COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER --
I BELIEVE WE HAVE A QUORUM WE'RE
MISSING A COUPLE BUT WE HAVE A
QUORUM.
SO MA'AM SECTOR IF YOU CALL THE
ROLL.
AMBER.
YOUR NUMBER CARE NIELSEN.
NIELSEN HERE HERTZBERG.
LEYVA.
LEYVA HERE STERN.
COR ALL RIGHT --
THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS
TO ADOPT THE COMMITTEE RULES
[inaudible]
ANY DISCUSSION.
CONCERNS IS OUR MOTION.
MOVE BY CENTER LEYVA --
SECONDED BY SENATOR NIELSEN.
ALL RIGHT AHMED SECTOR IF YOU
CALL THE ROLL.
NUMBER HI I'M BURKE I NIELSEN.
NIELSEN I HERTZBERG [inaudible]
LEYVA.
LEYVA AYE STERN.
ALL RIGHT LEAGUE COMMITTEE RULES
ARE ADOPTED --
NEXT WE HAVE SB TWENTY SEVEN BY
SEVEN REQUIRES AND REQUIRES HERE
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SIR MCGUIRE.
MORNING MR CHAIR GOOD MORNING
MISTER VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
VERY GRATEFUL TO BE WITH YOU
WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT SAY THANK
YOU TO THE CHAIR AND TWO IS.
A FANTASTIC STAFF TEAM FOR THE
WORK ON SB TWENTY SEVEN THE
PRESIDENTIAL TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
BUT AS WE ALL KNOW MEMBERS
TRANSPARENCY IS A NON PARTISAN
ISSUE IN A TRANSPARENCY THAT
PROVIDES THE BASIS OF
ACCOUNTABILITY IN OUR GOVERNMENT.
FOR THE PAST FORTY YEARS EVERY
US PRESIDENT REPUBLICANS AND%
DEMOCRATS ALIKE HAVE RELEASED
THEIR TAX RETURNS.
THESE PATRIOTS BUT THE NATION'S
INTERESTS ABOVE EVERYTHING ELSE.
PRESIDENTS ARE EXPECTED TO PUT
THEIR OWN INTERESTS ASIDE
WEATHERBY BUSINESS TIES TO
RELATIONSHIPS WITH A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT FOR THE RATE GREATER
GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY.
AND THAT GREATER GOOD IS
AMERICAN SECURITY IN THE
PROTECTION OF ITS PEOPLE.
INCOME TAX RETURNS FROM
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THE
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
DEALINGS.
FINANCIAL STATUS IN CHARITABLE
DONATIONS AND WHILE THE
RELEASING OF TAX RETURNS AS FAR
CONVERSATION IN YES ABSOLUTELY
DEBATE THROUGHOUT THE PAST.
ALL CANDIDATES TO PUT THEIR
DEATHS DISCOMFORT ASIDE FOR THE
PAST FOUR DECADES BECAUSE A
RELEASE NO TAX RETURNS HAS
BECOME A TIME HONORED TRADITION
IN AMERICA.
THIS TIME HONORED TRADITION CAME --
CAME TO AN ABRUPT HALT IN THIS
LATEST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED TO
RELEASE HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS
WHICH DENIED VOTERS OPPORTUNITY
TO FULLY EVALUATE.
HIS FITNESS FOR THE OFFICE OF
THE PRESS AND UNITED STATES AND
THAT'S WHY SENATOR WINNER AND I
BRING FORWARD SB TWENTY SEVEN TO
ENSURE THAT FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES WILL BE BARRED FROM
APPEARING.
ON THE CALIFORNIA PRIMARY BALLOT
UNLESS RELEASE RETURNS TO VOTERS.
THERE ARE PRESSING QUESTIONS
THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED FAR
BEFORE ELECTION DAY MISTER CHAIR.
BECAUSE UNLIKE MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS AND FEDERAL APPOINTEES
PRESIDENTS ARE COMPLETELY EXEMPT
FROM CONTRACT CONFLICT OF
INTEREST LOTS.
THAT MEANS ALL OF US ALL OF US
AS MEMBERS THE STATE LEGISLATURE
ALONG WITH LOCAL ELECTED
OFFICIALS FROM SANITARY DISTRICT
COMMISSIONERS TO CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
DISCLOSE MORE INFORMATION
THROUGH MANDATE A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST DOCUMENT VIOLENCE IN
THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
VOTERS DESERVE TO KNOW FOR
EXAMPLE IF HE PRESIDENT WHOEVER
HE OR SHE MAY BE IN THE FUTURE
IS PUT IN AMERICA'S SECURITY
RISK.
THROUGH TANGLED WEB BUSINESS
DEALINGS WITH CORPORATE
INTERESTS OR DEALINGS WITH
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND FOREIGN
BANKS.
THERE'S A LOT AT STAKE.
THE PRESIDENT SHIPPING TAX
POLICY WHICH WILL BENEFIT THE
RICHEST AMERICANS HE'S HERE SHE
IS RITA.
SHAPING INTERNATIONAL POLICY
WHICH COULD ENRICH THEMSELVES IN
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS NO WAY
TO KNOW BECAUSE FOREIGN
INVESTMENTS ARE UNDISCLOSED IF
TAX RTURNS ARE NOT EXPOSED TO
THE PUBLIC.
THE PRESIDENT PROPOSES LUCRATIVE
MULTI BILLION DOLLAR CONTRACTS
OF MAJOR CORPORATIONS THE PUBLIC
HAS NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE
POTENTIAL TIES TO THESE
BUSINESSES IF INCOME TAX RETURNS
ARE NOT.
ADVANCE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A STRONG
EXAMPLE OF THE NEED OF THIS%
LEGISLATIONBUT I WANT TO BE
CLEAR.
HE'S NOT THE ONLY.
ONE THIS BILL HAS BEEN AND NEVER
WILL BE ABOUT ONE SPECIFIC
PERSON OR POLITICAL PARTY.
IT'S MUCH BIGGER THAN THAT.
CALIFORNIA VOTERS DESERVE TO
KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT ALL
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES BEFORE
CASTING THEIR VOTE AS AMERICANS.
IN THE ASENCE OF A FEDERAL LAW
MANDATING THAT PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES TURN OVER THEIR
INCOME TAX RETURNS LIST
LEGISLATION BE SPECIFIC. TO
CALIFORNIA IN REQUIRE THREE
SPECIFIC ITEMS NUMBER ONE I
CAñADA FOR PRESENT IN ORDER TO
HAVE HIS OR HER NAME PLACED UPON
A PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT.
THE FILE HIS OR HER INCOME TAX
RETURN. FOR THE FIVE MOST RATE
RECENT TAX BEFORE THE ELECTION
[inaudible] TO IN ORDER TO
PROTECT INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY THE
SECRETARY STATE WILL REACT THE
INCOME TAX RETURNS ARE
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES. TO MY
RIGHT THERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF
HOW THIS IS DONE IN PRIOR
ELECTION CYCLES FROM CANADA TO
FOLLOW THROUGH ON THIS TIME
HONORED TRADITION WE PROVIDED
TWO EXAMPLES ONE FROM.
TWO THOUSAND FIVE FROM GEORGE W.
BUSH THE ONE FROM TWO THOUSAND
EIGHT R. FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA.
AS YOU CAN SEE SO SECURITY
NUMBERS --
AND PERSONAL ADDRESSES ARE
REDACTED IN SOME PRESIDENT OBAMA
LEFT HIS PERSONAL ADDRESS IN.
BUT ALL VERY SPECIFIC
INFORMATION RELATED TO PERSONAL
SECURITY --
BIKE SO SCARY NUMBERS HAVE BEEN
REDACTED.
THE RETURNS MUST BE AVAILABLE.
THIRD POINT TO THE PUBLIC ON THE
SECRETARY OF STATE'S WEBSITE.
STATES HAVE AN ESSENTIAL ROLE IN
PROVIDING CHECKS AND BALANCES
THE FEDERAL POLICY IN FACT BY
THE POWER OF THE U. S.
CONSTITUTION STATES HAVE THE
RIGHT TO DETERMINE BALLOT ACCESS
REQUIREMENTS.
CENTER WIENER AND I HAVE BEEN
WORKING WITH SOME OF THE
BRIGHTEST CONSTITUTIONAL
ATTORNEYS IN THE NATION TO
ENSURE THE STRENGTH OF THIS
PROPOSED LAWS ABLE TO WITHSTAND.
ANY POTENTIAL COURT CHALLENGES.
VOTERS NOT ONLY DESERVE FULL
DISCLOSURE THE FUTURE LEADERS
TAX RETURNS THEY SHOULD BE
ENTITLED.
TO FINDING MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS.
SB TWENTY SEVENS BALLOT ACCESS
REQUIREMENTS OF RELEASING TAX
RETURNS IS LIKE OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL BALLOT ACCESS
REQUIREMENTS EVERYONE CAN COMPLY
WITH HERE IN THE GOLDEN STATE.
HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT
ABOUT ACCESS REQUIREMENT IS.
SIGNATURE GATHER REQUIREMENTS
FILING FEES.
THE MIDDLE DEADLINES TO THE
SECTOR A STATE.
SB TWENTY SEVEN IS UNLIKE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABOUT ACCESS
REQUIREMENTS WHICH CAN BE
IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH
[inaudible]
TERM LIMITS.
RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR
LANGUAGE TO ONE'S NAME IN THE
BALLOT SITTING THEY SERVED. TOO
MANY TERMS.
THE CHIEF ETHICS COUNCIL FOR
GEORGE W. BUSH [inaudible]
MR PAINTER.
THE CHIEF ETHICS COUNCIL FOR
BROCK OBAMA MISTER ICE IN HAVE
BOTH REVIEWED THIS LANGUAGE IN
DECLARED THAT THEY BELIEVE IT
STANDS A CONSTITUTIONALLY TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL TEST.
