I am looking for input from E-FORUM readers on a potential change to our elections ordinance. It’s a little complex, so bear with me.

In 2012, the City Council adopted on July 31, 2012, an amendment to Chapter 2.39  of the Richmond Municipal Code that that provides for disclosures and limited participation of councilmembers in certain proceedings in involving political contributors. I sponsored this ordinance, which was modeled after a state law that applies to numerous regional commissions, including BCDC and LAFCO. It also applies to local planning commissions, including Richmond.

The intent of the state law, I believe, is to discourage political contributors from trying to influence elected officials and to block elected officials from acting on the interests of political contributors. It seemed like a pretty good idea to promote good government, and although the state law did not apply to city councils, we were free to adopt the concept, which we did.

California Government Code section 84308 disqualifies an appointed official from  participating in certain entitlement proceedings if the official received campaign contributions of more than $250 from a party, participant or their agents within the 12 months preceding the decision, and it prohibits solicitation or receipt of campaign contributions in excess of $250 during such proceedings, and for three months after the decision, from parties, participants or their agents. Section 84308 generally does not apply to City Council members or the Mayor. The City Council has directed that an ordinance be drafted for introduction that would extend these legal requirements to members of the City Council and the Mayor.

The City Council adopted the measure on a 5-2 vote with Bates and Booze dissenting.
Since then, I have been asked by some of my colleagues to consider repealing or amending it. Their argument is based on the fact that the overwhelming influence of big money comes not from contributors to individual candidates, which are limited to $2,500 by RMC 2.42.050 (a)(1), but by massive independent committee expenditures such as Chevron’s $1.2 million infusion supporting three candidates in the 2012 election. They argue that the Chapter 2.39 amendments make it more difficult for candidates not supported by big money independent committees to raise money and get elected.
Here is one additional explanation:
Our current disqualification law focuses on certain types of relatively small contributions to candidates committees. It gives a hall pass to large independent expenditure campaign committees which have been spending more and more in the last few elections (e.g. both sides of the Casino issue) and which culminated in Chevron's 1.2 million dollar independent expenditure in the November 2012 election.

Our current law makes it harder for candidates to raise the money needed to stand up to the huge uncontrollable independent expenditure committees.
I propose that we replace our current law with a robust disclosure requirement that Councilmembers disclose a summary of the lobbying discussions that they have had with those who have made large contributions e.g. $2000 to affect their campaigns (whether to a candidate committee or to an IE (Independent Expenditure) Committee.) Not only will this avoid creating an even less level playing field for those candidates opposed by huge IE money, but it will avoid the pro-incumbent bias of the current law, which hurts  challengers because they have a harder time raising money than incumbents do. Finally, it will avoid decisions being made by a small number of Councilmembers when other Councilmembers have to recuse themselves.
One suggestion has been to replace the prohibition with a robust disclosure that might read as follows:
Section 2.39.030. Disqualification Disclosure
Prior to rendering any decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit or other entitlement for use pending before the City Council , each Councilmember who received a contribution within the preceding 12 months in an amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) from a party or from any participant shall disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding. No Councilmember shall make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his or her official position to influence the decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use that is pending before the City Council, if the Councilmember has willfully or knowingly received a contribution in an amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) within the preceding 12 months from a party or his or her agent, or from any participant, or his or her agent, if the Councilmember knows or has reason to know that the participant has a financial interest in the decision, as that term is described with respect to public officials in  California Government Code sections 87100 et seq.

If a Councilmember receives a contribution which would otherwise require disqualification under this section, returns the contribution within 30 days from the time he or she knows, or should have known, about the contribution and the proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, he or she shall be permitted to participate in the proceeding.

2.39.040. Contributions by Parties and Participants to a Proceeding.
A party to a proceeding before the City Council involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use shall disclose on the record of the proceeding any contribution in an amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) made within the preceding 12 months by the party, or his or her agent, to any Councilmember or to any independent committee, directly or indirectly, with the objective of electing or defeating a candidate for the Richmond City Council. No party, or his or her agent, to a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use pending before the City Council , and no participant, or his or her agent, in the proceeding shall make a contribution of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) to any Councilmember during the proceeding and for three months following the date a final decision is rendered by the City Council in the proceeding. When a closed corporation is a party to, or a participant in, a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use pending before the City Council , the majority shareholder is subject to the disclosure and prohibition requirements of this chapter .
  
Please let me know what your thoughts are on this potential change.