UPDATE: Council Action Erasing Parts of LB's Campaign Reform Act, Will Let LB Candidates & Incumbents Divert Their Campaign Funds To Other Candidates For Local, State and Federal Offices, Removes LB Req't (Tougher Than Sac'to) To Obtain Contributors' Names/Occupations Before Depositing Their Contribs
Councilwoman Gonzalez calls current req'ts "antiquated," says changes will "make it a lot easier for us" and bring us "up to par."
UPDATE: Council votes 8-0 (Assemblyman-elect O'Donnell absent) to adopt the ordinance below.
(Nov. 17, 2014) -- With nearly no one remaining in the audience in the final minutes of the late-running Nov. 11 City Council meeting held in NLB's Houghton Park, Long Beach Councilmembers cast the first of two votes -- with a second enacting vote scheduled for Nov. 18 -- that would erase portions of LB's Campaign Reform Act. The changes include letting LB incumbents or challengers divert sums contributed to their campaigns to other candidates seeking local, state and federal offices.
[Scroll down for further]
Another change which received 8-0 Council approval (Andrews absent) on Nov. 11 and requires 2/3 Council approval on Nov.18 to enact, would delete a transparency section that currently forbids depositing any contribution over $100 into a campaign account without obtaining the contributor's name, occupation and employer. The change would leave LB voters to rely on a weaker Sacramento law that requires refunding a contribution or turning it over to the state or local government general fund if the contributor's information isn't obtained within 60 days.
Councilmembers voted on Nov. 11 to approve erasing the first few words (text below) that would (if approved Nov. 18) enable candidates (including Council incumbents) to transfer, loan or contribute their campaign funds to any other campaign for local, State or federal elective office. Under the changed verbiage (for example), contributions to a LB incumbent could be diverted to another Council incumbent or to another candidate (incumbent or challenger) seeking election to a different Long Beach, county, state or federal office. Such transactions are lawful under Sacramento-enacted laws but prohibited under current provisions of LB's Campaign Reform Act.
LB Muni Code section 2.01.390 would be amended as follows:
Campaign funds or O officeholder funds may not be used as a transfer, loan, or contribution to any other candidate for local, State or federal elective office.
In addition, the Council voted to delete LB Muni Code section 2.01.730, which requires disclosure of the occupation and employer of the person prior to depositing a contribution from that person of over $100..
2.01.730 Disclosure of occupation and employer.
No contribution of one hundred dollars ($100.00) or more shall be deposited into a campaign checking account unless the name, address, occupation and employer of the contributor is on file in the records of the recipient of the contribution.
The City Attorney's office has recommended deleting the section, explaining in a memo discussing the proposed changes a few months earlier: "State law requires the contribution to be refunded if the donor's information is not obtained within 60 days. If the donations cannot be refunded (e.g. no address or phone #) the funds are required to be turned over to the state's general fund or local jurisdiction's general fund."
[Comment: LBREPORT.com has argued editorially that refunds mean little if delayed until after the election, in our view, this change could invite candidates to try and "game the system" and conceal the identifying information during the last sixty days of a campaign.]
The proposed changes were first recommended to the City Council on Sept. 16 by the Council's Elections Oversight Committee (chair Gonzalez, plus Uranga and Mungo) within 60 days of the new Council majority taking office. At the Sept. 16 Council meeting, Councilmembers voted 8-0 (Lowenthal absent) to have the City Attorney's office draft text now before them. Other changes that were initially proposed to the Council by the Committee -- including the use of their "officeholder" funds -- were sent back to the Committee in September for further discussion and aren't coming to a vote on Nov. 18.
The Nov. 18 proposed changes (which also include some mainly housekeeping changes) require a 2/3 Council approval vote for enactment, the City Attorney's office says. Ssction 2.01.1240(A) of the 1994 LB voter enacted measure provides, "This Chapter may be amended from time to time by ordinance adopted by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the members of the City Council upon a finding by the Council that such amendment is consistent with and in furtherance of the purposes of this Chapter."
Prior to the Nov. 11 initial Council vote, Councilwoman Gonzalez (a former aide to Councilman/Vice Mayor Garcia, who as Mayor he chose to chair the Elections Oversight Committee) commented that the actions proposed looked at "inefficiencies and gets us up to par in a way that certainly makes it a lot easier for us and gets rid of a lot of antiquated policies."
Mayor Garcia said "Excellent" and called for the vote: 8-0.
