flat maintenance cast of $10,000 annually for organizations with a population of less than 100,000. Attached as Exhibit F is introductory information regarding Netfile. Their website is at: http /Iwww netfile com! Council may wish to consider directing staff to research the cost of on-going maintenance of the program available for purchase from the City of Los Angeles and/or the cost of securing electronic filing services from a suitable provider approved by the Secretary of State. Public Financing of Elections in Other Comparable Cities Lastly, also at the March 13th Council meeting, Council directed staff to research how public financing of elections was working in comparable-sized cities. The cities of Long Beach, Oakland and San Francisco have implemented a limited form or public financing involving matching funds only. However, they are not comparable in size to the City of Santa Monica as their populations range from 382,000 to 730,000. The City of Boulder, Colorado is the most comparable in resident and voter population, at just over 100,000 residents and 70,218 registered voters. Boulder also has a matching funds program only; it does not have a full financing program. Candidates who agree to participate in the program agree to contributions and expenditure limits based on a specific formula of (Inflation per-voter base) x (registered voters). 11 For the November 2005 election, based on the formula, the expenditure limit was $12,610 including 50°l0 of matching funds in the amount of $6,305 for participating candidates. The program is funded by the General Fund. During this election there were 10 candidates running for office. Four candidates qualified for matching funds, and two of those four candidates were elected. An incumbent who was re-elected did not participate in the program. BudgettFinancial Impact This report has no financial impact. The cost to hire a facilitator for the community meeting, print and prepare materials, publishing and naticing, event support, and employee overtime was covered by departmental savings. However, as noted in the staff report discussed at the March 13th meeting, there may be future financial costs incurred depending on CaunciPs direction to staff on the topics discussed in this report. Prepared I,y: Approved: Forwarded to Council: Maria M. Stewart, City~Clerk ~ am t Ewell (Director, Department of Records and C" anager Election Services} Attachments: ExhibitA Fact Letter= Exhibit A-1 Meeting Chart Exhibit B League of Wamen Voters Campaign Watch Commission Exhibit C City of Malibu -Campaign Watch Commission Exhibit D VQTE4SM Elections Reform Proposal Exhibit D-1 Election Reform Newspaper Articles Exhibit E Sample of survey Exhibit F NetFile Information 12 __ ~;, City of Santa Monica'" CITY OF SANTA MONICA ELECTORAL PROCESS -FACT SHEET MAY 14, 2007 -COMMUNITY MEETING City Demographics: Population: Registered Voters: Voter. Turnout: 86,391 (2000 Census) 57,455 (November 2006 election) 60°l0 {November 2006 election) Voter turnout in other cities: C~ Election date Percentage Alhambra Nov 06 42.3% Beverly Hills Mar 07 31.1 Carson Mar 07 18.8% City ofi Los Angeles May 05 33.94% Culver City Apr 06 21.9% Glendale Apr 07 25.3% Hawthorne Nov 05 42.0% Lakewood Mar 07 12.0% Torrance June 06 37.0% Santa Barbara Nov 05 56.0% Existing Local Campaign Reforms: No filing fees for measures/initiatives Campaign statement filing requirements during the signature-gathering period for measureslinitiatives Distribution of election information sheet requirement during signature- gathering period, for measures and candidates Candidates for City Office Regulations (estimated cosfto the City of $15,000 per candidate): - $250 contribution limit - No candidate filing fees - Free printing and translating of candidate statement - Free airing of candidate information, interviews, and debates on CityTV - Free space on City's website for candidates' statement -over - Campaign Regulations: Rights of expression and association protect participation in the political process. This makes it difficult for state and local governments to regulate contributions and expenditures even when they attempt to do so for good reasons such as equalizing opportunities and fighting corruption. Contribution Limits: -Contributions to candidates and their committees may be limited. - Contributions to committees making independent expenditures on behalf of candidates are likely not subject to limitation. -Cities cannot limit contributions to groups supporting or opposing local initiatives and referenda. - Contribution limits must be established with care. Expenditure Limits: - Mandatory expenditure limits are highly problematic. Various kinds of limits have been found to impermissibly interfere with rights to express one's views, to freely associate and to petition the government. - Voluntary expenditure limits are much less problematic. f:/cityclerk/elections/publicworkshop. factsheet.doc ~` ~'y `~! t~F.t1-`~~ May .~ ~._.___._.. ~. .~ e_ ____.._ , .. , E L~cz, r>.,+ ~'~u~, sac G A L -.___.___ __.~.....~ ~._._ ~,.., ~~~'c~°r,o~.a :~ G~w~aiiit-r a.! ~ i ' 3~ 1.1e.,s at- r.,a~ t _ j',~~ a ~~" ry ~' . ~~ h>.n1.irJ ~A°i tc~i s aG~,~5S T~ C.a,~O1rJA"1~c3 ~ L„~r,~.t~~ csni C~a~1~r ~~~' ~vZanaSt~P+a.~~uL4 +~ `-t'",, ~, ~f ~" ~! 64w ~ ~Ar.4~ (~,1 } `x~ ~. ~+..~!'c,4t.r.~A11stJ1 i7t,Ssr'~o~uQE` ^ r.. 't.2 ~E o1 ~.ya,Y'n~t Mc.rf~4-~ ! 1'"~, G,ac~r~,rria 1 ~F'vCii..1t F1hiA+~JLi~j~~ ~'/,~ ri ~t~R~>4is+~dC~ ~T>~&~+,'c~S+ F'v~,,;s Fn~.,~,~.J~ 155C.tct.ra,t~rr~giLirt~ i% ' ~„A~G~SS t,~'` ~ ~^k..~ ~*lu'!~h,1 r1~` ~ A,~*,,-i' ~,~en°i,+tt_~ (2z~...cw,,i_. ~~4 SE~St+~P£ ~'t:n..a~, Canis?i 9"'S G.I \Jt 4. M-.,~G'~t. lQ/1 w.1"P4, C`i1i°"2~:. ~'!a~~nJW-4.C} ~ C..l..'CF~t4~ t..`^~MI"1~1,.'tM1 ,4~.t].~ A.w+ ^ If ,y ~,~ry ,+~ yy~y~ p' y... i ~ ... tl,~ iCP`13 ~`~Il.~.`~ J4'~.~~ 1`;1'A i~A. ~~4%iR&r"S"'.~~'YG+M ~\~3 ~FAC°rc+{c.~,nsCa'..,~r~+v~.^Sd, '~~~v~SPac,s~.~ A~.~,.r*` ~'"I~n.rlLlmi~,~ ~- 4~lEnt'Taa~~rt~,v L~t.1Yra.~cyvmrra._e~ ~~Yra~`vP3 Ip Ctict'1 2. crJ±.:"~14'Jr..rt'.t7'~i ~.wfN~~ .-wwM , - ~~,~p tea. R~~~rcTw~.~ ,~ , ~ ,, ~ 'er ~c ,l~AVU~~ ~N~c~~av~~~ra,~~^w~ s~rres ; : ~ ~. i1v~rl~a~-r .~",,,~r ~, ~, ~f~t.,rt,~q~.'Su3~,in~ae+a~~fi~ ~ ~wrarr-~r~t P~,..L+-~ r,.i Iv+~ ~ ~ W~~~Nb vo`r1i~~t ~I~au~E r~ C.cn~o~,art~ P1a,T~asa~5 ~ A~~~w "t"Wa»wcvC12.., yr ~~` ~.r~ ~tccww^Cra~-£.',r '~lcG'kE.SrSlnrYa.~ C~w.ti~+."C'C€'.q }~ 44yy ~-. (-traG~L~ Tm .~ I~.o Wi7Tih1~ ,~~I-""Q ~"II _-1~ '~'fN~ "~~CC N,~A`WQ,~ S}7nr.,5o~.,.. ~.PRn.41hSC~ ~ tit~r~,~ F,~et~e,,.,g . ~' ~'Rl~ M~,pSq , , . ~'+cPCNC71'TU Si,~ Uf' 1 f 1ti1a \1~1~N"CrJ+i~hit,,`4 , ~VC+4.l L FVr..14A1c.\Nt ~~1.'R~C'ex~t,.~d„~$"i6„i ~`~.1~u 1,az~,nu1m ~Nor'1t~c.+i"Cicw~ of l~4z+a~A~1r~S / ~-s~~a~c~~~t,z~µ~.r-~sx~i~~ v4 b~°Se~c~ a~.1~..o ta.e~~- `rata Cs<v~.v«~i~r+.w~S ,:, '~UD CSt+»,f it,v }- , y A{I~~ h~:.VUl7 Pfi~ #,,~ i'r r+„1r1i?~-r'w rk,Yr 51~""j ~~6N~6~.~ LYI' ~ $ "'({ E -C¢eore,lt,rr d*+11~.i a c'1`R~ ,v,. 1..<., ,1 ,. ,.,~ ~'FC7tc.._T~n~G Cc~nte.tl. Ibin1P~*~1~.t,~,`gy ~-`S4it~wt" ~G~A1[~~ ~upp~~1'~~ta;T¢i)V~ ~-"'~yyra~~jjy~}~,~.~~~~~,+*.a `~s'~~a (]~/~ u~ ,l~ ~- ~"'~L~„ l5 ~"~~Ntti~+ Y1~.7NtG~ 4r C,fMfT. 41}lN~vµC f.Y"h(F°VI ~I ~1.ii}`Y#iC A'"` {1y~. ` r7 ~~w~ ""~+'~p~~~lw+~4~.~, yy: WW rrti ~^CC.. M .~.^ fL~.((N( ~ ~w.C~+ ~Y0.~L'~~ ~~..('S`',,~Wll1}'i°~ILN~ ~lT hYt~ ~ A~~.as F~,~. ~,~~~r~.s~x tNO . - Nwav-~. tv' I ~~ +1ee~,, ~ ~' ~~s City of Santa Monica Electoral Process Community Meeting May 14, 2007 MISSION STATEMENT The Campaign Watch Commission, sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles, and supported by numerous diverse civic organizations, endeavors to actively encourage a productive and positive electoral process. The Commission is convinced that voters participate most fully in an electoral process characterized by decency, honesty and fair play. The Commission calls upon all candidates, their committees and ballot measure committees to observe campaign practices consistent with those principles. The Commission strongly supports the rights of candidates, their committees and ballot measure committees to express their views, including disagreements with their opponents. The Commission believes that unethical practices are destructive for our democracy. The Commission, therefore, calls for the following standards: That all candidates and campaigns be free of prejudice based on race, gender, religion, national origin, age or sexual orientation. That all candidates and campaigns be free of personal character attacks. 3. That all candidates and campaigns be free of false and misleading statements or accusations. PROCEDURES Number of Commissioners: The Commission consists of nine members. An Alternate Commissioner may serve in the absence of any Commissioner. Selection of Commissioners: Prospective Commission members and/or Alternates may be proposed by any Commissioner. Candidates interested in serving shall submit their resumes. Because the Commission meets only on an as-needed basis, resumes will be circulated among the Commissioners by fax or e-mail. In the absence of negative comment, the candidate will be invited to fill a vacancy or to serve as an Alternate. If not so approved, the candidate will be considered at a Commission meeting held either in person or via conference call. Role of the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles: The League established the Commission and provides support and coordination of Commission activities. The League president, executive director and chair of the corresponding League committee attend Commission meetings but do not participate in Commission decisions on candidates' complaints. The Commission reviews and determines its response to candidates' complaints fully independent of the League. Quorum: For Commission meetings, a quorum shall consist of a majority of those Commissioners who are not recused. A minimum of three Commissioners is required to consider and respond to a candidate's complaint. Recusal: Commissioners are selected based on their involvement in the community, their knowledge of the political process and the high level of respect they have earned. Because of these qualities, Commissioners are often asked to support a candidate for political office. In the event a supported candidate files a Commission complaint, or is the subject of a complaint, Commissioners will recuse themselves: Under any circumstance that they believe is appropriate; or If they: - have contributed more than $250 to a City Council candidate, or more than $SOO.to a citywide, or county, state or federal district candidate; - have endorsed or otherwise authorized use of their name in a campaign; or - are officially involved in the candidate's campaign activity or fundraising. Election Complaint Procedure: Complaints: • In accordance with its Mission Statement, the Commission will consider complaints against campaigns that: contain prejudice based on race, gender, religion, national origin, age or sexual orientation; engage in personal character attacks; or include false and misleading statements or accusations. The Commission does not consider legal issues, which are the province of public agencies. A complaint may be submitted only by a candidate or authorized representative of the candidate or ballot measure committee. • Complaints must be submitted within 10 days of the first publication airing of the campaign material or action that provoked the complaint. • All complaints must be submitted in writing and may be no longer than two pages. If more than two pages are submitted, only the first two pages will be read. • A Face Sheet, provided by the Commission and requesting contact information, must be completed and must accompany the complaint. • Pertinent exhibits may be attached. • If a complaint, which is provoked by a candidate's action in the final days of the campaign, is submitted too late for the Commission to respond before the election, the Commission will issue its response following the election. Notice to Accused Party: Within 24 hours of receipt of the complaint, the Commission will notify the accused party and will provide a copy of the complaint. Opportunity for Rebuttal: The accused party will have 24 hours from the time of notiftcation to submit a written response no longer than two pages. If more than two pages are submitted, only the first two pages will be read. Pertinent exhibits may be attached. If a rebuttal is not submitted within 24 hours, the Commission will proceed utilizing the information on hand and will note in its response that a rebuttal was not submitted within the timing required by the Commission's Election Complaint Procedure. Complaint and Rebuttal Evaluation: Upon receipt of the rebuttal, the Commission will evaluate the dispute and determine an appropriate course of action. Recognizing that time is a critical element in election campaigns, the Commission will make every effort to respond expeditiously. To aid in this effort, a committee of the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles City will provide an initial review of the complaint and rebuttal and offer recommendations to the Commission. In the event that additional staff support is required, pro Bono legal assistance will be sought. It is anticipated that the Commission will take one or more of the following steps: • No Action - In the event a substantive error has been made in the filing of the complaint, i.e., the wrong race, candidate or ballot measure was cited, etc., the Commission may decline to take further action and will so notify the candidate who submitted the complaint. • Action Delayed Pending Further Information - It is the Commission's prerogative to determine that additional information is needed to make a reasoned determination. In the event that a review of public records or contact with the complainant or accused parties, or outside sources, is required, the Commission may delay final action, in which case the affected parties will be advised of an anticipated date of action. • Actiou Taken -The Commission, acting in a timely manner, will review the complaint, rebuttal and recommendations and respond. Among the most likely Commission responses are: - Na action, if it is deemed that the complaint was in error, there was no violation or the findings were inconclusive - Warning, in which case there is a minor infraction on the part of one or more sides of a campaign leading to the issuing of a warning - Media release, announcing that a violation of the standards has been charged and outlining the complaint, the rebuttal and the Commission's findings v~ The Commission reserves the right to amend these procedures as needed in order to fulfill its mission. Mazch, 2002 Campaign Watch Commission -LWV of Los Angeles ~_. ~ r ~~' Page 1 of 3 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS® OF LOS ANGELES HOME WHAT'S NEW? CALENDAR PRESIDENTS PAGE VOTER INFORMATION ACTION GETTING INVOLVED ABOUT LWV JOIN LWV DONATE TO US CONTACT US RESOURCES/SERVICES ~c`Ilfll ~?a1~H 9'W `s~~C~l ~oIIl I2Dfl3Si~I~ ps ..:~-:.u ...,.. ... ,_,__..... _ What is the Campaien Watch Commission . Why was the Commission created? Whv was the League of Women Voters asked to be the founder ands op nsor? • What is the Commission's relationship to the League of Women Voters? How does the Commission work? What are the standards set forth in the Commission's Mission Statement? Have candidates filed complaints with the Commission What kinds of action has the Commission taken? • What does the Commission do when a complaint is filed in response to alast-minute attack such as a mailer that is distributed the weekend before a Tuesdayelection • What oreanizations saoport the Commission? • Speakers Bureau • Voter Services .~. ~~.~=~,.ma~ ,._. _,.~n..... a~o_m,..~ e »Fn .v.._ .._.n „..~:,. ~.,.,. ,:...~ n. ,r_.::_ :w-=°._~...,,„: Election Management • Campaign Watch What is the Campaign Watch Commission? Voting Brochures VOTER It is anine-member commission, created in May, 1999 by the League of Women Voters of Los INTERNSHIPS Angeles and supported by numerous, diverse civic organizations, to encourage a positive and productive electoral process. Why was the Commission created? Several civic groups approached the League and asked the organization to fmd a way to discourage dishonest, unethical political campaigning. The League believed that a small, but politically and ethnically diverse group of civic leaders, who have the respect of the community, could hold candidates' behavior to a high ethical standard. Why was the League of Women Voters asked to be the Founder and sponsor? The League is a political, nonpartisan organization with a long history of working to encourage citizen participation in government. The League believes that citizens are more inclined to become informed and to vote in a political process that is honest, fair and ethical. What is the Commission's relationship to the League of Women Voters? The League sponsors the Commission and provides staff support, but the Commission's decisions and actions are taken totally independent of the League. How does the Commission work? Severa] weeks before the election, a copy of the Commission's Election Complaint Procedures is sent to all candidates for citywide office and for district seats at the local, state or federal level that are subject to election by Los Angeles voters. Candidates who think that their opponent has breached the standards of campaign ethics set forth in the Commission's Mission Statement can submit a "complaint" to the Commission. The opponent is provided an opportunity to rebut the complaint, a8er which the Commission weighs the submitted evidence and issues a response. http://www.lwvlosaneeles.ora/camnaien.html sil Fi~nm Carnpaign Watch Commission - LWV of Los Angeles The response is provided to both the complainant and the opponent, and to the media. What are the standards set forth in the Commission's Mission Statement? The standards require that all candidate and ballot measure campaigns be free o£ prejudice based on race, gender, religion, national origin, age or sexual orientation. personal character attacks false and misleading statements or accusations Have candidates filed complaints with the Commission? Page 2 of 3 Yes, since its founding in 1999, the Commission has acted on numerous complaints received from candidates for a variety of offices, including mayor, city council, board of education and state