AB 1089 — Local elective offices: contribution limitations.
Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making to a candidate for elective state office, for statewide elective office, or for office of the Governor, and prohibits those candidates from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than a specified amount per election. For a candidate for elective state office other than a candidate for statewide elective office, the limitation on contributions is $3,000 per election, as that amount is adjusted by the Fair Political Practices Commission in January of every odd-numbered year. Existing law authorizes a county, city, or district to limit campaign contributions in local elections. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures or contributions in elections to district offices. The act specifies that it does not prevent the Legislature or any other state or local agency from imposing additional requirements on a person if the requirements do not prevent the person from complying with the act, and that the act does not nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions by any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, as specified. This bill, commencing January 1, 2019, instead would prohibit a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and would prohibit a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth in the act for limitations on contributions to a candidate for elective state office. This bill would also authorize a county, city, special district, or school district to impose a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill. This bill would repeal the authorization for the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures in elections to district offices. This bill would make specified provisions of the act relating to contribution limitations applicable to a candidate for a local elective office, except as specified. The act makes a violation of its provisions punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties. This bill would add the contribution limitation imposed by the bill to the act's provisions, thereby making a violation of the limitation punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties. However, the bill would specify that a violation of a limitation imposed by a local government is not subject to the act's enforcement provisions. The bill would authorize a local government that imposes a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation imposed by the local government agency, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. By expanding the scope of an existing crime with regard to a violation of a contribution limitation imposed by the bill, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act's purposes upon a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
1 added · 1 removed1 line(s) added, 1 removed.
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBillText Information PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
View plain text versions (2)
- Introduced 02/17/17 - Introduced Current pdf February 17, 2017
- AB1089 View text html
Action History
-
From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
-
Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.
-
Coauthors revised.
-
In committee: Held under submission.
-
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (March 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Referred to Com. on E. & R.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Marc Berman · Cosponsor
- Chiu · Cosponsor
- Friedman · Cosponsor
- Hill · Cosponsor
- Hertzberg · Cosponsor
- Mullin · Primary
- Wieckowski · Cosponsor
- Robert Garcia · Cosponsor
- Travis Allen · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 8 co-sponsors · 113 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Mullin
Co-sponsors (8)
- Berman, Marc Democratic
- Chiu
- Friedman
- Hill
- Hertzberg
- Wieckowski
- Garcia, Robert Democratic
- Travis Allen
Not signed on (113)
113 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 113 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 86% | 14% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Harper | — | Nay |
| Cunningham | — | Yea |
| Low | — | Yea |
| Mullin | — | Yea |
| Weber | — | Yea |
| Berman, Marc | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 1089 do?
- The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making to a candidate for elective state office, for statewide elective office, or for office of the Governor, and prohibits those candidates from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than a specified amount per election. For a candidate for elective state office other than a candidate for statewide elective office, the limitation on contributions is $3,000 per election, as that amount is adjusted by the Fair Political Practices Commission in January of every odd-numbered year. Existing law authorizes a county, city, or district to limit campaign contributions in local elections. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures or contributions in elections to district offices. The act specifies that it does not prevent the Legislature or any other state or local agency from imposing additional requirements on a person if the requirements do not prevent the person from complying with the act, and that the act does not nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions by any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, as specified. This bill, commencing January 1, 2019, instead would prohibit a person from making to a candidate for local elective office, and would prohibit a candidate for local elective office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth in the act for limitations on contributions to a candidate for elective state office. This bill would also authorize a county, city, special district, or school district to impose a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill. This bill would repeal the authorization for the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures in elections to district offices. This bill would make specified provisions of the act relating to contribution limitations applicable to a candidate for a local elective office, except as specified. The act makes a violation of its provisions punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties. This bill would add the contribution limitation imposed by the bill to the act's provisions, thereby making a violation of the limitation punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties. However, the bill would specify that a violation of a limitation imposed by a local government is not subject to the act's enforcement provisions. The bill would authorize a local government that imposes a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation imposed by the local government agency, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. By expanding the scope of an existing crime with regard to a violation of a contribution limitation imposed by the bill, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act's purposes upon a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.
- Who sponsors AB 1089?
- AB 1089 is sponsored by Berman, Marc (Democratic), Chiu, Friedman, Hill, Hertzberg, Mullin, Wieckowski, Garcia, Robert (Democratic), and Travis Allen.
- What is the current status of AB 1089?
- This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track AB 1089?
- Track AB 1089 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 1089
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of AB 1089
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →