2.130 — POLITICAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM ACT

In 1974, the voters of California approved a far-reaching initiative measure commonly known as Proposition 9. The provisions of Proposition 9 were codified into the California Government Code as Title 9 (entitled "Political Reform" – § 81000 et seq.). This enactment is commonly referred to as the "Political Reform Act of 1974," hereinafter the "Political Reform Act." Among other things, the Political Reform Act subjected all public officials to rigorous conflicts of interest provisions and imposed explicit regulation and accountability for political campaign contributions and expenditures on elected officials.

This chapter shall be known as the "City of Santa Clara Political Campaign Finance Reform Act" ("Act"). It is intended to supplement the provisions of the Political Reform Act, as it is amended from time to time. In some instances, the Act is intended to be a convenient, single source reminder of the applicable State law. In other instances, the provisions of the Act are expressly intended to be more restrictive than the Political Reform Act.

(Ord. 1745 § 2, 1-11-2000; Ord. 1924 § 1, 4-22-2014)

In enacting this chapter, the following findings and declarations are adopted:

• (a) Monetary contributions to political campaigns are a legitimate form of participation in the American political process, but large contributions may have an undue influence on candidates

or create the appearance of an undue influence in the political process.

• (b) The rapidly increasing costs of political campaigns have forced many candidates to raise larger and larger percentages of money from individuals and interest groups with a specific financial stake in matters before the City Council. This has caused a public perception that votes are being improperly influenced by monetary contributions to candidates. This perception is undermining the credibility and integrity of the governmental process.

• (c) High campaign costs are forcing officeholders to spend more time on fundraising and less time on the public's business. The periodic pressure to raise contributions distracts officeholders from urgent governmental matters.

• (d) The integrity of the governmental process, the competitiveness of campaigns and public confidence in local officials are all diminishing.

• (e) Campaign contributions and campaign expenditures in municipal election campaigns should be fully and truthfully disclosed in order that the voters may be fully informed about a candidate's sources of campaign contributions.

• (f) Specific Findings Regarding Two Tiered Contribution Limits. The contribution limits set forth in SCCC § 2.130.050 herein are based on the following specific findings:

  • (1) Individual contributions in excess of five hundred dollars ($500.00) may result in the reasonable perception by the public of the appearance of undue influence on successful candidates by larger contributors. Limiting contributions below this level for candidates accepting the voluntary expenditure limits of this chapter will bolster the public's trust in the local electoral process.

  • (2) Limiting contributions to two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for candidates who do not accept voluntary campaign limits represents a reasonable incentive for candidates to accept voluntary expenditure limits without reducing any candidate's ability to effectively campaign or to reasonably raise adequate campaign funds.

• (3) The difference between the alternative contribution limits is not calculated to deny any candidate the option of not accepting expenditure limits. Rather, it is intended to reflect a meaningful distinction to be appreciated by both candidates and the public encouraging fair elections free from the perceived negative effects of excessive campaign spending.

• (Ord. 1745 § 2, 1-11-2000; Ord. 1924 § 1, 4-22-2014)

This chapter is to be liberally construed to effectuate the following purposes:

• (a) Ensure that individuals and interest groups in the city have a fair opportunity to participate in the municipal elective and governmental processes.

• (b) Reduce the influence of large contributors with a specific financial stake in matters before the City Council, thus countering the perception that decisions are influenced more by the size of contributions than the best interests of the people of the City.

• (c) Encourage candidates to limit their overall expenditures in campaigns, thereby reducing the pressure on candidates to raise large campaign war chests for defensive purposes, beyond the amount necessary to communicate reasonably with voters.

• (d) Increase the value of smaller contributions to candidates.

• (e) Reduce the fund raising advantage of incumbents and thus encourage competition for elective office.

• (f) Allow candidates and officeholders to spend a lesser portion of their time on fund raising and a greater portion of their time dealing with issues of importance to their constituents.

• (g) Improve the disclosure of contribution sources in reasonable and effective ways.

(h) Help restore public trust in governmental and electoral institutions. (Ord. 1745 § 2, 1-11-2000; Ord. 1924 § 1, 4-22-2014)