Assembly. What kinds of action has the Commission taken? In some cases, after reviewing the complaint and rebuttal, the Commission found that the complaint was without merit. In other cases, the Commission agreed that a complaint was warranted because a candidate made false or misleading statements or attacked the opponent's character in a way that was unsubstantiated or contrary to the Commission's standards. In several cases, the Commission has been faced with a complaint and counter-complaint it reviews both sides' documents and determines an appropriate response to each candidate. What does the Commission do when a complaint is filed in response to alast-minute attack, such as a mailer that is distributed the weekend before a Tuesday election? That is often the time when candidates resort to the most inflammatory language because they know their opponent may be unable to respond. Commissioners realize that they need to make themselves available on very short notice, and every effort is made to respond to a complaint in time for it to be meaningful. A candidate charged with a complaint has 24 hours to submit a rebuttal, and if that deadline is not met, the Commission proceeds with the information that is available. The Commission has been able to review a complaint, request a rebuttal and issue a fording in as short a period as three days. What organizations support the Commission? The following organizations support the Commission; several had encouraged the League to create and sponsor such an effort: American Jewish Committee Anti-Defamation League Asian Pacific American Legal Center Jewish Community Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation Council Korean American Coalition Korean Youth and Community Center Latin American Civic Association Los Angeles City Human Relations Commission Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center Los Angeles NAACP Los Angeles Urban League Multicultural Collaborative Muslim Public Affairs Council National Conference for Community and Justice httnJ/www_lwvlosangeles.nr¢/camnaien.html 5/16/2007 Ca~np'aign Watch Commission - LWV of Los Angeles Page 3 of 3 Progressive Jewish Alliance Southern Christian Leadership Conference Southwest Voter Registration Project Women For: Comments, suggestions, questions? Contact our webmaster. Last revised: May 8, 2007 20:05 PDT. © Copyright League of Women Voters of Los Angeles, California. All rights reserved. http://www.lwvlosangeles.org/campaign.html 5/16/2007 Campaign Watch Commission A Campaign Watch Commission has been created as an independent body of seven members to be the arbiters of ethics charges in the April 13 city election. The Commission will not judge questions of law, but rather will act in a timely manner on issues of ethics: the right or wrong of statements made; the willingness of candidates and others to express their views without personal character attack; or prejudice based on race, gender, religion, national origin, age, or sexual orientation. If complaints cannot be resolved by the city's ethics coordinator, they will be presented to the Commission, with the opportunity for the other side to present a rebuttal. Based on the material presented to it, the Commission will announce its decision through a press release, and post it on the website for the election that can be found at the city's site: http://www.ci.malibu.ca.us. Click on Election Information, and then Election Monitor. The direct link is http://www. ci.malibu. ca.us/index.cfm?fuseaction=detailgroun&navid=208 &cid=4440. The Commission may decide not to take action, ask for more evidence, or issue a warning to one or more sides. One goal of creating such a commission is that it will act as a deterrent to those who might feel there is no downside to saying what ever it takes to win in a campaign. The "power" of the Commission is the power of an independent voice of a group of respected individuals. Campaigns exist in an uncertain environment. What motivates a voter to choose one candidate over another is the subject of considerable debate and study, but when voters have an independent, disinterested guide about issues or candidates, they are apt to pay attention. The members of this commission are not involved in Malibu politics. Only one lives in the city, but they know how local campaigns function -- some because they have run for office themselves -- and most because they have been active participants in our larger community and worked in campaigns at all levels of government. It is our hope the Commission will be tested only a few times. Members of the Commission are: Evon Gotlieb is a former president of the Los Angeles League of Women Voters, and until 2003, served as coordinator of the League's Campaign Watch Commission. She has been active in the community for many years as a public affairs professional and as a board member of numerous not-for-profits organizations. Ed Guthman: Senior lecturer, USC School of Journalism; Editor, The Philadelphia Inquirer; national editor, Los Angeles Times; Atty. Gen. Robert F. Kennedy's press secretary, 1961-65; President, Los Angeles City Ethics Commission 1997-8; member Sept. 1990-July 1998 Judge Alan Haber: just retired Supervising Judge of the West District of the Los Angeles Superior Court, earlier serving in the same capacity for the Northwest District. As an attorney he handled criminal defense, business transactions, real estate and civil litigation. Barbara Inatsugu is a long time advocate for good government who currently serves on the following boards: the California First Amendment Coalition, the League of Women Voters of Santa Monica, and the Santa Monica-Malibu PTA Co~mcil. She is the immediate past president of the League of Women Voters of California. James Q. Wilson is an emeritus professor at UCLA and now teaches at Pepperdine University. He is the author of a major textbook on American government. In 2003 he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. William Winokur dropped out of the race last week saying it was taking much more time than he expected. Local politics is probably more time consuming than any other level of government because everyone is at home. It is particularly difficult in a city with sharply divided politics. Hopefully, the Campaign Watch Commission will contribute toward encouraging the remaining five candidates to campaign in a civil and ethical manner -- 30 -- Article Number Two Article Number Two Campaign Watch Commission Page 1 of 2 A Campaign Watch Commission has been created as an independent body of seven members to be the arbiters of ethics charges in the April 13 city election. The Commission will not judge questions of law, but rather will act in a timely manner on issues of ethics: the right or wrong of statements made; the willingness of candidates and others to express their views without personal character attack; or prejudice based on race, gender, religion, national origin, age, or sexual orientation. If complaints cannot be resolved by the city's ethics coordinator, they will be presented to the Commission, with the opportunity for the other side to present a rebuttal. Based on the material presented to it, the Commission will announce its decision through a press release, and post it on the website for the election that can be found at the city's site: http://www.ci.malibu.ca.us. Click on Election Information, and then Election Monitor. The direct link is http://www.ci.malibu.ca.us/index.cfm? fuseaction=detailgroup&navid=208&cid=4440. The Commission may decide not to take action, ask for more evidence, or issue a warning to one or more sides. One goal of creating such a commission is that it will act as a deterrent to those who might feel there is no downside to saying what ever it takes to win in a campaign. The "power" of the Commission is the power of an independent voice of a group of respected individuals. Campaigns exist in an uncertain environment. What motivates a voter to choose one candidate over another is the subject of considerable debate and study, but when voters have an independent, disinterested guide about issues or candidates, they are apt to pay attention. The members of this commission are not involved in Malibu politics. Only one lives in the city, but they know how local campaigns function -- some because they have run for office themselves -- and most because they have been active participants in our larger community and worked in campaigns at all levels of government. It is our hope the Commission will be tested only a few times. Members of the Commission are: Marvin Braude: former member of the Los Angeles City Council, has been a Senior Fellow at the UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research and a member of the faculty of the USC School of Policy, Planning and Development. Edmund Edelman: former member of the Los Angeles City Council and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is a professional mediator. Evon Gotlieb is a former president of the Los Angeles League of Women Voters, and until 2003, served as coordinator of the League's Campaign Watch Commission. She has been active in the community for many years as a public affairs professional and as a board member of numerous not-for-profits. Ed Guthman: Senior lecturer, USC School of Journalism; Editor, The Philadelphia Inquirer; national editor, Los Angeles Times; Atty. Gen. Robert F. Kennedy's press secretary, 1961-65; President, Los Angeles City Ethics Commission 1997-8; member Sept. 1990-July 1998 http://www.ci.malibu.ca.us/index.cfm?fuseaction=Detail&CID=4454&NavID= 5/24/2007 Article Number Two Page 2 of 2 Judge Alan Haber: just retired Supervising Judge of the West District of the Los Angeles Superior Court, earlier serving in the same capacity for the Northwest District. As an attorney he handled criminal defense, business transactions, real estate and civil litigation. Barbara Inatsugu is a long time advocate for good government who currently serves on the following boards: the California First Amendment Coalition, the League of Women Voters of Santa Monica, and the Santa Monica-Malibu PTA Council. She is the immediate past president of the League of Women Voters of California. James Q. Wilson is an emeritus professor at UCLA and now teaches at Pepperdine University. He is the author of a major textbook on American government. In 2003 he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. William Winokur dropped out of the race last week saying it was taking much more time than he expected. Local politics is probably more time consuming than any other level of government because everyone is at home. It is particularly difficult in a city with sharply divided politics. Hopefully, the Campaign Watch Commissioh will contribute toward encouraging the remaining five candidates to campaign in a civil and ethical manner Xandra Kayden, Ethics Consultant http://www.ci.malibu.ca.us/index.cfm?fuseaction=Detail&CID=4454&NavID= 5/24/2007 Santa Monica city elections reform proposal Submitted far public review and discussion by VOTE4SM, a Santa Monica citizen electoral reform coalition Produced with the assistance of California Clean Money Campaign California Common Cause Center for Governmental Studies Xandra Kayden, UCLA Southern California Americans for Democratic Action Santa Monica Democratic Club Introduction A key concern voiced at the May 14, 200'7 Santa Monica City-sponsored workshop on improving elections in Santa Monica was how to reduce the influence of outside special interests on city elections. In recent years, campaigns for Santa Monica city office have seen an upsurge in large independent expenditures. Many of these expenditures come from outside the community, which means that the individuals and political action committees investing in local elections are not accountable to Santa Monica residents and voters. Adapting a voluntary system of full public. financing of political campaigns for elected offices would help control and contain this trend. Under a full public financing program, candidates for City Council would be eligible to receive sufficient public funds to run viable campaigns. To qualify for public funding, candidates must to receive a set number of $5 qualifying contributions and signatures from registered voters to show that they have a broad base of support. Publicly funded candidates must agree to spending limits and take no private contributions other than limited seed funds that can only be used to qualify. Candidates will not be allowed to raise or spend additional money beyond what they receive from the fund. Publicly fimded candidates receive enough baseline public funds to run competitive campaigns. If the participating candidate is outspent by an opponent who does not participate or if independent groups run ads or mailings attacking them ar supporting their opponent, they receive matching funds within days to effectively respond. A system of publicly funded election campaigns enables more candidates, including more minorities and women, to run viable campaigns. It levels the playing campaign field, promotes more competitive elections, discourages negative campaigns, and reduces the cost of election campaigns. The following proposal far Santa Monica is modeled on similar full public financing systems in place in Portland (OR), Albuquerque (NM}, Arizona and Maine, and has been customized to reflect extraordinary existing local involvement, and electoral safeguards already in place for Santa Monica City Council elections. Program ©utliue Eligibility Potential Participating candidates must declare themselves eligible for public financing with the city clerk's office prior to the start of the Qualifying Period. Qualifying Contributions Participating candidates who have properly declared themselves eligible for public financing must gather qualifying contributions of $5 from 1 % of the registered voters in Santa Monica. As of ZQ06, 57,455 residents of Santa Monica were registered to vote. Assuming that number does not change, clean candidates need contributions from 575 d fferent registered voters to be processed and verified in order to receive an allotment of public funds. Qualifying contributions must be in the form of $5 to enable the participation of all residents. Registered voters are allowed to give qualifying contnbutions to more than one person. However, citizens will not be allowed to give qualifying contributions to more candidates than. are open city council seats in that election cycle. If a citizen gives qualifying contributions to more candidates than are open city council seats, valid eontributions will be discerned by the date of acquisition. Att qualifying contnbutions must be deposited into the clean elections -fund, even if the contnbution is in support of a candidate that does not eventually raise the required number of contnbutions necessary for public financing. Qualifying Period Eligible candidates will be allowed to gather qualifying contributions from May 1~` to July 31~` of election year. CouneiI is recommended to move the filing date to before the start of the qualifying period. Seed Money Seed money contnbutions are limited to $IOQ per donor and must not exceed a cumulative amount above $1,OQt3. This money is to be raised before the qualifying period and can only be used to gather qualifying contributions in accordance with the seed money guidelines set forth by the Clean Elections Commission. Those who give seed money contributions can also give qualifying contributions as long as they are a Santa Monica resident/registeredvoter. An eligible candidate is not allowed to loan his/her self seed money. In-land Contributions In-kind contributions are limited to $100 per donor per eligible candidate. In-kind contributions cannot pass a cumulative amount of 10% of the initial grant. ($4,000} Initial Grant Having raised the appropriate number of qualifying contributions, proven an adherence to the conduct required of an eligible candidate, and having had the appropriate number of qualifying contributions validated, the eIigiblefparticipatingcondidate will receive an initial grant of public funds. Money is granted as soon as possible, and is not restricted until after the qualifying period. An initial grant of $40,000 is recommended for the 2008 election. Matching Funds 1) Non-participating candidate's committees Non-participating candidates can spend up to the initial grant limit ($40,000), without repercussion. For every. dollar spent above the initial grant amount, each participating candidate will receive adollar-for-dollar grant up to the individual participating candidate's matching fund cap. (2.5 X the initial grant; $100,000} ~} Independent Expenditures A. Independent Expenditures supporting any candidate Independent expenditures in support of a participating or non- participating candidate over a cumulative amount of $15,000 from all sources triggers dollar-for-dollar matching funds of the amount above the $15,040 threshold to all participating candidates who did not benefit from the expenditure. B. Independent Expenditures opposing participating candidates Any independent expenditure made in opposition to a participating candidate results in dollar-for-dollar matching funds granted solely to the attacked candidate. 