Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCITY COUNCIL POSITION ON LEGISLATION PENDING IN SUPPORT OF S Council/Agency Meeting Held: ° De�f rred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied C��3 ity Clerk's Signat e d Council Meeting Date: August 6, 2007 Department ID Number: AD 07-17 G _50 / 0o CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Jill Hardy, Council Member, Chair on behalf of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Members Councilman Don Hansen and Councilman Keith BohJ�/ PREPARED BY: Patricia Dapkus, Department Analyst, Senior; k/ SUBJECT: APPROVE A CITY COUNCIL POSITION ON LEGISLATION PENDING BEFORE THE FEDERAL, STATE, OR REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE (IRC) IFstatement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Approve a City Council position as recommended by the City Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC) on legislation pending before a federal, state, or regional government, thereby authorizing the Mayor to communicate the city's position to the elected members of the federal or state legislature, or regional body. Funding Source: N/A Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Support SB 1430 (Garrick) - Political Reform Act of 1974 - Campaign Finance -As amended on 05-09-07 2. Support S 456 (Feinstein) Gang Abatement & Prevention Act of 2007—As introduced 3. Support AB 468 (Ruskin) Vehicles: Abatement of Abandon Vehicles -As amended on 07-10-07 Alternative Action(s): Do not take action on one of the above or take an alternative position. parties for spending on candidates to elective state office are limited in state law without hampering free speech, why would similar limitations at the local level be improper? This bill passed the Assembly without opposition (77-0) and is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Elections Committee on July 10. It was discussed at a campaign finance summit meeting of organizations on June 20. If the LWVC opposes the bill, we will have opportunities to work with other organizations in encouraging other cities with campaign finance ordinances to oppose it, issuing a joint letter of opposition, and seeking media attention to this problem. A June 19 editorial in the Los .Angeles Times stated, "California's two big parties have been in the business of blocking donation limits and disclosure since at least 2000, when, in the name of tightening state campaign finance law, they instead fooled voters into killing earlier reforms. They now want to gut local controls as well. Let's hope senators reject the bill and show Californians what members of the Assembly lacked: a concern for the public or, lacking that, at least a sense of shame." Page 1 of 1 SAN.. 4 Gutting campaign reform Politicians need to kill the bill that skirts finance limits EDITORIAL A bill that could gut many local campaign finance laws is zipping through the legislature with the support of both the Republican and Democratic parties — and only a few activists seem to be paying attention. We've written about the bill, AB 1430 by Assemblymember Martin Garrick (R-San Diego), on the politics blog at www.sfbg.com. It has already cleared the State Assembly, 77-0, and is headed to the State Senate floor, where only one member — Carole Migden of San Francisco — has come out in opposition. The Republicans and the Democrats love this bill because it would allow their parties to use unlimited amounts of money to support local candidates. That's become increasingly common in this state; when cities set strict limits on contributions to political candidates, the candidates simply ask their big-money backers to give the money to the state Republican or Democratic Party — which then funnels the laundered, uncontrolled, and often unreported cash into local campaigns. In fact, the bill comes from the San Diego GOP, which is angry that the San Diego Ethics Commission tried to crack down on nearly a million dollars in unregulated money that went to local races last year. The bill talks about "membership communications" — as if the parties were simple nonprofits that wanted to send newsletters to their members. That's not what's going on at all, and everyone with any sense knows it. Here's the�real story: while the federal and state governments have refused to do any real campaign finance reform, cities and counties all over California have tried to fill the gap. The San Francisco Ethics Commission — for all of its obviously failings (see "Whose Ethics?," 7/11/07) — has the authority and the mandate to regulate local campaigns far more tightly than'the state's Fair Political Practices Commission, So the big donors, working through the state parties, are trying to figure out ways to circumvent local rules. The conservatives in the State Legislature love to talk about local control when it comes to workplace regulations, environmental protection, and schools — but when a bill like this comes along and threatens to eviscerate local control, they utter not a peep. Nor, for the most part, do the liberals, who are aligned with the Democratic Party and don't want to defy its mandates. The San Francisco Ethics Commission has asked Mayor Gavin Newsom and the supervisors to oppose this bill, but the board has taken no action, and the mayor says he actually supports the bill. That's a disgrace: at the very least, the supervisors should pass a resolution opposing AB 1430 and force the mayor to veto it. Migden, after talking to the folks at California Common Cause, the public interest campaign organization, took a bold stand against the measure, and she deserves tremendous credit for that. Now the rest of the senate — starting with Leland Yee of San Francisco and President Pro Tern Don Perata of Oakland — needs to go along and kill this monster. * Tuesday July 17, 2007 http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry_id=4074 7/23/2007 Campaign reform reversal? California Democrats and Republicans have joined up to eliminate local campaign funding laws. LA Times Editorial -June 1 , 2007 VOTERS KEEP demanding campaign reform. Cynical lawmakers keep pretending to give it to them, but instead enact phony programs that block change. Then they claim reform doesn't work. That cycle is now repeating in Sacramento, this time with political parties trying to undo successful local campaign contribution limits and disclosure rules that fed-up voters adopted over the heads of politicians. A bill, AB 1430, crept its way through the Assembly this year barely noticed, but it's now in the open and should be stopped before it gets any further. The bill would undermine campaign laws in effect in Los Angeles since 1991, not to mention similar reforms in cities and counties across California. Laws to minimize the chance of a big-money interest simply buying a candidate would be neutered. Virtually anonymous and unlimited campaign bankrolling would again be the order of the day, courtesy of those trustworthy protectors of the public interest: the Democratic and Republican parties. As it is, contract seekers and influence buyers can get around L.A.'s $500 limit on donations to a City Council candidate ($1,000 for a mayoral candidate) by giving thousands to a political party, which then bombards voters with mailers touting their candidate. The party avoids the donation caps by claiming that it's simply trying to keep in touch with its members. But city law still requires the party to identify the ultimate source of the money and to make that information available quickly so voters can know who really is pulling the candidate's strings. The Democrats and Republicans think even that is too much information to give voters. Their bill — they're in on it together would block the city from requiring immediate disclosure of the funding source. Voters often wouldn't know who is buying the candidate until after he or she is elected. City laws that limit how much a political party can solicit or earmark for "independent" spending in city campaigns also would be out the window. California's two big parties have been in the business of blocking donation limits and disclosure since at least 2000, when, in the name of tightening state campaign finance law, they instead fooled voters into killing earlier reforms. They now want to gut local controls as well. Let's hope senators reject the bill and show Californians what members of the Assembly lacked: a concern for the public or, lacking that, at least a sense of shame. League of Women Voters of California. Campaign Finance Reform Oppose AB 1430 Page 1 of 2 Dapkus, Pat From: Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7 Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 9:50 PM Subject: League of Women Voters of California_ Campaign Finance Reform Oppose AB 1430 f League ?f ff'o'xnen Voters Ca" rnt HOME I SEARCH I CONTACT US I SITE MAP Home > Action > Campaign_Finance > No on AB 1430 WE OPPOSE AB 1430 League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause, and California Clean Money Campaign Joint Statement in Opposition to AB 1430 The California state legislature stands poised to approve a bill that would wrest control of local elections from cities and counties and vitiate local laws designed to check the financial influence of special interests in local elections. The bill, A_ B1430, would prohibit local jurisdictions from regulating the source and amount of money that political parties can use to campaign for candidates - even though the state legislature does the exact same thing for state elections. "This bill is an end run around local campaign finance laws and a gift to special interests who want to dominate local elections with big contributions," said Jacqueline Jacobberger, president of the League of Women Voters of California. "A move like this will only feed voters' cynicism about the legislature, undermining the appreciation the public has had for the recent accomplishments of their elected representatives. It seems counter to the spirit of the political reforms that legislators are considering this year." The California Clean Money Campaign, California Common Cause, and League of Women Voters of California oppose AB 1430 for the following reasons: 1. AB 1430 would prevent cities and counties from enacting any laws that would restrict the funneling of large contributions through political parties to benefit candidates - even when the candidate, party, and donor coordinate the payment and expenditure. Without such safeguards, local contribution limits would be rendered meaningless. Contribution limits are a fundamental and constitutional means that cities and counties can and do use to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption in their elections. AB 1430 would create an enormous loophole in these laws, allowing special interest groups to use large campaign contributions to dominate city elections and exert undue influence over city officials. 2. The right of cities and counties to regulate their own elections is enshrined in the state constitution and Political Reform Act. AB 1430 threatens to abridge these rights, substituting the view of the state legislature for that of voters and local officials as to what campaign finance laws best meet the needs of local jurisdictions. This is why the ethics commissions of San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco all either oppose or have asked their city council to oppose AB 1430, and the San Diego 7/23/2007 League of Women Voters of California. Campaign Finance Reform Oppose AB 1430 Page 2 of 2 Union Tribune and Los Angeles Times have editorialized against the bill as well. "What exactly is the problem this bill is intended to address?", asked Ned Wigglesworth, Policy Advocate for California Common Cause. "The state legislature has passed the exact same law which they would prohibit cities and counties from adopting and enforcing with this bill. If this is truly about `free speech', how come the legislature isn't holding itself to the same standard?" AB 1430 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Elections Committee on July 10. The League of Women Voters of California and California Common Cause are urging the members of Senate Elections Committee to vote against this bill. Other resources: San Diego Union Tribune - No_on AB1430..Editorial. (6/22) Los Angeles Times --No on AB 1430 (6/19) See more on Campaign F nance_ReArm. FIND YOU Lc k IS� t � - The League is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization of women and men which never supports or opposes candidates or political parties. Cc� Copyright. League of Women Voters of California. All rights reserved. 801 12th Street, Suite 220; Sacramento, CA 95814. 916-442-7215 Iwvc@lwvc.org 7/23/2007 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2007 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 07-17 Analysis: 1. Support SIB 1430 (Garrick) - Political Reform Act of 1974 - Campaign Finance Existing law provides that payments made for communications to members, employees, shareholders, or families of members, employees, or shareholders of an organization for the purpose of supporting or opposing a candidate or a ballot measure are not contributions or expenditures, if those payments are not made for general public advertising such as broadcasting, billboards, and newspaper advertisements. However, such payments made by a political party for communications to its members that would otherwise qualify as contributions or expenditures are to be reported in the same manner as contributions or expenditures. Existing law also provides that the Political Reform Act does not nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions of any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, except the limitations and prohibitions may not conflict with these provisions regulating payments for communications. This bill would prohibit local governments from adopting campaign finance ordinances that restrict communications between an organization and its members unless state law similarly restricts communications. Specifically, this bill prohibits a local jurisdiction from doing the following: ■ Imposing source restrictions on payments for member communications that are not expressly made applicable to member communications by a state statute or by a regulation adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). ■ Adopting limits on payments to a political party committee for member communications that are not expressly made applicable to member communications by a state statute or FPPC regulation. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee is recommending that the City Council take a position in support of SIB 1430 2. Support S 456 (Feinstein) Gang Abatement & Prevention Act of 2007 S 456 would also authorize over$1 billion to assist local communities with their gang prevention and suppression initiatives, and would increase criminal penalties for violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity, possession of firearms by repeat offenders, and crimes of violence and drug trafficking committed by illegal aliens. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee is recommending that the City Council take a position in support of S 456. 3. Support AB 468 (Ruskin) Vehicles: Abatement of Abandon Vehicles Existing law authorizes a county, satisfying specified conditions, to establish a service authority for the abatement of abandoned vehicles and to impose a $1 vehicle registration fee for the abatement of abandoned vehicles. The fees imposed and the moneys received by the service authority from the Abandoned Vehicle Trust Fund can only be used for the abatement, removal, and disposal of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles from private or public property. This bill would authorize the service authority to use the fees imposed, as well as the moneys received from the Abandoned Vehicle Trust Fund, for the costs associated with the enforcement of the G:\Dapkus\INTERGOVERNMENTAL\RCA's\RCA 080607.doc -2- 7/23/2007 11:10 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 6, 2007 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 07-17 ordinance adopted by the service authority. The service authority would be prohibited from offsetting the costs of vehicles towed under authorities other than the ordinance adopted by the service authority or when the costs are recovered by another provision of law. The service authority would be authorized to carry forward unexpended money in a fiscal year to the following fiscal year for the abandoned vehicle abatement program upon agreement with its member agencies. The service authority would be authorized to remove an abandoned vehicle from public property after providing a notice specified by a local ordinance of the jurisdiction in which the abandoned vehicle is located and after that notice has expired. In Orange County, funds from the Abandoned Vehicle Trust Fund had been administered by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). In recent years, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has administered this program. Under the CHP, new requirements for abating abandoned vehicles were established. These requirements have made it substantially more difficult for cities to process an abandoned vehicle. During the period that the CHP has been administering the program, the city's ability to abate abandoned vehicles declined and revenues from this program dropped from approximately $200,000 annually to $70,000. AB 468 would allow administration of the County's portion of the Abandoned Vehicle Trust Fund to return to OCTA. It would also allow us the opportunity to set in place reasonable requirements for identifying and abating abandoned vehicles. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee is recommending that the City Council take a position in support of AB 468. Environmental Status: NA Strategic Goal 1. SB 1430 meeting the strategic goal under Engaging the Community, of increasing community involvement and dialogue by increasing opportunities for involvement in the city's political process. 2. Support for S 456 and AB 468 meets the strategic goal under City Services of providing quality public services with the highest professional standards to meet community expectations and needs, assuring that the city is sufficiently staffed and equipped overall. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. SB 1430 Garrick - Political Reform Act of 1974 - Campaign Finance 2. Information on SB 1430 provided by Larry Gallup 3. S 456 Feinstein - Ggng Abatement & Prevention Act of 2007 4. AB 468 Ruskin -Vehicles: Abatement of Abandon Vehicles G:\Dapkus\INTERGOVERNMENTAL\RCA's\RCA 080607.doc -3- 7/23/2007 11:51 AM / �6 c � .' � ja i I F .;,: �Y 3 AB 1430 Assembly Bill -AMENDED Page 1 of 2 BILL NUMBER: AB 1430 AMENDED BILL TEXT AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 8, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 9, 2007 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Garrick ( Coauthors: Assembly Members Adams and Mendoza ) FEBRUARY 23, 2007 An act to amend Section 85703 of the Government Code, relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974 . LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1430, as amended, Garrick. Political Reform Act of 1974: contribution limitations. Existing law provides that, for the purposes of contribution limits imposed by the Political Reform Act of 1974, payments for communications to an organization's members, employees, shareholders, or their family members, to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure are not contributions or expenditures if not made for general public advertisements, such as broadcasting, billboards, or newspaper ads. However, existing law requires that payments by a political party for communications to registered party members that would otherwise qualify as contributions or expenditures be reported in accordance with provisions governing the filing of periodic campaign reports, and governing the filing of reports online or electronically with the Secretary of State. Existing law provides that the Political Reform Act does not nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions of any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, except the limitations and prohibitions may not conflict with these provisions regulating payments for communications. This bill would provide that certain restrictions and limitations by a local jurisdiction on payments for a member communication, as defined, would conflict with these provisions and would be prohibited. 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 and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act. Vote: 2/3 . Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 85703 of the Government Code is amended to read: 85703 . (a) Nothing in this act shall nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions of any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, except that these limitations and prohibitions may not conflict with the provisions of Section 85312 . (b) Limitations and prohibitions imposed by a local jurisdiction on payments for a member communication, as defined in subdivision (c) , that conflict with Section 85312 and which are thereby http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450/ab_1430 bill_20070508_amended_asm v97.html 7/23/2007 AB 1430 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 2 of 2 prohibited by subdivision (a) include, but are not limited to, any of the following: (1) Source restrictions on payments for member communications that are not expressly made applicable to member communications by a state statute or by a regulation adopted by the commission pursuant to Section 83112 . (2) Limitations on payments to a political party committee for a member communication that are not expressly made applicable to member communications by a state statute or by a regulation adopted by the commission pursuant to Section 83112 . (3) Limitations on the scope of payments considered directly -a; related to the making of a member communication, including costs associated with the formulation, design, production, and distribution of the communication such as surveys, list acquisition, and consulting fees that are not expressly made applicable to member communications by a state statute or by a regulation adopted by the commission pursuant to Section 83112 (c) For purposes of this section, "member communication" means a communication, within the meaning of Section 85312, to members, employees, shareholders, or families of members, employees, or shareholders of an organization, including a communication by a political party to its members who are registered with that party. SEC. 2 . The Legislature finds and declares that this bill furthers the purposes of the Political Reform Act of 1974 within the meaning of subdivision (a) of Section 81012 of the Government Code. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450/ab_1430_bill_20070508_amended_asm v97.html 7/23/2007 \y� 3 BILL ANALYSIS FROM: Trudy Schafer BILL NO. and AUTHOR: AB 1430 (Garrick) DATE: June 24, 2007 DATE OF BILL: As amended May 8, 2007 PROGRAM AREA: Campaign Financing SUBJECT: Campaign finance limitations imposed by local jurisdictions RECOMMEND: Oppose/Medium (SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN PROGRAM AREA: High) DESCRIPTION OF BILL AND ARGUMENTS THAT CAN BE USED TO JUSTIFY LEAGUE ACTION: Present Law: The Political Reform Act, or PRA, enacted in 1974 and most recently substantially amended by Proposition 34 of 2000, is the state law that governs disclosure of campaign contributions and spending, limitations on contributions, regulation of lobbyists, conflict of interest, etc. Some of its provisions apply at all levels of government in California, while others, such as contribution limits and lobbyist regulations, apply only to state government (including legislators). Generally speaking, the PRA allows local agencies to impose additional regulation of local elections, with certain restrictions. Specifically, contribution limitations or prohibitions imposed by local jurisdictions on local candidate elections are allowed, UNLESS they conflict with the PRA provisions governing "member communications." (Section 85703) Member communications are communications by an organization to its members, employees, shareholders, or families of members, employees, or shareholders for the purpose of supporting or opposing a candidate or a ballot measure. The PRA states that payments for member communications are not contributions or expenditures, if the payments are not made for general public advertising (such as broadcasting, billboards, and newspaper ads),It requires, however, that member communications made by political parties must be disclosed in the same manner as contributions or expenditures. (Sec. 85312) A related relevant provision of the PRA is that contributions TO political parties are limited to $30,200 per year (originally $25,000, adjusted for inflation) if the party uses the money to make contributions for the support or defeat of candidates for elective state office, or for making expenditures for member communications about a candidate for elective state office at the behest of that candidate. The Bill: AB 1430 would change the law about when a local jurisdiction's contribution limitations or prohibitions are considered to conflict with state law or regulations concerning member communications—i.e., when the local jurisdiction's campaign finance ordinances would not be allowed. The bill would prohibit local jurisdictions from doing any of the following unless a state statute or regulation explicitly makes these restrictions applicable to member communications: ■ restricting the sources of payments for member communications ■ limiting payments to a political party committee for member communications ■ limiting the scope of payments that are considered related to the making of member communications (such as costs for formulating, designing, producing, and distributing communications; surveys; list acquisitions; and consulting fees). The bill states that the universe of things that would be disallowed includes, but is not limited to, these items. League Positions: LWVUS Campaign Finance: Improve methods of financing political campaigns in order to ensure the public's right to know, combat corruption and undue influence, enable candidates to compete more equitably for public office and allow maximum citizen participation in the political process. LWVC Campaign Financing (a vertical position): Support state campaign finance practices for candidates and advocates of ballot measure positions that will ensure full disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures and enable candidates to compete more equitably for public office. 1. Public reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures by all candidates and advocates of ballot measure positions in statewide elections. 2. Effective monitoring and enforcement. 4. Realistic limits on contributions by individuals and groups to candidates and ballot measure campaigns. 5. Realistic limits on the amount each candidate and ballot measure committee can spend. Argument: This bill would inappropriately restrict the ability of municipalities to regulate their own elections in ways that the LWVC position would support. The Ethics Commissions of San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, which carry out their cities' campaign regulations, are taking action to oppose AB 1430 and/or ask their city councils to do so. Examples of their concerns include the following. In San Diego, which has strict limits,on the size of contributions to city council, mayoral, and city attorney candidates, fundraisers for local candidates are circumventing those limits by using political parties as conduits for large contributions. The parties use the contributions in member communications to support the candidates and even coordinate their campaign advertising efforts with the candidates. The San Diego Ethics Commission believes AB 1430 is intended to prevent San Diego and other local agencies from enacting laws to restrict such practices. After concerns were raised during its 2001 elections, the city of Los Angeles adopted new measures to regulate independent expenditures, including those made through member communications, that advocate the defeat or support of city candidates The regulations require the disclosure of funding sources for, and timely reporting of, independent expenditures and member communications. The L.A. municipal code contains other restrictions on campaign disclosures, and the L.A. city charter limits contributions for independent spending in city campaigns to $500 per year. Passage of AB 1430 could endanger many of these provisions. Los Angeles has a system of partial public funding in city elections, and the L.A. Ethics Commission also points out that if reporting requirements were narrowed, fewer instances of member communication spending would be known, and therefore expenditure limits would be lifted for publicly funded candidates in fewer situations. The San Francisco Ethics Commission notes that communications by political parties to their members are playing an increasingly influential role in local candidate elections, as much as 70 percent of non- candidate spending in some cities (such as San Diego) in recent years. In L.A., the Ethics Commission reports the figure is approximately 22 percent since 2001 (about $1.8 million). Comments: The author states that AB 1430 "would clarify existing law regarding protected `member communications' for political parties, labor unions, and other membership organizations" and is quoted in the San Diego Union-Tribune as saying that "the imposition of local limits would infringe on the free-speech rights of political parties and other member organizations." However, opponents of the bill such as Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies challenge that idea: If contributions to May 3 1,2007 Assemblyman Martin Garrick California State Assembly District 74 State Capitol,Room 2016 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Assembly Bill 1430 Dear Assemblyman Garrick: We are writing to express the opposition.of the San Diego Ethics Commission to the passage of Assembly Bill 1.430. This bill seeks to prohibit the City of San Diego and all.other local jurisdictions from adopting any laws that limit the source or amount of money used to fund campaign communications between organizations and their members. Through its recent enforcement activities,the Ethics Commission has learned that contributors in San Diego are using the existing state exemption for "member communications" (California Government Code sect-.on 8531.2)to funnel large contributions to political parties in order to benefit their candidates of'choice. In particular,we have learned that fundraisers working for local candidates are using political parties as conduits for large contributions with the understanding that the parties will use the ftinds to support the candidates and will even coordinate their campaign advertising eftbrts with the candidates. In other words, local candidates and political parties are using the member communications exemption to of ectively circumvent local contribution limits. AB 1430 is intended to prevent the City of San Diego and other local jurisdictions from enacting any laws that would restrict the diversion of large contributions to political parties. Without such safeguards, the City's contribution limits could be rendered