From:Isiah Harris
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Cc:Isaiah Hagerman, CPA; "Isiah Harris"
Subject:Action Calendar No. 7A: Establishing No Campaign Contribution Limits for City Council Candidates Date:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 10:05:59 PM
Attachments:City Council Meeting Comments 02192026.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Warning: Unusual sender
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
Hello Kristie,
I am unable to attend the City Council meeting of 2/19/2026.
The attached document summarizes my thoughts regarding Action Calendar No. 7A: Establishing No Campaign Contribution Limits for City Council Candidates
I would greatly appreciate it if the document could be provided to the City Council Members prior to the meeting.
Since time is of the essence please acknowledge receipt of this email.
Greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Regards,
Isiah
(925) 989-2942
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This is a private message and contains information which may be confidential, privileged, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without disclosing, copying, distributing or using this information as such actions are prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail, and any printout. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. I accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 Toscana Way W
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-1978
City Council Meeting 02/19/2026
Action Calendar No. 7A: Establishing No Campaign Contribution Limits for City Council Candidates
Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, and Esteemed Staff, good afternoon.
I am Isiah Harris, a resident of Rancho Mirage.
I appreciate this opportunity to address the Council concerning the proposal to eliminate campaign contribution limits. I have titled this resolution for discussion, "The Sky is the Limit."
I am writing today to formally express my reservations and seek substantive clarification regarding the proposed amendment to campaign contribution regulations within Rancho Mirage.
While the State of California established a default campaign contribution limit through AB 571 in 2021 to mitigate the undue influence of large donors, municipalities retain the option to enact an opt-out ordinance and implement no limits for specific local and strategic justifications.
The typical rationales cited by a city for choosing unlimited campaign contributions include:
Flexibility for Local Needs: Local jurisdictions often assert that state-mandated limits constitute a "one-size-fits-all" policy that fails to account for the distinct financial requirements of conducting a campaign within their specific community. If this constitutes a core argument for the City's position, I formally inquire about the specific, unique costs associated with campaigning in Rancho Mirage. I recall that during the previous City Council Vacancy appointment session, Council Member Weill voiced concern regarding the high financial threshold for campaigning here. If campaign costs are indeed elevated, the Council should, in my estimation, be seeking measures to reduce, rather than increase, those costs. I submit that the move toward unlimited camp aign contributions will inevitably result in a significant escalation of overall campaign expenses.
Reduced Administrative and Legal Burden: The implementation and enforcement of unique local limits necessitate substantial administrative oversight. Some cities opt out to circumvent the complexities of managing their own regulatory structure or to mitigate the potential for costly legal challenges initiated by candidates or contributors. Is the City employing this as an argument? My understanding is that adherence to the state default permits cities to delegate enforcement and interpretation responsibilities to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Such an approach effectively reduces local regulatory expenditures and legal exposure.
Encouraging Competitiveness: Proponents occasionally argue that the absence of contribution limits allows "outsider" or less affluent candidates to rapidly achieve competitiveness by securing a few substantial backers to finance initial visibility. Is this a point of contention being advanced by the City? In my judgment, campaign caps compel candidates to cultivate financial support from a broader, more diverse base of smaller donors, rather than relying exclusively on a select group of wealthy individuals. This mechanism is demonstrably effective in minimizing influence peddling. Extremely large contributions have the potential to erode public confidence in democratic integrity; approximately 80% of American citizens believe that major donors wield excessive influence over political decisions.
Historical Precedence: Prior to the 2021 legislation, the vast majority of California cities and counties had no contribution limits whatsoever. Numerous jurisdictions simply chose to preserve the "no limit" status quo by adopting a local ordinance explicitly rejecting the state's default provision. I recognize this as the likely course of action the City intends to pursue. However, I believe there is substantial local political appetite for reform. Approximately 30% of California cities have
24 Toscana Way W
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-1978
independently instituted limits that are even lower than the state’s default, thereby further restricting campaign expenditures. Furthermore, my review of the public record indicates that only 14 cities have specifically enacted ordinances to establish no contribution limits, thus actively circumventing the state default.
Local Control: Many city councils prioritize the principle of local control, maintaining that municipal election finance should be determined by local voters and officials, rather than by state legislators in Sacramento. Should this be the City’s guiding perspective, I formally propose the placement of an initiative on the municipal ballot, allowing the electorate to directly determine whether unlimited campaign contributions are desirable for Rancho Mirage.
One California city, with a median income of $91,000, transitioned from having no limits to adopting the state's default limits in late 2025, effective for the 2026 election cycle. The justifications articulated by that City Council were:
Ethics and Transparency: Council members contended that reverting to the state default was essential to align with ethical standards and enhance public trust. Leveling the Playing Field: The policy change was designed to diminish the influence of affluent donors and necessitate broader fundraising efforts from candidates. Enforcement Hand-off: By adopting the state limits, the city formally transferred enforcement obligations to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), the reby decreasing the local administrative burden.
Rancho Mirage is an affluent community, with a median household income of $110,000. This represents approximately twenty-one percent (21%) greater income than the municipality referenced above. Unlimited contributions are frequently perceived as increasing the risk of quid pro quo corruption or fostering the appearance that candidates are unduly "bought" by special interests. Judicial rulings have consistently affirmed that contribution limits constitute a legitimate means of managing this fundamental reality.
Since January 1, 2021, California statute has automatically imposed state-level limits on cities that have not enacted their own. For the 2025–2026 cycle, this default limit is $5,900 per contributor. I formally request data on the number of campaign contributors in Rancho Mirage who have reached the campaign contribution limit in each election cycle, or annually, since the implementation of AB 571 in 2021. I have submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for this data, but due to the short timeframe between the meeting announcement and the meeting date, a response has not yet been provided. I strongly anticipate that the answer will be zero or very close to zero. If this suspicion is accurate, the rationale for instituting a policy of no contribution limits becomes highly questionable.
My understanding is that 14 cities currently maintain no limits, approximately 179 cities have established their own local limits (often considerably lower than the state default), and the remaining 327 cities adhere to the state's default regulations. I respectfully request that the City Council Members provide comprehensive information regarding the primary drivers motivating Rancho Mirage’s consideration of a move toward unlimited campaign contributions.
I look forward to receiving the Council's perspective on this critical matter and achieving a clear understanding of the policy's underlying rationale.
Thank you for your time and careful consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Isiah Harris