Chapter 2.128 — CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR ELECTIVE COUNTY OFFICES

The board of supervisors finds that Assembly Bill No. 571 was approved by the Governor on October 8, 2019. Absent a local resolution or ordinance, Assembly Bill No. 571 amends the Political Reform Act to

impose identical campaign contribution limits for candidates to county or city offices as those limits imposed on certain elective state office candidates, effective January 1, 2021. Like the vast majority of cities and counties throughout the state, the County of Riverside did not have campaign contribution limits prior to the passage of Assembly Bill No. 571 or this chapter. The board of supervisors finds it necessary to revise contribution limits for county elective offices to provide greater transparency for county elective offices and to allow everyone the right to participate and support the candidates of their choice. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that individuals and interest groups continue to have a fair and equal opportunity to participate in electing candidates for county elective office, and to maintain public trust and confidence in governmental institutions and the electoral process through transparency. It was and remains the intent of the board of supervisors to have included the county superintendent of schools in the original version of this chapter and is now being included in this chapter; this previous inadvertent omission shall not affect prior application of the ordinance to that office.

It is the intent of the board of supervisors that this chapter complies with the free speech clauses of the United States and California Constitutions, and applicable decisional authority by the federal and state courts. To this end, the Board of Supervisors cites the findings of Pew Research Center, a well-established, national, non-partisan polling and analysis organization on the impact of money in politics and elections. In an October 23, 2023 article on research it has conducted, the Pew Research Center noted "widespread dissatisfaction with the role of money in American politics." Pew Research Center further noted that, " [l]arge shares of the public see political campaigns as too costly, elected officials as too responsive to donors and special interests," and federal representatives as "unable or unwilling to separate their financial interests from their work as public servants." Pew Research Center then noted seven facts—drawn from its own polling and analysis—about the influence of money on the political system and elected officials, of which five are highlighted as particularly applicable to Riverside County:

(1)

Most Americans (seventy-two (72) percent) favor spending limits for political campaigns. Limits should be placed on the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend on political campaigns. This support "crosses ideological and demographic lines," garnering bipartisan support.

(2)

Approximately (sixty (60) percent) of Americans say it is possible to have laws that would effectively reduce the role of money in politics. This includes a majority of Democrats and Republicans.

(3)

The top three responses—comprising thirty-six (36) percent of all responses—to an open-ended question on the biggest problem with elected officials were: too much influence by money (eleven (11) percent); corrupt elected officials (nine percent); and politicians do not work for the people they represent (sixteen (16) percent). Thus, unprompted, more than a third of Americans expressed a compelling concern about the influence of money on elections and the quality of representation by elected officials.

(4)

An overwhelming majority of Americans (eighty-six (86) percent) say the cost of political campaigns makes it hard for "good people" to run for office, with identical shares of Republicans and Democrats.

(5)

A staggering majority of Americans (eighty (80) percent) say the people who donated a lot of money to a candidate's campaign have too much influence on the candidate. "By contrast, 70% of Americans say the people who live in [candidate] districts have too little influence over the decisions their representatives make." Source: https://pewrsr.ch/3QsrldF

While state and federal court decisions prohibit campaign finance laws intended to "level the playing field" between everyday voters and the wealthy, corporations, Political Action Committees (PACs), and Super PACS, state and federal court decisions have upheld laws intended to prohibit actual and perceived corruption through quid pro quo exchanges. Research like the above from the Pew Research Center shows unified concern across the political spectrum for the integrity of elections, which necessarily includes elections for county elective office and, at a minimum, the perceived creation of quid pro quo corruption in favor of high value donors. The analysis is simple: people and organizations who give more, appear to get more from candidates after those candidates take office, and at the expense of everyone else. This chapter seeks to empower Riverside County voters and strengthen the integrity of elections for county elected office by eliminating the perception of quid pro quo corruption.

Not only have Americans expressed a strong desire to see and feel candidates acting in their best interests once elected to office, but a supermajority of voters want their voices to be heard when making a donation to a candidate for a specific office, regardless of the size of that donation or the identity of the donor. The law is clear: when a donor gives money, they express support for a candidate for a specific office, and that expression is protected by the free speech clauses of the state and federal constitutions. But when a candidate then chooses to run for a different office, what becomes of the donor's speech? The government cannot assume that the intended speech of the donor is extinguished, or that the donor necessarily supports the candidate running for that different office. The government cannot assume to know more than the donor who spoke before. The Board of Supervisors, as the people's representatives, must conclude that the intrinsic value of the donor's speech does not stop after the money is deposited. To the contrary, the board of supervisors recognizes and supports free speech by all people, regardless of form, made through their donations, regardless of politics, regardless of wealth, and regardless of status. Not abridging the speech or the original intended message of the people—all people—is a compelling interest underlying the very existence of government. If candidates do not respect the voice of the people who support them monetarily—regardless of the office those candidates seek—then the government ceases to be responsive to the people, in violation of the state and federal constitutions. This chapter prohibits intra-candidate transfers without the consent of donors to the first campaign. Further, all intra-candidate transfers must be transparent and accounted for via prescribed methods.

