pages: CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf, 21
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 21 | issue is a legal issue; the City cannot give any more sunshine or light on the issue other than what has been said in the Supreme Court said and case law following; the issues are first amendment issues; the courts have stated that in terms of contributions, the regulation must be closely drawn to a sufficiently important interest in order to avoid a first amendment challenge; so far the only government interest that courts have held to be valid with respect to campaign restrictions is "in preventing the actuality and appearance of corruption"; Council could consider adding said phrase to the Purpose section of the ordinance; by contrast, limitations on expenditures are subject to strict scrutiny; regulation must be very narrowly tailored and government interest must be compelling; so far, the Supreme Court has rejected expenditure limits for individuals, groups, candidates, and parties; campaign contributions are treated differently because the courts find that contribution limitations entail only a marginal restriction upon the contributor's ability to engage in free communication; the courts state that expenditure ceilings impose significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedom of political expression and association; the ordinance would not limit campaign expenditures from any source because by case law and recent Supreme Court case, the City cannot do so; limitations apply to a contribution from a PAC; should a PAC make a contribution directly to a candidate, the contribution would be limited to $250; by contrast, if a PAC is expending money which may benefit a candidate, case law states that the expenditure cannot be restricted; every ordinance that has been challenged on the issue has been struck down; the ordinance was drafted very simply to only address the issues that could be safely addressed; suggested that the additional safeguard language be added; stated otherwise, the ordinance is as narrowly drawn as possible. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is for campaign reform; he voted in favor of the first reading in order to get started; he attended the Democratic Club meeting last week; the meeting topic was campaign reform; a watchdog group gave a good presentation; at the end of the discussion, not one question came up about Alameda or the first reading of the ordinance; he feels discussions are in a vacuum; he would support having more hearings on the matter; particularly, with hearing the City Attorney's analysis of additional suggestions; the City has a Sunshine Task Force that is composed of appointees from each Councilmember; that he would like to have the Sunshine Task Force review the ordinance and come back with a recommendation. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City looked at model ordinances from other cities; the issue was not under the oversight of the Sunshine Task Force; Council spelled out items to the Sunshine Task Force; only four elements can be controlled within campaign funding; State law PAC limitations have been a concern. The City Attorney stated that she would not be surprised to see similar requests for regulation; however, the regulation would not be enforceable and the City would be subject to a legal challenge by doing so; the voluntary contribution concept could be added, but Council would have to determine whether it can afford to set aside money for the purpose of publicly financing campaign contributions. In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, Councilmember Tam stated Fremont does Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |