Bill Text: CA AB20 | 2021-2022 | Regular Session | Introduced
NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft
Bill Title: Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign contributions: The Corporate-Free Elections Act.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 4-0)
Status: (Failed) 2022-02-01 - From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. [AB20 Detail]
Download: California-2021-AB20-Introduced.html
Bill Title: Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign contributions: The Corporate-Free Elections Act.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 4-0)
Status: (Failed) 2022-02-01 - From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. [AB20 Detail]
Download: California-2021-AB20-Introduced.html
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE—
2021–2022 REGULAR SESSION
Assembly Bill
No. 20
| Introduced by Assembly Members Lee and Kalra (Coauthors: Assembly Members McCarty and Quirk) (Coauthor: Senator Allen) |
December 07, 2020 |
An act to add Section 85322 to the Government Code, relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 20, as introduced, Lee.
Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign contributions: The Clean Money Act of 2021.
The Political Reform Act of 1974 imposes various limitations on contributions that may be made to, or accepted by, candidates for elective office. A violation of the act’s provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties.
This bill, the Clean Money Act of 2021, would prohibit a candidate for elective office from receiving a contribution from a business entity, and a business entity from making a contribution to a candidate for elective office, and would make related findings and declarations. By expanding the scope of existing crimes with regard to contribution limitations, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would state that it is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to create a public financing system for elections within the
state.
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 2/3 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.
Digest Key
Vote: 2/3 Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YESBill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Clean Money Act of 2021.”SEC. 2.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) Under current campaign financing laws, there is great potential for corporate special interests to manipulate the interests and priorities of elected officials and candidates throughout the state, such that these interests and priorities do not align with the will of their constituents or the people of California.
(b) Corporate special interests routinely account for the majority of contributions to officers and candidates for state and local offices.
(c) Corporations exist for the purpose of making profit, and thus their political activities are
fundamentally in the interest of increasing said profits by giving monetary incentives for favorable policy.
(d) Each year, corporations contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to campaigns for state and local offices across California. For example, in 2020 it was found that more than $785 million was spent to influence voters on ballot measures alone, with millions more spent on individual races. Many candidates, in order to stay competitive in their races, are compelled to take money from corporations.
(e) With so many campaigns funded with corporate money, it is impossible to guarantee that the will and interests of the people of California are being represented in the state over the interests of the corporations who provide this money.
(f) In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 34, which barred
lobbyists from making contributions to politicians they seek to influence within the scope of their profession. The intent of this provision according to its authors was, “To reduce the influence of large contributors with an interest in matters before state government.”
(g) As corporations have an undeniable interest in matters before the state government, as well as an incontrovertible influence as large contributors, it is evident that a ban on their direct contributions to campaigns for elective office within the state is necessary.
(h) In passing such a restriction, California would join the 22 states in the United States who already impose outright bans on corporations from directly contributing to campaigns for elective office.
(i) As defined in 11 CFR 114.2(a), national corporations are already barred from
making direct contributions to candidates for federal, state, and local office.
(j) In accordance with the spirit of this policy, it is the intent of this act to bar all corporate special interests from contributing directly to candidates running for state or local elective office.
(k) In order to curb actual corruption and the appearance of corruption of our government by corporate contributions, it is incumbent upon the Legislature to prohibit direct contributions to political campaigns in the state by corporations.
SEC. 3.
Section 85322 is added to the Government Code, to read:85322.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 85301, a business entity, as defined in Section 82005, shall not make a contribution to a candidate for elective office.(b) A candidate for elective office shall not accept a contribution from a business entity, as defined in Section 82005.