meaningless. Because contribution limits are a fundamental means by which a governmental agency prevents corruption and the appearance of corruption in the electoral process, the passage of AB 1.430 would constitute a serious setback to campaign.regulations and would arguably take the City of San Diego back to a time before the existence of contribution limits, when special interest groups used large campaign contributions to control City elections and exert undue influence over City officeholders. Assemblvi-nan Martin Garrick I May 31,2007 Page 2 In the Commission's view, it is inappropriate and contrary to public policy for the State legislature to adopt a law intended to prohibit the City of San Diego from regulating the conduct of its own elections. This is especially apparent in light of the fact that the state's campaign laws include a 525,000 contribution limit for member communications that are made by a political. party and coordinated with a state candidate (California Government Code section 85303). A law that endeavors to prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing similar or lower limits is not only illogical and unreasonable, but is also contraryto the public's interest in preventing the 0 appearance of corruption and undue influence in local elections. The bill is also contrary to the provisions of the California Constitution that grant charter cities, such as San Diego, the night to regulate the conduct of their own elections, and it ignores the reasoning in.HeConnell v. FE.C., 540 U.S. 93 (2003), in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of limits on contributions to political parties after observing the inherent dangers of corruption when large contributions are diverted through such parties. As illustrated by the foregoing,the San Diego Ethics Commission strongly opposes the adoption of AB 14')0 and urges the members of the Senate Elections,Reapportionment,and Constitutional Amendments Committee(who are copied on this letter)to vote against this bill. If you require any additional information regarding the Commission's position or the Commission's recent experience with local elections,please contact Stacey Fulhorst at(619) 533-3476. Sincerely, Dorothy Leonard Stacey Fulhorst Chair Executive Director cc: Senator Ron Calderon, Chair, Elections and Reapportionment Committee Senator Jim Baffin,Vice Chair,Elections and Reapportionment Committee Senator Dave Cogdill,Member, Elections and Reapportionment Committee Senator Carole Migden,Member,Elections and Reapportionment Committee Senator Alex Padilla,Member, Elections and Reapportionment Committee Committee Office, Senate Elections and Reapportionment Committee Bill to Gut Local Campaign Finance Laws Blasted by League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and C... Page 1 of 2 Dapkus, Pat From: Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7 Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 11:47 PM Subject: Bill to Gut Local Campaign Finance Laws Blasted by League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and California Clean Money Campaign -California Progress Report Attachments: ATT974928.dat; ATT974929.dat; ATT974930.dat; ATT974931.dat; ATT974932.dat July 2, 2007. 2 comments. Topic: Campaign Finance Reform Bill to Gut Local Campaign Finance Laws Blasted by League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and California Clean Money Campaign By Ned Wigglesworth Policy Advocate California Common Cause The California state legislature stands poised to approve a bill that would wrest control of local elections from cities and counties and vitiate local laws designed to check the financial influence of special interests in local elections. The bill, AB 1430, would prohibit local jurisdictions from regulating the source and amount of money that political parties can use to campaign for candidates — even though the state legislature does the exact same thing for state elections. Jacqueline Jacobberger, President of the League of Women Voters of California says: "This bill is an end run around local campaign finance laws and a gift to special interests who want to dominate local elections with big contributions. A move like this will only feed voters' cynicism about the legislature, undermining the appreciation the public has had for the recent accomplishments of their elected representatives. It seems counter to the spirit of the political reforms that legislators are considering this year." The California Clean Money Campaign, California Common Cause, and League of Women Voters of California oppose AB 1430 for the following reasons: 1. AB 1430 would prevent cities and counties from enacting any laws that would restrict the funneling of large contributions through political parties to benefit candidates — even when the candidate, party, and donor coordinate the payment and expenditure. Without such safeguards, local contribution limits would be rendered meaningless. Contribution limits are a fundamental and constitutional means that cities and counties can and do use to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption in their elections. AB 1430 would create an enormous loophole in these laws, allowing special interest groups to use large campaign contributions to dominate city elections and exert undue influence over city officials. 2. The right of cities and counties to regulate their own elections is enshrined in the state constitution and Political Reform Act. AB 1430 threatens to abridge these rights, substituting the view of the state legislature for that of voters and local officials as to what campaign finance laws best meet the needs of local jurisdictions. This is why the ethics commissions of San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco all either oppose or have asked their city council to oppose AB 1430, and the San Diego Union Tribune and Los Angeles Times have editorialized against the bill as well. 7/23/2007 Bill to Gut Local Campaign Finance Laws Blasted by League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and C... Page 2 of 2 What exactly is the problem this bill is intended to address? The state legislature has passed the exact same law which they would prohibit cities and counties from adopting and enforcing with this bill. If this is truly about free speech', how come the legislature isn't holding itself to the same standard? AB 1430 has passed the Assembly and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Elections Committee on July 10. The League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause, and the California Clean Money Campaign are urging the members of the Senate Elections Committee to vote against this bill. Other resources: San Diego Union Tribune -- No on AB 1430 Editorial (6/22) Los Angeles Times -- No on AB 1430 (6/19) Ned Wigglesworth,joined Common Cause as a policy advocate earlier this year, after working as a corporate lawyer, bartender and creative writer. From these experiences and his time spent growing up on a sheep farm in Kansas, Ned brings a common-sense populist perspective to the problem of big money in politics. 74 rw0 .., Comments Larry K. Gallup July 2, 2007 at 06:02 PM Ned (and Frank R. and Bill C.) - glad to see you have posted this article. I agree with it. Now, do I read it saying that some cities have not gotton into campaign regulations much yet? And AB 1430 aims to restrict them from doing just that. Ugh. Taking the "right" away from citizens? no way. The Legislature should bury it, or let it sit in committee as one could say. Larry Gallup Larry K. Gallup July 2, 2007 at 06:09 PM Ned (and Frank R. and Bill C.) - glad to see you have posted this article. I agree with it. Now, do I read it saying that some cities have not gotton into campaign regulations much yet? And AB 1430 aims to restrict them from doing just that. Ugh. Taking the "right" away from citizens? no way. The Legislature should bury it, or let it sit in committee as one could say. Larry Gallup © 2006 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy• Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling. 7/23/2007 AB 1430 IS A MODEST PROPOSAL THAT SHOULD BE PASSED - California Progress Report Page 1 of 3 Dapkus, Pat From: Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7 Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 11:45 PM Subject: AB 1430 IS A MODEST PROPOSAL THAT SHOULD BE PASSED -California Progress Report Attachments: ATT974987.dat; ATT974988.dat; ATT974989.dat; ATT974990.dat; ATT974991.dat July 5, 2007. 1 comments. Topic: Campaign Finance Reform AB 1430 IS A MODEST PROPOSAL THAT SHOULD BE PASSED By Bill Cavala A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento The "Good Government" groups are mobilizing editorial support to oppose AB 1430, legislation that would restrict the ability of local government to clip the wings of political parties attempting to support their local candidates. They argue that this legislation would allow parties to circumvent some of the manyb ., local ordinances that limit the source and size of contributions to candidates. They are correct, it will allow such circumvention. And that is a good thing. Campaign reformers may have their hearts in the right place, but they are wrong headed in their efforts. Efforts to eliminate corruption or the "appearance of corruption" have failed. Totally failed. As just one example, in today's LA TIMES there is a story that notes Governor Schwarzenegger flies in privately chartered jets overseas courtesy of a "charitable" foundation. "Donations" to this foundation are tax deductible (while campaign contributions are not). Further, the contributors enjoying their tax break, are unknown to the public because the foundation (unlike a campaign) doesn't have to disclose the identity of its contributors. All we know is that the Ex. Director of the Chamber of Commerce (which does lobby the Governor on occasion) is on the Board of Directors of the "charitable" foundation that pays for the Governor's flights. That the "reform" organizations would attack the actions of political parties - which must be transparent by law - while turning away from such an obvious, blatant misuse of a 501(c)(3) is outrageous. Local governments like that in the City of San Diego have some of the toughest contribution limits in the United States. No corporate contributions. No labor contributions. Only personal, individual contributions of $350. For a registered population of almost 600,000 voters. That households down to about 420,000 voters. To mail to them, once - at about $.50 A household - would cost $210,000. A light television program would cost about the same. That's about 1500 contributions within the limits. Republicans can manage that. Democrats cannot. 7/23/2007 AB 1430 IS A MODEST PROPOSAL THAT SHOULD BE PASSED - California Progress Report Page 2 of 3 So Democratic candidates must rely on "independent expenditures" or Party expenditures. The latter can be coordinated with the candidate's campaign and are effective. The former cannot be coordinated - and are often not only ineffective, but counter productive. Independent expenditures are constitutionally protected from the picklocks of reformers. Party expenditures are not. But regulations of parties can and should be preempted by the State so that local establishments can't simply act to retain their own monopoly on campaign resources. The San Diego Union Tribune - that paragon of reform - opposes AB 1430 for that reason. Bill Cavala was Deputy Director of the Assembly Speaker's Office of Member Services where he worked for over 30 years. He attended undergraduate and graduate school in the 1960's and received a doctorate in political science at UC Berkeley. He taught political science at UC Berkeley during the 1970's while he worked part-time for the State Assembly. Cavala left teaching at UC Berkeley and went to work for Assembly Speaker Willie Brown in 1981 until his tenure as Speaker ended in 1995, and he has worked for his five successors as Speaker up to and including Speaker Fabian Nunez. Mr. Cavala manages election campaigns for Democratic candidates. . 4;[�trh'1rt�f� � zi� � Comments Ned Wigglesworth July 5, 2007 at 01:22 PM AB 1430 would prevetn cities and counties from regulating the following actions: Candidate Jones asks best friend billionaire Donor Smith to give $1 million to his political party to be spent on fliers to party members encouraging them to vote for Jones. Smith makes the donation, coordinating with the party to ensure it gets spent advocating his friend's election in a local race. This situation is rife with risk of exactly the kind of corruption that cities and counties have a right to combat ... just like the state can and does for state candidates. In other words, AB 1430 would bar cities and counties from passing the very laws that the state legislature already has passed, advocating a one-size-fits-all approach to all elections, regardless of the size of jurisdiction. If it were to pass AB 1430, the state legislature would be declaring itself the best body to decide how much a candidate for county treasurer or city council or local school board can raise and funnel through a political party for that candidate's benefit. You think people in Modesto, or Burbank, or San Francisco want the folks in Sacramento telling them how to regulate their elections? The Ethics Commissions of San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco have already answered that question with a resounding NO. Before making this bold statement that Sacramento knows best, the legislature may want to carefully consider how such a decision is going to play at the kitchen tables around California in the months to come. 7/23/2007 AB 1430 IS A MODEST PROPOSAL THAT SHOULD BE PASSED - California Progress Report Page 3 of 3 © 2006 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use polio Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling. 7/23/2007 SignOnSanDiego.com>News > Politics -- Campaign spending bill draws protest Page 1 of 3 Dapkus, Pat From: Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7 Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 9:54 PM Subject: Sig nOnSan Diego.corn > News > Politics -- Campaign spending bill draws protest Attachments: ATT975010.dat; ATT975011.dat; ATT975012.dat; ATT975013.dat; ATT975014.dat; ATT975015.dat; ATT975016.dat; ATT975017.dat; ATT975018.dat; ATT975019.dat; ATT975020.dat; ATT975021.dat; ATT975022.dat; ATT975023.dat; ATT975024.dat; ATT975025.dat; ATT975026.dat S1gn0nftwFD1Mp.com MYTMUNION-TRMUNK Weather I Traffic I Surf I Maps I Webcam . . Choose Category Politics News Campaign spending bill draws protest Metro I Latest News North County Temecula/Riverside Ethics panel says state is meddling Tijuana/Border B Ronald W. Powell Quicklinks California y --- Nation UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER Restaurants Bars Mexico June 17 2007 Hotels Autos World Shopping Health F Eldercare o Singles Obituaries An Assembly bill apparently headed for passage has set off a debate Today's Paper over how much control local governments should have over campaign AP Headlines contributions. Business Listings Business -= Technology Although cities,the county Board of Supervisors and school boards can Biotech set limits on contributions by individuals,they have no control over the Markets money political parties,unions and other member organizations spend Free Newsletters In Depth on candidates. S g On rile,N, l In Iraq Assembly Bill 1430,sponsored by Carlsbad Republican Martin Garrick, Sign Up Now! Pension crisis would ensure that those groups can continue spending without limit. Special Reports The bill passed the Assembly on a 77-0 vote last month and is awaiting Cell Phone Alerts ' Multimedia consideration by the state Senate. Privacy Policy