3} Matching Funds Cag The maximum amount of total public funds a participating candidate can receive including matching funds shall be no more than 2.5 X the initial grant. ($100,000) llisclosure In order to provide an effective clean money system, full and timely disclosure of campaign and independent expenditures for all candidates is absolutely necessary. Expenditures must be reported within 24 hours of the time the expense is incurred. Matching funds must be made available to the appropriate participating candidate within 24 hours of the expenditure being reported. A coherent posting of all expenditures, organized by candidate, by Independen# Expenditure committee, should be available far the general public in real-time. Clean Elections Commission The public financing system requires that a commission made up of city staffand/or volunteers be set with the responsibility of evaluating the clean elections system after each election cycle. The commission would identify possible abuses of the system as well as make adjustments to the eligibility requirements, required percentage of qualifying contributions, the initial grant amount, and the unmatched independent expenditure window amount. http://www.dailynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print atticle.jsp?articleld=5997598&siteld=200 06/07/2007 03:09 PM No-limits local races draw huge donations BY STEVE LAWRENCE, Associated Press LA Daily News Article Last Updated:05/26/2007 08:39:02 PM PDT SACRAMENTO -Races for county assessor are usually sleepy affairs that attract relatively little in campaign donations. Not in San Bernardino County in 2006. Bill Postmus, chairman of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, spent $2.4 million last year to win the assessor's job, pulling in donations of at least $10,000 from 50 contributors, including a homebuilder that gave him $244,000. Two of his fellow supervisors raised a total of $1.6 million for their re-election campaigns, with individual donors giving as much as $85,000, even though they faced no opposition for re- election. "It's a shocking amount of money that was raised," said Reggie King, chairman and chief executive officer of Young Homes, Postmus' largest contributor. Postmus and the other candidates were able to collect such large donations because San Bernardino County has no limits on how much money candidates can raise from contributors. While limits are in place for statewide, congressional and even presidential candidates, most candidates running for local office in California face no restrictions on how much money they can raise from individual donors. An Associated Press review found that only 13 of California's 58 counties and 96 of its 478 cities put limits on the size of donations. The lack of contribution limits can give wealthy donors more clout in local races than on the state level, said Ned Wigglesworth, a lobbyist for the campaign reform group California Common Cause. "Local races are just as open to influence from special interests as statewide races, and even more so in some cases," he said. "Whereas $20,000 in a state campaign might buy you a seat at the table, $20,000 in a local race buys you the whole conference room." He supports donation limits and public financing for local races and a requirement that local candidates disclose donations online to make it easier for voters to track the source of candidates' money. But few local governments put the candidates' campaign finance statements online now. Most have only paper records on file at the county seat or city hall, requiring residents to travel, sometimes long distances. Assemblyman Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia, has introduced a bill that would require cities and counties to put their campaign finance reports on the Internet. http://www.dailynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print artide.jsp?artideld=5997598&siteld=200 Page 1 of 3 htip://www.dailynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleld=5997598&siteld=200 06/07/2007 03:09 PM "The amount of dollars being raised and spent on local elections has increased exponentially," Adams said. "It's more and more important that average citizens can easily and readily review the campaign disclosures we are all required to submit." Developers chip in 4 In some communities, particularly those facing growth pressures, developers are the main campaign contributors. Casino-operating Indian tribes also are generous donors to friendly candidates. They often give much larger amounts than those allowed candidates for state offices. In Placer County, Supervisor Robert Weygandt spent $481,000 last year to fend off a challenge from Jerry Simmons, a member of the local community college board. Weygandt's supporters included the United Auburn Indian Community, which operates the Thunder Valley Casino in Lincoln and gave Weygandt $114,000. Simmons spent $417,000, including $100,000 he received from Sacramento-area developer Angelo Tsakopoulos. Tsakopoulos' son, Kyriakos, chipped in another $101,576 for his own campaign against Weygandt. A third supervisorial candidate, Rocky Rockholm, spent $444,000 to win another seat on the Placer County board, getting individual donations of as much as $32,500. By comparison, a candidate for governor can receive no more than $24,100 per election from most donors. Limits struck down California briefly imposed tough caps on donations to local candidates. Proposition 208, approved by voters in 1996, allowed most donors to give no more than $250 per election to candidates for local offices and the Legislature and $500 per election to statewide candidates. "We didn't think the sky should be the limit," said Tony Miller, a former acting California secretary of state who was one of the proposition's authors. A federal judge struck down the limits in 1998, ruling that they were too stringent to allow the typical candidate to communicate with voters. Voters approved a new set of limits in 2000, Proposition 34, but those caps only apply to campaigns for state offices. In addition to the limits for gubernatorial candidates, they allow most donors to give up to $6,000 to other statewide candidates, such as secretary of state, and $3,600 to people running for the Legislature. Limits in those California cities and counties that have them range from $100 to a few thousand dollars. As in state politics, however, there are ways around the local limits, principally through independent expenditures -campaign money that doesn't go into a candidate's coffers. Los Angeles puts a $500 limit on donations to City Council candidates and a $1,000 cap on contributions to candidates for mayor and other city posts. But in 2005, unions, landlords, architects, environmentalists and others avoided those caps by spending a total of $4.4 million http://www.dailynews.com/portlet/article/himl/fragments/print article.jsp?articleld=5997598&siteld=200 Page Z of 3 http://www.dailynews.cam/portlet/article/html/fragments/print article.jsp?articleld=5997598&si[e1d=200 06/07/2007 03:09 PM on their own campaigns supporting or opposing city candidates. The spending included $600,305 by the California Teachers Association in support of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and $510,228 by the Service Employees International Union backing Villaraigosa's chief opponent, then-Mayor James Hahn. In nearby Santa Monica, which puts a $250 cap on donations to candidates, the company that owns two beachfront hotels spent at least $563,000 last year on ads, telephone banks, brochures and precinct walkers to oppose City Councilman Kevin McKeown and support two of his rivals. McKeown won re-election and was helped, he said, by a newspaper article revealing that a participant in a cable television ad attacking him actually supported him. "Had that not happened, I have no way of knowing what that TV campaign might have done," said McKeown, who spent nearly $35,000 on his bid for a third term. Even though they may face slim chances of winning court challenges, several California cities have tried to limit independent expenditures by capping the amounts individual donors can give to independent expenditure campaigns. Hard sell for some Trying to impose contribution limits on candidates can be a hard sell in some areas of the state. Riverside County Supervisor Bob Buster said he can't get any of his colleagues to support the idea. "What we're seeing here is the fundraising base is getting smaller in proportion to the population, but the amounts (given) are getting larger and that's not a good thing for the future," he said. Three of Buster's colleagues raised a total of more than $1.5 million for election campaigns last year, with donors giving up to $20,300. Postmus, the new San Bernardino County assessor, says he sees nothing wrong with unlimited contributions. "We have something in America called freedom of speech," he said. "Citizens have the right to give campaign contributions. I don't have a problem taking them because I know I am a fair and impartial person when it comes to issues." Postmus' chief benefactor, however, said he wouldn't mind seeing local contribution limits: "It would leave me better off than I am," said King, the homebuilder. Huge donations have had an effect in local races throughout the state. Big money is even showing up in campaigns in some smaller towns. In Live Oak, a city of 7,400 about 50 miles north of Sacramento, Mayor Mel Wilkins and Councilwoman Paula Ford also lost re-election bids in November after a group with funding from several developers spent $25,750 to defeat them. Wilkins said he was targeted because of his opposition to unchecked growth. He said his re- election campaign cost $700 and consisted of his wife and children passing out fliers. Clo dow c Send To Printer ht[p://www.dailynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print article.jsp?articleld=5997598&siteld=200 Page 3 of 3 The Argonaut: Santa Monica 06/07/2007 03:06 PM ~~ ~; 1". ~ ~ ~~• ,I~i h ~" YCrt~R BEST SOURCE 4F I_fSCAC INF©I~.?~9A"t7K?td FCYR Marina del Rey + Playa del Rey + Ill Rey ~~e ~~~~' Venice # Santa Monica • Westchester PU BLlSHE6 EVERY 7I~IYRSCk.AY SANTA MONICA Santa Monica coalition works for transparency in municipal elections (Credted : Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:37 PM PDT) Five Santa Monica neighborhood groups have joined several community organizations to push for more integrity in the election process. They have combined with California Common Cause, the California-Clean Money Campaign, Southern California Americans for Democratic Action and the Santa Monica Democratic Club to form Voter-Owned Transparent Elections for Santa Monica. The coalition is scheduled to hold its first city-sponsored workshop Monday, May 14th, at 7 p.m. at the Ken Edwards Center, 1527 Fourth St. in Santa Monica. The groups said they believe that money is having a 'destructive effect' on public policy at every level of government and hope to raise awareness of some of the key questions regarding Santa Monica elections. For example: Why have City Council elections become so pricey? Has this impacted the quality of life of the voter and resident of Santa Monica? How can we make our elections more transparent, and elected officials more accountable? 'We need to take money out of the equation. Our election system is too important to be left to the highest bidder,' noted Santa Monica resident Monica Brennan, who works with the California Clean Money Campaign. 'We want the best, not the best-funded.' http://www.argonautnewspaper.com/articles/2007/06/10/news- features/santa_monica/sm l.txt Page 1 of 3 June 7, 2007 The Argonaut: Santa Monica The public meeting on May 14th was scheduled by the Santa Monica City Council in response to these kinds of public concerns, and the coalition urges the City Council to take a strong leadership role in mitigating special-interest influence in city elections by providing public funding. 'Santa Monica is known for its effective innovations, and the adoption of publicly funded election campaigns is keeping with that tradition,' said Brandon Marlow, a Santa Monica resident. Earlier this year, the city clerk issued a report outlining a proposed model for a voluntary system of full public financing of campaigns in Santa Monica. Under such a 'Clean Money' system, candidates who demonstrate strong community support qualify for public funding of their campaigns. 'This kind of system,' says Marcy Koukhab, Los Angeles organizer for California Common Cause, 'promotes competition by enabling more candidates ' and from more diverse backgrounds ' to seek office, and reduces their dependence on special interest contributions.' 'In Arizona and Maine, where clean elections have been in place since. 2000, the programs are popular with voters and candidates alike, and more women are running,' Tia Skulski, a member of the Santa Monica Commission on the Status of Women, pointed out. The May 14th workshop on transparency in elections will include further discussion of campaign finance reform, and the coalition encourages all Santa Monicans to attend. An online survey for those unable attend the workshop can be accessed at: www.smgov.net/communication/cityforms/electoralsurvey. htm/. printable version ire-mail this story Reader's Comments: Feedback Rules The Argonaut does not allow comments to be posted directly to the web. Your comment will be held in queue 06/07/2007 03:06 PM http://www.argonautnewspaper.com/articles/2007/05!10/news= _features/santa_monica/sm l.txt Page 2 of 3 New Coalition Tackles Big Money in Local Campaigns _ Archive Weather Columns 06/07/2007 03:05 PM .. a - .... .~... S°ecial Re s The Ci Commerce Links New Coalition Tackles Big Money in Local Campaigns By Jorge Casuso May 8 -- Worried that "money is having a destructive effect on public policy," a group of Santa Monica residents and community groups have formed a coalition to lessen the growing importance of private funding on local politics. Called the Voter-Owned Transparent Elections for Santa Monica (VOTEASM), the group includes California Common Cause, the Santa Monica Democratic Club, the California Clean Money Campaign, Southern California Americans for Democratic Action and Santa Monica's five major neighborhood groups. "We need to take money out of the equation," said Moira Brennan, a Santa Monica parent who works with the California Clean Money Campaign. "Our election system is too important to be left to the highest bidder. We want the best, not the best-funded." According to a statement issued this week, among the questions the coalition hopes to address are: "Why have City Council election campaigns become so pricey? Has this impacted the quality of life for the voter and resident in Santa Monica? How can we make elections more transparent, and elected officials more accountable?" The new group was formed in the wake of one of the most expensive campaigns in the city's history. According to campaign finance reports, Santa Monicans for Sensible Priorities raised and spent some $400,000 on the November race for three open council seats. Nearly all of the money was in the form of independent expenditures donated by the Edward Thomas Company, which owns two luxury beachfront hotels. On the other side of the political spectrum, Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights has raised more than $100,000 every election yeaz in individual $250 contributions. Last year, the average funds spent by groups not associated with a campaign also skyrocketed -- from $16,167 among six candidates in 2002, to nearly $136,424 among five candidates last year, according to a City Clerk report. In addition, individual candidates have been raising and spending more and - , t~ READERS FINE Jf1NELER5 331 VaaEShire Soutavard Santa Monica, CA 90401 Ph.310Ab1.1349 "Our election system is too important to be .left to the highest bidder. We want the best, not the best- funded." Moira Brennan http://www.surfsantamonica.corn/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2007/May-2007/05_08_07_New_Coalition_Tackles_Big_Money.htm Page 1 of 2 New Coalixion Tackles Big Money in Local Campaigns more money on their council bids, with Council member Bobby Shriver spending more than $350,000 in his successfu12004 election. Worried by the trend, the City Council in March began seriously tackling political reform for the first time in 15 years, including possibly discussing whether to grant millions in public financing for council candidates. (see sty) The coalition is urging the council to adopt such a voluntary system of full public financing. "This kind of system promotes competition by enabling more candidates -- and from more diverse backgrounds -- to seek office, and reduces their dependence on special-interest contributions," said Marcy Koukhab, LA organizer for California Common Cause and Santa Monica resident. In Arizona and Maine such "Clean Elections" systems have made a difference since they were instituted in 2000, according to the coalition. In Arizona, nine of the 11 statewide offices are held by candidates running on public financing, while in Maine, 85 percent of the state legislature was "cleanly" elected, coalition members said. "No longer beholden to big donors, legislators in both states. have been able to successfully advance legislation that promotes sustainability and fairness, such as discount drug programs, universal health insurance, and strong environmental protections," according to a statement issued by the coalition. On Monday, May 14 the City will sponsor a workshop on the electoral process at 7 p.m. at the Ken Edwards Center. "The City Council wants to know what you think about the electoral process in Santa Monica," says a public notice posted by the City Clerk. "Please attend a community meeting and let us know what you think is and isn't working with the electoral process in our City." Those who cannot attend the meeting can visit the City's website at www.smgov.net and complete a survey on how the electoral process is working in Santa Monica, or call 310. 458.8211 to receive a survey by mail. _._,~ Copyright ©1999-2007 surfsantamonica.com. All Rights ~~~-'~'~`= roarcour Reserved. ~-- eMniL 06/07/2007 03:05 PM http://www.surfsaniamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2007/May-2007/05_08_07_New_Coalition_Tackles_Big_Money.htm Page 2 of 2 4a~a~~taffia;fp>,rrM~ msiae scoop Visit us online at 5mdp.COm MONDAY, MAY 74, 2007 3 Just a drop of nostalgia Main Library hosts tea party for moms and their daughters BY ALISON TULLY Special to the Daily Press Tca parties always seem to bring [hc nostalgia out of everybody. "My Grandfather used [o pour [ea in his ear at [ca parties;' 6-year-old Teagen Rosso said at [he Main Library's mother and daughter tea putt' on Saturday. "I think if he were watching right now, he would Iemn not to do that;' she added. Teagen and her mother Bri were just two of the many guests at [he family-oriented event Mothers and daughters sipped on rnspberry tea poumd into plastic teacups and munched on scones, cookies, and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. However, teatime did not officially begin until they leaned a proper lesson in etiqupt[e. "Now, do we always or never slosh, slush, or gargle our drinks?" Youth Services Librarian Shona Johnson asked. The ques- tion was part of an "Always or Never?" game ro teach guests about table manners. ]ohnson also read "Peanut Hotter