| Old | New | Differences | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | - | Amended IN | |
| 1 | + | Amended IN Assembly April 11, 2023 Amended IN Assembly March 23, 2023 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20232024 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Bill No. 270Introduced by Assembly Member Lee(Principal coauthor: Senator coauthors: Senators Allen and Umberg)January 23, 2023 An act to amend Section 85300 of, and to add Section 85300.5 to, the Government Code, relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974.LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTAB 270, as amended, Lee. Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing.Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.This bill would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for this purpose, as specified. The bill would prohibit the public moneys for this dedicated fund from being taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. This restriction would not apply to charter cities.The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval of the voters.This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, statewide election, as specified.Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NO Local Program: NO Bill TextThe people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) All citizens should be able to make their voices heard in the political process and hold their elected officials accountable.(b) Elections for local or state elective office should be fair, open, and competitive.(c) The increasing costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which can give those wealthy donors and special interests disproportionate influence over governmental decisions.(d) Such disproportionate influence can undermine the publics trust that public officials are performing their duties in an impartial manner and that government is serving the needs and responding to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth.(e) Special interests contribute more to incumbents than challengers because they seek access to elected officials, and such contributions account for a large portion of the financial incumbency advantage, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in the Journal of Politics in 2014 and Political Research Quarterly in 2016.(f) Citizen-funded election programs, in which qualified candidates can receive public funds for the purpose of communicating with voters rather than relying exclusively on private donors, have been enacted in six charter cities in California, as well as numerous other local and state jurisdictions.(g) Citizen-funded election programs encourage competition by reducing the financial advantages of incumbency and making it possible for citizens from all walks of life, not only those with connections to wealthy donors or special interests, to run for office, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in State Politics and Policy Quarterly in 2008, and by the Campaign Finance Institute in 2015 and the National Institute of Money in State Politics in 2016.(h) By reducing reliance on wealthy donors and special interests, citizen-funded election programs inhibit improper practices, protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption, and protect the political integrity of our governmental institutions.(i) In Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, the California Supreme Court commented highlighted the Court of Appeals observation that it seems obvious that public money reduces rather than increases the fund raising pressures on public office seekers and thereby reduces the undue influence of special interest groups.(j) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court recognized that public financing as a means of eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions furthers a significant governmental interest.(k) In Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (2011) 564 U.S. 721, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that public financing of elections can further significant governmental interest[s] such as the state interest in preventing corruption, quoting Buckley v. Valeo.(l) In Buckley v. Valeo, the United States Supreme Court further noted that citizen-funded elections programs facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people.(m) The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents. An exception should be created to permit citizen-funded election programs so that elections may be conducted more fairly.SEC. 2. Section 85300 of the Government Code is amended to read:85300. Except as provided in Section 85300.5, a public officer shall not expend, and a candidate shall not accept, any public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.SEC. 3. Section 85300.5 is added to the Government Code, to read:85300.5. (a) A public officer or candidate may expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity establishes a dedicated fund for this purpose by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter, and both of the following are true:(1) Public moneys held in the fund are available to all qualified, voluntarily participating candidates for the same office without regard to incumbency or political party preference.(2) The state or local governmental entity has established criteria for determining a candidates qualification by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter.(b) (1) No public moneys for the dedicated fund described in subdivision (a) may be taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.(2) This subdivision shall not apply to charter cities.SEC. 4. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.SEC. 5. Notwithstanding Section 9040 of the Elections Code or any other provision of law, the Secretary of State shall, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 81012 of the Government Code, submit Sections 2 and 3 of this act to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election. | |
| 2 | 2 | ||
| 3 | - | ||
| 3 | + | Amended IN Assembly April 11, 2023 Amended IN Assembly March 23, 2023 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20232024 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Bill No. 270Introduced by Assembly Member Lee(Principal coauthor: Senator coauthors: Senators Allen and Umberg)January 23, 2023 An act to amend Section 85300 of, and to add Section 85300.5 to, the Government Code, relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974.LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTAB 270, as amended, Lee. Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing.Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.This bill would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for this purpose, as specified. The bill would prohibit the public moneys for this dedicated fund from being taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. This restriction would not apply to charter cities.The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval of the voters.This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, statewide election, as specified.Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NO Local Program: NO | |
| 4 | 4 | ||
| 5 | - | ||
| 5 | + | Amended IN Assembly April 11, 2023 Amended IN Assembly March 23, 2023 | |
| 6 | 6 | ||
| 7 | - | Amended IN Senate July 03, 2024 | |
| 8 | 7 | Amended IN Assembly April 11, 2023 | |
| 9 | 8 | Amended IN Assembly March 23, 2023 | |
| 10 | 9 | ||
| 11 | 10 | CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20232024 REGULAR SESSION | |
| 12 | 11 | ||
| 13 | 12 | Assembly Bill | |
| 14 | 13 | ||
| 15 | 14 | No. 270 | |
| 16 | 15 | ||
| 17 | - | Introduced by Assembly Member | |
| 16 | + | Introduced by Assembly Member Lee(Principal coauthor: Senator coauthors: Senators Allen and Umberg)January 23, 2023 | |
| 18 | 17 | ||
| 19 | - | Introduced by Assembly Member | |
| 18 | + | Introduced by Assembly Member Lee(Principal coauthor: Senator coauthors: Senators Allen and Umberg) | |
| 20 | 19 | January 23, 2023 | |
| 21 | 20 | ||
| 22 | - | An act to amend Section 85300 of, and to add Section 85300.5 to, | |
| 21 | + | An act to amend Section 85300 of, and to add Section 85300.5 to, the Government Code, relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974. | |
| 23 | 22 | ||
| 24 | 23 | LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST | |
| 25 | 24 | ||
| 26 | 25 | ## LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST | |
| 27 | 26 | ||
| 28 | 27 | AB 270, as amended, Lee. Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing. | |
| 29 | 28 | ||
| 30 | - | Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.This bill would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys | |
| 29 | + | Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.This bill would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for this purpose, as specified. The bill would prohibit the public moneys for this dedicated fund from being taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. This restriction would not apply to charter cities.The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval of the voters.This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, statewide election, as specified. | |
| 31 | 30 | ||
| 32 | 31 | Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public officer from expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office. | |
| 33 | 32 | ||
| 34 | - | This bill would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys funds, as defined, for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for this purpose, as specified. The bill would prohibit the public moneys for this dedicated fund from being taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. This restriction would not apply to charter cities. unless the funds are earmarked by a state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety. The bill would require candidates to abide by specified expenditure limits and meet strict criteria, as defined, to qualify for public funds, and it also would prohibit public funds from being used to pay legal defense fees or fines. The bill would prohibit a candidate receiving public funds from using those funds to repay personal loans to their campaign at any time. The bill would permit a statute, ordinance, or charter to establish standards to increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate pursuant to a specified formula. The bill would provide that the Fair Political Practices Commission is not responsible for administering or enforcing a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency. | |
| 35 | - | ||
| 36 | - | Existing law prohibits a foreign government or foreign principal, as defined, to make a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office. Under existing law, a person who violates this prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine equal to the amount contributed or expended. | |
| 37 | - | ||
| 38 | - | This bill would specify that a person who violates the prohibition above is guilty of a misdemeanor and must be fined an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended but not exceeding a maximum amount of 3 times the amount contributed or expended. | |
| 33 | + | This bill would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for this purpose, as specified. The bill would prohibit the public moneys for this dedicated fund from being taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. This restriction would not apply to charter cities. | |
| 39 | 34 | ||
| 40 | 35 | The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon approval of the voters. | |
| 41 | 36 | ||
| 42 | - | This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, | |
| 37 | + | This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the provisions of the bill to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, statewide election, as specified. | |
| 43 | 38 | ||
| 44 | 39 | ## Digest Key | |
| 45 | 40 | ||
| 46 | 41 | ## Bill Text | |
| 47 | 42 | ||
| 48 | - | The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1 | |
| 43 | + | The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) All citizens should be able to make their voices heard in the political process and hold their elected officials accountable.(b) Elections for local or state elective office should be fair, open, and competitive.(c) The increasing costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which can give those wealthy donors and special interests disproportionate influence over governmental decisions.(d) Such disproportionate influence can undermine the publics trust that public officials are performing their duties in an impartial manner and that government is serving the needs and responding to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth.(e) Special interests contribute more to incumbents than challengers because they seek access to elected officials, and such contributions account for a large portion of the financial incumbency advantage, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in the Journal of Politics in 2014 and Political Research Quarterly in 2016.(f) Citizen-funded election programs, in which qualified candidates can receive public funds for the purpose of communicating with voters rather than relying exclusively on private donors, have been enacted in six charter cities in California, as well as numerous other local and state jurisdictions.(g) Citizen-funded election programs encourage competition by reducing the financial advantages of incumbency and making it possible for citizens from all walks of life, not only those with connections to wealthy donors or special interests, to run for office, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in State Politics and Policy Quarterly in 2008, and by the Campaign Finance Institute in 2015 and the National Institute of Money in State Politics in 2016.(h) By reducing reliance on wealthy donors and special interests, citizen-funded election programs inhibit improper practices, protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption, and protect the political integrity of our governmental institutions.(i) In Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, the California Supreme Court commented highlighted the Court of Appeals observation that it seems obvious that public money reduces rather than increases the fund raising pressures on public office seekers and thereby reduces the undue influence of special interest groups.(j) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court recognized that public financing as a means of eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions furthers a significant governmental interest.(k) In Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (2011) 564 U.S. 721, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that public financing of elections can further significant governmental interest[s] such as the state interest in preventing corruption, quoting Buckley v. Valeo.(l) In Buckley v. Valeo, the United States Supreme Court further noted that citizen-funded elections programs facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people.(m) The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents. An exception should be created to permit citizen-funded election programs so that elections may be conducted more fairly.SEC. 2. Section 85300 of the Government Code is amended to read:85300. Except as provided in Section 85300.5, a public officer shall not expend, and a candidate shall not accept, any public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.SEC. 3. Section 85300.5 is added to the Government Code, to read:85300.5. (a) A public officer or candidate may expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity establishes a dedicated fund for this purpose by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter, and both of the following are true:(1) Public moneys held in the fund are available to all qualified, voluntarily participating candidates for the same office without regard to incumbency or political party preference.(2) The state or local governmental entity has established criteria for determining a candidates qualification by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter.(b) (1) No public moneys for the dedicated fund described in subdivision (a) may be taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.(2) This subdivision shall not apply to charter cities.SEC. 4. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.SEC. 5. Notwithstanding Section 9040 of the Elections Code or any other provision of law, the Secretary of State shall, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 81012 of the Government Code, submit Sections 2 and 3 of this act to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election. | |
| 49 | 44 | ||
| 50 | 45 | The people of the State of California do enact as follows: | |
| 51 | 46 | ||
| 52 | 47 | ## The people of the State of California do enact as follows: | |
| 53 | 48 | ||
| 54 | - | SECTION 1. | |
| 49 | + | SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) All citizens should be able to make their voices heard in the political process and hold their elected officials accountable.(b) Elections for local or state elective office should be fair, open, and competitive.(c) The increasing costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which can give those wealthy donors and special interests disproportionate influence over governmental decisions.(d) Such disproportionate influence can undermine the publics trust that public officials are performing their duties in an impartial manner and that government is serving the needs and responding to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth.(e) Special interests contribute more to incumbents than challengers because they seek access to elected officials, and such contributions account for a large portion of the financial incumbency advantage, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in the Journal of Politics in 2014 and Political Research Quarterly in 2016.(f) Citizen-funded election programs, in which qualified candidates can receive public funds for the purpose of communicating with voters rather than relying exclusively on private donors, have been enacted in six charter cities in California, as well as numerous other local and state jurisdictions.(g) Citizen-funded election programs encourage competition by reducing the financial advantages of incumbency and making it possible for citizens from all walks of life, not only those with connections to wealthy donors or special interests, to run for office, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in State Politics and Policy Quarterly in 2008, and by the Campaign Finance Institute in 2015 and the National Institute of Money in State Politics in 2016.(h) By reducing reliance on wealthy donors and special interests, citizen-funded election programs inhibit improper practices, protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption, and protect the political integrity of our governmental institutions.(i) In Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, the California Supreme Court commented highlighted the Court of Appeals observation that it seems obvious that public money reduces rather than increases the fund raising pressures on public office seekers and thereby reduces the undue influence of special interest groups.(j) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court recognized that public financing as a means of eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions furthers a significant governmental interest.(k) In Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (2011) 564 U.S. 721, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that public financing of elections can further significant governmental interest[s] such as the state interest in preventing corruption, quoting Buckley v. Valeo.(l) In Buckley v. Valeo, the United States Supreme Court further noted that citizen-funded elections programs facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people.(m) The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents. An exception should be created to permit citizen-funded election programs so that elections may be conducted more fairly. | |
| 55 | 50 | ||
| 56 | - | SECTION 1. | |
| 51 | + | SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) All citizens should be able to make their voices heard in the political process and hold their elected officials accountable.(b) Elections for local or state elective office should be fair, open, and competitive.(c) The increasing costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which can give those wealthy donors and special interests disproportionate influence over governmental decisions.(d) Such disproportionate influence can undermine the publics trust that public officials are performing their duties in an impartial manner and that government is serving the needs and responding to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth.(e) Special interests contribute more to incumbents than challengers because they seek access to elected officials, and such contributions account for a large portion of the financial incumbency advantage, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in the Journal of Politics in 2014 and Political Research Quarterly in 2016.(f) Citizen-funded election programs, in which qualified candidates can receive public funds for the purpose of communicating with voters rather than relying exclusively on private donors, have been enacted in six charter cities in California, as well as numerous other local and state jurisdictions.(g) Citizen-funded election programs encourage competition by reducing the financial advantages of incumbency and making it possible for citizens from all walks of life, not only those with connections to wealthy donors or special interests, to run for office, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in State Politics and Policy Quarterly in 2008, and by the Campaign Finance Institute in 2015 and the National Institute of Money in State Politics in 2016.(h) By reducing reliance on wealthy donors and special interests, citizen-funded election programs inhibit improper practices, protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption, and protect the political integrity of our governmental institutions.(i) In Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, the California Supreme Court commented highlighted the Court of Appeals observation that it seems obvious that public money reduces rather than increases the fund raising pressures on public office seekers and thereby reduces the undue influence of special interest groups.(j) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court recognized that public financing as a means of eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions furthers a significant governmental interest.(k) In Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (2011) 564 U.S. 721, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that public financing of elections can further significant governmental interest[s] such as the state interest in preventing corruption, quoting Buckley v. Valeo.(l) In Buckley v. Valeo, the United States Supreme Court further noted that citizen-funded elections programs facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people.(m) The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents. An exception should be created to permit citizen-funded election programs so that elections may be conducted more fairly. | |
| 57 | 52 | ||
| 58 | - | SECTION 1. | |
| 53 | + | SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: | |
| 59 | 54 | ||
| 60 | 55 | ### SECTION 1. | |
| 61 | - | ||
| 62 | - | SECTION 1.SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) All citizens should be able to make their voices heard in the political process and hold their elected officials accountable.(b) Elections for local or state elective office should be fair, open, and competitive.(c) The increasing costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which can give those wealthy donors and special interests disproportionate influence over governmental decisions.(d) Such disproportionate influence can undermine the publics trust that public officials are performing their duties in an impartial manner and that government is serving the needs and responding to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth.(e) Special interests contribute more to incumbents than challengers because they seek access to elected officials, and such contributions account for a large portion of the financial incumbency advantage, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in the Journal of Politics in 2014 and Political Research Quarterly in 2016.(f) Citizen-funded election programs, in which qualified candidates can receive public funds for the purpose of communicating with voters rather than relying exclusively on private donors, have been enacted in six are currently operative in five charter cities in California, as well as numerous other local and state jurisdictions.(g) Citizen-funded election programs encourage competition by reducing the financial advantages of incumbency and making it possible for citizens from all walks of life, not only those with connections to wealthy donors or special interests, to run for office, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in State Politics and Policy Quarterly in 2008, and by the Campaign Finance Institute in 2015 and the National Institute of Money in State Politics in 2016.(h) By reducing reliance on wealthy donors and special interests, citizen-funded election programs inhibit improper practices, protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption, and protect the political integrity of our governmental institutions.(i) In Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, the California Supreme Court highlighted the Court of Appeals observation that it seems obvious that public money reduces rather than increases the fund raising pressures on public office seekers and thereby reduces the undue influence of special interest groups.(j) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court recognized that public financing as a means of eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions furthers a significant governmental interest.(k) In Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (2011) 564 U.S. 721, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that public financing of elections can further significant governmental interest[s] such as the state interest in preventing corruption, quoting Buckley v. Valeo.(l) In Buckley v. Valeo, the United States Supreme Court further noted that citizen-funded elections programs facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people.(m) The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents. An exception should be created to permit citizen-funded election programs so that elections may be conducted more fairly. | |
| 63 | - | ||
| 64 | - | SECTION 1.SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) All citizens should be able to make their voices heard in the political process and hold their elected officials accountable.(b) Elections for local or state elective office should be fair, open, and competitive.(c) The increasing costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which can give those wealthy donors and special interests disproportionate influence over governmental decisions.(d) Such disproportionate influence can undermine the publics trust that public officials are performing their duties in an impartial manner and that government is serving the needs and responding to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth.(e) Special interests contribute more to incumbents than challengers because they seek access to elected officials, and such contributions account for a large portion of the financial incumbency advantage, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in the Journal of Politics in 2014 and Political Research Quarterly in 2016.(f) Citizen-funded election programs, in which qualified candidates can receive public funds for the purpose of communicating with voters rather than relying exclusively on private donors, have been enacted in six are currently operative in five charter cities in California, as well as numerous other local and state jurisdictions.(g) Citizen-funded election programs encourage competition by reducing the financial advantages of incumbency and making it possible for citizens from all walks of life, not only those with connections to wealthy donors or special interests, to run for office, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in State Politics and Policy Quarterly in 2008, and by the Campaign Finance Institute in 2015 and the National Institute of Money in State Politics in 2016.(h) By reducing reliance on wealthy donors and special interests, citizen-funded election programs inhibit improper practices, protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption, and protect the political integrity of our governmental institutions.(i) In Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, the California Supreme Court highlighted the Court of Appeals observation that it seems obvious that public money reduces rather than increases the fund raising pressures on public office seekers and thereby reduces the undue influence of special interest groups.(j) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court recognized that public financing as a means of eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions furthers a significant governmental interest.(k) In Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (2011) 564 U.S. 721, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that public financing of elections can further significant governmental interest[s] such as the state interest in preventing corruption, quoting Buckley v. Valeo.(l) In Buckley v. Valeo, the United States Supreme Court further noted that citizen-funded elections programs facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people.(m) The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents. An exception should be created to permit citizen-funded election programs so that elections may be conducted more fairly. | |
| 65 | - | ||
| 66 | - | SECTION 1.SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: | |
| 67 | - | ||
| 68 | - | ### SECTION 1.SEC. 2. | |
| 69 | 56 | ||
| 70 | 57 | (a) All citizens should be able to make their voices heard in the political process and hold their elected officials accountable. | |
| 71 | 58 | ||
| 72 | 59 | (b) Elections for local or state elective office should be fair, open, and competitive. | |
| 73 | 60 | ||
| 74 | 61 | (c) The increasing costs of political campaigns can force candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and special interests, which can give those wealthy donors and special interests disproportionate influence over governmental decisions. | |
| 75 | 62 | ||
| 76 | 63 | (d) Such disproportionate influence can undermine the publics trust that public officials are performing their duties in an impartial manner and that government is serving the needs and responding to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth. | |
| 77 | 64 | ||
| 78 | 65 | (e) Special interests contribute more to incumbents than challengers because they seek access to elected officials, and such contributions account for a large portion of the financial incumbency advantage, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in the Journal of Politics in 2014 and Political Research Quarterly in 2016. | |
| 79 | 66 | ||
| 80 | - | (f) Citizen-funded election programs, in which qualified candidates can receive public funds for the purpose of communicating with voters rather than relying exclusively on private donors, have been enacted in six | |
| 67 | + | (f) Citizen-funded election programs, in which qualified candidates can receive public funds for the purpose of communicating with voters rather than relying exclusively on private donors, have been enacted in six charter cities in California, as well as numerous other local and state jurisdictions. | |
| 81 | 68 | ||
| 82 | 69 | (g) Citizen-funded election programs encourage competition by reducing the financial advantages of incumbency and making it possible for citizens from all walks of life, not only those with connections to wealthy donors or special interests, to run for office, as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in State Politics and Policy Quarterly in 2008, and by the Campaign Finance Institute in 2015 and the National Institute of Money in State Politics in 2016. | |
| 83 | 70 | ||
| 84 | 71 | (h) By reducing reliance on wealthy donors and special interests, citizen-funded election programs inhibit improper practices, protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption, and protect the political integrity of our governmental institutions. | |
| 85 | 72 | ||
| 86 | - | (i) In Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, the California Supreme Court highlighted the Court of Appeals observation that it seems obvious that public money reduces rather than increases the fund raising pressures on public office seekers and thereby reduces the undue influence of special interest groups. | |
| 73 | + | (i) In Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, the California Supreme Court commented highlighted the Court of Appeals observation that it seems obvious that public money reduces rather than increases the fund raising pressures on public office seekers and thereby reduces the undue influence of special interest groups. | |