OTHER PEOPLE CAN DEBATE THE
POINT BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THESE
TWO PARTISAN EXPERTS A GREEN IS
THE ABSOLUTE BEST INDEPENDENT
REVIEW WE CAN GET.
SB TWENTY SEVEN IS SUPPORTED BY
THE SECRETARY STATE.
WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL TO MISTER
VIDEO THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION COURAGE CAMPAIGN
AMERICAN AND AMERICANS FOR TAX
EARNS AMONG MANY OTHERS.
I'M GRATEFUL MISTER CHAIR TO
HAVE WITH US TODAY MISS MOCK WHO
IS THE DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AT THE
CALIFORNIA SECRETARY STATE WE'RE
GRATEFUL FOR HER WORK IN THE
SECTOR HAS WORKED.
IN HIS RAMACHANDRAN.
A PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE
SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME AGAINST
YOUR THANK YOU FOR THE WORK ON
THIS BILL.
AND YOU HAVE SOME WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
YOU LIKELY HEARD.
KAREN MEMBERS TIFFANY MARK ON
BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY STATE
ALEX PADILLA. FOR REASONS WE
HAVE HEARD WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS MEASURE AND WE BELIEVE IT'S
AN IMPORTANT TRAINS PERISHED.
IMPORTANT TRANSPARENCY FOR
TAXPAYERS THANK YOU.
MISTER CHAIRPERSON THANK YOU I'M
KALORAMA CHANDRAN I'M A
PROFESSOR OF LAW AT SOUTHWESTERN
LAW SCHOOL ALTHOUGH I'M SPEAKING
ON MY OWN BEHALF NOT ON BEHALF
OF THE LAW SCHOOL --
I TEACH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND I
SUPERVISE THE NINTH CIRCUIT
APPELLATE LITIGATION CLINIC --
I BELIEVE THE BILL IS
CONSTITUTIONAL IT WOULD VERY
LIKELY WOULD STAND ANY LEGAL
CHALLENGE --
AND THAT'S BECAUSE STATES HAVE
BROADER USABLE REGULAIONS OF
BALLOT ACCESS TO CANDIDATES.
EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NOT
QUALIFICATIONS --
LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR
FEDERAL OFFICE FIRST THE BILL IS
A REASONABLE REGULATION OF
BALLOT ACCESS BECAUSE IT
PROMOTES A STATE AND VOTER
INTEREST THAT'S NOT ONLY
LEGITIMATE IT'S COMPELLING.
IT DOES SO WITHOUT CREATING ANY
ONEROUS OBLIGATIONS FOR
COMPLIANCE --
THE INTEREST OF COURSE IS
INFORMATION FOR VOTERS ABOUT
CANDIDATES FINANCIAL INTERESTS
AND THAT INTEREST IS PROMOTED
WITHOUT REQUIRING THE CANDIDATES
TO FILE EXTREMELY EARLY TOGETHER
LARGE NUMBERS OF PETITION
SIGNATURES OR MOVE THEIR
RESIDENCE --
IT'S VERY EASY FOR CANDIDATES TO
COMPLY WITH THE BILL.
SECOND UNLIKE LAWS THAT HAVE
BEEN SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED
BECAUSE THEY SEEK TO DISPARAGE
CANDIDATES WERE MISLEAD VOTERS
SB TWENTY SEVEN DOES NOT PRINT
ANY INFORMATION MUCH LESS
DISPARAGING OR MISLEADING
INFORMATION ON THE BALLOT.
IT MERELY PLACES THE TAX RETURNS
ON THE SECRETARY OF STATE
WEBSITE AND VOTERS MAY LOOK UP
OR IGNORE THE INFORMATION AS
THEY PLEASE --
AS THEY SEE FIT.
FINALLY THE BILL IS A BALLOT
ACCESS PROVISION BECAUSE I'D
RATHER THAN AN ADDED
QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICE BECAUSE
THE UNDERLYING DEMOCRATIC
PRINCIPLE BEHIND THAT
DISTINCTION IS THAT VOTERS NEED
TO BE FREE TO CHOOSE CANDIDATES
OF THEIR CHOICE.
UNLIKE A LAW THAT IMPOSES A TERM
LIMIT OR A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT
SB TWENTY SEVEN DOESN'T RESTRICT
VOTERS CHOICE BECAUSE THERE'S NO
PERSON WHO THE VOTERS MIGHT WISH
TO VOTE FOR WHO CANNOT COMPLY.
WITH THE PROVISION CERTAINLY
SOME VOTERS MAY BE ON INTERESTED
IN THE TAX INFORMATION BUT
THERE'S NO LEGITIMATE VOTER
INTEREST IN KEEPING THAT
INFORMATION FROM OTHER VOTERS
WHO ARE INTERESTED.
THERE'S NO INTEREST IN THE
CANDIDATE NOT PERHAPS HAVING A
POWERFUL INCUMBENT REPRESENT
THEM --
FINALLY BECAUSE THE BILL ONLY
APPLIES TO PRIMARY ELECTIONS
THERE'S NO CONCERN THAT
CALIFORNIA'S BALLOT WOULD
UNDERMINE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE
COUNTS. FOR EXAMPLE IF MR TRUMP
FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SB TWENTY
SEVEN AND TWENTY TWENTY AND HE
DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE PRIMARY
BALLOT IN CALIFORNIA.
SO LONG AS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
NOMINATES HIM HE WILL STILL
APPEAR ON THE GENERAL BALLOT AT
THEIR FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST
IN BEING ABLE TO ASSESS POPULAR
WILL.
AND THE GENERAL POPULAR VOTE
COUNT THAT WOULD NOT BE
UNDERMINED --
AT ALL SO IN SOME I BELIEVE THE
BILL VERY LIKELY BE UPHELD IN
THE COURTS BECAUSE IT PROMOTES
RATHER THAN UNDERMINING --
THE CONSTITUTIONAL INTERESTS OF
VOTERS.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU PROFESSOR A COUPLE
QUICK QUESTIONS --
ASSUMING THIS BECOMES LAW AND A
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DOES NOT
COMPLY DOES NOT PROVIDE HIS OR
HER TAX RETURNS SO THEY CAN
APPEAR ON THE PRIMARY BALLOT BY
UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY SORRY.
THE CRACKS BUT THEY DO APPEAR ON
THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT IS
THAT RIGHT.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NOMINATES
THAT PERSON OR THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY DOES YES THEY WOULD STILL
DOES THE DOES THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY DO THEY HAVE A MECHANISM
SEPARATE APART FROM.
THE PERIOD OF PRIMARY BALLOT TO
THAT APPEAR ON THE GENERAL
ELECTION BALLOT --
WELL THAT AT TWO MAJOR PARTIES
THEY CHOOSE AT THEIR CONVENTIONS
WHO THEY ARE WHO THEY WILL BE
NOMINATING --
AND SO THEY INSURE THAT YOU KNOW
WHOEVER THEY NOMINATED HE
CONVENTION WOULD APPEAR ON THE
GENERAL.
THE GENERAL BALLOT JUST FOLKS IN
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SO
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE VOTE IN THE
PRIMARY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAN
NOMINATE A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE.
IS THAT IS THAT ACCURATE --
IT DEPENDS ON THEIR OWN INTERNAL
X. FOR AYE ON THAT BUT SURE
THERE FOR YOURSELF.
THIS MOCK.
THAT'S RIGHT SAME THING WITH THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY IRRESPECTIVE OF
WHOEVER RECEIVES THE MOST VOTES
IN THE PRIMARY REPUBLICAN PARTY
COURTNEY THEIR OWN RULES IN
CALIFORNIA YOU CAN NOMINATE
ANOTHER PERSON [inaudible]
ALL RIGHT.
WELL YOU LEARN SOMETHING NEW
EVERYDAY --
AND A WITH RESPECT TO THE
CIRCUIT COURTS IS ANY CIRCUIT
COURT RULED ON A SIMILAR OF
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT RULED ON
ANY SIMILAR PROVISION.
I'M I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY FEDERAL
CIRCUIT COURT RULING IN A
SIMILAR PROVISION THERE IS A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN
ALABAMA THAT UP HELD --
A BALLOT ACCESS PROVISION WHERE
ALABAMA REQUIRED A FINANCIAL
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT THAT
DISCLOSURE ITSELF WAS NOT BEING
CHALLENGED BUT RATHER THE TIMING
OF NEEDING TO FILE IT BUT THAT
THAT WAS UPHELD.
THAT WAS FOR THE PRESIDENT --
HOT NO THAT WA FOR OUR LOCAL
ALABAMA OFFICES.
OKAY YEAH OURNOSE FEDERAL
OFFICE AS I BELIEVE IT --
IT WAS FEDERAL OFFICES I DON'T
KNOW IF IT WAS FOR PRESIDENT
THOUGH YEAH.
AND IN WAS THAT UP HELD BY
WHICHEVER CIRCUIT ALABAMA FALLS
WITHIN -- I
BELIEVE IT WAS NOT APPEALED --
SO THERE'S JUST A DISTRICT COURT
OPINION ON THAT NOT A CIRCUIT
LEVEL OPINION SO IT IS LAW
EXISTS RIGHT NOW IN ALABAMA.
IN ORDER TO FOR THE PRESIDENT OR
FOR CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY
TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT THERE
HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF FINANCIAL
DISCLOSURE IS THAT ACCURATE.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT LAW
APPLIED TO CANDIDATES FOR
PRESIDENT BUT IT WAS A FOR
FEDERAL OFFICES TO PROBABLY --
CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES YEAH.
ALL RIGHT --
OTHERS.
OTHER OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
MISTER CHAIRMAN SENATORS TERRY
BRENNAN ABOUT HALF OF SCA YOU
CALIFORNIA --
AND STRONG SUPPORTER THIS AYE I
JUST.
PAUSE FOR A MOMENT THANK YOU
HAVE MORE FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
ON EVERY APPOINTEE THAT COMES
FOR THIS BODY FOR CONFIRMATION
THAT WE HAD ON THE PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES IN.
