The San Jose City Council passed a series of resolutions on the topic of campaign contributions yesterday. The most controversial vote revolved around a cap on a cap on so-called “soft money”—contributions by individuals or special interest groups that act independently to persuade voters to support one candidate or another. The cap, set at $250, was ruled unconstitutional in federal court in 2006 as a violation of free speech, but this ruling was later overturned on a technicality. The city voted to extend the cap by a vote of 6 to 5.
Mayor Chuck Reed, who opposed extending the cap, argued that given the legal limbo of the cap at present, the city would be exposing itself to further law suits, which would take a financial toll. After the 2006 mayoral election, Reed’s opponent, Cindy Chavez, claimed that COMPAC, the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce’s political action committee, had violated the cap. Reed won the election with the support of COMPAC.
According to a report in today’s San Jose Mercury News, “an Elections Commission consultant found no evidence soft money influenced the 2006 race, in which Chavez and her backers outspent Reed by a 2-to-1 ratio.”
Joining Reed in opposing the measure were Vice Mayor Judy Chirco and council members Pete Constant, Sam Liccardo and Pierluigi Oliverio. The measure passed with the support of councilmembers Nora Campos, Kansen Chu, Ash Kalra, Rose Herrera, Madison Nguyen and Nancy Pyle.
Apart from the cap on contributions, the council ruled that independent political committees based outside of San Jose but who are involved in local elections must file statements with the city clerk and disclose their contributions and expenditures for the past 12 months. In the past, such committees could file their statements either with the state or with the cities or counties in which they are based. Similarly, the rules regarding “paid for by …” disclosures was extended to any material that identifies a candidate, regardless of its position regarding that candidate.
The new ruling applies not only to mass mailings but also to signs, posters, and any other means of communication. Finally, the Election Committee was empowered to impose penalties on anyone who violates these rules, even if the commissioners imposing those penalties were not the same as the ones who ruled on the violation.
Read More at The San Jose Mercury News.
What was “the technicality”?
JMO, In answer to your question:
“The commission found COMPAC had violated the cap, but COMPAC challenged the contribution limits in federal court before any penalty was imposed. Though the trial judge ruled the city limits unconstitutional, an appellate court said the decision was premature without a penalty being imposed.”
http://www.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_13040548?nclick_check=1
K #2—link didn’t work.
So, what was the technicality?
The technicality was that no fine had been levied.
JMO- I put the technicality above in number two, with a link to the article in the Merc. My apologies JMO, I just saw that you are correct the link doesn’t work. Pat Waite is correct. Because COMPAC didn’t wait to file suit UNTIL the City issued the fine, thus they lost on a technicality. If they HAD fined COMPAC and THEN they filed suit, it would have been deemed unconstitutional. (Pat Waite, please correct me if I misunderstood this, or am incorrect on the next sentence.) My understanding is that the City DID eventually fine COMPAC, and now they have re-filed their suit against the City.