4 8
0 DATE: November 20, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
FROM: Priscilla Schaus, Communications Director/City Clerk DEPARTMENT: Communications/City Clerk
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING LOCAL CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AND VOLUNTARY CAMPAIGN
EXPENDITURE LIMITS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, provide policy direction on whether Foster City should continue to default to the state limits or establish an ordinance for local campaign contribution limits and/or voluntary campaign expenditure limits.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Political Reform Act governs campaign contributions and expenditures and imposes limits on financial contributions. This law provides transparency to the public on who is contributing to candidate campaigns, how much is being contributed, and how funds are being used.
State law imposes limits on contributors for local and state candidates and defaults the limits for cities that do not have their own established limits. Assembly Bill 571 allows cities to adopt an ordinance that establishes their own contribution limits if they do not wish to default to the state limits.
Foster City currently does not have an ordinance regarding campaign contribution limits and defaults to the state limits.
4 8
0 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Campaign financing is regulated by the Political Reform Act of 1974 (the Act) which is overseen by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). An aspect of the Act imposes campaign finance limits on candidates, limits contribution amounts from individuals and organizations, and requires candidates to file campaign statements that disclose all contributions received and expenditures made.
In 2021, through AB 571 - Mandatory Campaign Contribution Limits, state contribution limits automatically applied to cities that do not have a local campaign contribution ordinance and are updated biennially for inflation. This bill also allows cities to impose their own contribution limits if they do not wish to default to the state limits. If cities impose their own limits, the FPPC will not regulate campaign limits or enforce penalties.
When defaulting to the state limits, the FPPC regulates the administration and enforcement of penalties by a complaint basis. According to the FPPC website, the 2023-2024 state limits for local candidates, per election, is $5,500 for individual and organization contributors.
At the July 17, 2023 Regular Council meeting, Mayor Jon Froomin requested to agendize a discussion regarding campaign finance limits. Staff researched which local cities in San Mateo County have enacted campaign contribution limits and which default to the state limits.
Campaign Contribution Limits
Out of the 20 San Mateo County cities and towns, 14 cities default to the state limits and 6 cities have adopted ordinances establishing contribution limits.
There are 6 cities in the County that have their own contribution limits, varying by individual and organizational contribution, outlined below – City Individual
Contribution
Limit
Organization
Contribution
Limit
Enforcer Enforcement
Process
San Mateo $500 $1,000 City Clerk,
consults with
City Attorney
Reviews filings but
relies on candidates to
stay within limits
Belmont $500 $500 City Clerk Reviews filings but
relies on candidates to
stay within limits
Redwood
City
$1,000 $1,000 City Clerk,
consults with
City Attorney
Reviews filings but
relies on candidates to
stay within limits
Burlingame $350 $350 City Clerk Reviews filings but
relies on candidates to
stay within limits
4 8
0 East Palo
Alto
$500 $500 City Clerk Reviews filings but
relies on candidates to
stay within limits
Half Moon
Bay
$250 $500 Unknown Unknown
Cities with their own established contribution limits are responsible for the enforcement of limits and penalties. Most cities’ enforcement practices are complaint driven. City staff review candidate statements, but they do not actively track dollar amounts for each contributor and rely on candidates to ensure they are staying within the limits. The City Clerk is usually the main enforcer, and Redwood City and San Mateo noted they work with their City Attorney in carrying out enforcement processes if they are notified of a violation. Candidates that violate their local provisions would be subject to the penalties identified in each cities’ ordinance. When defaulting to state limits, the FPPC would act as the enforcer.
Voluntary Expenditure Limits
Three cities have voluntary campaign expenditure limits where candidates would indicate their intention to abide by the limit when submitting their nomination documents during the candidate filing period. Candidates that opt in for the voluntary expenditure limits receive additional benefits in those cities that have adopted such limits. Redwood City‘s maximum limits are calculated by district population times $2.36 per resident, resulting in expenditure limits ranging from $27,000 to $30,000. If a candidate agrees to the voluntary expenditure limit, their photograph and a 400-word statement will be featured on the City’s website. Burlingame has a voluntary expenditure limit of $30,000 and if candidates agree to the limit, the City will identify the candidates on their social media, e-Newsletter and publish a notice in Chinese, English, and Spanish in the newspaper. San Mateo passed an ordinance on November 6, 2023 enacting voluntary campaign expenditure limits of $2.50 per resident. Depending on the district population, the expenditure limits range from $49,700 to $54,200 per candidate.
If the City Council provides direction to proceed with a campaign finance ordinance and/or voluntary campaign expenditure limits, staff will prepare and bring forth an ordinance for first reading at a subsequent meeting for City Council consideration.
These types of limitations on campaign activity could be time intensive for staff as the enforcer.
California Environmental Quality Act
This item is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et. seq.), including without limitation, Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of Regulations 15378 as this is not a “project” that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment.
4 8
0 FISCAL IMPACT
There would be a cost associated with staff time and City Attorney fees for drafting a local campaign contribution ordinance. Also, there would be additional staff and legal time needed related to enforcement of a local campaign contribution limit as the FPPC was previously regulating the limits and penalties that fell under state limits.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
City Council Operations and Improved Community Engagement