TWENTY SIXTEEN THANK YOU THANK
YOU.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS TROSZYN BROWN OF
CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS ARE LETTERS NOT IN
BECAUSE OUR CONVENTION IS THIS
WEEKEND WHERE WE WILL RATIFY OUR
POSITIONS BUT WE ARE
RECOMMENDING A SUPPORT ON THIS
BILL AND HOPE TO SEE IT THROUGH.
THANK YOU YOU.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS
MITCH SNIDER WITH CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION OF STRONG
SUPPORT.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION
[inaudible]
YES SIR
.
THANK YOU SIR I AM NOT RICHARD
WINGER WITH BALLOT ACCESS NEWS
[inaudible]
THE HANDOUTS.
ARE THE FIRST PRESIDENT EVER
ISSUED ON THIS KIND OF ISSUE AND
THE LAST.
ONE THERE WERE NO GOVERNMENT
PRINTED BALLOTS UNTIL EIGHTEEN
NINETY SO THIS COULDN'T COME UP
BUT ONCE THE GOVERNMENT STARTED
PRINTING BALLOTS.
THEN THERE ARE CONTROVERSIES
ABOUT WHAT.
COULD THE STATE'S DUE TO EXCLUDE
PEOPLE.
THE VERY FIRST CASE WAS FROM THE
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT IN.
NINETEEN EIGHTEEN IT'S ONLY ONE
PAGE.
IT HAS NO PRECEDENCE MENTIONED
IN IT BECAUSE IT WAS A CASE OF
FIRST IMPRESSION THE PERSON HAD
BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY.
AND HE WANTED TO RUN IN A
PRIMARY FOR CONGRESS.
AND THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT
SAID UNANIMOUSLY.
THE STATE CAN.
KEEP THEM OFF THE BALLOT.
THE LAST ONE WHICH IS FOUR PAGES.
IS ALSO BY COINCIDENCE FROM THE
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT.
THERE WAS A DENTIST.
IN SAINT PAUL.
WHO SET FIRE TO HIS OWN OFFICE?
AND TO AVOID PROSECUTION HE FLED
TO ROME ITALY.
AND HE HAD FILED FOR CONGRESS
[inaudible]
AND HE WAS ON THE BALLOT AND
THEN THE SECRETARY OF STATE TOOK
HIM OFF.
BECAUSE HE SAID HE COULDN'T
POSSIBLY SERVICE ELECTED IF HE
SET FOOT IN THE STATE HE'LL BE
ARRESTED.
BUT THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT
SAID [inaudible]
DOESN'T MATTER.
THE STATE CAN'T CONTROL WHO GETS
ON THE BALLOT FOR FEDERAL OFFICE --
OF COURSE THE STATE'S CONTROL
FILING FEES.
AND PETITIONS BECAUSE IT'S A
NECESSITY.
BUT THEY DO THAT BECAUSE
OTHERWISE THE ELECTION
ADMINISTRATORS COULDN'T RUN THE
ELECTION BUT THAT'S IT.
AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAS SPOKEN
ABOUT THAT [inaudible]
IN --
SCHAEFER VERSUS TOWNSON THEY
SAID THE TERM LIMITS COURT.
REJECTED SUCH A BROAD READING OF
THE ELECTIONS CLAUSE AND HELD
THE BALANCING TEST IN APPLICABLE.
WHERE THE CHALLENGE PROVISION
SUPPLEMENTED THE QUALIFICATIONS
CLAUSE?
AND DID NOT REGULATE A
PROCEDURAL ASPECT OF AN ELECTION
OR REQUIRE A CANDIDATE TO SHOW A
MINIMUM LEVEL SUPPORT.
NOW WHETHER YOU SO YOUR TAX
RETURNS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
ELECTION ADMINISTRATION BUT THE
STATE'S POWER STOPS WITH
ELECTION ADMINISTRATION.
AND I WANT TO SAY IS IMPORTANT
IS THIS ISSUE IS THE SOMETHING
FAR MORE IMPORTANT.
THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION THE
MOST RADICAL.
DEMOCRATIC ASPECT OF THE
ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION WAS IT
ANYBODY AGE TWENTY FIVE WHO IS A
CITIZEN.
COULD RUN FOR THE HOUSE THAT WAS
SHOCKING BACK THEN ALL THE STATE
SAID TO BE IN THE LEGISLATURE
YOU HAD YOU HAD ON PROPERTY.
AND THEY'RE EVEN ISN'T SEARCH --
STILL SOME STATES SAID SEARCH
STATE SEARCHESAND THERE ARE
EVEN SOME RELIGIOUS TEST.
SO THE PEOPLE IN THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY WERE VERY PROUD OF THIS
AND VERY AWARE OF IT AND JOSEPH
STORY WROTE ABOUT IT.
AND THAT'S WHY IN MY LETTER TO
EACH ONE OF YOU.
I FOUND TWELVE CASES ON WHETHER
CRIMINALS COULD RUN FOR FEDERAL
OFFICE AND THEY'RE ALL UNANIMOUS
THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE DESCENT.
SO I'LL STOP THERE.
THEY STAY HERE --
OKAY WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE I'D
LIKE TO THINK OF ANY QUESTIONS
YES THE RESTAURANT.
THANK YOU MISTER --
THANK CENTER FOR BRING IT BACK.
AND HOPEFULLY WE MAKE SOME
PROGRESS THIS YEAR TOO BAD WE
ACTUALLY HAVE TO RUN THIS
LEGISLATION AT ALL.
AND WE CAN'T JUST.
RESOLVE THIS LIKE EVERY OTHER
NORMAL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
HAS DONE.
AND WE'LL SEE WHAT THE HOUSE
ACTUALLY DOES HERE TO YOU BRING
IN PERSISTING BRAINY ISSUE FOR
THEY JUST WANNA GIVE.
I'M SORRY I MISSED YOUR NAME
PROFESSOR.
RAMACHANDRAN RAMACHANDRAN --
THE EIGHT JUST COMMENTING ON
SORT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN --
THIS KIND OF QUALIFICATION OR
SORT OF PROCEDURAL STEP THAT YOU
THAT THIS BILL WOULD TAKE VERSUS
SAY A PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
REQUIREMENT HOW DO YOU SEE THAT
THAT CONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTION
IN TERMS OF THIS BEING A PURELY
PROCEDURAL --
QUALIFICATION IN NATURE TO TO
SATISFY SOME OF THESE TERM
LIMITS CONCERNS AND THINGS LIKE
THAT.
THE MAIN DISTINCTION I WOULD SEE
IS THAT --
IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE IN FACT IT'S
VERY EASY FOR EVERY CANDIDATE TO
COMPLY WITH THIS PROCEDURAL STOP
WERE AS OWNING PROPERTY YOU KNOW
IF YOU'RE INDIGENT CAN'T JUST
SUDDENLY.
ACQUIRE PROPERTY SO THIS DOESN'T
ACTUALLY EXCLUDE ANYBODY BECAUSE
EVERYBODY CAN COMPLY WITH THE
PROCEDURAL.
WITH THE PROCEDURE SO THERE'S
THERE'S NO ONE BASICALLY WHO WHO.
WHO WOULD BE DISQUALIFIED IN THE
ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA --
WHO IS A CITIZEN OF THE U. S. TO
TO ACTUALLY I MEAN PROVIDED
THEY'RE PAYING THEIR TAXES?
THERE IS NO IMPEDIMENT IN OTHER
WORDS TO MEETING THAT
QUALIFICATION --
YES THEY JUST HAVE TO DISCLOSE --
THOSE FILINGS YEAH --
ALL RIGHT. ONE QUICK THING --
ONE QUICK THING OKAY THE TENTH
CIRCUIT HAD A CASE WHERE THERE
WAS A COLORADO MAN WHO REFUSED
TO REGISTER TO VOTE.
HE WAS A RESIDENT COLORADO IT
WOULD BEEN THE EASIEST THING IN
THE WORLD FROM THE REGISTER BUT
HE WOULDN'T.
HE STILL ONE IN US DISTRICT
COURT.
AND CIRCUIT THREE TO NOTHING
COLORADO S. FOR SUPREME COURT
REVIEW IT WAS DENIED.
IT'S VERY EASY TO REGISTER TO
VOTE BUT THE STATE'S CAN'T EVEN
MAKE A PERSON DO THAT.
THANK YOU MISTER WINNER ITEM I'M
SURE THAT.
IN YOUR ME GUESS YOU WILL SAY
ALL THE THINGS YOU SAID TODAY
PLUS MORE --
ALREADY THERE'S BEEN A MOTION --
MADAM SECRETARY --
I'M SORRY YOU WERE CLOSE THANK
YOU SO MUCH MISTER CHAIR
DESIGNERS AGAIN SAY THANK YOU
AND WHAT I'LL JUST ENDED WITH
THIS.
ITEM LINE IS THERE IS NO
PRECEDENT.
THERE IS NO LEGAL PRECEDENT IN
ANY DISTRICT COURT ACROSS THIS
COUNTRY ON THIS ISSUE.
AND THE REASON WHY THERE IS NO
LEGAL PRECEDENT IS BECAUSE IT
EVERYONE OTHER AT THE
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES BOTH
MAJOR PARTY IN MINOR HAVE
DISCLOSE YOUR TAX RETURNS.
AS WHAT SENATOR STERN YOU JUST
STATED THE ONLY REASON WE'RE
HERE IS BECAUSE FORTY YEARS A
PRESENT HAS BEEN BROKEN --
AND WHAT I'LL STRESS IS THIS.
IT HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR.
THAT WE CANNOT PUT TERM LIMITS.
ON TO A FEDERAL HOUSE SENATE
PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN CALIFORNIA
[inaudible]
WE CAN'T.
ISSUE RESIDENTS REQUIREMENTS WE
CAN DO BALLOT ACCESS.