| 87 | 74 | ||
| 88 | 75 | (j) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court recognized that public financing as a means of eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions furthers a significant governmental interest. | |
| 89 | 76 | ||
| 90 | 77 | (k) In Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (2011) 564 U.S. 721, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that public financing of elections can further significant governmental interest[s] such as the state interest in preventing corruption, quoting Buckley v. Valeo. | |
| 91 | 78 | ||
| 92 | 79 | (l) In Buckley v. Valeo, the United States Supreme Court further noted that citizen-funded elections programs facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people. | |
| 93 | 80 | ||
| 94 | 81 | (m) The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and unfairly favors incumbents. An exception should be created to permit citizen-funded election programs so that elections may be conducted more fairly. | |
| 95 | 82 | ||
| 96 | - | SEC. 2 | |
| 83 | + | SEC. 2. Section 85300 of the Government Code is amended to read:85300. Except as provided in Section 85300.5, a public officer shall not expend, and a candidate shall not accept, any public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office. | |
| 97 | 84 | ||
| 98 | - | SEC. 2 | |
| 85 | + | SEC. 2. Section 85300 of the Government Code is amended to read: | |
| 99 | 86 | ||
| 100 | - | ### SEC. 2. | |
| 87 | + | ### SEC. 2. | |
| 101 | 88 | ||
| 102 | - | 85300.Except as provided in Section 85300.5, a public officer shall not expend, and a candidate shall not accept, any public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.85300. (a) No public officer shall expend, and no candidate shall accept, any public funds for the purpose of seeking elective office if the funds are earmarked by any state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety.(b) Candidates shall abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria to qualify for public funds.(c) Public funds shall not be utilized to pay legal defense fees or fines.(d) (1) A candidate shall not, at any time, use public funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign.(2) A candidate who receives public funds for their campaign shall not, after their campaign ends, use any source of funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign.(e) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:(1) Expenditure limits means voluntary spending limits established by statute, ordinance, or charter that qualified, voluntarily participating candidates must abide by to receive public funds.(2) Independent Expenditures Against means the sum of any expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person or persons for the purpose of making independent expenditures in opposition to a specific candidate.(3) Independent Expenditures in Support means the sum of any expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person or persons for the purpose of making independent expenditures in support of a specific candidate.(4) Net Supportive Funds means the sum of all contributions and public funds received by a committee supporting a specific candidate, plus the Independent Expenditures In Support of that candidate, minus the Independent Expenditures Against that candidate.(5) Public funds means any moneys provided to a candidate by a state or local governmental entity for the purpose of seeking elective office.(6) (A) Strict criteria means the requirements set by statute, ordinance, or charter that candidates must meet to receive public funds. These criteria shall require candidates to demonstrate broad-based support in their district, such as by requiring candidates to receive small-dollar contributions or vouchers from a specified number of voting-age residents.(B) (i) If a statute, ordinance, or charter requires a minimum number of individuals making small-dollar contributions pursuant to subparagraph (A), the largest contribution the statute, ordinance, or charter may require for a contributor to be counted is ten dollars ($10).(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, a statute, ordinance, or charter may allow a contribution larger than the small-dollar contribution amount required pursuant to subparagraph (A) to be counted as a contribution equal to the small-dollar contribution amount required pursuant to subparagraph (A).(C) Strict criteria shall not include requirements that candidates receive a specified number of signatures or raise a specified total dollar amount of more than ten dollars ($10) per contributor.(f) (1) A statute, ordinance, or charter may increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate.(2) Such an increased limit shall not exceed an amount equal to the highest dollar amount of Net Supportive Funds of any other candidate for the same office, plus the dollar amount of Independent Expenditures Against the qualified, voluntarily participating candidate, minus the dollar amount of Independent Expenditures in Support of the qualified, voluntarily participating candidate.(g) Public funding statutes, ordinances, and resolutions shall not discriminate based on party or according to whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent.(h) The Commission is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency. | |
| 89 | + | 85300. Except as provided in Section 85300.5, a public officer shall not expend, and a candidate shall not accept, any public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office. | |
| 90 | + | ||
| 91 | + | 85300. Except as provided in Section 85300.5, a public officer shall not expend, and a candidate shall not accept, any public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office. | |
| 92 | + | ||
| 93 | + | 85300. Except as provided in Section 85300.5, a public officer shall not expend, and a candidate shall not accept, any public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office. | |
| 103 | 94 | ||
| 104 | 95 | ||
| 105 | 96 | ||
| 106 | - | Except as provided in Section 85300.5, a public officer shall not expend, and a candidate shall not accept, any public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office. | |
| 97 | + | 85300. Except as provided in Section 85300.5, a public officer shall not expend, and a candidate shall not accept, any public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office. | |
| 98 | + | ||
| 99 | + | SEC. 3. Section 85300.5 is added to the Government Code, to read:85300.5. (a) A public officer or candidate may expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity establishes a dedicated fund for this purpose by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter, and both of the following are true:(1) Public moneys held in the fund are available to all qualified, voluntarily participating candidates for the same office without regard to incumbency or political party preference.(2) The state or local governmental entity has established criteria for determining a candidates qualification by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter.(b) (1) No public moneys for the dedicated fund described in subdivision (a) may be taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.(2) This subdivision shall not apply to charter cities. | |
| 100 | + | ||
| 101 | + | SEC. 3. Section 85300.5 is added to the Government Code, to read: | |
| 102 | + | ||
| 103 | + | ### SEC. 3. | |
| 104 | + | ||
| 105 | + | 85300.5. (a) A public officer or candidate may expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity establishes a dedicated fund for this purpose by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter, and both of the following are true:(1) Public moneys held in the fund are available to all qualified, voluntarily participating candidates for the same office without regard to incumbency or political party preference.(2) The state or local governmental entity has established criteria for determining a candidates qualification by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter.(b) (1) No public moneys for the dedicated fund described in subdivision (a) may be taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.(2) This subdivision shall not apply to charter cities. | |
| 106 | + | ||
