After Deadline: Sabatino's election reform would hide more donors

with Sabatino on this one, for now the developers will be able to hide shill donations. The $25 forced donors to expose themselves, and keep it a level playing field.

This also works against Sabatino's campaign. Are we to expect less than what had happened to him before when the developers and big business tried to destroy him. He survived the first attempt, how will he survive the second.

Surely, the conspirators have already discussed a new plan to get rid of Sabatino once and for all.

I support Sabatino's attempt to root out the corruption, but do not believe raising the donation amount would do him good.

Great!  Even less transparency for Voters/Taxpayers in where Candidates are receiving their contributions from! 

I disagree as well, Wayne.  The ordinance should be kept at $25.00.  Less transparency in elections and government is NOT the way to go.

Agree with you both on this.  I don't see how this will help his image of wanting to fight corruption.

I believe his point is to allow people to contribute to a candidate without opening themselves up to retribution.

My proposal during the fall elections was to limit donations to $500.00 per individual. And if someone donates more, the candidate/officeholder would then be forced to step back from voting whenever that person brought something in front of them for a decision.

donations in the last election?  The McClatchy Bee didn't write about any.

In Modesto, the threshold is $100. People who want to help a candidate but not draw attention to themselves tend to give $99. That's how donations to local candidates are bundled - a group of people hands candidates a series of technically un-reportable $99 donations.

We're anxiously awaiting the list of names you have for us.

made to Christianson.  Or the $6,800 dollar donation high ranking executives of Correct Care Solutions an vendor of his made.

This thread is now about AC like the 5 others that are currently going.

What do you think will happen to transparency if a change like this was made?

In Modesto, the threshold is $100. People who want to help a candidate but not draw attention to themselves tend to give $99. That's how donations to local candidates are bundled - a group of people hands candidates a series of technically un-reportable $99 donations.

I'm looking forward to AD's reply.

to someone other than the Sheriff, they may not want their name out in public since in a talk that was on the Sheriff's website he basically said, if you don't like it here(working for me) go somewhere else.

if you worked for the city or county since the repercussions could be unfortunate.

What was the point in lowering this amount in the first place?

What was the problem then, was it transparency?

"The amendment which lowered the reportable amount to $25 passed in 2001. It is known colloquially as “The Incumbent Protection Act,” and exists in violation of the civil rights of Stanislaus County citizens who wish to participate as contributors to county level political races.

"Our citizens face intimidation and potential retribution from incumbent county officials when they are revealed to be financially supporting challengers to those incumbents. When the Board of Supervisors lowered the reportable level from $100 to $25, they did so under the guise of “reform.” Nothing could be further from the truth. What that change did, in effect, was to suppress participation to a level that makes it near impossible for challengers to match the contributions received by incumbents.

I see your point.  

I just read the Stanislaus County Code, and it doesn't explicitly state that contributions of $25 or more require the disclosure of the full name of the person who gave the contribution.  It just states that it must be reported.

"25.01.040 Reporting requirements.

           In addition to any statements of campaign contributions and expenditures required by state law to be filed with the county clerk-recorder’s office, each office holder, candidate, each committee supporting or opposing a candidate for county office, and each county general purpose committee which supports or opposes candidates for county office shall file an additional campaign statement in the election division of the county clerk-recorder’s office covering the same time period for every date a statement is required by the Political Reform Act. The additional campaign statement(s) must be timely received by the filing officer. Receipt of semi-annual and first pre-election reports is accomplished by deposit in the United States mail. The second pre-election report must be hand delivered or by guaranteed overnight mail. The statement(s) shall include:

           A.   The total amount of all contributions received during the period covered by the campaign statement(s) that equaled twenty-five dollars or more.

           B.   The statement shall contain the same disclosures of expenditures required by Government Code Section 84211.

           C.   In the case of campaign statements filed by a committee, the statement shall contain the full name, and street address of any person or persons who direct or control the contributions or expenditures made by the committee.