THERE IS NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY.
NO MATTER IF YOU FILE TAXES OR
IF YOU DO THAT WOULD BEING
DENIED ACCESS TO THE PRIMARY
ABOUT IN CALIFORNIA.
THROUGH THIS BILL.
IT IS CLEAR AS CHAIR I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU SENATE MCGUIRE BENCIC
CRITICAL.
MOTION IS TO PASS TO SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
NUMBER HI NUMBER I NIELSEN.
NIELSEN NO HERTZBERG.
LEYVA.
LEYVA AYE STERN STERN I ALL
RIGHT THE THE BILL MOVE ON TO US
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THANK
YOU VERY MUCH --
WHAT LET'S BOOK WILL KEEP THE
ROLE OPEN --
TO THE END OF THE HEARING.
ALL RIGHT --
THERE LEYVA
[inaudible]
THEIR LEVEL.
THANK YOU SIR.
GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR GOOD
MORNING MEMBERS I'D LIKE TO
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND YOUR
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR YOUR WORK ON
THIS VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.
IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE
APPROPRIATE USE OF POLITICAL
FUNDS SB SEVENTY ONE WILL
PROHIBIT LEGAL DEFENSE AND
CAMPAIGN FUNDS FROM BEING USED.
TO PAYOR REIMBURSE A CANDIDATE
OR ELECTED OFFICIAL FOR LEGAL
COSTS RELATED TO CLAIMS OF
UNLAWFUL PRACTICES DEFINED UNDER
THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
ACT VIDAK.
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF FEE HA
UNLAWFUL PRACTICES ARE DEFINED
TO INCLUDE ACTS OF HARASSMENT
DISCRIMINATION RETALIATION ON
THE BASIS OF RACE PHYSICAL OR
MENTAL DISABILITY GENDER AGE
MILITARY AND VETERAN STATUS.
RELIGIOUS RELIGIOUS CREED AND
MANY MORE SUPPORTERS DONATED TO
POLITICAL FUNDS FOR A SPECIFIC
PURPOSE NONE OF WHICH INCLUDES
FUNDING CANDIDATES ELECTED
OFFICIALS OR COMMITTEES BAD
BEHAVIOR.
ALTHOUGH THE NEED FOR THIS BILL
AROSE OUT OF A CLAIM RELATING TO
SEXUAL HARASSMENT SB SEVENTY ONE
WILL INCLUDE ALL ACTS OF
HARASSMENT OR DISCRIMINATION
BECAUSE ALL SUCH BEHAVIOR IS
UNACCEPTABLE.
ALFI HEART RELATED VIOLATIONS
SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH THE SAME
VIGOR AND SERIOUSNESS OF ALL
OTHERS.
SB SEVENTY ONE WILL FINALLY
CLOSE A LOOPHOLE THAT COULD
ALLOW HARASSERS TO USE POLITICAL
FUNDS TO DEFEND THEIR OUTRAGEOUS
ACTIONS HERE WITH ME IN SUPPORT
IS PHILIP I'M FROM THE FAIR
POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
[inaudible]
STRONG.
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE FELL UPON LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR FOR THE BIPARTISAN FAIR
POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
ARE COMMISSION VOTED IN DECEMBER --
TO SPONSOR THIS LEGISLATION WERE
HAPPY TO PARTNER --
WITH SENATOR LEYVA TO MOVE THIS
IMPORTANT LEGISLATION FORWARD SO
WE CAN CLEARLY DEFINE --
THE IMPORTANT USE OF CAMPAIGN
FUNDS AND LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDS IN
CALIFORNIA THANK YOU.
OF THE THANK YOU MISTER óNG --
BEFORE WE GET GOING HERE LET ME
AT LEAST EXPRESS MY PERSONAL
POINT OF VIEW THAT.
THOSE WHO HARASS OTHERS OR THOSE
WHO UNLAWFULLY DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST OTHERS --
SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED MANY
FASHION IN FACT --
I AM COMPLETELY SUPPORT THE
CONCEPT OF ENSURING THAT THOSE
WHO HAVE ACTUALLY MOBILE THOSE
WHO ACTUALLY.
COMMITTED A WRONG THOSE WHO
ACTUALLY DISCRIMINATED UNLAWFUL
BASIS NOT BE PERMITTED TO USE
CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO ULTIMATELY
DEFEND THEMSELVES --
HAVING SAID THAT THOUGH I I HAVE
A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU MISTER
ON IN TERMS OF COMPLAINTS.
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY A PPC
COMPLAINTS RECEIVED THE LAST
YEAR -- AB
SURF WHAT COMPLAINTS JUST --
IS GENERATED IN GENERAL
COMPLAINTS RIGHT I'M A BALLPARK
THIS BALLPARK FIND.
A TEN TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN WE
RECEIVED A LITTLE UNDER TWO
THOUSAND COMPLAINTS.
SO OF THOSE TWO THOUSAND
COMPLAINTS HOW MANY WERE
INVESTIGATED --
YOU KNOW I'D HAVE TO I HAVE TO
GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT SENATOR
THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT
QUESTION THAT I DON'T WANT --
TO TO MISQUOTE MY STAFF ON AND
BUT BUT YEAH THE THOSE TWO
THOUSAND COMPLAINTS INCLUDE
SWUNG COMPLAINTS AND AND
REFERRALS FROM FILING OFFICERS
ACROSS THE STATE BUT I CAN GET
BACK TO YOU ON THAT SPECIFIC
NUMBER OF HOW MANY WERE
INVESTIGATED.
OKAY OF THOSE TWO THOUSAND
COMPLAINTS.
WERE ALL OF THEM INVESTIGATED
NOW.
OR HALF OF THEM INVESTIGATED --
I WOULD.
AGAIN I CAN'T I I KNOW THAT NOT
ALL OF THEM VESTED I DON'T KNOW
IF HALF OF THEM --
OF SOME AHEAD.
OFTHOSE TWO THOUSAND COMPLAINTS
WERE ANY OF THEM DETERMINE TO BE
UNFOUNDED IN OTHER WORDS THAT
THERE WASN'T EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THE ALLEGATION [inaudible]
YES.
ANY SENSE OF HOW MANY --
I WOULD SAY IN THE HUNDREDS --
BUT I'M SURE THAT'S NOT VERY
HELPFUL.
BUT BUT IT'S IT'S BUT WE WE
GENERALLY GET COMPLAINTS WERE
PEOPLE ARE SOMETIMES FILED ON
BECAUSE SOMETIMES THEY DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE LAW --
OR THEY BELIEVE ARE THERE IS
FORMAT --
WHEN WHEN REALLY THE PULLOVER
FORMAT DOESN'T COVER WHAT IT IS
THAT THEY THEY THOUGHT THE
VIOLATION WAS --
ONE EXAMPLE IS WE WE WE GET A
SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS --
BY SIGNIFICANT I MEAN --
IS NOT INSIGNIFICANT --
COMPLAINTS FROM VOTERS WHO
BELIEVE THAT IF THERE'S A LYING
IN AN AD THAT THAT'S A VIOLATION
OF POLITICAL REFORM ACT --
BUT LYING IS NOT --
ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES --
AND IN REGARDS TO POLITICAL
ADVERTISING AND SO --
WE HAVE TO TELL THEM THAT'S NOT
SOMETHING I'M OR THEY BELIEVE
THAT THEIR THAT THE DISCLOSURE
IS INCORRECT AND RELATE IS
CORRECT BECAUSE THEY DISCLOSURE
LAWS ARE QUITE COMPLEX NOW --
SO THAT'S THOSE ARE SOME OF THE
EXAMPLES OF COMPLAINTS THAT WE
GET THAT THAT ARE SOMETIMES ON
FOUNDED.
ALL RIGHT I THINK WHAT YOU SAID
THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF COMPLAINTS
THAT WERE FOUND TO BE UNFOUNDED
RIGHT.
OKAY IN IN ANY OF THOSE
COMPLAINTS THAT WERE FOUND TO BE
UNFOUNDED WAS ANYBODY FIND.
NO WE DON'T FIND PEOPLE ON ON
FOUND COMPLAINTS --
SO IT IN TERMS OF THE BILL OF SB
SEVENTY ONE HOW WOULD IT WORK
WITH RESPECT TO INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE COMMITTEES.
WHAT WOULD APPLY TO IT?
WHAT AND APPENDIX MANAGEMENT IS
A COMMITTEES THAT MAKE
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE OUR?
BUT WHAT WHAT WE BREAK IT DOWN
BOTH WAYS OKAY --
WATER. FOR COMMITTEES AND MAKE
INDEPENDENCE MANAGERS IT WOULD
IT WOULD APPLY TO THEM --
AND THAT --
IF IF THEY WANTED TO USE TO
DEFEND AGAINST A CLAIM --
OF UNLAWFUL PRACTICES UNDER FEE
HOW THAT THAT WE WERE UNDER THE
SPELL THAT WOULD NOT BE
PERMITTED.
TO SO SO WHO WOULD.
WHO WOULD PAY SO FOR EXAMPLE FOR
COUNCIL?
OR HOWWOULD THAT BE PAID MORE
APPROPRIATELY THE PERSON WHO
WOULD BE --
LIKELY THAT THE THE SUBJECT OF
THE CLAIM.
SO FOR EXAMPLE LET'S SAY THE
COMMITTEES THE SUBJECT THE CLAIM
THAT THE COMMITTEE IS NAMED
BASED ON SOME VIOLATION OF FEE
HA.
SO.
SOMEBODY WOULD NEED TO SPEND
PERSONAL FUNDS RIGHT. TO TO
DEFEND THE ACTION --
I GUESS I HAVE TO A I HAVE TO A
CLARITY FROM YOU.
MISTER CHAIR ABOUT HOW A
COMMITTEE COULD BE BROUGHT
AGAINST A CLAIM --
BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
YOU WOULD NEED A PERSON TO
VIOLATE AND I'M AWFUL PRACTICE
OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT HOUSING
ACT.
