The item is agendized by Councilwoman Schipske individually, not joined at this point by other Councilmembers. Her agendizing memo cites separate reasons for each aspect of her proposal and includes this overriding statement:
LBREPORT.com is told by "Deep Throat" source on City Hall's 14th floor [not affiliated with Councilwoman Schipske's office] that some Council offices and lobbyists are "freaking out" over Schipske's proposals
The last time the Elections Oversight Committee met on any item was on Sept. 27, 2011, when it then-consisted of Councilmembers Robert Garica (chair), Gary DeLong (vice chair) and Gerrie Schipske. On April 2, 2013, Mayor Foster reshuffled Council committee memberships...and the Elections Oversight Committee now consists of Councilmembers Patrick O'Donnell (chair), Suja Lowenthal (vice chair) and Dee Andrews (member).
Ban on Contributions from Contractors, Lobbyists and Those Having Business
Before the City Council
The District Court in the District of Columbia upheld the long time ban on political
contributions from any person negotiating or performing a federal government contract
stating:
The ban on such contributions guards against "pay-to-play" arrangements, in
which people seeking federal contracts provide financial support to political
candidates in return for their help securing government business. It also protects
such contractors from pressure to contribute or risk losing their work.
The Court further stated that it was not the "courts' practice to "'second-guess a ...
[legislative] determination as to the need for prophylactic measures where corruption is
the evil feared'."
It seems then it might be time for the City of Long Beach to enact a similar contribution
ban. Conceivably, that ban could be applied to those who seek approval for a
development, an entertainment permit, a city contract or those who are lobbying for a
specific ordinance.
Long Beach should handle this situation in two ways: Ban the contributions from anyone
who is negotiating/bidding with the City or doing work for the City and require the
elected official to disclose before voting at City Council if he or she has received a
contribution and a statement that he or she does not believe there is a conflict of
interest.
Several cities have enacted laws which disqualify a council member from participating in
decisions affecting his or her campaign contributors. These laws disqualify the council
member from participating in certain proceedings if the official has received campaign
contributions from a party, participant or their agents within the 12 months preceding the
decision. They also require disclosure on the record of the proceeding of all campaign
contributions received from these persons during that period. In addition, these laws
prohibit solicitation or receipt of campaign contributions during such proceedings, and
for three months after the decision, from parties, participants or their agents.
The voters of the City of Los Angeles enacted changes to their charter in 2011 that
create new campaign contribution restrictions on contractors bidding on contracts with
the City. They have prohibited making campaign contributions to any elected City office,
candidate for elected City office, or City committee controlled by an elected City official
or candidate if the contract requires approval of the Council and the contract requires
approval by the elected City office that is held or sought by the person to whom the
contribution would be given. (In LA, the ban starts with contracts worth $100,000 or
more.)
Any ban needs to be carefully crafted in order to survive legal challenges in the wake of
the US Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission, (2010).
Non-Public Communications With Lobbyists During Council Meetings
Just last month, the City Council of San Jose unanimously made permanent
requirements that they disclose if a lobbyist contacts a councilmember by text, email or
handwritten note during a public meeting and to announce the identity of the lobbyist
and the subject of the communication before it comes to a vote.
Non-Public Communications About City Business
In late March, a Superior Court judge ruled that private text messages, emails and other
electronic communications sent and received by San Jose officials about city affairs are
public records. This case came as a result of citizens requesting these communications
concerning a redevelopment transaction which included the subsidization of the project.
Open and Transparent
The most compelling argument for these proposals is that they will increase public
confidence in our local campaign finance and contracting systems. Moreover, disclosure
of discussions on public matters which take place out of the public view will likewise
ensure that decisions are not influenced by impermissible off-the-record communications
between decision-makers and others and that the public is ensured
that decisions are not based more on special access and influence than on the facts,
the laws, and the exercise of discretion to promote the public interest.
The City Council Committee on Elections Oversight
This committee is charged with reviewing legislative proposals concerning city elections,
campaign finance and lobbying. These issues are directly related to their scope.
Fiscal Impact:
None known.
Recommendation:
Refer to the City Council Committee on Elections Oversight Potential Ordinances To:
Ban Political Contributions from Contractors and Those Having Business Before the
City Council; Require Elected Officials to Disclose Non-Public Communications About
Public Business; Require Councilmembers to Disclose Any Communications Being
Received During Council Meeting From Lobbyists and Request a Recommendation on
Each Within 90 days.