Photo Galleries Topics The San Diego Ethics Commission voted last month to oppose the bill and sent a protest to Garrick,arguing that the bill would deny local Education jurisdictions the constitutional right to regulate their elections. Guides Features Health I Fitness "In San Diego,our concern is that they're adopting a law that restricts Vegas Spas/Salon 0 Military what a local government can do regarding their own elections,"said Travel Weddings Politics DorothyLeonard,the commission's chairwoman. "It's poor public Wine Old Town p p Baja o Catering Science policy." Casino Home Imp. Solutions Although local races are nonpartisan,political parties have spent large Golf SID North Opinion Gaslamp amounts of money on city council and mayoral candidates,working Columnists with them to produce campaign mailers,door hangers and other Steve Breen material. Such publications are called"member communications" Forums because they are sent only to members of a given political party or Weblogs organization. Communities In 2oo6,the county Republican Party spent $933,275 on candidates in u-T south County San Diego City Council elections,up from $365,921 in 2004.The U-T East County 7/23/2007 SignOnSanDiego.com>News>Politics -- Campaign spending bill draws protest Page 2 of 3 Solutions Calendar county Democratic Party spent$334,748,up from$224,341 in 2004. Just Fix It The largest beneficiaries of Republican money in San Diego's 2oo6 Services races were City Councilman Kevin Faulconer,who received$415,903 Weather for his District 2 race, and Mayor Jerry Sanders,who received Traffic $308,736• Surf Report Archives City Councilwoman Donna Frye received$165,563 from the Democratic Party in 2oo6,followed by council candidate Lorena E-mail Newsletters Gonzalez,who received$88,716 in her race against Faulconer. Wireless I RSS Noticias en Enlace Political 'conduits' Internet Access While the parties or organizations must disclose the contributions to the state,the candidates do not have to disclose them. o $' The San Diego Ethics Commission has seen evidence that fundraisers working for candidates for city offices"are using political parties as conduits for large contributions,"said Stacey Fulhorst,the commission's executive director. ON She said that allows candidates to circumvent local individual ,,,,- contribution limits in citywide races,which in San Diego are $27o for council candidates and$320 for mayoral and city attorney candidates. Fulhorst said cities should have the right to consider limits on member communications to prevent corruption or the appearance of undue influence on an official who has received hefty contributions from a political party. Sponsored Links The Ethics Commission wants to study whether San Diego should establish local spending limits.The city of Los Angeles limits member communications to $500 for council candidates and$1,00o for the mayor and other officials. "There's enough evidence here that this amounts to a large portion of campaign activity in San Diego,"Fulhorst said."Whether it should be regulated or not remains to be seen. But for the state to adopt a law that says hands off forever seems ill-advised." Limiting limits Garrick said he drafted the legislation partly because ethics commissions in San Diego and other California cities are starting to consider limits on member communications,which California voters approved in 200o as part of amendments to campaign regulations. "This is a way to stop the confusion that would arise out of every city having its own ordinance on this,"said Garrick,adding that he is "honored"to have bipartisan support for his bill. Garrick,who drafted the bill with the help of state Republican Party general counsel Chuck Bell,said the imposition of local limits would infringe on the free-speech rights of political parties and other member organizations—an assertion that is scoffed at by opponents of the bill. They point out that state law limits member communication contributions from political parties to $25,000 for candidates running for state office.Neither Garrick nor Bell said he would challenge the state limit on free-speech grounds. 7/23/2007 SignOnSanDiego.com>News>Politics -- Campaign spending bill draws protest Page 3 of 3 "If campaign limits don't hamper free speech at the state level,then why would they hamper speech at the local level?"said Robert Stern, a political reform expert and president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. San Diego City Council President Scott Peters said he supports the city adopting a $25,000 limit like the state's. Peters received$82,551 in member communications money in 2004. Sanders said he does not have a position on the bill. The San Diego Ethics Commission considered asking the City Council to take a stand against the bill but decided not to because it seems destined for passage,Fulhorst said. Garrick,a former official in the county Republican Party,said the bill is no cause for alarm because political parties or unions are only allowed to communicate with their registered members—not everyone in a given council district or city. Stern said he believes the state parties are pushing the legislation so they can have greater control of local elections. He said cities'attempts to rein in campaign spending will fail if the bill becomes law. "The payoff is that more campaign money will be spent and there will be much more special-interest influence in San Diego,"Stern said. "San Diego has some of the toughest(campaign)laws in the country. But they won't have an effect if this law passes." ■ Ronald W. Powell: (619) 718-5070; ron.powell@uniontrib.com Sponsored Links Contact Sign.OnSanDiego.com I On.1_in.e Media_Kit I Print Media Kit IF..requently Asked_Questions I Ma_ke us your,h..omepage Contact the Union-Tribune I About the Union-Tribune I Site Index I Privacy&Copyright Policy I Your California Privacy Rights ©Copyright 2007 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. •A Copley Newspaper Site 7/23/2007 Nanny state, redux I The San Diego Union-Tribune Page 1 of 2 Dapkus, Pat From: Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7 Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 10:11 PM Subject: Nanny state, redux I The San Diego Union-Tribune Attachments: ATT975039.dat; ATT975040.dat; ATT975041.dat; ATT975042.dat; ATT975043.dat; ATT975044.dat; ATT975045.dat; ATT975046.dat S1Sn0nMm0kg@.com MY TM UN[C - UNU Weather Tr Choose Category Friday Advertisements from the - �' print edition *Next Story» Nevus UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL Local News Nanny state, redux Opinion Business Sports Garrick bill infringes on local control Currents Weekend Front page(PDF) June 22,2007 The East Week Forgive them,for sometimes they just don't know what the heck they're Sunday doing. Monday Tuesday That can be the only logical explanation for how Assembly Bill 1430, Wednesday which would impose a whole new layer of state interference in local Thursday affairs,passed quietly through the lower house in Sacramento last month Friday with nary a voice in opposition. Saturday The Democrats are one thing;they love central control from Sacramento Weekly Sections over just about everything,so it's little surprise that they all voted for it. Books But every single Republican in attendance on May 24 also voted for it. Personal Tech Every single one of them. Not only that,but the bill's primary sponsor is Family a Republican,San Diego County's own Martin Garrick of Solana Beach, Food who brags on his Web site that he is a Reagan Republican and"lifelong Health conservative advocate."And he drafted the bill with the help of the state Home GOP's top lawyer. Homescape Ronald Reagan,the foremost champion of local control,is surely stirring Insight and stewing over this one. InStyle Night&Day AB 1430 would prohibit all local governments—counties,school boards, Street even charter cities such as San Diego —from imposing limits on how Sunday Arts much money political parties,labor unions and other membership Travel organizations can spend in communicating with their members about Quest their favored political candidates. Wheels The state currently restricts member-communication contributions from Subscribe to the UT political parties to $25,000 for candidates for state office.A number of local governments have already imposed,or are considering,far tougher restrictions on member contributions for local campaigns out of a concern that such contributions undermine local ordinances intended to limit the increasingly pernicious effect of unlimited money in local politics. Los Angeles has had such limits for 16 years. The San Diego Ethics Commission is among those studying whether to 7/23/2007 Nanny state, redux The San Diego Union-Tribune Page 2 of 2 recommend such limits to the City Council.And Council President Scott ` Peters told Union-Tribune staff writer Ron Powell that he would support r a $25,000 limit just like the state's. a" * '� Garrick says he wants to avoid a confusing array of differing local laws up and down the state. But that's a straw-man argument.There is already a confusing array of differing local campaign finance laws up and down the state and candidates and organizations seem to deal with it just fine. More substantively,Garrick argued that the limits infringe on the free- speech rights of political parties and other membership organizations. Frankly,we agree with him wholeheartedly on that. Political parties, labor unions and other organizations ought to be able to spend as much as they want communicating with their members about candidates for public office. Sponsored Links But legislators cannot credibly argue that it's OK for the state to violate free-speech rights with its own limit but not OK for local governments to do it. Besides,the real point is local control over local affairs.You either support it or you don't.Apparently not one member of the Assembly supports it. »Next Story» Contact SignOnSanDie o.com I Online Media Kit I Print Media Kit I Frequently Asked uestions I Make us your homepa Contact the Union-Tribune I About the Union-Tribune I Site Index J Privacy Policy_ Your California Privacy Rights ©Copyright 2007 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. •A Copley Newspaper Site 7/23/2007 b 6 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page I of 24 jS4561S 110th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 456 To increase and enhance law enforcement resources committed to investigation and prosecution of violent gangs, to deter and punish violent gang crime, to protect law-abiding Icitizens and communities from violent criminals, to revise and enhance criminal penalties for 1 violent crimes, to expand and improve gang prevention programs, and for other purposes. s IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES January 31,. 2007 Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. KYL, Mr. STEVENS, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. COLEMAN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. SALAZAR, Mrs. MURRAY Mr. BROWN, Mrs. CLINTON, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. KOHL, and ! ,Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To increase and enhance law enforcement resources committed to investigation and i prosecution of violent gangs, to deter and punish violent gang crime, to protect law-abiding Icitizens and communities from violent criminals, to revise and enhance criminal penalties for violent crimes, to expand and improve gang prevention programs, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, ISECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ' Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007'. C. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. The table of contents of this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title. Sec. 2. Table of contents. Sec. 3. Findings. TITLE I--NEW FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS NEEDED TO FIGHT NATIONAL http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c I I 0:./temp/—c 11 OpsyS 64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 2 of 24 GANGS Sec. 101. Revision and extension of penalties related to criminal street gang activity. TITLE 11--VIOLENT CRIME REFORMS TO REDUCEG VIOLENCE Sec. 201. Violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity. Sec. 202. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Sec. 203. Expansion of rebuttable presumption against release of persons charged with firearms offenses. Sec. 204. Statute of limitations for violent crime. Sec. 205. Study of hearsay exception for forfeiture by wrongdoing. Sec. 206. Possession of firearms by dangerous felons. Sec. 207. Conforming amendment. Sec. 208. Amendments relating to violent crime. Sec. 209. Crimes of violence and drug crimes committed by illegal aliens. Sec. 210. Publicity campaign about new criminal penalties. Sec. 211. Statute of limitations for terrorism offenses. Sec. 212. Crimes committed in Indian country or exclusive Federal jurisdiction as racketeering predicates. Sec. 213. Predicate crimes for authorization of interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications. Sec. 214. Clarification of Hobbs Act. ITLE III--INCREASED FEDERAL RESOURCES TO DETERRED/ENT AT- RISK YOUTH FROM JOINING ILLEGAL STREET GANGS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Sec. 301. Designation of and assistance for high intensity interstate gang activity areas. Sec. 302. Enhancement of Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative to improve enforcement of criminal laws against violent gangs. Sec. 303. Additional resources needed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c 110:./temp/—c 11 OpsyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 3 of 24 investigate and prosecute violent criminal street gangs. Sec. 304. Grants to prosecutors and law enforcement to combat violent crime. Sec. 305. Short-Term State Witness Protection Section. Sec. 306. Witness protection services. Sec. 307. Expansion of Federal witness relocation and protection program. Sec. 308. Family abduction prevention grant program. FINDINGS. Congress finds that-- (1) violent crime and drug trafficking are pervasive problems at the national, State, and local level; (2) according to recent Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, violent crime in the United States is on the rise, with a 2.5 percent increase in violent crime in 2005 (the largest increase in the United States in 15 years) and an even larger 3.7 percent jump during the first 6 months of 2006; (3) these disturbing rises in violent crime are attributable in part to the spread of criminal street gangs and the willingness of gang members to commit acts of violence and drug trafficking offenses; (4) according to a recent National Drug Threat Assessment, criminal street gangs are responsible for much of the retail distribution of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and other illegal drugs being distributed in rural and urban communities throughout the United States; (5) gangs commit acts of violence or drug offenses for numerous motives, such as membership in or loyalty to the gang, for protecting gang territory, and for profit; (6) gang presence and intimidation, and the organized and repetitive nature of the crimes that gangs commit, has a pernicious effect on the free flow of interstate commercial activities and directly affects the freedom and security of communities plagued by gang activity, diminishing the value of property, inhibiting the desire of national and multinational corporations to transact business in those communities, and in a variety of ways significantly affecting interstate and foreign commerce; (7) gangs often recruit and utilize minors to engage in acts of violence and other serious offenses out of a belief that the criminal justice systems are more lenient on juvenile offenders; (8) gangs often intimidate and threaten witnesses to prevent successful prosecutions; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?cI 10:./temp/—c1 10psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 4 of 24 (9) gang recruitment can be deterred through increased vigilance, strong criminal penalties, partnerships between Federal and State and local law enforcement, and proactive intervention efforts, particularly targeted at juveniles, prior to gang involvement; (10) State and local prosecutors and law enforcement officers, in hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and elsewhere, have enlisted the help of Congress in the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes and in the protection of witnesses and victims of gang crimes; and (11) because State and local prosecutors and law enforcement have the expertise, experience, and connection to the community that is needed to assist in combating gang violence, consultation and coordination between Federal, State, and local law enforcement is critical to the successful prosecutions of criminal street gangs. TITLE I--NEW FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS NEEDED TO FIGHT NATIONAL GANGS C. 101. REVISION AND EXTENSION OF PENALTIES RELATED TO CRIMINAL STREET GANG ACTIVITY. (a) In General- Chapter 26 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ' CHAPTER 26--CRIMINAL STREET GANGS ' Sec. 521. Definitions. 522. Criminal street gang prosecutions. 523. Recruitment of persons to participate in a criminal street gang. 524. Violent crimes in furtherance of criminal street gangs. ' 525. Forfeiture. ' Sec. 521. Definitions ` In this chapter: ' (1) CRIMINAL STREET GANG- The term ' criminal street gang' means a formal or informal group or association of 5 or more individuals, who commit 3 or more gang crimes (not less than 1 of which is a serious violent felony), in 3 or more separate criminal episodes (not less than 1 of which occurs after the date of enactment of the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007, and the last of which occurs not later than 5 years after the commission of a prior gang crime (excluding any time of imprisonment for that individual)). ' (2) GANG CRIME- The term ' gang crime' means a felony offense under Federal or http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c I 10:./temp/—c11 OpsyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 5 of 24 State law punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, in any of the following categories: ' (A) A crime that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or is burglary, arson, or extortion. ' (B) A crime involving obstruction of justice, or tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant. ' (C) A crime involving the manufacturing, importing, distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or otherwise trafficking in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)). ' (D) Any conduct punishable under-- ' (i) section 844 (relating to explosive materials); ' (ii) subsection (a)(1), (d), (g)(1) (where the underlying conviction is a violent felony or a serious drug offense (as those terms are defined in section 924(e)), (g)(2), (9)(3), (9)(4), (g)(5), (9)(8), (9)(9), (i), (J), (k), (n), (o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating to unlawful acts); ' (iii) subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (1), (m), or (n) of section 924 (relating to penalties); ' (iv) section 930 (relating to possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities); ' (v) section 931 (relating to purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons); ' (vi) sections 1028 and 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents or access devices); ' (vii) section 1084 (relating to transmission of wagering information); ' (viii) section 1952 (relating to interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises); • (ix) section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments); • (x) section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity); or ' (xi) sections 2312 through 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles or stolen property). ' (E) Any conduct punishable under section 274 (relating to bringing in and `http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c 110:./temp/—c 110psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 6 of 24 harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of aliens for immoral purposes) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324, 1327, and 1328). ' (F) Any crime involving aggravated sexual abuse, pimping or promoting prostitution, obscenity (including sections 1461 through 1465), sexual exploitation of children (including sections 2251, 2251A, 2252 and 2260), peonage, slavery or trafficking in persons (including sections 1581 through 1592) and sections 2421 through 2427 (relating to transport for illegal sexual activity). ' (3) MINOR- The term ' minor' means an individual who is less than 18 years of age. ' (4) SERIOUS VIOLENT FELONY- The term ' serious violent felony' has the meaning given that term in section 3559. ' (5) STATE- The term ' State' means each of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. ' Sec. 522. Criminal street gang prosecutions ' (a) Street Gang Crime- It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly commit, or conspire, threaten, or attempt to commit, a gang crime for the purpose of furthering the activities of a criminal street gang, or gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in a criminal street gang, if the activities of that criminal street gang occur in or affect interstate or foreign commerce. ' (b) Penalty- Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title and-- ' (1) for murder, kidnapping, conduct that would violate section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or maiming, imprisonment for any term of years or for life; ' (2) for any other serious violent felony, by imprisonment for not more than 30 yea rs; ' (3) for any crime of violence that is not a serious violent felony, by imprisonment for not more than 20 years; and ' (4) for any other offense, by imprisonment for not more than 10 years. Sec. 523. Recruitment of persons to participate in a criminal street gang ' (a) Prohibited Acts- It shall be unlawful to knowingly recruit, employ, solicit, induce, command, or cause another person to be or remain as a member of a criminal street gang, or attempt or conspire to do so, with the intent to cause that person to participate in an offense described in section 5221 if the defendant travels in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of the offense, or if the activities of that criminal street gang are http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c 110:./temp/—c 110psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 7 of 24 in or affect interstate or foreign commerce. (b) Penalties- Whoever violates subsection (a) shall-- ' (1) if the person recruited, employed, solicited, induced, commanded, or caused to participate or remain in a criminal street gang is a minor-- ' (A) be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and • (B) at the discretion of the sentencing judge, be liable for any costs incurred by the Federal Government, or by any State or local government, for housing, maintaining, and treating the minor until the person attains the age of 18 yea rs; (2) if the person who recruits, employs, solicits, induces, commands, or causes the participation or remaining in a criminal street gang is incarcerated at the time the offense takes place, be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and ' (3) in any other case, be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. ' (c) Consecutive Nature of Penalties- Any term of imprisonment imposed under subsection (b)(2) shall be consecutive to any term imposed for any other offense. Sec. 52 . Violent crimes in furtherance of criminal street gangs ' (a) In General- It shall be unlawful for any person, for the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in, or in furtherance of, or in association with, a criminal street gang, or as consideration for anything of pecuniary value to or from a criminal street gang, to knowingly commit a crime of violence or threaten to commit a crime of violence against any individual, or attempt or conspire to do so, if the activities of the criminal state gang occur in or affect interstate or foreign commerce. ' (b) Penalty- Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be punished by a fine under this title and-- ' (1) for murder, kidnapping, conduct that would violate section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or maiming, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life; ' (2) for a serious violent felony other than one described in paragraph (1), by imprisonment for not more than 30 years; and ' (3) in any other case, by imprisonment for not more than 20 years. Sec. 525. Forfeiture ' (a) Criminal Forfeiture- A person who is convicted of a violation of this chapter shall forfeit to the United States-- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?cI 10:./ternp/—c l 10psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 8 of 24 (1) any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, the violation; and (2) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the violation. (b) Procedures Applicable- Pursuant to section 2461(c) of title 28, the provisions of section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsections (a) and (d) of that section, shall apply to the criminal forfeiture of property under this section.'. (b) Amendment Relating to Priority of Forfeiture Over Orders for Restitution- Section 3663(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 'chapter 46 or' and inserting ' chapter 26, chapter 46, or' . (c) Money Laundering- Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting section 522 (relating to criminal street gang prosecutions), 523 (relating to recruitment of persons to participate in a criminal street gang), and 524 (relating to violent crimes in furtherance of criminal street gangs)' before ' , section 541'. TITLE II--VIOLENT CRIME REFORMS TO REDUCE GANG VIOLENCE C. 201. VIOLENT CRIMES IN AID OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY. Section 1959(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)-- (A) by inserting ' or in furtherance or in aid of an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity,' before ' murders,'; and (B) by inserting ' engages in conduct that would violate section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,' before ' maims,'; (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ' conduct that would violate section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or maiming,' after ' kidnapping,'; (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ' maiming' and inserting I assault resulting in serious bodily injury'; (4) in paragraph (3), by striking ' or assault resulting in serious bodily injury'; (5) in paragraph (4)-- (A) by striking ' five years' and inserting ' 10 years'; and (B) by adding 'and' at the end; and (6) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and inserting the following: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c 110:./temp/—c 110psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 9 of 24 (5) for attempting or conspiring to commit any offense under this section, by the same penalties (other than the death penalty) as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.'. SEC. 202. MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED I G AND IN RELATION TO A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME. (a) In General- Part D of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: SEC. 424. MURDER AND OTHERVIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED DURING AND IN RELATIONTO A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME. (a) In General- Whoever, during and in relation to any drug trafficking crime, knowingly commits any felony crime of violence against any individual, for which imprisonment for a period longer than 1 year may be imposed, or threatens, attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by a fine under title 18, United States Code, and, in addition and consecutive to the punishment provided for the drug trafficking crime-- ' (1) for murder, kidnapping, conduct that would violate section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or maiming, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life; (2) for a serious violent felony (as defined in section 3559 of title 18, United States Code) other than one described in paragraph (1) by imprisonment for not more than 30 years; (3) for a crime of violence that is not a serious violent felony, by imprisonment for not more than 20 years; and ' (4) in any other case by imprisonment for not more than 10 years. (b) Venue- A prosecution for a violation of this section may be brought in-- ' (1) the judicial district in which the murder or other crime of violence occurred; or (2) any judicial district in which the drug trafficking crime may be prosecuted. (c) Definitions- In this section— ' (1) the term ' crime of violence' has the meaning given that term in section 16 of title 18, United States Code; and ' (2) the term ' drug trafficking crime' has the meaning given that term in section 924(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code.'. (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents for the Controlled Substances Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 423, the following: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?cI 10:./temp/—c l 10psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 10 of 24 ' Sec. 424. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.'. C. 203. EXPANSION E UJ TA LE PRESUMPTION AGAI S RELEASE F PERSONS CHARGED WIT FIREARMS FE S . Section 3142(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the matter following paragraph (3), by inserting after 'that the person committed' the following: ' an offense under subsection (g)(1) (where the underlying conviction is a drug trafficking crime or crime of violence (as those terms are defined in section 924(c))), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8), or (g)(9) of section 922,'. C. 20 . STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIME. (a) In General- Chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ' Sec. 32A. Violent crime offenses ' No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital felony crime of violence, including any racketeering activity or gang crime which involves any crime of violence, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted not later than 10 years after the date on which the alleged violation occurred or the continuing offense was completed.'. (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ' 3299A. Violent crime offenses.'. C. 205. STUDY OF HEARSAY EXCEPTION FORFORFEITURE Y WRONGDOING. The Committee on Rules, Practice, Procedure, and Evidence of the Judicial Conference of the United States shall study the necessity and desirability of amending section 804(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence to permit the introduction of statements against a party by a witness who has been made unavailable where it is reasonably foreseeable by that party that wrongdoing would make the declarant unavailable. C. 20 . POSSESSION OF FIREARMS BY DANGEROUS FELONS. (a) In General- Section 924(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: ' (1) In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and has previously been convicted by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) of a violent felony or a serious drug offense shall-- ' (A) in the case of 1 such prior conviction, where a period of not more than 10 years http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c 110:./temp/—c 110psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 11 of 24 has elapsed since the later of the date of conviction and the date of release of the person from imprisonment for that conviction, be imprisoned for not more than 15 years, fined under this title, or both; (B) in the case of 2 such prior convictions, committed on occasions different from one another, and where a period of not more than 10 years has elapsed since the later of the date of conviction and the date of release of the person from imprisonment for the most recent such conviction, be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both; and (C) in the case of 3 such prior convictions, committed on occasions different from one another, and where a period of not more than 10 years has elapsed since the later of date of conviction and the date of release of the person from imprisonment for the most recent such conviction, be imprisoned for any term of years not less than 15 years or for life and fined under this title, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not suspend the sentence of, or grant a probationary sentence to, such person with respect to the conviction under section 922(g).'. (b) Amendment to Sentencing Guidelines- Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to provide for an appropriate increase in the offense level for violations of section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, in accordance with section 924(e) of that title 18, as amended by subsection (a). SEC. 207. CONFORMING E T. The matter preceding paragraph (1) in section 922(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting transfer,' after sell'. C. 20 . AMENDMENTS RELATING TO VIOLENT CRIME. (a) Carjacking- Section 2119 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)-- (A) by striking with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm'; (B) by inserting ' in the physical presence of, and causing a reasonable apprehension of fear in, another individual' after ' by force and violence'; and (C) by inserting ' or conspires' after ' attempts ; (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ' 15 years' and inserting ' 20 years'; and (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ' or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both' and inserting ' and imprisoned for any term of years or for life'. (b) Clarification and Strengthening of Prohibition on Illegal Gun Transfers to Commit Drug Trafficking Crime or Crime of Violence- Section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?cl 10:./temp/—c 110psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 12 of 24 ' (h) Whoever knowingly transfers a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce, knowing that the firearm will be used to commit, or possessed in furtherance of, a crime of violence (as defined in subsection (c)(3)) or drug trafficking crime (as defined in subsection (c)(2)) shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not more than 20 years.'. (c) Amendment of Special Sentencing Provision Relating to Limitations on Criminal Association- Section 3582(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) by inserting ' chapter 26 of this title (criminal street gang prosecutions) or in' after 'felony set forth in'; and (2) by inserting ' a criminal street gang or' before ' an illegal enterprise'. (d) Conspiracy Penalty- Section 371 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ' five years, or both.' and inserting ' 20 years (unless the maximum penalty for the crime that served as the object of the conspiracy has a maximum penalty of imprisonment of less than 20 years, in which case the maximum penalty under this section shall be the penalty for such crime), or both. This paragraph does not supersede any other penalty specifically set forth for a conspiracy offense.'. SEC. 209. CRIMES OF VIOLENCE AND DRUG CRIMES COMMITTED BY ILLEGAL ALIENS. (a) Offenses- Title 18 of the United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 51 the following new chapter: ' CHAPTER 52--ILLEGAL ALIENS ' Sec. 1131. Enhanced penalties for certain crimes committed by illegal aliens. Sec. 1131. Enhanced penalties for certain crimes committed by illegal aliens (a) In General- Whoever, being an alien who is present in the United States in violation of section 275 or 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1325 and 1326), knowingly commits, conspires, or attempts to commit a felony crime of violence for which imprisonment for a period of more than 1 year may be imposed, or a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c)), shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (b) Previously Ordered Removed- If the defendant in a prosecution under subsection (a) was previously ordered removed under the Immigration and Nationality Act on the grounds of having committed a crime, the defendant shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. ' (c) Running of Sentence- A term of imprisonment imposed for an offense pursuant to this section may not run concurrently with any other sentence of imprisonment imposed http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c1 10:./temp/—c 110psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 13 of 24 for another offense.'. (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of chapters at the beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 51 the following new item: 1131'. SEC. 21 . PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN BOUT NEW CRIMINAL ALI . The Attorney General is authorized to conduct media campaigns in any area designated as a high intensity interstate gang activity area under section 301 and any area with existing and emerging problems with gangs, as needed, to educate individuals in that area about the changes in criminal penalties made by this Act, and shall report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives the amount of expenditures and all other aspects of the media campaign. SEC. 211. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TERRORISM FFE SES. Section 3286(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ' Eight-Year' and inserting 'Ten-Year'; and (2) in the first sentence, by striking ' 8 years' and inserting ' 10 years'. SEC. 212. CRIMES COMMITTED INDIAN COUNTRY OR EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION AS RACKETEERING PREDICATES. Section 1961(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting or would have been so chargeable if the act or threat (other than gambling) had not been committed in Indian country (as defined in section 1151) or in any other area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction,' after ' chargeable under State law'. SEC. 213. PREDICATE CRIMES FO AUTHORIZATION OF INTERCEPTION WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS. Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking ' or' and the end of paragraph (r); (2) by redesignating paragraph (s) as paragraph (u); and (3) by inserting after paragraph (r) the following: (s) any violation of section 424 of the Controlled Substances Act (relating to murder and other violent crimes in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime); (t) any violation of section 522, 523, or 524 (relating to criminal street gangs); or . http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c 110:./temp/—c 110psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 14 of 24 SEC. 214. CLARIFICATION OF HOBBS ACT. Section 1951(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ' including the unlawful impersonation of a law enforcement officer (as that term is defined in section 245(c) of this title),' after by means of actual or threatened force,'; and (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ' including the unlawful impersonation of a law enforcement officer (as that term is defined in section 245(c) of this title),' after by wrongful use of actual or threatened force,'. TITLE III--INCREASED FEDERAL RESOURCES TO DETER AND PREVENT AT-RISK YOUTH FROM JOINING ILLEGAL STREET GSA FOR OTHER PURPOSES SEC. 301. DESIGNATION OF AND ASSISTANCE FOR HIGH INTENSITY INTERSTATE GANG ACTIVITY AREAS. (a) Definitions- In this section: (1) GOVERNOR- The term ' Governor' means a Governor of a State, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the tribal leader of an Indian tribe, or the chief executive of a Commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. (2) HIGH INTENSITY INTERSTATE GANG ACTIVITY AREA- The term ' high intensity interstate gang activity area' or ' HIIGAA' means an area within a State or Indian country that is designated as a high intensity interstate gang activity area under subsection (b)(1). (3) INDIAN COUNTRY- The term ' Indian country' has the meaning given the term in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code. (4) INDIAN TRIBE- The term ' Indian tribe' has the meaning given the term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 4 5 0 b(e)). (5) STATE- The term ' State' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. (6) TRIBAL LEADER- The term ' tribal leader' means the chief executive officer representing the governing body of an Indian tribe. (b) High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas- (1) DESIGNATION- The Attorney General, after consultation with the Governors of appropriate States, may designate as high intensity interstate gang activity areas, specific areas that are located within 1 or more States. (2) ASSISTANCE- In order to provide Federal assistance to high intensity interstate http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c I I 0:./temp/—c 11 OpsyS 64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 15 of 24 gang activity areas, the Attorney General shall-- (A) establish local collaborative working groups, which shall include-- (i) criminal street gang enforcement teams, consisting of Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement authorities, for the coordinated investigation, disruption, apprehension, and prosecution of criminal street gangs and offenders in each high intensity interstate gang activity area; 00 school, community, and faith leaders in the area; and (iii) service providers in the community, including those experienced at reaching youth who have been involved in violence and violent gangs or groups, to provide at-risk youth with positive alternatives to gangs and other violent groups and to address the needs of those who leave gangs and other violent groups; (B) direct the reassignment or detailing from any Federal department or agency (subject to the approval of the head of that department or agency, in the case of a department or agency other than the Department of Justice) of personnel to each criminal street gang enforcement team; (C) provide all necessary funding for the operation of each local collaborative working group in each high intensity interstate gang activity area; and (D) provide all necessary funding for national and regional meetings of local collaborative working groups, criminal street gang enforcement teams, and all other related organizations, as needed, to ensure effective operation of such teams through the sharing of intelligence and best practices and for any other related purpose. (3) COMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL STREET GANG ENFORCEMENT TEAM- Each team established under paragraph (2)(A)(i) shall consist of agents and officers, where feasible, from-- (A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation; (B) the Drug Enforcement Administration; (C) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; (D) the United States Marshals Service; (E) the Department of Homeland Security; (F) the Department of Housing and Urban Development; (G) State, local, and, where appropriate, tribal law enforcement; (H) Federal, State, and local prosecutors; and http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c I 10:./temp/—cl 10psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 16 of 24 (I) the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Law Enforcement Services, where appropriate. (4) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- In considering an area for designation as a high intensity interstate gang activity area under this section, the Attorney General shall consider-- (A) the current and predicted levels of gang crime activity in the area; (B) the extent to which violent crime in the area appears to be related to criminal street gang activity, such as drug trafficking, murder, robbery, assaults, carjacking, arson, kidnapping, extortion, and other criminal activity; (C) the extent to which State, local, and, where appropriate, tribal law enforcement agencies have committed resources to-- (i) respond to the gang crime problem; and (ii) participate in a gang enforcement team; (D) the extent to which a significant increase in the allocation of Federal resources would enhance local response to the gang crime activities in the area; and (E) any other criteria that the Attorney General considers to be appropriate. (5) RELATION TO HIDTAS- If the Attorney General establishes a high intensity interstate gang activity area that substantially overlaps geographically with any existing high intensity drug trafficking area (in this section referred to as a ' HIDTA'), the Attorney General shall direct the local collaborative working group for that high intensity interstate gang activity area to enter into an agreement with the Executive Board for that HIDTA, providing that-- (A) the Executive Board of that HIDTA shall establish a separate high intensity interstate gang activity area law enforcement steering committee, and select (with a preference for Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies that are within the geographic area of that high intensity interstate gang activity area) the members of that committee, subject to the concurrence of the Attorney General; (B) the high intensity interstate gang activity area law enforcement steering committee established under subparagraph (A) shall administer the funds provided under subsection (g)(1) for the Criminal Street Gang Enforcement Team, after consulting with, and consistent with the goals and strategies established by, that local collaborative working group; (C) the high intensity interstate gang activity area law enforcement steering committee established under subparagraph (A) shall select, from Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies within the geographic area of that high intensity interstate gang activity area, the members of the Criminal Street http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c 110:./temp/—c 110psyS 64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 17 of 24 Gang Enforcement Team; and (D) the Criminal Street Gang Enforcement Team of that high intensity interstate gang activity area, and its law enforcement steering committee, may, with approval of the Executive Board of the HIDTA with which it overlaps, utilize the intelligence-sharing, administrative, and other resources of that HIDTA. (c) Reporting Requirements- Not later than February 1 of each year, the Attorney General shall provide a report to Congress which describes, for each designated high intensity interstate gang activity area-- (1) the specific long-term and short-term goals and objectives; (2) the measurements used to evaluate the performance of the high intensity interstate gang activity area in achieving the long-term and short-term goals; (3) the age, composition, and membership of gangs; (4) the number and nature of crimes committed by gangs; and (5) the definition of the term gang used to compile this report. (d) National Gang Activity Database- (1) IN GENERAL- From amounts made available to carry out this section, the Attorney General shall establish a National Gang Activity Database to be housed at and administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2) DESCRIPTION- The database required by paragraph (1) shall-- (A) be designed to disseminate gang information to law enforcement agencies throughout the country; (B) contain critical information on gangs, gang members, firearms, criminal activities, vehicles, and other information useful for investigators in solving gang-related crimes; and (C) operate in a manner that enables law enforcement agencies to-- (i) identify gang members involved in crimes; (ii) track the movement of gangs and members throughout the region; (iii) coordinate law enforcement response to gang violence; (iv) enhance officer safety; (v) provide realistic, up to date figures and statistical data on gang crime and violence; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c 110:./temp/—c 110psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 18 of 24 (vi) forecast trends and respond accordingly; and (vii) more easily solve crimes and prevent violence. (e) Additional Assistant United States Attorneys- The Attorney General is authorized to hire 94 additional Assistant United States attorneys to carry out the provisions of this section. Each attorney hired under this subsection shall be assigned to a high intensity interstate gang activity area. (f) National Gang Research, Evaluation, and Policy Institute- (1) IN GENERAL- The Bureau of Justice Assistance of the Department of Justice, after consulting with relevant with law enforcement officials, practitioners and researchers, shall establish a National Gang Research, Evaluation, and Policy Institute (in this subsection referred to as the ' Institute'). (2) ACTIVITIES- The Institute shall promote and facilitate the implementation of effective gang violence prevention models, including the Operation Ceasefire gang violence prevention strategy and other effective strategies to prevent gang violence. The Institute shall assist jurisdictions in designing and implementing effective local strategies, and shall provide technical assistance and conduct research in support of its mission. (3) NATIONAL CONFERENCE- Not later than 90 days after the date of its formation, the Institute shall design and conduct a national conference to prevent gang violence, and to teach and promote gang violence prevention strategies. The conference shall be attended by appropriate representatives from criminal street enforcement teams, and local collaborative working groups, including community, religious, and social service organizations. (4) NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION SITES- Not later than 120 days after the date of its formation, the Institute shall select appropriate HIIGAA areas to serve as primary national demonstration sites, based on the nature, concentration and distribution of various gang types, and the range of particular gang-related issues. The Institute shall thereafter establish such other, secondary sites, to be linked to and receive technical assistance through the primary sites, as it may deem appropriate. (5) DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION- Not later than 180 days after the date of its formation, the Institute shall develop and begin dissemination of information, including guides, research and assessment models, case studies, evaluations, and best practices. The Institute shall also create a website, designed to support the implementation of successful gang violence prevention models, and disseminate appropriate information to assist jurisdictions in reducing gang violence. (6) SUPPORT- The Institute shall obtain initial and continuing support from experienced researchers and practitioners, as it deems necessary, to assist in implementing its strategies nationally, regionally, and locally. (7) RESEARCH AGENDA- The Institute shall establish and implement a core research agenda designed to address areas of particular challenge, including-- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c 110:./temp/—c 110psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 19 of 24 (A) how best to apply Operation Ceasefire or other successful models to particularly large jurisdictions; (B) how to foster and maximize the continuing impact of community moral voices in this context; (C) how to ensure the long-term sustainability of reduced violent crime levels once initial levels of enthusiasm may subside; and (D) how to apply existing intervention frameworks to emerging regional or national gang problems, such as the emergence of the gang known as MS-13. (8) EVALUATION- The National Institute of Justice shall evaluate, on a continuing basis, gang violence prevention strategies supported by the Institute, and shall report the results of these evaluations by no later than October 1 each year to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. (9) FUNDS- The Attorney General shall use not less than 3 percent, and not more than 5 percent, of the amounts made available under this section to establish and operate the Institute. (g) Use of Funds- Of amounts made available to a local collaborative working group under this section for each fiscal year that are remaining after the costs of hiring a full time coordinator for the local collaborative effort-- (1) 50 percent shall be used for the operation of criminal street gang enforcement teams; and (2) 50 percent shall be used-- (A) to provide at-risk youth with positive alternatives to gangs and other violent groups and to address the needs of those who leave gangs and other violent groups through-- (i) service providers in the community, including schools and school districts; and (ii) faith leaders and other individuals experienced at reaching youth who have been involved in violence and violent gangs or groups; (B) for the establishment and operation of the National Gang Research, Evaluation, and Policy Institute; and (C) to support and provide technical assistance to research in criminal justice, social services, and community gang violence prevention collaborations. (h) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012. Any funds made available under this subsection shall remain available until expended. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c 1 10:./temp/—cl 10psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 20 of 24 C. 302. ENHANCEMENT OF PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE TO IMPROVE ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST VIOLENT GANGS. (a) In General- While maintaining the focus of Project Safe Neighborhoods as a comprehensive, strategic approach to reducing gun violence in America, the Attorney General is authorized to expand the Project Safe Neighborhoods program to require each United States attorney to-- (1) identify, investigate, and prosecute significant criminal street gangs operating within their district; and (2) coordinate the identification, investigation, and prosecution of criminal street gangs among Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. (b) Additional Staff for Project Safe Neighborhoods- (1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may hire Assistant United States attorneys, non-attorney coordinators, or paralegals to carry out the provisions of this section. (2) ENFORCEMENT- The Attorney General may hire Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives agents for, and otherwise expend additional resources in support of, the Project Safe Neighborhoods/Firearms Violence Reduction program. (3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out this section. Any funds made available under this paragraph shall remain available until expended. SEC. 303. ADDITIONAL ESO RC S NEEDED BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTEVIOLENT CRIMINAL STREET GANGS. (a) Responsibilities of Attorney General- The Attorney General is authorized to require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to-- (1) increase funding for the Safe Streets Program; and (2) support criminal street gang enforcement teams. (b) Authorization of Appropriations- (1) IN GENERAL- In addition to amounts otherwise authorized, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out the Safe Streets Program. (2) AVAILABILITY- Any amounts appropriated under paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c 110:./temp/—c 110psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 21 of 24 SEC. 304. GRANTS TO PROSECUTORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TO COMBAT VIOLENT CRIME. (a) In General- Section 31702 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ' and' at the end; (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ' (5) to hire additional prosecutors to-- ' (A) allow more cases to be prosecuted; and ' (13) reduce backlogs; and ' (6) to fund technology, equipment, and training for prosecutors and law enforcement in order to increase accurate identification of gang members and violent offenders, and to maintain databases with such information to facilitate coordination among law enforcement and prosecutors.'. (b) Authorization of Appropriations- Section 31707 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as follows: 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 'There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out this subtitle.'. SEC. 305. SHORT-TERM STATE WITNESS PROTECTION SECTION. (a) Establishment- (1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 37 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 'Sec. 570. Short-Term State Witness Protection Section ' (a) In General- There is established in the United States Marshals Service a Short-Term State Witness Protection Section which shall provide protection for witnesses in State and local trials involving homicide or other major violent crimes pursuant to cooperative agreements with State and local criminal prosecutor's offices and the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. ' (b) Eligibility- The Short-Term State Witness Protection Section shall give priority in awarding grants and providing services to criminal prosecutor's offices in States with an http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?cl 10:./temp/—c1 10psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 22 of 24 average of not less than 100 murders per year during the 5-year period immediately preceding an application for protection, as calculated using the latest available crime statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. . (2) CHAPTER ANALYSIS- The chapter analysis for chapter 37 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the items relating to sections 570 through 576 and inserting the following: 570. Short-Term State Witness Protection Section.'. (b) Grant Program- (1) DEFINITIONS- In this subsection-- (A) the term 'eligible prosecutor's office' means a State or local criminal prosecutor's office or the United States attorney for the District of Columbia that is located in a State with an average of not less than 100 murders per year during the most recent 5-year period, as calculated using the latest available crime statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and (B) the term 'serious violent felony' has the same meaning as in section 3559 (c)(2) of title 18, United States Code. (2) GRANTS AUTHORIZED- (A) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General is authorized to make grants to eligible prosecutor's offices for the purpose of providing short term protection to witnesses in trials involving homicide or serious violent felony. (B) ALLOCATION- Each eligible prosecutor's office receiving a grant under this subsection may either-- (i) use the grant to provide witness protection; or (ii) pursuant to a cooperative agreement with the Short-Term State Witness Protection Section of the United States Marshals Service, credit the grant to the Short-Term State Witness Protection Section to cover the costs to the section of providing witness protection on behalf of the eligible prosecutor's office. (3) APPLICATION- (A) IN GENERAL- Each eligible prosecutor's office desiring a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the Attorney General may reasonably require. (B) CONTENTS- Each application submitted under subparagraph (A) shall-- (i) describe the activities for which assistance under this subsection is http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c I I 0:./temp/—c I I OpsyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 23 of 24 sought; and (ii) provide such additional assurances as the Attorney General determines to be essential to ensure compliance with the requirements of this subsection. (4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $90,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010. SEC. 306. WITNESS PROTECTION SERVICES. Section 3526 of title 18, United States Code (Cooperation of other Federal agencies and State governments; reimbursement of expenses) is amended by adding at the end the following: (c) In any case in which a State government requests the Attorney General to provide temporary protection under section 3521(e) of this title, the costs of providing temporary protection are not reimbursable if the investigation or prosecution in any way relates to crimes of violence committed by a gang, as defined under the laws of the relevant State seeking assistance under this title.'. SEC. 307. EXPANSION OF FEDERAL WITNESS RELOCATION PROTECTION PROGRAM. Section 3521(a)(1) of title 18 is amended by inserting criminal street gang, serious drug offense, homicide,' after ' organized criminal activity'. SEC. 308. FAMILY ABDUCTION EV TO GRANT PROGRAM. (a) State Grants- The Attorney General is authorized to make grants to States for projects involving-- (1) the extradition of individuals suspected of committing a family abduction; (2) the investigation by State and local law enforcement agencies of family abduction cases; (3) the training of State and local law enforcement agencies in responding to family abductions and recovering abducted children, including the development of written guidelines and technical assistance; (4) outreach and media campaigns to educate parents on the dangers of family abductions; and (5) the flagging of school records. (b) Matching Requirement- Not less than 50 percent of the cost of a project for which a grant is made under this section shall be provided by non-Federal sources. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c 110:./temp/—c 110psyS64 7/23/2007 Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Page 24 of 24 (c) Definitions- In this section: (1) FAMILY ABDUCTION- -The term 'family abduction' means the taking, keeping, or concealing of a child or children by a parent, other family member, or person acting on behalf of the parent or family member, that prevents another individual from exercising lawful custody or visitation rights. (2) FLAGGING- The term ' flagging' means the process of notifying law enforcement authorities of the name and address of any person requesting the school records of an abducted child. i (3) STATE- The term ' State' means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern , Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, any territory or i possession of the United States, and any Indian tribe. (d) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 for fiscal year 2008 and such sums as may be necessary for each s of fiscal years 2009 and 2010. =END _.....__.......___�_ .. __.._.....__.._.__._..