| 107 | + | 85300.5. (a) A public officer or candidate may expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity establishes a dedicated fund for this purpose by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter, and both of the following are true:(1) Public moneys held in the fund are available to all qualified, voluntarily participating candidates for the same office without regard to incumbency or political party preference.(2) The state or local governmental entity has established criteria for determining a candidates qualification by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter.(b) (1) No public moneys for the dedicated fund described in subdivision (a) may be taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.(2) This subdivision shall not apply to charter cities. | |
| 108 | + | ||
| 109 | + | 85300.5. (a) A public officer or candidate may expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity establishes a dedicated fund for this purpose by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter, and both of the following are true:(1) Public moneys held in the fund are available to all qualified, voluntarily participating candidates for the same office without regard to incumbency or political party preference.(2) The state or local governmental entity has established criteria for determining a candidates qualification by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter.(b) (1) No public moneys for the dedicated fund described in subdivision (a) may be taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.(2) This subdivision shall not apply to charter cities. | |
| 107 | 110 | ||
| 108 | 111 | ||
| 109 | 112 | ||
| 110 | - | 85300. (a) No public officer shall expend, and no candidate shall accept, any public funds for the purpose of seeking elective office if the funds are earmarked by any state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety.(b) Candidates shall abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria to qualify for public funds.(c) Public funds shall not be utilized to pay legal defense fees or fines.(d) (1) A candidate shall not, at any time, use public funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign.(2) A candidate who receives public funds for their campaign shall not, after their campaign ends, use any source of funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign.(e) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:(1) Expenditure limits means voluntary spending limits established by statute, ordinance, or charter that qualified, voluntarily participating candidates must abide by to receive public funds.(2) Independent Expenditures Against means the sum of any expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person or persons for the purpose of making independent expenditures in opposition to a specific candidate.(3) Independent Expenditures in Support means the sum of any expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person or persons for the purpose of making independent expenditures in support of a specific candidate.(4) Net Supportive Funds means the sum of all contributions and public funds received by a committee supporting a specific candidate, plus the Independent Expenditures In Support of that candidate, minus the Independent Expenditures Against that candidate.(5) Public funds means any moneys provided to a candidate by a state or local governmental entity for the purpose of seeking elective office.(6) (A) Strict criteria means the requirements set by statute, ordinance, or charter that candidates must meet to receive public funds. These criteria shall require candidates to demonstrate broad-based support in their district, such as by requiring candidates to receive small-dollar contributions or vouchers from a specified number of voting-age residents.(B) (i) If a statute, ordinance, or charter requires a minimum number of individuals making small-dollar contributions pursuant to subparagraph (A), the largest contribution the statute, ordinance, or charter may require for a contributor to be counted is ten dollars ($10).(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, a statute, ordinance, or charter may allow a contribution larger than the small-dollar contribution amount required pursuant to subparagraph (A) to be counted as a contribution equal to the small-dollar contribution amount required pursuant to subparagraph (A).(C) Strict criteria shall not include requirements that candidates receive a specified number of signatures or raise a specified total dollar amount of more than ten dollars ($10) per contributor.(f) (1) A statute, ordinance, or charter may increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate.(2) Such an increased limit shall not exceed an amount equal to the highest dollar amount of Net Supportive Funds of any other candidate for the same office, plus the dollar amount of Independent Expenditures Against the qualified, voluntarily participating candidate, minus the dollar amount of Independent Expenditures in Support of the qualified, voluntarily participating candidate.(g) Public funding statutes, ordinances, and resolutions shall not discriminate based on party or according to whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent.(h) The Commission is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency. | |
| 111 | - | ||
| 112 | - | 85300. (a) No public officer shall expend, and no candidate shall accept, any public funds for the purpose of seeking elective office if the funds are earmarked by any state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety.(b) Candidates shall abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria to qualify for public funds.(c) Public funds shall not be utilized to pay legal defense fees or fines.(d) (1) A candidate shall not, at any time, use public funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign.(2) A candidate who receives public funds for their campaign shall not, after their campaign ends, use any source of funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign.(e) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:(1) Expenditure limits means voluntary spending limits established by statute, ordinance, or charter that qualified, voluntarily participating candidates must abide by to receive public funds.(2) Independent Expenditures Against means the sum of any expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person or persons for the purpose of making independent expenditures in opposition to a specific candidate.(3) Independent Expenditures in Support means the sum of any expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person or persons for the purpose of making independent expenditures in support of a specific candidate.(4) Net Supportive Funds means the sum of all contributions and public funds received by a committee supporting a specific candidate, plus the Independent Expenditures In Support of that candidate, minus the Independent Expenditures Against that candidate.(5) Public funds means any moneys provided to a candidate by a state or local governmental entity for the purpose of seeking elective office.(6) (A) Strict criteria means the requirements set by statute, ordinance, or charter that candidates must meet to receive public funds. These criteria shall require candidates to demonstrate broad-based support in their district, such as by requiring candidates to receive small-dollar contributions or vouchers from a specified number of voting-age residents.(B) (i) If a statute, ordinance, or charter requires a minimum number of individuals making small-dollar contributions pursuant to subparagraph (A), the largest contribution the statute, ordinance, or charter may require for a contributor to be counted is ten dollars ($10).(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, a statute, ordinance, or charter may allow a contribution larger than the small-dollar contribution amount required pursuant to subparagraph (A) to be counted as a contribution equal to the small-dollar contribution amount required pursuant to subparagraph (A).(C) Strict criteria shall not include requirements that candidates receive a specified number of signatures or raise a specified total dollar amount of more than ten dollars ($10) per contributor.(f) (1) A statute, ordinance, or charter may increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate.(2) Such an increased limit shall not exceed an amount equal to the highest dollar amount of Net Supportive Funds of any other candidate for the same office, plus the dollar amount of Independent Expenditures Against the qualified, voluntarily participating candidate, minus the dollar amount of Independent Expenditures in Support of the qualified, voluntarily participating candidate.(g) Public funding statutes, ordinances, and resolutions shall not discriminate based on party or according to whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent.(h) The Commission is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency. | |