WELL THE SO YOU COULD BRING A
CLAIM OF FEE HOW CLAIM AGAINT
AND AND A BUSINESS FOR EXAMPLE
RIGHT -- YOU
DON'T HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT --
BUT BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE CLAIM
WOULD BE AGAINST LIKELY I'M A
MANAGER.
MAKING A DECISION --
ON BEHALF OF THAT ORGANIZATION
AND IT'S THE MANAGER THAT THE
CLAIM WILL BE BROUGHT AGAINST
OKAY.
ASSEMBLY IS NOT BROUGHT AGAINST
THE MANAGERS BROUGHT AGAINST THE
COMMITTEE JUST LIKE --
AGAINST THE BUSINESS.
WOULD WOULD EACH CONTRIBUTOR BE
REQUIRED TO USE THE AND IT.
I THINK THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION
CENTER -- I
DON'T THINK CAN INDIVIDUAL
CONTRIBUTORS ARE.
OB CAPTURED IN THIS BILL I THINK
IT WOULD BE THE LIKELY THE
CAMPAIGN MANAGER --
OR OR PERSON.
WHO MADE THAT EMPLOYMENT
DECISION?
IN ONE OF ITS BROUGHT AGAINST
THE THE POLITICAL PARTY SO FOR
EXAMPLE LET'S SAY THERE'S A
CLAIM AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY ITSELF.
HOW WOULD THAT WORK THE DATE IS
I UNDERSTAND THE BILL THAT THE
PARTY COULD NOT USE --
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEFEND
ITSELF THE RIGHT --
THAT IS THAT IS CORRECT INTO THE
BILL BUT AGAIN WE HAVE TO GO
BACK -- TO
BUT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THAT
EMPLOYMENT THAT EITHER HARASSING --
ACTION OR DISCRIMINATORY ACTION --
THEY WOULD BE THE ONES WHO WOULD
BE PERSONAL LIABLE FOR TO PAY
THOSE LEGAL COSTS.
I UNDERSTAND BUT IF IS BROUGHT
AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE
PARTY AS WELL FOR EXAMPLE FOR
FAILURE.
TO ADEQUATELY SUPERVISE HOW DOES
THAT WORK HOW DOES IT WORK FOR
THE PARTY TO PAY FOR ITS DEFENSE.
OUTSIDE OF CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS.
FROM WHAT YOU KNOW I THINK
PARTIES ARE A A UNIQUE --
ENTITY AND THAT I THINK THERE --
THEY DO HAVE --
LOOK INTO IT BUT I THINK IT'S
POSSIBLE FOR COMMITTEE OR
PARTIES TO HAVE FUNDS THAT ARE
OUTSIDE OF CAMPAIGN.
CONTRIBUTIONS.
BUT THERE ARE OTHER REVENUES
THAT THAT --
POTENTIALLY COULD BE USED
WHETHER IT'S INTERESTS ARM OFF
OF THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS OR OR
OTHER --
OTHER DONATIONS THAT ARE NOT
CONTRIBUTIONS BUT I'LL HAVE TO
LOOK INTO AND GET BACK TO YOU.
I'M NOT AWARE OF CONTRIBUTIONS
TO POLITICAL PARTIES THAT ARE
NOT CONTRIBUTIONS AGAIN I I CAN
GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT YEAH AND
IF I MAY.
MY MY THOUGHT IS IF YOU HAVE
SOMEONE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
WHO IS ACCUSED OF HARASSMENT.
AND THE PERSON GOES AFTER THEM
AND THEY TRY TO GO AFTER THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY THERE WOULD BE
NO MONEY FOR THEM TO GO AFTER.
BECAUSE OF THIS BILL SAYS THIS
IF BILL THIS BILLS AND LAW IT
SAYS YOU CAN'T USE THE MONEY TO
DEFEND YOURSELF THERE'S NO MONEY
FOR THEM TO GO AFTER THERE WOULD
BE NO WAY FOR THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY TO PAY FOR IT.
WELL SO FOR EXAMPLE THERE'S A
JUDGMENT AGAINST DEMOCRATIC
PARTY AND THEY OWN REAL ESTATE.
COULDN'T SOMEBODY LEVY AGAINST
THAT REAL ESTATE.
I DON'T KNOW DO WE OWN PARTNER
ON PROPERTY.
BUT I DO SEE THERE'S NO THERE
WOULD BE NO MONEY THAT THIS IS
ABOUT THIS THIS BILL IS ABOUT
GOING AFTER PEOPLE ELECTED LIKE
US IN THIS ROOM THAT DO THINGS
THAT THEY SHOULDN'T DO THAT ARE
INAPPROPRIATE.
AND THEIR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE THERE AS A SLUSH
FUND FOR THEM TO GRAB AND USE TO
PER -- TO
PROMOTE THAT BAD BEHAVIOR OR
DEFEND THAT BAD BEHAVIOR.
I THINK WE CAN ALWAYS LOOK FOR A
WAY TO TO FROM NOT DO SOMETHING.
BUT THIS IS TRYING TO PREVENT
SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW IS
HAPPENS ALL THE TIME AND WE AS
ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE NOT ABOVE
THE LAW WE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
USE OUR CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR OUR
BAD BEHAVIOR.
I THINK YOUR QUESTIONS ARE ALL
LEGITIMATE I THINK WE CAN GET
YOU THE ANSWERS THAT YOU NEED
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY DO WE
WANT TO DO SOMETHING OR DO WE
WANT TO FIND A WAY NOT TO DO IT.
SO LET ME LET ME JUST CONTINUE
WITH MISS OUT ON HERE A FEW MORE
QUESTIONS SO.
LET ME GIVE YOU A HYPOTHETICAL
SO A VOLUNTEER ON A CAMPAIGN IS
POSTING LAWN SIGNS.
IN THEIR DRIVING IN THEIR
INVOLVED AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT.
THE PERSON WHO WAS INJURED IN
THE AUTO RELAX AND SUSE THAT
CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER IN THE
CAMPAIGN.
COULD THE CANDIDATE USE CAMPAIGN
FUNDS TO DEFEND HERSELF.
UNDER THAT SCENARIO --
YEAH THAT'S AN INTERESTING
QUESTION ON WHETHER THEY USE
CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO DEFEND.
AGAINST THE POTENTIAL NEGLIGENCE
CLAIM ON BEHALF OF A VOLUNTEER
CORRECT --
I'M NOT SURE WE'VE I'VE SEEN
THAT SCENARIO --
I THINK THAT WITH SOMETHING THAT
THEY HAVE TO ASK OUR LEGAL
DIVISION FOR ADVICE OF WHETHER
NOT THAT THE PROPER USE OF
CAMPAIGN FUNDS.
AND I BELIEVE MOST OF US ARM HAD
INSURANCE FOR THAT WHEN WE RAN
OUR CAMPAIGN SO PROBABLY THE
INSURANCE IS WHAT WE WOULD USE.
THAT'S A THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION
IT COULD YOU USE CAMPAIGN FUNDS
FOR EXAMPLE THE TO INSURE
AGAINST.
OF FOR EXAMPLE A WRONGFUL DEATH
ACTION DO YOU KNOW.
THE W. PROHIBITED USE OF
CAMPAIGN FUNDS.
UP PURCHASING INSURANCE I I IS
IS A PERMITTED USE --
IN OUR MANUAL WE DISCUSS --
HEALTH INSURANCE OF VEHICLE
INSURANCE --
WRONGFUL DEATH INSURANCE IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT I'VE I'VE READ IN
OUR MANUAL SO AGAIN THAT WOULD
BE SOMETHING SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE
TO ASK OUR LEGAL DIVISION.
I DON'T I DON'T THINK YOU CAN
HELP ME OUT HERE I DON'T THINK
YOU CAN SURE AGAINST.
INTENTIONAL ACTS SO FOR EXAMPLE
YOU CAN'T BUY INSURANCE. TO
AGAINST AN INTENTIONAL ACT OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING. FIVE
I'VE NOT HEARD OF AN INSURANCE
POLICY OF THAT TYPE.
SO IF A CANDIDATE FOR EXAMPLE
LET'S JUST ASSUME.
THAT AND I TAKE YOUR POINT
CENTER LEYVA THAT THIS BILL IS
FOCUSED ON THOSE WHO HAVE
COMMITTED THE ACTS.
THAT THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO
PUNISH THOSE WHO.
HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING WRONG
FULL.
RIGHT SO.
IF IF FOR EXAMPLE AT A CANDIDATE.
HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG
[inaudible]
NOTHING WRONG.
OKAY LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT FOR
THIS HYPOTHETICAL.
BUT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE
SOMETHING WRONG.
THAT CAN BE COULD NOT USE
CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO DEFEND HERSELF
IS THAT RIGHT.
IN THIS IN IN THE SCENARIO OF A
FEE HA VIOLATION RIGHT --
THAT IS THAT IS CORRECT.
SO FOR EXAMPLE --
LET LET'S SAY THE CANDIDATE HAS
A BATHROOM IS NOT ADA COMPLIANT
THEN GETS SUED FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE ADA.
THEN THAT CANDIDATE COULD NOT
USE CAMPAIGN FUNDS THAT IS
DEFEND HERSELF AGAINST
DELEGATION OF HAVING A BATHROOMS
NOT ADA COMPLIANT IS THAT THAT.
YOU UNDERSTANDING.
BUT THAT WOULD BE AN EIGHTY A
VIOLATION I DON'T KNOW IF THAT
WOULD FALL UNDER A VIOLATION OF
THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT HOUSING AT
WELL I THINK THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT
HOUSING AYE PROTECTS --
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION BASED ON
PHYSICAL DISABILITY IS AS WELL
DOESN'T -- I
BELIEVE SO YEAH BUT IT IN YOUR
SCENARIO YOU BROUGHT UP A
VIOLATION OF THE AMERICAN
DISABILITIES ACT INSIDE AND IT I
GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHERE THE
CLAIM.
WELL THAT WAS A YEAR OF FEE HOW
CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH THE AMERICAN DISABILITIES
ACT THAT THEN CAN THEY COULD NOT%
USE.
FUNDS TO DEFEND HERSELF IS THAT
RIGHT -- I
BUT I BELIEVE SO YES ALL RIGHT.
SO LET'S SAY.
THE OF VOLUNTEER COMES IN ONCE
TO WALK PRECINCTS AND FOR
EXAMPLE HAS SOME SORT OF EITHER
PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY
THAT PRECLUDES THEM FROM BEING
ABLE TO TALK TO INDIVIDUALS AT
THE DOOR.
AND THEY FILE A CLAIM. FOR
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON THE
PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY.
THEN CAN THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE
TO DEFEND HERSELF FROM THAT
CLAIM RIGHT.
USING USING CAMPAIGN FUNDS.
ASSUMING ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS
NO DISCRIMINATION BUT JUST THAT
THE ALLEGATION [inaudible]
WELL I IF THERE'S AN ALLEGATION
FILED UNDER AN AWFUL PRACTICE
CLAIM OF A FEE HA THEN YES THIS
BILL WOULD.
WOULD PROHIBIT THAT YOU SEE
CAMPAIGN A LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
EVEN ASSUMING THAT THERE IS
ACTUALLY NO FOUND VIOLATION
CORRECT --
ASSUMING THERE IS NO PHAM
VIOLATION THAT IS THAT IS
CORRECT.
JUST CURIOUS IN TERMS AT P. P.'S
POSITION YET IS THE F. P. P.'S
POSITION THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF
THE CULPABILITY OF THE
INDIVIDUAL THAT.
THAT THERE IS NO DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THOSE THAT ARE CULPABLE
IN THOSE ARE NOT CULPABLE IN
TERMS OF OF USING CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THAT PPC
POSITION.
I BELIEVE THAT THAT THAT IS OUR
POSITION.
YES.
OKAY -- IT
[inaudible]
IN.
IN TERMS OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO
AND I'M FOCUSED ON CANDIDATES
RIGHT NOW --
SO IF A CANDIDATE AGAIN ASSUMING
THAT THE KENNEDYS DONE NOTHING
WRONG.
ALL RIGHT.
THE SENATE CAN LAYS THE NOTHING
WRONG IN IS SUED --
WEALTHY CANDIDATE COULD PAY OUT
OF HIS OR HER OWN POCKET RIGHT
[inaudible] FOR DEFENSE.
I GUESS THIS IS NO PROHIBITION
ON THAT MEAN THEY'RE WILLING TO
PUT UP THOSE PERSONAL FUNDS YES
BUT A CANDIDATE THAT IS NOT
WEALTHY.
BASICALLY WHAT WHAT IT WHAT IS
THEIR RECOURSE --
WELL EVERY COURSE WOULD BE --
THAT THEY COULD --
THEY COULD ASK FOR PRO BONO
LEGAL SERVICE.
OKAY --
ORTEGA IS FOR FREE LEGAL SERVICE
OKAY WHAT ELSE --
THEY COULD ALSO.
IT'S A I'VE TO APOLOGIZE MISTER
CHAIR AT I'M RACKING MY BRAIN --
THEY GO BANKRUPT IS WHAT THEY DO
RIGHT.
I MEAN THEY THEY DON'T HAVE THE
ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
SO THEY BASICALLY ALLOW THE
CLAIM TO GO FORWARD IF FOUND.
OR EVEN IF NOT FOUND LET'S
ASSUME THE NOT FOUND.
THE THE THE JUST.
THE COST OF OF WHATEVER THEY CAN
AFFORD.
BASICALLY FORCES THEM TO
BANKRUPTCY.
IF I MAY IT'S KIND OF LIKE LIFE
IS NOW RIGHT IF YOU'RE RICH YOU
CAN BUY YOUR WAY OUT OF
SOMETHING IF NOT YOU SEXUALLY
HARASSED SOMEONE AND YOU DON'T
HAVE THE MONEY DEFEND YOURSELF.
THEN MAYBE YOU DON'T HAVE A
DEFENSE I I I THINK THAT WE
SHOULDN'T MAKE THIS ABOUT BEING
RICH OR POOR AND THAT THE ONLY
REASON YOU CAN DEFEND YOURSELF
IS BECAUSE YOU'RE ELECTED YOU
HAVE A CAMPAIGN FUND.
DON'T DO THE BEHAVIOR AND THEN
YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT
I I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO GO WILL WORRIED ABOUT
THAT PERSON WHO IS FALSELY
ACCUSED WHICH WE DO A LOT RIGHT
WE WORRY ABOUT THE FALSELY
ACCUSED PERSON IN THE SMALL
PERCENTAGE.
WE DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE PEOPLE
THAT ARE ACTUALLY BEING HARASSED
OR SEXUALLY HARASSED OR
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.
THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WERE TRYING
TO PROTECT WITH THIS BILL WE
DON'T WANT ANYONE FROM NOT
ANYONE FALSELY ACCUSED TO GET
CAUGHT UP IN THAT.
BUT WE CANNOT HELP SOMEONE'S
VACATE BEHAVIOR I CAN ONLY
CONTROL CONNIE LABOR'S BEHAVIOR
SO I'M NOT A RICH WOMAN SO I
DON'T SEXUALLY HARASSED PEOPLE
BECAUSE I COULDN'T DEFEND MYSELF
I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT.
I I UNDERSTAND CENTER AND I AND
I IS A SAID AT THE OUTSET I I
THINK THE CONCEPT IS BOTH
IMPORTANT.
AND IS WELL FOUNDED THE QUESTION
IS IS THAT SINCE WE'RE IN THIS
BILL WE DON'T DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN THOSE WHO HAVE ARRESTED
THOSE WHO ARE SIMPLY ACCUSED OF
HARASSMENT.
IS MISTER óNG IS INDICATED
THAT THERE ARE OF UNFOUNDED.
F. PPC AND HE LIKES WHAT THEY
WERE THAT MOST PEOPLE CALL
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KNOW IF
IT'S A GREAT ALLY THEY WANT TO
KNOW IF THE DISCLOSURE
VIOLATIONS ARE THERE.
THESE ARE NOT SEXUAL HARASSMENT
CLAIMS ARE NOT HUNDREDS OF THOSE
THAT ARE UNFOUNDED SO I JUST
WANNA BE CLEAR.
AND I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY
MISTER CHAIR THAT WE WOULDN'T BE
INVESTIGATING THESE FEEL
VIOLATIONS --
WE WOULD ONLY BE INVESTIGATING --
WHEN SOMEBODY WOULD BE SPENDING
FUNDS TO DEFEND THEMSELF A FILE
CLAIM RELATED TO AFFIRM
PLACEMENT HOUSING AT?
NOT THE ACTUAL ALLEGATIONS WE
WILL LEAVE THAT TO OF THOSE WHO
SPECIALIZE IN THOSE
INVESTIGATIONS THAT BEING THE
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
HOUSING.
THE RESPECTIVE RULES COMMITTEES
OF THIS --
LET OF THIS LEGISLATURE ANY
OTHER AGENCIES HR DEPARTMENT.
BUT SO IS I UNDERSTAND THAT SO
SOMEBODY FILES A FEE HOCK.
COMPLAINT OR EVEN MAKES AN
ALLEGATION MAKES AN ALLEGATION
THAT FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF
FEE HOP.
THAT MOMENT NO CAMPAIGN FUNDS
CAN BE USED TO DEFEND HERSELF IS
THAT RIGHT --
OR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND YEAH RIGHT
OKAY.
AND LATER ON IF IT'S DETERMINED
THAT THAT PERSON COMMITTED NO
VIOLATION.
SHE SIMPLY OUT A LOT RIGHT.
WELL I THINK THERE THERE MAY BE
OTHER --
COURT REMEDIES --
THE PERSON AND THE ACCUSE COULD
SEEK ATTORNEY'S FEES FROM THE
ACCUSER --
IF IT -- IF
THE CLAIM OVER DEFAMATION CLAIM
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT YOU COULD
USE CAMPAIGN FUNDS --
TO PURSUE A DEFAMATION CLAIM --
SO THERE ARE OTHER LEGAL
REMEDIES --
TO OF RECOURSE TO TO RESTORE
YOURSELF FINANCIALLY AT THAT --
IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
ACCOUNT I'M NOT I'M NOT SURE
THAT THAT'S CORRECT --
I DO THINK THERE'S A LITIGATION
PRIVILEGE SO I THINK OF FEE HAWK
CLAIM FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW
OF A LITIGATION PRIVILEGE SO IN
OTHER WORDS THERE'S IF IF YOU DO
IN THE CONTEXT OF A FEE HOW
CLAIM.
THAT YOU ARE PROTECTED FROM A
DEFAMATION CLICK BUT OKAY --
HAVING SAID THAT I I WOULD BE
INTERESTED WITH RESPECT TO
WHETHER OR NOT.
IT WOULD BE LEGAL TO USE
CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO DEFEND
YOURSELF IT WOULD BE LEGAL
CLEARLY TO DEFEND YOURSELF
AGAINST A DEFAMATION ACTION
RIGHT.
YES ARE THERE WOULD BE CLEARLY
LEGAL TO ACTUALLY PURSUE A
DEFAMATION ACTION RIGHT.
YES RIGHT.
IN THE QUESTION REMAINS AS TO
WHETHER IF YOU ARE SUED FOR
EXAMPLE VOLUNTEER WHO'S INVOLVED
IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT --
WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD LOSE IN
AND IN THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF
PERFORMING CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD USE
CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO DEFEND
YOURSELF IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.
SO THAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN
KNOWING THAT --
ALL RIGHT TO THE SO I THINK I'VE
EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS MY
CONCERNS ARE TO WORK WITH YOU
CENTER LEYVA.
TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE WHO
ARE CULPABLE AND THOSE WHO ARE
NOT CULPABLE --
OTHERS OTHERS --
WHAT WILL TAKE OTHERS IN SUPPORT?
NICHOLS HAD ON WITH CALIFORNIA
COME BECAUSE WE'RE IN SUPPORT
WITHIN THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE
WAY TO TRAIN DELINEATE.
APPROPRIATE IN IN A PER REDUCE
CAMPAIGN FUNDS WE THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT MEASURE TO PROMOTE
PUBLIC TRUST THANK.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT [inaudible]
OPPOSITION [inaudible]
QUESTIONS [inaudible]
SENATE STERN.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR THANK YOU
CENTER FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD
IN -- YEAH
THIS IS THIS IS TOUGH STUFF BUT
WE OUGHT TO HOLD OURSELVES TO
ACCOUNT.
SO I APPRECIATE YOU --
PUSHING THE ENVELOPE HERE --
THIS QUESTION ABOUT PRO BONO
COUNSEL CAN WE JUST DRILL DOWN
ON THAT ONE REAL QUICK BECAUSE
IS THAT.
IF YOU WERE WITH THE P. CAN CAN.
CAN OF CANDIDATES TAKE PRO BONO
COUNSEL AND AND IT ISN'T A GIFT
OF SOME SORT OR WOULDN'T IT BE
SOME KIND OF CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTION YOU'RE SAYING LIKE
YOU TAKE PRO BONO LEGAL COUNSEL
THEN YOU'D FILE.
SOME KIND OF REPORT ON THE VALUE
OF THAT COUNCIL THAT YOU'D BE
GETTING NEITHER WAS I'M THINKING
OF HIS ALTERNATE RECOURSE YOU'VE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS.
YEAH -- I
BELIEVE THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES
WHEN PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN PRO BONO
COUNSEL WHERE.
IT.
A WOULD BE.
I THINK WHY IT WOULD BE
CONSIDERED A GIFT UNDER YOUR
SCENARIO --
BUT FROM FREE SERVICES I'VE I'VE
SEEN PRO BONO SERVICES --
PREPPY --
REPORTED ON BE HAS A PAYMENT
REPORTS --
THERE'S A THERE'S A PATHWAY TO
RECEIVING THAT KIND OF YES THERE
IS YES OKAY.
THE THE THE THE CONCERN I GUESS
I HAVE ALSO IS BACK TO THE
PREVIOUS SECTION THE GOVERNMENT
CODE IN EIGHTY FIVE THIRTY THREE
OR FOUR A THE SORT OF CLICKING
THROUGH THE BILL BECAUSE WE'RE
COVERING FEE HA CLAIMS.
BUT AM I READING THIS RIGHT THAT
YOU STILL CAN.
HIS CAMPAIGN FUNDS DEFEND
YOURSELF AGAINST.
CIVIL OR CRIMINAL.
VIOLATIONS OF ANOTHER SORT
[inaudible]
THE OTHER.
THAT'S CORRECT --
IF IT'S OF RELATED --
TO POLITICAL LEGISLATIVE ARE
GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE.
POLITICAL LEGISLATIVE OR
GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE OKAY SO
THAT SO IN THAT CASE THAT THE
LIKE YEAH I F. PPC CLAIM WOULD
BE YOU COULD USE YOUR CAMPAIGN
FUNDS TO DEFEND AGAINST AN FTP
C..
VIOLATION IT LIKE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM WAR --
EAT YOU USE THIS --
THIS POTENTIAL NEGLIGENCE
SCENARIO --
AND SOMEONE'S IN IN THE COURSE
OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT SORT OF
OPERATING AS AN EMPLOYEE ON
BEHALF OF THE CAMPAIGN HIT
SOMEBODY NEGLIGENTLY AND THEN
THEY'D BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE.
YOU COULD USE FUNDS TO DEFEND
THAT BUT IT'S IT'S THE FEE HIGHS
THE DELINEATION IS THAT THE THE
WAY.
THE STRUCTURE THE BILL SO LIKE.
NON FEE HA.
IN GENERAL JUST THAT'S THAT'S
TOTAL THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF
THE ACT THE THE VOTERS IN THE
LEGISLATURE --
WHEN THEY ADOPTED WILL BE CALLED
THE P. L. G. EXCEPTION THE
POLITICAL I JUST EVER
GOVERNMENTAL --
USE OF FUNDS --
AND AND SAID THAT THESE FUNDS
ARE HELD IN TRUST FOR THOSE
PURPOSES --
THE LEGISLATION THE VOTERS HAVE
THE AT DOZENS OF TIMES TO
INCLUDE WHAT IS AND IS NOT AN
APPROPRIATE USE OF CAMPAIGN
FUNDS.
EVERYTHING FROM HOME SECURITY
SYSTEMS --
TO TO AS YOU DESCRIBED
LITIGATION COSTS TO WHETHER OR
NOT THEY CAN BUY A SUIT --
OR AT AND IF IT GETS VERY DETAIL
AND ALSO GETS VERY BROAD AND SO
THE ACTION OR THE PROPOSAL THAT
CENTER LEYVA IN THE ABUSE YOUR
BRINGING TODAY IS NOT
UNPRECEDENTED --
THAT THE LEGISLATURE CAN.
DECIDE HOW THESE FUNDS THAT ARE
HELD IN TRUST ARE USED --
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S USED IN A
WAY THAT IS NOT --
NOT SOLELY PROTECTED BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT AND EXPENDITURE
OF OF COMMUNICATING WITH VOTERS.
THE GUY I THINK THERE'S A A A A
GOOD PATH TO RESOLUTION HERE
THAT JUST WORKS YOUR TO
COMPRESSED ON TIME FRANKLY TO TO
SORT IT OUT BUT I THINK.
THERE'S THIS LINE BETWEEN.
CULPABILITY AN ACCUSATION THAT
IS NOT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE BINARY
RIGHT SO THAT I THINK THERE'S A
WAY. TO LOOK AT WE GO THROUGH
SUBSTANTIATION PROCESS FOR WITH
OUR AND THE WORKPLACE CONDUCT
COMMITTEE WOULD WE SET UP LAST
YEAR IS THAT WHAT IT'S CALLED.
THE COMEDIAN WORKPLACE CONDUCT
IN REFERS THROUGH THAT PANEL TO
RULES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
BUT THAT SUBSTANTIATION PROCESS.
ISN'T NECESSARILY A FINDING OF
CULPABILITY BUT IT IS SOME KIND
OF THRESHOLD OF SUBSTANTIATION
MAYBE THERE COULD BE SOMETHING
THAT LIES IN THERE WERE YOU'RE
SAYING OKAY IT'S MORE LIKELY
THAN NOT.
THIS INDIVIDUAL COMMITTED THIS
AT YOU KNOW VIOLATION OF THE HOT
BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY YOU
KNOW A CRIMINAL OR CIVIL
CULPABILITY ON THAT FRONT WE'RE
WE'RE SORT OF STRETCHED.
FOR TIME IN SPACE BUT I WOULD
JUST ASK.
CONSIDER SOMETHING IN THAT GRAY
AREA THERE BECAUSE I WANT THE
SENATE PROCESS TO WORK.
RIGHT AS IT SHOULD AND I'M I'M
THINKING.
BUT I BUT I ALSO TOTALLY AGREE
WITH YOU THAT WE SHOULDN'T.
YOU KNOW THOSE WHO ACTUALLY HAVE.
YOU KNOW SUBSTANTIALLY CLAIMS
AGAINST THEM AND NOT NOT THIS
REALLY VIOLATIONS RIGHT YOU'RE
NOT TALKING ABOUT --
THEY'RE ALREADY CONVICTED OR
YOU'RE SORT OF DELAYING JUSTICE
FOR YEARS AND YEARS TO SEE
BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW
QUICKLY THESE THINGS WILL PLAY
OUT.
BUT THAT THAT SORT OF IMMEDIATE
INVESTIGATION PROCESS MAYBE
THERE'S SOMETHING IN THERE THAT.
WE CAN WORK THROUGH BUT ANYHOW
THAT WAS MY QUICK COMMENT.
OF ANOTHER ANOTHER QUESTION THAT
SENATOR STERN RACISM POINT TWO
WITH RESPECT TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT
SO IF IF I ACTUALLY SHOT MY
CAMPAIGN MANAGER.
IN THE CAMPAIGN OFFICE BECAUSE
I'M UPSET WITH THE MAIL.
THEN I COULD USE CAMPAIGN FUNDS
TO DEFEND MYSELF IS THAT IS THAT
ACCURATE --
LORD HAVE TO BE.
DIRECTLY RELATED. TO SOME
POLITICAL AS THEY WERE
GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE --
FORTUNATELY WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT
SCENARIO COME UP --
WE'RE NOT GONNA.
TO CONTEMPLATING I'M NOT
CONTEMPLATING TESTING THAT I
WRITE OFFS THIS OR THAT
HYPOTHETICAL RIGHT --
AND AND YOU KNOW I THINK THAT --
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ON THE
CANDIDATES TO JUSTIFY WHY THAT
IS A LEGITIMATE USE OF CAMPAIGN
FUNDS THAT WOULD --
BE ALLOWED UNDER THE PEEL G.
EXCEPTION --
AND AND WHAT WHAT FACTORS THE
SCENARIOS WOULD WOULD QUALIFY
FOR THAT AND AND MISTER CHAIR I
THINK YOU ARE POINTING OUT
REALLY THE THE COMPLEXITY OF OUR
CAMPAIGN FIND WE CAN WE HAVE
VERY BROAD RULES AND A LOT OF
BROAD EXCEPTIONS --
AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF
POTENTIAL HYPOTHETICALS AND WHAT
IFS THAT --
THAT WE GET ASKED ON A ON A
YEARLY BASIS THROUGH OUR ADVICE
PROCESS --
AND WE HAVE TO MAKE.
