Bill Title: Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 11-0)
Status: (Engrossed) 2024-08-15 - August 15 hearing: Held in committee and under submission. [SB24 Detail]
| Amended IN Assembly June 26, 2023 |
| Amended IN Senate March 30, 2023 |
| Amended IN Senate March 20, 2023 |
| Introduced by Senators Umberg and Allen (Principal coauthor: Senator Stern) (Principal (Coauthors: Senators Newman, Roth, and Wiener) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Low, Quirk-Silva, and Schiavo) |
December 05, 2022 |
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.
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, general statewide election, as specified.
(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 public’s 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 these 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 commented 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.
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.