           D.   Candidates and committees need not duplicate any reports of contributions, loans or expenditures required by state law but may certify that reports made pursuant to this chapter are in addition to those made pursuant to state law. (Ord. CS 785 §1, 2002; Ord. CS 779 §1 (part), 2001)."

If the amount is $100 and people get around it by just giving numerous contributions under the limit, is there any difference if the limit is $25 and people do the same?

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see anything on the Stanislaus definition which states the candidate has to identify the donor.

it means on a California form 460, which for anyone who has never seen one requires..

The donors name,  address,  occupation and employer,  amount received,  and cumulative calendar year to date.

Contributions are cumulative during an election period.  So you can't give $24.99 multiple times.  Once the $25.00 dollar limit is reached it must be reported.

If you don't "know" then how can you make the statement...

In Modesto, the threshold is $100. People who want to help a candidate but not draw attention to themselves tend to give $99. That's how donations to local candidates are bundled - a group of people hands candidates a series of technically un-reportable $99 donations.

.......?

 companies were reimbursing employees for their individual contributions.

I'm looking specifically at item A, "...The statement shall include:...  The total amount of all contributions received during the period covered by the campaign statement(s) that equaled twenty-five dollars or more."

It doesn't specifically say that each donation must be reported only that the total amount of contributions of $25 or more must be.

If you look at B, "The statement shall contain the same disclosures of expenditures required by Government Code Section 84211."

Expenditure is explicitly defined as the candidate spending money, and has nothing to do with contributions.

So the way I read it is you must report to the county the same thing you report to the state, and in addition you must fulfill the additional 4 items called out in the county code.  That first item doesn't say that you have to report each individual contribution, just the total of all contributions over $25.

Does that sound different from what you have found?  Where does the $100 reporting limit come from that the city currently uses?

I found this, http://www.fppc.ca.gov/legal/regs/current/18401.pdf

Section 2A states that for contributions of more than $25 and less than $100 that the donor name and address must be given.  So is it state law that anything over $25 must include donor information?

to submit all donations over $24.99.  Modesto uses a $99.99 limit.

Over those limits require the donors name,  address,  occupation and cumulative totals year to date.

Also interesting are the expenses, like Christianson spending $50,000.00 dollars on a campaign consultant from Sacramento.

I'm not a lawyer, but there is no explicit mention in the county code about reporting individual contribution donor name or any other information.

If the state requires it then that's a little different.

and they can explain to you what the rules are.

What makes you think the County Clerk would have the definitive answer?  What if they were doing what they were told, and not asking any questions of the actual requirements?

Don't you think that if the county's intent was to gather donor information for all contributions above $25, that the actual wording of the code would state that?  Instead all it asks for is that the total of all contributions over $25 should be stated, just the total dollar amount.  It does not state that an itemized list of each contribution over that amount with donor information be supplied.

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/gov/84200-84225.html
http://www.qcode.us/codes/stanislauscounty/view.php?topic=25-25_01-25_01_040&frames=on

The postulants on mediocrity on Average misappropriated against federal and state funds on Average $50,000 and folks like three03 want to make excuses. AVERAGE is that acceptable?

http://stancoinsider.com/stancoinsider_024.htm

This site gives you visibility. Nicely constructed web site, but I found the contents disturbing.

I don't know Robert I am not "drinking buddies" with Carmen Sabatino. Admittedly I don't know the contenders and i know from a couple converstaions with Mr Petrulakis, not on anything connected to politics.

Calling a person an empty suit, when opinions are varried and on a web site maybe you have a disclaimer. You have a personal aversion to Carmen your objectivity as an observer is skewed. People here know it but other going to Ashton's site could be disturbed by the content.

What would it hurt to say, I don't like the candidates and here is why and give them equal access to answer.

Nobody goes there any more why would they ?  

and A_D writes about $25.00 dollar ones.  Talk about an agenda.

Does Sabatino's proposed election reform include exemptions for those that do not pay their Court Ordered settlements to local municipalities in the County?

Just wondering.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt

Why the silence?

Just wondering...