Obtaining donor consent before making intra-candidate transfers is a minimal time, place, and manner measure that balances a candidate's right to expend contributions—which is protected as core political speech—with the equally compelling right of donors in not having their speech, in the form of their initial donation, diluted or destroyed by that transfer. Simply: if the donor agrees, in writing, then the candidate can complete the transfer of the donation, and anyone with an interest in the candidate's finances will be able to account for the transfer via a widely accepted method of "Last in, First out." This way, the integrity

of a donor's speech is maintained. Moreover, the appearance of any quid pro quo is diminished by requiring candidates to engage with the donor to continue earning the support originally obtained. Thus, the compelling government interest of protecting speech is met through the least restrictive means of additional paperwork.

(Ord. No. 963, § 1, 11-17-2020; Ord. No. 963.1, § 1, 10-7-2025)

This chapter is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Government Code sections 85301, 85305, 85306, 85307, 85315, 85316, 85317, 85318, and 85702.5, as amended.

(Ord. No. 963, § 2, 11-17-2020; Ord. No. 963.1, § 2, 10-7-2025)

As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

a.

"Candidate." As defined in the Political Reform Act provided that that the term shall be limited to candidates for county elective office for the purpose of this chapter.

b.

"Committee." As defined in Government Code Section 82013 of the Political Reform Act, as amended. A committee includes but is not limited to "controlled committee" and "independent committee".

c.

"Contribution." As defined in Government Code Section 82015 of the Political Reform Act, as amended.

d.

"Controlled committee." Any committee which is controlled directly or indirectly by a candidate or which acts jointly with a candidate or controlled committee in connection with the making of expenditures. A candidate controls a committee if he or she, his or her agent, or any other committee such candidate controls has a significant influence on the actions or decisions of the committee.

e.

"County elective office." The offices of: Assessor-county clerk-recorder; auditor-controller; board supervisor; district attorney; sheriff-coroner and public administrator; superintendent of schools; and treasurer-tax collector.

f.

"Election." Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, any primary, general, special, or recall election held in this state. The primary, general, special, or recall elections are all separate elections for the purpose of this chapter.

g.

"Independent committee." All committees other than controlled committees.

h.

"Independent expenditure." An expenditure made by any person, including a payment of public monies by a state or local governmental agency, in connection with a communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate; or the qualification, passage, or defeat of a clearly identified measure; or taken as a whole and in context, unambiguously urges a particular result in an election but otherwise is not made to, or at the behest of, the affected candidate or committee.

i.

"Intra-candidate transfers." The moving of funds from the campaign of one candidate in a local, state, or federal election to the campaign of the same candidate in a county election.

j.

"Last in, first out." Campaign funds being transferred are attributed to the transferring committee's contributors in reverse chronological order beginning with the most recent of its contributors or, if there has been a prior transfer, beginning with the most recent contributor for which unattributed contributions remain.

k.

"Person." An individual, proprietorship, firm, partnership, joint venture, syndicate, business trust, company, corporation, limited liability company, association, committee, and any other organization or group of persons acting in concert.

l.

"Political Reform Act." The California Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Sections 81000 et seq., as amended).

(Ord. No. 963, § 3, 11-17-2020; Ord. No. 963.1, § 3, 10-7-2025)

A.

No person shall make to a candidate for county elective office, or to a controlled committee of that candidate, a contribution totaling more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) per election.

B.

No candidate for county elective office, nor a controlled committee of that candidate, shall accept from a person a contribution totaling more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) per election.

C.

Any candidate for county elective office who seeks to do an intra-candidate transfer, shall first obtain the written consent of all donors comprising the amount to be transferred, and shall do so use a last in, first out accounting method for such transfer. No intra-candidate transfer shall be made without compliance with this subsection.

D.

The limitations of this section do not apply to a candidate's contributions of the candidate's personal funds to the candidate's own campaign.

E.

The limitations of this section do not apply to independent expenditures.

F.

In the event that a candidate for county elective office contributes more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) of the candidate's personal funds to the candidate's own campaign, or is the beneficiary of an independent expenditure of more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00), or conduct an intra-candidate transfer of campaign funds totaling more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) from one controlled committee or campaign fund account to another controlled committee or campaign fund account, all other candidates running in the election for that same county elective office are exempted from the campaign contribution limits of this section 2.128.040 for the same election.

G.

Beginning in January 2023, the campaign contribution limits in subsections A., B., and F. of this section shall be increased by three percent on January 1 of every odd-numbered year. The registrar of voters shall maintain a record of any increased contribution limits pursuant to this subsection and shall make such record available to the public and all candidates for county elective office.