Sandwich," a poem by Shel Silverstein about a famous king whose jaws get shut afecr eating too much of his favorite snack. "Then one day he took a bite and start- ed chewing with delight," Johnson read from [he classic collection of poetry for children. "But he found his mouth was stuck quite tight from thaC last bite of peanut-butter sandwich:' No[ all guests worried about taking another bite. "DO yourjaws really geC stuck with peanut butter?" one .little girl asked "Because I think that's just a fantasy story:' After reading the poem, 7ohnsoncon- i eluded her lesson by telling the audience about the history of tea parties, a tradition that began in [he 1S00s in England. "In the ffrs[ [aa paztias, the cups didn't have any handles on them," Iohnson said. "The water was so hot that you wanted to keep as few fingers around it so people would hold up their pinky finger." After [his lesson, guests voted almost unani- mously to hold their pinkies up for the SEE TEA PAGE 72 Coalition wants change New group is strongly in favor of proposed public finance law BY KEVIN HERRERA Daily Press Staff Writer CITYWIDE Tired of the "destructive" effect money is having on public policy, residents and community groups have formed a coalition [o pressure City Hall into enacting campaign finance reform. Voter-Owned Transparent Election.t for Santa Monica (VOTEdSM) is strongly in Cavor of rho public financing of cam- paign and is expected to make that known tonight when City Clerk Maria Stewart hosts a City Hall-sponsored workshop on [he electoral proces's' at the Ken Edwards Center in downtown. Those who cannot aCtend are urged to fill out an online sur- vey on the city's Web Bite. The walition, which includes the ciy's five major neighhorhood groups, the Santa Monica Democratic Club and California Common Cause, formed in response to the large amount of money - around $400,000 -spent in the last elec- tion by special interest groups, and the City Council's decision eazliof this year not to approve a plan for public financing that would have made available as much as $100,000 for candidates who partici- pated in rho program, said Moira Brennan, a Santa Monica resident who works with the California Clean Money Campaign. ~_~ WE NEED TO ~° -" ~~ TAKE MONEY OUT OF THE EQUATION:' Moira Brennan member of VOTE45M "We need [o mke money out of the equa- tion;' Breman said. "Our election system is too important to be left to the highest bid- der. We want the best, no[ the best funded:' SEE CAMPAIGN PAGE 10 G~~~a Savage Stand [on] your town] ground, Helpingsellers & tiuyers accomplish just that. 310.77D.9446 g4fd3~bulltlogrealmrs.corn ~~.TLLbOG REALTORS TZD9 fib6ot Kjnney Boulevard, Venice NIHY 19, LUU~ ity Hall FROM CAMPAIGN PAGE 3 looking to hear public a minimum of $5 per person or a maximum of $30. Once certifieQ a candidate would receive $50000 in The meeting tonight was scheduled after the council decided to put public financing on hold so [hat they could get a response from residents about whether or no[ [hey felt it was necessary. White most council members supported the concept of "voterbwned elecdons" and the goal of limiting the influence special interest groups have on local contests, several council members expressed concern about the potential cost of such an endeavor, citing a city staff report that estimated a price tag of aC Icxst $7:8 million par election fr IS candidates were [o participate in the voluntary program. That doesn't include the cos[ of administering the program, which would include routine audits, the distri- bution of funds under strict guidelines, and monitoring expenditures made by both participating and non-partic- ipatlng candidates. "There are a lot of things Chat need to be flushed out, but 1 think it's worth working wiCh the public to come up with a community concept;' Mayor Pro Tem Herb Katz said during a debate idMazch. Under the pmposak candidates would have [o raise $3,000 in qualifying contributions over three months to receive $50,000 in public move}'. Prospective candidates could rnisc ,,.. ~ n' D O 2534 Santa Monica Blvd. frpj, ~~,,,; a (310)828-7582 the closest it comes to dining in Japan! This new restauan[ features auurentc Japanese dishes, a Tokyo twined sushi chef, and Asian fusion cuisine. The soft shelf crab with ponzu sauce and broiled butter fish are must have appetizers. Enjoy the newly remodeled atmosphere and savory creations prepared by a true Japanese chef. HARA SUSHI ~3io)siaioii The newest authenti<Japanese restaurant and sushi bar on the Westside. The freshest fish, traditional entrees tike chicken teriyaki, donburi and a wide variety of your favorite sushi and sashimi. Excellent prices, the best quality. 1551 Ocean Avenue (310) 451-7800 In the tradition of IGt)IS tattorias, the sight, sounds and aromas of authentic Italian cuisine are recreated everyday at Il Pomaio. Mornings bring crisp cros[ed bread hot horn [he oven accompanied by the scent of fresh brewed espresso. Oaring lunch and dinner, pastas and flavorful sauces simmer while meats and vegetables roast over hot coals. public funds. Candidates may also receive an additional $iQ000, which would be used to respond to non-par[ia ipating candidates and special interests groups [ha[ have spent over $50,000. „~~ OUR ELECTION SYSTEM IS ~`° T00 IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. WE WANT THE BEST, NOT THE BEST FUNDED." Moira Brennan member of VOTE4SM Questions still remain, such as would any resident be able to contribute to qualifying candidates, or only regis- tered voters. Perhaps more importantly, how would City Hall pay for iC, with money from the general fund or from a new Cax7 o ~ 1920 Santa Monica Btvd. (310) 829-9597 Come hungry, leave haDPY. the Santa Monica IHOP is located at the corner of 20th Sfreet and Santa Monica Blvd. Try our variety of pancakes such as Pumpkin, Country, Harvest Grain 'N Nut Lunch and dinner speda6 offered daily as well as senior discountr. Best value service in all of Santa Monica. 1 1 1. I Ila 118 Estrada Drive .„>2,n (310) 459-8596 For over 20 years, the best south-of-Ne-border Tex Mex munchables and the most "Kick Ass" margaritas are found at Manx Tex Mex PUya in Santa Monica. Fresh ingredientr, great prices, excellent service and a location just steps from the beach, keep the gazers coming back far more. Open Oaily. Banquets, catering, take out and delivery. 1 1 la 1. City officials are looking [o residents for suggestions. Marcy Koukhab, a resident and organizer with Common Cause, would suggest public financing is ehc best way Co make elections more equitable. "This kind of system, promotes competition by enabling more candidates ...From more diverse back- grounds to seek office, and reduces their dependence on special interests," she said. Tia Skulski, a member of the Santa Monica Commisslon on the Slams of Women, pointod out that in Arizona and Maine, where clean elections have been in place since 2000, [hc programs are very popular with vot- ers and candidates alikq and more women arc running. Nine out of I 1 Arizona statewide offices aze held by clean candidates, and 85 percent of Maine's legislature is cle~n- ly elected, Skulski added. Those interested in leazning more about the coalitimt are urged Co c-mail VOTE4SM@gmail.com. The coalition is urging residents to attend the meeting tonight to voice their concerns about the electoral process. "You really do get what you pay Foq" Orennan said. kevinh@smdp.<om ®WHAT DO YOU THINK? ® Send letters to editorOa smdp.com ®BEI11HAllp ( ) 1447 4th St. iIE JNPGIIESE SiEfBat005E 310 260-1423 For more than 40 years 0enihana chefs have been cooking up a feast on the hibachi gdLL Steak, chicken, seafood and vegetables are a!l prepared tepPan-style "right before your eyes." Start your meal with a sushi appetizer then reUx and enjoy the show white sipping exotic cocktaik served in collectible ceamic mugs. AT THE 2640 Main Street in SM "=~` VICTORIAN (310)314-3250 Onginaliy bait[ on Ocean Pvenue in 1893, The ViROtlan was moved to iPs pres- ent Ipcatlon in 19]8. Many zumessful events and bappY wstomers la[ep we are proud to intretlua The Vittodan Baker Cafe to Santa Monica. spetlalizing in down home, tarty tare, we hope to give our curtomers a place [o relax and enjoy each omers company. xave a :cat o0 om pans one enior the wefp,nia:ee:hme. How do you think the electoral process is working in Santa Monica? ~tty p( Santa Nanica° On March 13, 2007, City Council and members of the public discussed the electoral process in Santa Monica. The discussion included, tiut was not limited to, the impact of negative campaigns, the on-going increase of independent expenditures, misleading election literature, the need to encourage diversity of candidates, possibly increasing the local $250 campaign contribution limit, and generally making the democratic process better. The City Councii wants to know what you think. Piease take a moment to let them know what you think is and/or isn't working with the electoral process in Santa Monica. Please write on the back of this sheet or attach additional pages if necessary. Are you a Santa Monica resident? _Yes No Does the electoral process work well in our Santa Monica? Yes _No Could the electoral process be improved in Santa Monica? _Yes _No What works well with the electoral process in Santa Monica? What could be improved with the electoral process in Santa Monica? How would you address what isn't working? Suggestions? Do you know of improvements that have worked in a similar city? Please attend the community meeting on May 14, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. at the Ken Edwards Center to comment on the electoral process in Santa Monica. Please return your survey to a City Clerk staff member or mail it to the City Clerk's Office, 1685 Main Street, Room 102, Santa Monica, CA 90401. We appreciate your feedback! ~~ N E T 1 !