WHAT WOULD PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 20-1000 DO?

Changes related to contribution limits

▪ Limits apply per election cycle, not per year - § 20-1002
The limits would switch from a system where campaign contribution limits apply per calendar
year to one where the limits apply per election cycle. As defined in the proposed ordinance at
§ 20-1001(8), an election cycle is the day after the previous general election for the office sought
through the day of the next general election for the office sought. In the case of a special
election, the day after the previous General Election for the office sought through the day of the
Special Election.
During an Election Cycle, a candidate could not accept contributions for the following Election
Cycle. A candidate or former candidate may spend in the current election cycle any contribution
he or she accepted in a prior election cycle so long as the contribution was within the limits
imposed by this Chapter at the time he or she accepted it.
The limit per election cycle for contributions from an individual would be $5,000 and the limit
for contributions from a political committee or business organization would be $20,000.
▪ Strike aggregate PAC limit – Current § 20-1002(3)
The current law limits the amount of total contributions candidates can accept from political
committees in non-election years. This rule does not fit well with a system based on per cycle
contribution limits. In addition, as a result of recent U. S. Supreme Court decisions, the existing
rule is likely unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.
▪ Strike the defined term “post-candidacy contribution” -
Current §§ 20-1001(10) & (14); 1002(4), (5), (7), & (12); 20-1003
The current law includes the defined term “post-candidacy contributions” which means any
contribution received by a former candidate to retire debt or for transition or inauguration to City
office. Post-candidacy contributions are subject to the contribution limits. The current rules
regarding post-candidacy contributions do not fit well in a system based on based on election
cycles rather than annual limits. In addition, the term as used in the current law is awkward and
somewhat difficult to apply.
The proposed amendment would address debt retirement and fundraising for transition and
inauguration separately. For debt retirement, the rule would simply be that if a former
candidate’s candidate committee is carrying campaign debt, any contributions to that committee
are subject to the contribution limits of the cycle in which they are made. The amendment would
also add the phrase “or to retire debt incurred to influence the outcome of a covered election” to
the definition of “expenditure” at Section 20-1001(13).
For fundraising for transition and inauguration, under the proposed amendment, a candidate can
set up a separate committee for that purpose. The candidate (or former candidate) can accept
contributions of up to $5,000/individual and $20,000/PAC to that transition and inauguration
committee. The rules for establishing and using a transition and inauguration committee are set
forth at Section 20-1011 in the proposed amendment. The limits for contributions to transition
and inauguration committees are set forth at Section 20-1002(7).
Changes to general reporting requirements
▪ Consolidate filing requirements - § 20-1006(1)(a)(.2)
The proposed amendment would list in one place, and more clearly, all of the types of activity
that could require a political committee to have file a report with the Board, including for
litigation fund committees and transition and inauguration committees.
Changes to reporting requirements for electioneering communications
▪ Disclosure requirements explicitly apply to expenditures for electioneering
communications made through another person- § 20-1006(1)(c)
This change would ensure that entities such as non-profits do not evade the reporting
requirements by funneling their expenditures through a political committee or another non-profit.
▪ Trigger for when to file report disclosing electioneering communications is date of
expenditure or date of dissemination, whichever is earlier- § 20-1006(1)(c)
The current law uses the date of expenditure or date of a promise to pay as the trigger for filing a
report. We have found that identifying the date of a promise to pay can be very difficult. The
proposed rule is clearer and is consistent with Federal election law.
▪ Non-profits and other persons must disclose electioneering communications of $5,000 or
more made in the week before the election- § 20-1006(1)(c)(.5)
Due to a drafting flaw in the current law, a person may not be required to file a report if it makes
expenditures for electioneering communications in the seven days immediately preceding the
election. This change would require that such expenditures be disclosed by the day before the
election.
▪ Add the term “publicly distributed” the definition of electioneering communications-
§ 20-1001(10)
The scope of the term “electioneering communications” as currently read could be read to cover
non-public communications, such as a corporation’s or union’s internal communications. This
change would make the definition consistent with the definition used for Federal elections.
▪ Add sentence to 20-1006(1)(d) to ensure disclosure of all monies used by non-profits to
fund electioneering communications
Other
▪ Make following change to 20-1002(1) and (2): “including contributions made to or
through one or more political committees or persons.”
This change would prevent the funneling of contributions through entities other than political
committees.
▪ Litigation fund committees.
The proposed amendment would reorganize the provisions related to litigation fund committees
to more clearly set forth the relevant rules and to reduce superfluous text. Most notably, the
limits for contributions to litigation fund committees would be explicitly set forth in Section 20-
1002.
▪ Make other minor technical changes to wording in order to improve clarity and
readability.