H.

Unless otherwise stated herein, the limits provided in the Political Reform Act, or as otherwise provided by federal law, apply.

(Ord. No. 963, § 4, 11-17-2020; Ord. No. 963.1, § 4, 10-7-2025)

A candidate for county elective office or a controlled committee of that candidate shall not make a campaign contribution to any other candidate for county elective office in excess of the limits set forth in section 2.128.040 of this chapter.

(Ord. No. 963, § 5, 11-17-2020; Ord. No. 963.1, § 5, 10-7-2025)

A candidate for county elective office shall not personally loan to the candidate's campaign, including the proceeds of a loan obtained by the candidate from a commercial lending institution, an amount, the

outstanding balance of which exceeds one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). A candidate for county elective office shall not charge interest on any loan the candidate made to the candidate's campaign.

(Ord. No. 963, § 6, 11-17-2020; Ord. No. 963.1, § 6, 10-7-2025)

An elected officer of a county elective office may establish a committee to oppose the qualification of a recall measure, and the recall election. This committee may be established when the elected officer receives a notice of intent to recall pursuant to Elections Code section 11021. An elected officer of a county elective office may accept campaign contributions to oppose the qualification of a recall measure, and if qualification is successful, the recall election, without regard to the campaign contribution limits set forth in this chapter. After the failure of a recall petition or after the recall election, the committee formed by the elected officer of a county elective office shall wind down its activities and dissolve. Any remaining funds shall be treated as surplus funds and shall be expended within thirty (30) days after the failure of the recall petition or after the recall election for a purpose specified in Government Code Section 89519, Subdivision (b).

(Ord. No. 963, § 7, 11-17-2020; Ord. No. 963.1, § 7, 10-7-2025)

A contribution for an election may be accepted by a candidate for county elective office after the date of the election only to the extent that the contribution does not exceed net debts outstanding from the election, and the contribution does not otherwise exceed the applicable contribution limits for that election as set forth in section 2.128.040 of this chapter.

(Ord. No. 963, § 8, 11-17-2020; Ord. No. 963.1, § 8, 10-7-2025)

Notwithstanding section 2.128.040 subsection C. of this chapter, a candidate for county elective office may carry over contributions raised in connection with one election for county elective office to pay campaign expenditures incurred in connection with a subsequent election for the same county elective office.

(Ord. No. 963, § 9, 11-17-2020; Ord. No. 963.1, § 9, 10-7-2025)

A candidate for county elective office may raise contributions for a general election before the primary election, and for a special general election before a special primary election, for the same county elective office if the candidate sets aside these contributions for the general election or special general election. If the candidate for county elective office is defeated in the primary election or special primary election, or otherwise withdraws from the general election or special general election, the general election or special general election funds shall be refunded to the contributors on a pro rata basis less any expenses associated with the raising and administration of general election or special election contributions. Notwithstanding Government Code Section 85201, candidates for county elective office may establish

separate campaign contribution accounts for the primary and general elections or special primary and special general elections.

(Ord. No. 963, § 10, 11-17-2020; Ord. No. 963.1, § 10, 10-7-2025)

A.

Except for elections in which section 2.128.040, subsection F., has been triggered to exempt campaign contribution limits for a particular county elective office, any person who knowingly and willfully makes or causes to make a campaign contribution to a candidate for a county elective office, or to a controlled committee of that candidate, in excess of the campaign contribution limits in this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment for up to six months, or both.

B.

Except for elections in which section 2.128.040, subsection F., has been triggered to exempt campaign contribution limits for a particular county elective office, any candidate for county elective office, or any controlled committee of that candidate, who knowingly and willfully obtains or receives a campaign contribution in excess of the campaign contribution limits in this chapter and fails to return the excess amount of the contribution over the limits in this chapter to the contributor within a reasonable period of time shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment for up to six months, or both.

C.

Knowingly and willfully violating any provision of this chapter shall be deemed a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment for up to six months, or both.

(Ord. No. 963, § 11, 11-17-2020; Ord. No. 963.1, § 11, 10-7-2025)

The district attorney shall enforce the provisions of this chapter. In the event there is a complaint alleging a violation of this chapter by the district attorney, the district attorney shall declare a conflict and request that another district attorney's office or the state attorney general conduct the investigation and enforcement.

(Ord. No. 963, § 12, 11-17-2020; Ord. No. 963.1, § 12, 10-7-2025)

Nothing in this chapter alters the requirements for electronic filing of campaign statements and the required online reporting of contributions and independent expenditures in Ordinance No. 913 which shall continue to be complied with by all candidates for county elective office.

(Ord. No. 963, § 13, 11-17-2020; Ord. No. 963.1, § 13, 10-7-2025)