| 113 | - | ||
| 114 | - | 85300. (a) No public officer shall expend, and no candidate shall accept, any public funds for the purpose of seeking elective office if the funds are earmarked by any state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety.(b) Candidates shall abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria to qualify for public funds.(c) Public funds shall not be utilized to pay legal defense fees or fines.(d) (1) A candidate shall not, at any time, use public funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign.(2) A candidate who receives public funds for their campaign shall not, after their campaign ends, use any source of funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign.(e) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:(1) Expenditure limits means voluntary spending limits established by statute, ordinance, or charter that qualified, voluntarily participating candidates must abide by to receive public funds.(2) Independent Expenditures Against means the sum of any expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person or persons for the purpose of making independent expenditures in opposition to a specific candidate.(3) Independent Expenditures in Support means the sum of any expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person or persons for the purpose of making independent expenditures in support of a specific candidate.(4) Net Supportive Funds means the sum of all contributions and public funds received by a committee supporting a specific candidate, plus the Independent Expenditures In Support of that candidate, minus the Independent Expenditures Against that candidate.(5) Public funds means any moneys provided to a candidate by a state or local governmental entity for the purpose of seeking elective office.(6) (A) Strict criteria means the requirements set by statute, ordinance, or charter that candidates must meet to receive public funds. These criteria shall require candidates to demonstrate broad-based support in their district, such as by requiring candidates to receive small-dollar contributions or vouchers from a specified number of voting-age residents.(B) (i) If a statute, ordinance, or charter requires a minimum number of individuals making small-dollar contributions pursuant to subparagraph (A), the largest contribution the statute, ordinance, or charter may require for a contributor to be counted is ten dollars ($10).(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, a statute, ordinance, or charter may allow a contribution larger than the small-dollar contribution amount required pursuant to subparagraph (A) to be counted as a contribution equal to the small-dollar contribution amount required pursuant to subparagraph (A).(C) Strict criteria shall not include requirements that candidates receive a specified number of signatures or raise a specified total dollar amount of more than ten dollars ($10) per contributor.(f) (1) A statute, ordinance, or charter may increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate.(2) Such an increased limit shall not exceed an amount equal to the highest dollar amount of Net Supportive Funds of any other candidate for the same office, plus the dollar amount of Independent Expenditures Against the qualified, voluntarily participating candidate, minus the dollar amount of Independent Expenditures in Support of the qualified, voluntarily participating candidate.(g) Public funding statutes, ordinances, and resolutions shall not discriminate based on party or according to whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent.(h) The Commission is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency. | |
| 115 | - | ||
| 116 | - | 85300. (a) No public officer shall expend, and no candidate shall accept, any public funds for the purpose of seeking elective office if the funds are earmarked by any state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety. | |
| 117 | - | ||
| 118 | - | (b) Candidates shall abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria to qualify for public funds. | |
| 119 | - | ||
| 120 | - | (c) Public funds shall not be utilized to pay legal defense fees or fines. | |
| 121 | - | ||
| 122 | - | (d) (1) A candidate shall not, at any time, use public funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign. | |
| 123 | - | ||
| 124 | - | (2) A candidate who receives public funds for their campaign shall not, after their campaign ends, use any source of funds to repay a personal loan to their campaign. | |
| 125 | - | ||
| 126 | - | (e) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: | |
| 127 | - | ||
| 128 | - | (1) Expenditure limits means voluntary spending limits established by statute, ordinance, or charter that qualified, voluntarily participating candidates must abide by to receive public funds. | |
| 129 | - | ||
| 130 | - | (2) Independent Expenditures Against means the sum of any expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person or persons for the purpose of making independent expenditures in opposition to a specific candidate. | |
| 131 | - | ||
| 132 | - | (3) Independent Expenditures in Support means the sum of any expenditures made or expenses incurred by any person or persons for the purpose of making independent expenditures in support of a specific candidate. | |
| 133 | - | ||
| 134 | - | (4) Net Supportive Funds means the sum of all contributions and public funds received by a committee supporting a specific candidate, plus the Independent Expenditures In Support of that candidate, minus the Independent Expenditures Against that candidate. | |
| 135 | - | ||
| 136 | - | (5) Public funds means any moneys provided to a candidate by a state or local governmental entity for the purpose of seeking elective office. | |
| 137 | - | ||
| 138 | - | (6) (A) Strict criteria means the requirements set by statute, ordinance, or charter that candidates must meet to receive public funds. These criteria shall require candidates to demonstrate broad-based support in their district, such as by requiring candidates to receive small-dollar contributions or vouchers from a specified number of voting-age residents. | |
| 139 | - | ||
| 140 | - | (B) (i) If a statute, ordinance, or charter requires a minimum number of individuals making small-dollar contributions pursuant to subparagraph (A), the largest contribution the statute, ordinance, or charter may require for a contributor to be counted is ten dollars ($10). | |
| 141 | - | ||
| 142 | - | (ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, a statute, ordinance, or charter may allow a contribution larger than the small-dollar contribution amount required pursuant to subparagraph (A) to be counted as a contribution equal to the small-dollar contribution amount required pursuant to subparagraph (A). | |
| 143 | - | ||
| 144 | - | (C) Strict criteria shall not include requirements that candidates receive a specified number of signatures or raise a specified total dollar amount of more than ten dollars ($10) per contributor. | |
| 145 | - | ||
| 146 | - | (f) (1) A statute, ordinance, or charter may increase the expenditure limits for each qualified, voluntarily participating candidate. | |
| 147 | - | ||
| 148 | - | (2) Such an increased limit shall not exceed an amount equal to the highest dollar amount of Net Supportive Funds of any other candidate for the same office, plus the dollar amount of Independent Expenditures Against the qualified, voluntarily participating candidate, minus the dollar amount of Independent Expenditures in Support of the qualified, voluntarily participating candidate. | |
| 149 | - | ||
| 150 | - | (g) Public funding statutes, ordinances, and resolutions shall not discriminate based on party or according to whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent. | |
| 151 | - | ||
| 152 | - | (h) The Commission is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency. | |
| 153 | - | ||
| 154 | - | ||
| 155 | - | ||
| 156 | - | ||
| 157 | - | ||
| 158 | - | (a)A public officer or candidate may expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity establishes a dedicated fund for this purpose by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter, and both of the following are true: | |
| 159 | - | ||
| 160 | - | ||
| 113 | + | 85300.5. (a) A public officer or candidate may expend or accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a local governmental entity establishes a dedicated fund for this purpose by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter, and both of the following are true: | |
| 161 | 114 | ||
| 162 | 115 | (1) Public moneys held in the fund are available to all qualified, voluntarily participating candidates for the same office without regard to incumbency or political party preference. | |
| 163 | 116 | ||
| 164 | - | ||
| 165 | - | ||
| 166 | 117 | (2) The state or local governmental entity has established criteria for determining a candidates qualification by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter. | |
| 167 | - | ||
| 168 | - | ||
| 169 | 118 | ||
| 170 | 119 | (b) (1) No public moneys for the dedicated fund described in subdivision (a) may be taken from public moneys that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. | |
| 171 | 120 | ||
| 172 | - | ||
| 173 | - | ||
| 174 | 121 | (2) This subdivision shall not apply to charter cities. | |
| 175 | 122 | ||
| 123 | + | SEC. 4. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. | |
| 176 | 124 | ||
| 125 | + | SEC. 4. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. | |
| 177 | 126 | ||
| 178 | - | SEC. 4. Section 85320 of the Government Code is amended to read:85320. (a) A foreign government or foreign principal shall not make, directly or through any other person, a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office.(b) A person or a committee shall not solicit or accept a contribution from a foreign government or foreign principal in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office.(c) For the purposes of this section, a foreign principal includes the following:(1) A foreign political party.(2) A person outside the United States, unless either of the following is established:(A) The person is an individual and a citizen of the United States.(B) The person is not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any state or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States.(3) A partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.(4) A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation if the decision to contribute or expend funds is made by an officer, director, or management employee of the foreign corporation who is neither a citizen of the United States nor a lawfully admitted permanent resident of the United States.(d) This section shall not prohibit a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure made by a lawfully admitted permanent resident.(e) (1) Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined an amount equal to the amount contributed or expended. misdemeanor.(2) In addition to other penalties, a person who violates this section shall be fined an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended, but not exceeding an amount equal to three times the amount contributed or expended. | |
| 179 | - | ||
| 180 | - | SEC. 4. Section 85320 of the Government Code is amended to read: | |
| 127 | + | SEC. 4. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. | |
| 181 | 128 | ||
| 182 | 129 | ### SEC. 4. | |
| 183 | 130 | ||
| 184 | - | ||
| 131 | + | SEC. 5. Notwithstanding Section 9040 of the Elections Code or any other provision of law, the Secretary of State shall, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 81012 of the Government Code, submit Sections 2 and 3 of this act to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election. | |
| 185 | 132 | ||
| 186 | - | ||
| 133 | + | SEC. 5. Notwithstanding Section 9040 of the Elections Code or any other provision of law, the Secretary of State shall, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 81012 of the Government Code, submit Sections 2 and 3 of this act to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election. | |
| 187 | 134 | ||
| 188 | - | ||
| 135 | + | SEC. 5. Notwithstanding Section 9040 of the Elections Code or any other provision of law, the Secretary of State shall, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 81012 of the Government Code, submit Sections 2 and 3 of this act to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election. | |
| 189 | 136 | ||
| 190 | - | ||
| 191 | - | ||
| 192 | - | 85320. (a) A foreign government or foreign principal shall not make, directly or through any other person, a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office. | |
| 193 | - | ||
| 194 | - | (b) A person or a committee shall not solicit or accept a contribution from a foreign government or foreign principal in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local ballot measure or in connection with the election of a candidate to state or local office. | |
| 195 | - | ||
| 196 | - | (c) For the purposes of this section, a foreign principal includes the following: | |
| 197 | - | ||
| 198 | - | (1) A foreign political party. | |
| 199 | - | ||
| 200 | - | (2) A person outside the United States, unless either of the following is established: | |
| 201 | - | ||
| 202 | - | (A) The person is an individual and a citizen of the United States. | |
| 203 | - | ||
| 204 | - | (B) The person is not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any state or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States. | |
| 205 | - | ||
| 206 | - | (3) A partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country. | |
| 207 | - | ||
| 208 | - | (4) A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation if the decision to contribute or expend funds is made by an officer, director, or management employee of the foreign corporation who is neither a citizen of the United States nor a lawfully admitted permanent resident of the United States. | |
| 209 | - | ||
| 210 | - | (d) This section shall not prohibit a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure made by a lawfully admitted permanent resident. | |
| 211 | - | ||
| 212 | - | (e) (1) Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined an amount equal to the amount contributed or expended. misdemeanor. | |
| 213 | - | ||
| 214 | - | (2) In addition to other penalties, a person who violates this section shall be fined an amount at least equal to the amount contributed or expended, but not exceeding an amount equal to three times the amount contributed or expended. | |
| 215 | - | ||
| 216 | - | SEC. 4.SEC. 5. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. | |
| 217 | - | ||
| 218 | - | SEC. 4.SEC. 5. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. | |
| 219 | - | ||
| 220 | - | SEC. 4.SEC. 5. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. | |
| 221 | - | ||
| 222 | - | ### SEC. 4.SEC. 5. | |
| 223 | - | ||
| 224 | - | SEC. 5.SEC. 6. Notwithstanding Section 9040 of the Elections Code or any other provision of law, the Secretary of State shall, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 81012 of the Government Code, submit Sections 2 and 3 2, 3, and 4 of this act to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, 3, 2026, statewide general election. | |
| 225 | - | ||
| 226 | - | SEC. 5.SEC. 6. Notwithstanding Section 9040 of the Elections Code or any other provision of law, the Secretary of State shall, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 81012 of the Government Code, submit Sections 2 and 3 2, 3, and 4 of this act to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, 3, 2026, statewide general election. | |
| 227 | - | ||
| 228 | - | SEC. 5.SEC. 6. Notwithstanding Section 9040 of the Elections Code or any other provision of law, the Secretary of State shall, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 81012 of the Government Code, submit Sections 2 and 3 2, 3, and 4 of this act to the voters for approval at the November 5, 2024, 3, 2026, statewide general election. | |
| 229 | - | ||
| 230 | - | ### SEC. 5.SEC. 6. | |
| 137 | + | ### SEC. 5. |