_ E-FILING SYSTEM Political iscl~sure ~ ~rtt~ - FC ~ A in Tool Public ~i~win via the NetFile Headquarters Telephone: {209} 742-4100 2707 Aurora Road Fax: {209} 391-2200 Mariposa, CA 95338 Email: sales@ne~le.com CONTACT INFORMATfON: ~" ~h~/6 -~ CITY OF SANTA MONICA DATE: June 19, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Marsha Moutrie, City Attorney ~ ~,~;~~ SUBJECT: Summary of Case Law Relating to~Limits on Political Contributions As you know, the City Clerk conducted awell-attended community meeting on improving the electoral process at which many residents expressed diverse opinions about the City's electoral process. The Clerk has prepared a report to Council omthe meeting and is seeking Council direction. Meanwhile, I want #o supply some additional information about current case law on the specific topic of campaign contributions. My hope is that this information will be useful to the Council and to the community in assessing opportunities for improving the electoral process in Santa Monica. At the meeting, community members commented on the dollar amount of the City's contribution limit. As you know, that limit is $250. Santa.Monica Municipal Code ("SMMC") Sectiori 11.04.050. Some residents thoughf the limit should be lowered. However, current law may necessitate an increase. Since the Council established the Gity's contribution limit in 1990, case law has established that contribution limits may not be set so low as to preclude effective campaigning: Santa Monica's law is based on principles established. by the Supreme Court in Bucklev v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1978). In Bucklev, the Court held that both contribution and expenditure limits implicate First Amendment rights. The Court struck down a federal provision placing a $1,000 annual ceiling on independent expenditures linked to specific candidates because it infringed on freedoms of speech and association;-but the Court upheld a provision limiting contributionsQo a single candidate to-$4000 per election. The Court explained that the expenditure limits could not survive strict scrutiny but upheld the contribution limits because they were "closely drawn to match a sufficiently important interest," notably the interest in preventing corruption and its appearance. 424 U.S. at 25-26. Thus, the Court drew a line between contributions and expenditures. -Santa Monica's law reflects this distinction; it imposes a limitation on contributions but does not expressly limit expenditures. As to dollar limits, in Bucklev, the Court refused to impose any particular minimum below which legislatures could regulate. Instead, the Court explained that the standard is whether a contribution limit is so low as to impede the ability of candidates to amass the resources necessary for effective advocacy. The Court again considered contribution limits in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000). In that case, a political action committee and an unsuccessful candidate in the primary for Missouri state auditor filed suit challenging provisions of Missouri's campaign finance law which imposed- contribution limits ranging from $275 to $1075 for state offices. The PAC alleged - that it wanted to give more, and the unsuccessful candidate alleged that he could campaign effectively only with more generous contributions than Missouri law allowed. The federal trial court. rejected. plaintiffs' claims, but the federal appellate court reversed, holding that Buckley required strict scrutiny of contribution limits and that Missouri had failed to adequately establish a compelling interest in avoiding actual corruption or the perception of corruption caused by candidates' acceptance of large contributions. .The United States Supreme Court upheld the Missouri contribution limits. The Court reiterated that the test was whether the contribution limitation was so low as to impede the ability of candidates to amass the resources necessary for effective advocacy. The Court explained that the record in Nixon supported the conclusion that the Missouri contribution limits did not impede effective advocacy. Last year, in Randall v. Sorrell, 126 S.Ct. 2479 (2006), state limitations on both expenditures and contributions were again before the court in a case challenging Vermont's campaign finance law. That law. imposed the expenditure limits for state offices ranging from $2,000 for a state representative in a small district to $300,000 for governor. The law also imposed the lowest contribution limits in the nation: $200-$400 per two-year election cycle. Moreover,. the Vermont law imposed the same contribution- limits upon political parties as were imposed on individual contributors, counted volunteers' expenses as contributions to candidates, and did not index for inflation. The Court struck down Vermont's contribution limits as being so low as to "burden First Amendment interests iri a manner that is disproportionate to the public purposes they were enacted to advance." In reaching this conclusion, the Court focused on the lack of indexing, the likelihood that the very lovv limits burdened First Amendment interests by threatening to inhibit effective advocacy by candidates, particularly challengers, and the lack of evidence of any- corruption in the state which would warrant such severe restrictions on expression and association: At least one federal court in California has also struck down contribution limits as violating First Amendment guarantees.. In California Prolife Council PAC v. Scully, 989 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1998), aff dd 164 F:3d 1189 (9t" Cir. 1999), the court concluded that variable contribution limits as low as $250, established by Proposition 208, .were too low to permit candidates for state 2 legislative offices to engage in meaningful campaigns. The court explained that whether a particular limit was so low as to be unconstitutional would depend upon the facts within the jurisdiction. Id. at 1299; see also San Jose Valley Chamber PAC v. San Jose, 2006 WL 3832794 (N.D: Cal.) [noting that city's $250 limit was very low]: In Santa Monica; local law both establishes a low contribution and purports to apply it very broadly. Thus, the MunicipaLCode specifies that the $250 limit applies alike to contribtations to candidates, contributions to candidates' controlled committees and coritributions to "any committee" which supports or opposes a candidate. SMMC Section 11.04.050. Current case law- makes the low contribution limit problematic in itself and most problematic in the context of contributions to uncontrolled committees. Contribution limits fight corruption by reducing the. likelihood of candidates accepting large sums of money as a quid pro quo for exercising their power in a manner favorable to the donor. When the contribution is made to an uncontrolled committee there is less likelihood of corruption. Thus, the First Amendment interests of both the contributor and the recipient uncontrolled committee weigh heavier in the legal balance. This is illustrated by the decision in San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber PAC v. San Jose, su ra. In that case; plaintiff PAC challenged a municipal law which established a $250 limit on contributions to independent committees acting "in aid" or"in opposition" to candidates and required independent committees to segregate contributions and expenditures for city elections in order to comply. with the limit. Under the particular wording of the ordinance, an individual could, for instance, contribute $1000 to the PAC of which only $250 could be spent supporting or opposing a candidate. The court invalidated the ordinance, ruling that it effectuated both a contribution and an expenditure limit. , In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that enforcement of the ordinance consisted of reprimanding the PAC for its expenditures; contributors were not reprimanded: The court explained that "preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption is an important government interest when applied to contribution limits on candidates or committees who coordinate with candidates." (Italics added.) However, in reaching beyond-that group to uncontrolled committees, the ordinance regulated more speech than necessary to advance its interests. Additionally, the court concluded that the terms "in aid" and "in opposition" were unconstitutionally vague when applied to the work of uncontrolled committees. f:\atty\muni\memos\mjm\campaign contributions.doc 3