WE HAVE TO MAKE THESE
DETERMINATIONS AND AND THAT IS
WHERE THIS BILL REALLY
ORIGINATED AS SOMEBODY HAD ASKED
WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD USE
CAMPAIGN FUNDS. FOR THIS --
THE FEE HOW RELATED --
UNLAWFUL PRACTICES --
AND OUR COMMISSION VOTED --
THAT THAT IT WASN'T A PERMITTED
USE OF OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS --
AND BECAUSE F OUR AGENCIES
ACTION THERE IS SOME --
THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CLARITY
IN THE LAW THAT NEEDS TO BE
FURTHER DEFINED BY ONE OF THE
OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AND
THAT BEING IN THE LEGISLATURE OR
THE COURTS.
AND THE COMMISSION --
ONE IN THAT WE COULD BRING LEAVE
IT TO THE COURTS WHICH CAN BE
UNPREDICTABLE AT TIMES AND SO WE
SPONSORED THIS LEGISLATION AND
AND WE HOPE THAT WE HAVE YOUR
VOTE ULTIMATELY LIMIT LET ME RUN
OF SUGGESTION BY BOTH OF YOU --
SO FOR EXAMPLE IF THERE IS AN
ALLEGATION.
OF SOME IMPRPRIETY WITHIN THE
CONTEXT OF A FEE HA.
IN THAT PERSON USES CAMPAIGN
FUNDS TO DEFEND HERSELF AND THEN
AT THE END OF IT IF THERE'S A
FINDING OF THE IT'S NOT FOUNDED.
THEN THAT PERSON GOES ON THEIR
MERRY WAY.
IF THERE IS A FINDING --
AND YET TO BE DEFINED FINDING OF
SOME SORT OF CULPABILITY.
THEN THE PERSON JUST LIKE OTHER
VIOLATIONS IS REQUIRED TO
REIMBURSE THE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
AND ALSO RUNS THE RISK OF BEING.
IN VIOLATION.
WHAT WHAT WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS
WITH RESPONSE TO THAT SUGGESTION?
I WOULD JUST IS THE AUTHOR OF
THE BILL THAT SOMETHING WE COULD
POSSIBLY LOOK AT IN THE NEXT
COMMITTEE BECAUSE AS CENTER
STERN STATED.
THE BILL'S BEEN IN PRINT FOR TWO
MONTHS I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING
FROM ANYBODY ABOUT THIS BILL
THERE STILL IS NO OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL UNTIL LATE YESTERDAY
AND EARLY THIS MORNING FROM THE
GENTLEMAN ON THE THE COMMITTEE
HERE SO I AM COMMITTED. TO
WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU MOVING
FORWARD.
OKAY.
MR WRONG WHAT WHAT'S YOUR
RESPONSE TO THAT SUGGESTION --
WELL IT CERTAINLY WAS NAME ON
THE BILL ULTIMATELY --
AND AND I AS THE SPONSOR WE
LEYVA WE I HAVE TO GET BACK TO
MY COMMISSION ON ANY SUGGESTION
I CAN'T SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMISSION --
AT BUT IT IS IT THIS IS THE
FIRST HEARING --
OF OF A LONG LEGISLATIVE CYCLE
AND AS ALL OF YOU KNOW NOT ALL
BILLS A PERFECT ON THE FIRST GO --
AND SO WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK
THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
AND FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT --
THAT THAT --
CAN BE AMENABLE TO CENTER LEYVA
THE COMMISSION AND OF COURSE YOU
MISTER CHAIR.
CENTER LABOR IN.
A TAKE.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS
TO WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE I
ASSUME YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM WHEN
THE BILL GETS AMEND SHOULD THE
BILL BE AMENDED TO TO COMING
BACK IF IF WE REQUESTED.
PROBABLY NOT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE
AMENDMENTS ARE I MEAN I JUST
WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.
THIS IS ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT
WE AS ELECTED OFFICIALS HOLD
OURSELVES TO THE STANDARD THAT
EVERYONE IN THE PUBLIC IS HELD
TO WHEN I RAN MY LOCAL UNION
BEFORE I WAS AT BEFORE I RAN FOR
OFFICE.
IF SOMEONE SUIT CONNIE LEIVA
PERSONALLY I COULD NOT USE A
LOCAL UNIONS MONEY TO DEFEND
MYSELF I WOULD HAVE HAD TO SEE
COUNSEL I WOULD HAVE TO FIND A
WAY TO PAY FOR THAT.
THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THAT
AS ELECTED OFFICIALS PEOPLE GIVE
US MONEY SO THAT WE CAN GET
REELECTED WE CAN DO GOOD WORK IN
OUR COMMUNITY THEY DON'T THEY
DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO OUR
CAMPAIGNS.
SO THAT WE CAN COMMIT BAD
BEHAVIOR AND THEN USE IT AS A
SLUSH FUND TO DEFEND OURSELVES
SO.
YES I WOULD PROBABLY BE WILLING
TO DO THAT BUT I AM JUST VERY
COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE THAT
WE'RE TAKING CARE OF THE VICTIMS
AND WERE STOPPING BAD BEHAVIOR.
WHEN I DID MY RATE BILL TWO
YEARS AGO --
ELIMINATE THE STATUE OF
LIMITATION ON RAPE THE FIRST
COMMITTEE I WENT TO WAS SO
WORRIED ABOUT --
WHAT IF SOMEONE GETS FALSELY
ACCUSED WELL OF COURSE WE DON'T
WANT ANYONE FALSELY ACCUSED BUT
WIN TWO OUT OF ONE HUNDRED
RAPISTS ARE ACTUALLY CHARGED WE
KNEW WE WEREN'T FALSELY
IMPRISONING PEOPLE?
I SEE THIS BILL IN THE SAME
LIGHT THIS IS ALSO A WAY TO
DETER PEOPLE RIGHT IF I'M
ELECTED MAYBE I'M GONNA THINK
TWICE ABOUT SEXUALLY HARASSING.
MY STAFFER OR SOMEONE IN THE
BUILDING MAYBE I'M NOT GONNA
GRAB SOMEONE IF THAT'S WHAT I I
DO BECAUSE I KNOW THAT I'M GOING
TO BE PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE.
SO SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO
LEGISLATE FOR THE BAD ACTORS AND
UNFORTUNATELY THERE ARE SOME BAD
ACTORS AMONGST US AS ELECTIVES
AND THIS IS JUST SAYING THAT
WHEN PEOPLE GIVE YOU THAT MONEY
AND TRUST THAT YOU WILL DO THE
RIGHT THING WITH THE IN YOUR
CAMPAIGN.
THAT YOU ACTUALLY WELL SO YES I
AM COMMITTED TO WORKING ON IT.
BUT I CAN'T SAY YES TO SOMETHING
I HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN --
DISCUSSION.
ALL RIGHT SIR LEYVA VIEW LIKE
CLOTHES OR WAS THAT YOUR CLOTHES
THAT WAS MY CLOTHES RIGHTFULLY
HOUSE FOR AN AYE VOTE LET'S KEEP
WORKING ON THIS TOGETHER.
ALL RIGHT.
STERN MOROSE BOMB ALL RIGHT
MADAM SECRETARY CALL THE ROLL.
MOTIONS TO PASS THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
NUMBER BASED ON YOUR COMMITMENT
CENTER LEAVE A HIGH.
NUMBER I NIELSEN.
NIELSEN I HERTZBERG.
LEYVA AYE LEYVA AYE STERN STERN
HI.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR THANK YOU
MEMBERS.
I THINK THAT I WILL LEAVE THE
ROLE OPEN.
ALL RIGHT --
EIGHT HUNDRED NUMBER YOU HAVE.
ONE FIFTY ONE THANK YOU MISTER
VICE CHAIR IN MEMBERS.
SB ONE FIFTY ONE IS A VERY
SIMPLE STRAIGHTFORWARD BILLET
SIMPLY ASSURES THAT.
IN THE CONTEXT OF A RECALL THAT
VOTERS HAVE INFORMATION
CONCERNING THE PARTY DESIGNATION
OF THE PERSON -- SOUGHT TO
BE RECALLED ITS DISCRETIONARY
IN OTHER WORDS THE PERSON WHO
IS THE SUBJECT OF THE RECALL
CAN OPT TO HAVE THEIR PARTY
UP REFERENCE LISTED WITH THEIR
NAME OR NOT -- THIS IS TRUE OF
ALL PARTISAN ELECTIONS OTHER
THAN THIS ONE IN NONPARTISAN
ELECTIONS IF YOU'RE ELECTED
TO A NON PARTISAN OFFICE FOR
EXAMPLE A JUDGE YOU DON'T
HAVE THAT OPTION IF YOU ARE
ELECTED TO A PARTISAN OFFICE
YOU DO HAVE THAT OPTION OF
THE YEAR THE SUBJECT TO RECALL
THAT'S IT I SIMPLE
YEAH ANY WITNESSES IN FAVOR
MORNING IN THANK YOU LEÓN
VOTERS AND DOOR ROSE WE ARE IN
FAVOR THANK YOU FOR THE BILL
AND I THINK THAT'S IT
SENATOR I URGE AN AYE
VOTE WE HAVE A MOTION
WE HAVE TO MOTIONS WELL
LET'S SAY THAN JUST TURN
THEM LET'S GO AHEAD THEN
THE SECTOR CALL THE ROLL
MOTIONS IS TO PASS THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE NUMBER
NUMBER I NIELSEN NIELSEN AYE
HERTZBERG EVA I STERN STERN I
--
-- TO HAVE ONE ROLE THAT ONE
SENATOR STERN SINISTER
ELIGIBLE VOTER ALL RIGHT THIS
IS MOTION FOR ADOPTION OF
COMMITTEE RULES STERN STERN I
ALL RIGHTY -- SENT ELECTIONS
A CONSTITUTIONAL MEMBERS
COMMITTEE IS ADJOURNED