___............._...................... ._....................................... _________ .............. THOMAS H.P.me ( Conta.ct I Accessibility I Legal I USA.gov http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?cl I 0:./temp/—c 110psyS64 7/23/2007 i —5f s , AB 468 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 1 of 5 BILL NUMBER: AB 468 AMENDED BILL TEXT AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 10, 2007 AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 26, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 1, 2007 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 29, 2007 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Ruskin FEBRUARY 20, 2007 An act to amend Sections 9250.7 and 22710 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 468, as amended, Ruskin. Vehicles: abatement of abandoned vehicles. (1) Existing law authorizes a county satisfying specified conditions to establish a service authority for the abatement of abandoned vehicles and to impose a $1 vehicle registration fee for the abatement of abandoned vehicles. The fees imposed and the moneys received by the service authority from the Abandoned Vehicle Trust Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, can only be used for the abatement, removal, and disposal of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles from private or public property. The service authority is authorized to adopt an ordinance establishing procedures for the abatement, removal, and disposal, as a public nuisance, of an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicle and for the recovery of costs. This bill would authorize the service authority to use the fees imposed, as well as the moneys received from the Abandoned Vehicle Trust Fund for the costs associated with the enforcement of the ordinance adopted by the service authority. The service authority would be prohibited from offsetting the costs of vehicles towed under authorities other than the ordinance adopted by the service authority or when the costs are recovered by another provision of law. The service authority would be authorized to carry forward unexpended money in a fiscal year to the following fiscal year for the abandoned vehicle abatement program upon agreement with its member agencies. The service authority would be authorized to carry out an abandoned vehicle abatement from public property after providing a notice specified by a local ordinance of the jurisdiction in which the abandoned vehicle is located and that notice has expired. (2) Existing law requires a service authority to issue to the Controller a year-end fiscal report by October 31st of each year. This bill would require the service authority additionally to include in the fiscal report the number of notices to abate issued to vehicles , the total expenditures by the service authority for towing and storage of abandoned vehicles during the previous fiscal year, and the number of vehicles disposed of pursuant to the abandoned vehicle abatement program in the previous fiscal year. Beginning on January 1, 2010, and biennially thereafter, the service authority would be required to submit to the Controller a financial audit conducted by a qualified 3rd party. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_468_bill_20070710_amended_sen_v95.html 7/23/2007 AB 468 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 2 of 5 SECTION 1. Section 9250.7 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: 9250.7. (a) (1) A service authority established under Section 22710 may impose a service fee of one dollar ($1) on all vehicles, except vehicles described in subdivision (a) of Section 5014 .1, registered to an owner with an address in the county that established the service authority. The fee shall be paid to the department at the time of registration, or renewal of registration, or when renewal becomes delinquent, except on vehicles that are expressly exempted under this code from the payment of registration fees. (2) In addition to the one dollar ($1) service fee, and upon the implementation of the permanent trailer identification plate program, and as part of the Commercial Vehicle Registration Act of 2001, all commercial motor vehicles subject to Section 9400.1 registered to an owner with an address in the county that established a service authority under this section shall pay an additional service fee of two dollars ($2) . (b) The department, after deducting its administrative costs, shall transmit, at least quarterly, the net amount collected pursuant to subdivision (a) to the Treasurer for deposit in the Abandoned Vehicle Trust Fund, which is hereby created. All money in the fund is continuously appropriated to the Controller for allocation to a service authority that has an approved abandoned vehicle abatement program pursuant to Section 22710, and for payment of the administrative costs of the Controller. After deduction of its administrative costs, the Controller shall allocate the money in the Abandoned Vehicle Trust Fund to each service authority in proportion to the revenues received from the fee imposed by that authority pursuant to subdivision (a) . If any funds received by a service authority pursuant to this section are not expended to abate abandoned vehicles pursuant to an approved abandoned vehicle abatement program that has been in existence for at least two full fiscal years within 90 days of the close of the fiscal year in which the funds were received and the amount of those funds exceeds the amount expended by the service authority for the abatement of abandoned vehicles in the previous fiscal year, the fee imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be suspended for one year, commencing on July 1 following the Controller's determination pursuant to subdivision (e) . (c) Every service authority that imposes a fee authorized by subdivision (a) shall issue a fiscal year-end report to the Controller on or before October 31 of each year summarizing all of the following: (1) The total revenues received by the service authority during the previous fiscal year. (2) The total expenditures by the service authority during the previous fiscal year. (3) The total number of vehicles abated during the previous fiscal year. (4) The average cost per abatement during the previous fiscal year. (5) Any additional, unexpended fee revenues for the service authority during the previous fiscal year. (6) The number of notices to abate issued to vehicles during the previous fiscal year. (7) The number of vehicles disposed of pursuant to an ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 22710 during the previous fiscal year. (8) The total expenditures by the service authority for towing and storage of abandoned vehicles during the previous fiscal year. (d) Each service authority that fails to submit the report required pursuant to subdivision (c) by October 31 of each year, and the audit required pursuant to subdivision (g) by January 1 of the http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_468_bill_20070710_amended_sen v95.html 7/23/2007 AB 468 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 3 of 5 year in which the audit is due, shall have its fee pursuant to subdivision (a) suspended for one year commencing on July 1 following the Controller' s determination pursuant to subdivision (e) . (e) On or before January 1 annually, the Controller shall review the fiscal year-end reports, submitted by each service authority pursuant to subdivision (c) and due no later than October 31, to determine if fee revenues are being utilized in a manner consistent with the service authority's approved program. If the Controller determines that the use of the fee revenues is not consistent with the service authority' s program as approved by the California Highway Patrol, or that an excess of fee revenues exists, as specified in subdivision (b) , the authority to collect the fee shall be suspended for one year pursuant to subdivision (b) . If the Controller determines that a service authority has not submitted a fiscal year-end report as required in subdivision (c) , the authorization to collect the service fee shall be suspended for one year pursuant to subdivisions (b) and (d) . The Controller shall inform the Department of Motor Vehicles on or before January 1 annually, that the authority to collect the fee is suspended. A suspension shall only occur if the service authority has been in existence for at least two full fiscal years and the revenue fee surpluses are in excess of those allowed under this section, the use of the fee revenue is not consistent with the service authority's approved program, or the required fiscal year-end report has not been submitted by October 31. (f) On or before January 1 annually, the Controller shall prepare and submit to the Legislature a revenue and expenditure summary for each service authority established under Section 22710 that includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) The total revenues received by each service authority. (2) The total expenditures by each service authority. (3) The unexpended revenues for each service authority. (4) The total number of vehicle abatements for each service authority. (5) The average cost per abatement as provided by each service authority to the Controller pursuant to subdivision (c) . (g) On or before January 1, 2010, and biennially thereafter, the service authority shall submit to the Controller a financial audit of the service authority conducted by a qualified independent third party. (h) The fee imposed by a service authority shall remain in effect only for a period of 10 years from the date that the actual collection of the fee commenced unless the fee is extended pursuant to this subdivision. The fee may be extended in increments of up to 10 years each if the board of supervisors of the county, by a two-thirds vote, and a majority of the cities having a majority of the incorporated population within the county adopt resolutions providing for the extension of the fee. SEC. 2 . Section 22710 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: 22710. (a) A service authority for the abatement of abandoned vehicles may be established, and a one dollar ($1) vehicle registration fee imposed, in a county if the board of supervisors of the county, by a two-thirds vote, and a majority of the cities having a majority of the incorporated population within the county have adopted resolutions providing for the establishment of the authority and imposition of the fee. The membership of the authority shall be determined by concurrence of the board of supervisors and a majority vote of the majority of the cities within the county having a majority of the incorporated population. (b) The authority may contract and may undertake any act convenient or necessary to carry out a law relating to the authority. The authority shall be staffed by existing personnel of the city, county, or county transportation commission. (c) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a service http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab 468_bill_20070710_amended sen v95.html 7/23/2007 AB 468 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 4 of 5 authority may adopt an ordinance establishing procedures for the abatement, removal, and disposal, as a public nuisance, of an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicle or part of the vehicle from private or public property; and for the recovery, pursuant to Section 25845 or 38773 .5 of the Government Code, or assumption by the service authority, of costs associated with the enforcement of the ordinance. Cost recovery shall only be undertaken by an entity that may be a county or city or the department, pursuant to contract with the service authority as provided in this section. (2) (A) The money received by an authority pursuant to Section 9250.7 and this section shall be used only for the abatement, removal, or the disposal as a public nuisance of any abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicle or part of the vehicle from private or public property. The money received shall not be used to offset the costs of vehicles towed under authorities other than an ordinance adopted pursuant to paragraph (1) or when costs are recovered under Section 22850.5. (B) The money received by a service authority pursuant to Section 9250.7 and this section that are unexpended in a fiscal year may be carried forward by the service authority for the abandoned vehicle abatement program in the following fiscal year as agreed upon by the service authority and its member agencies. (d) (1) An abandoned vehicle abatement program and plan of a service authority shall be implemented only with the approval of the county and a majority of the cities having a majority of the incorporated population. (2) (A) The department shall provide guidelines for an abandoned vehicle abatement program. An authority's abandoned vehicle abatement plan and program shall be consistent with those guidelines, and shall provide for, but not be limited to, an estimate of the number of abandoned vehicles, a disposal and enforcement strategy including contractual agreements, and appropriate fiscal controls. (B) The department's guidelines provided pursuant to this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, requiring each service authority receiving funds from the Abandoned Vehicle Trust Fund to report to the Controller on an annual basis pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 9250.7, in a manner prescribed by the department, and pursuant to an approved abandoned vehicle abatement program. (C) A service authority may carry out an abandoned vehicle abatement from a public property after providing a notice as specified by the local ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 22660 of the jurisdiction in which the abandoned vehicle is located and that notice has expired. (3) After a plan has been approved pursuant to paragraph (1) , the service authority shall, not later than August 1 of the year in which the plan was approved, submit it to the department for review, and the department shall, not later than October 1 of that same year, either approve the plan as submitted or make recommendations for revision. After the plan has received the department's approval as being consistent with the department's guidelines, the service authority shall submit it to the Controller. (4) Except as provided in subdivision (e) , the Controller shall not make an allocation for a fiscal year, commencing on July 1 following the Controller's determination to suspend a service authority when a service authority has failed to comply with the provisions set forth in Section 9250.7. (5) A governmental agency shall not receive funds from a service authority for the abatement of abandoned vehicles pursuant to an approved abandoned vehicle abatement program unless the governmental agency has submitted an annual report to the service authority stating the manner in which the funds were expended, and the number of vehicles abated. The governmental agency shall receive that percentage of the total funds collected by the service authority that http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_468 bill_20070710_amended_sen v95.html 7/23/2007 AB 468 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 5 of 5 is equal to its share of the formula calculated pursuant to paragraph (6) . (6) Each service authority shall calculate a formula for apportioning funds to each governmental agency that receives funds from the service authority and submit that formula to the Controller with the annual report required pursuant to paragraph (2) . The formula shall apportion 50 percent of the funds received by the service authority to a governmental agency based on the percentage of vehicles abated by that governmental agency of the total number of abandoned vehicles abated by all member agencies, and 50 percent based on population and geographic area, as determined by the service authority. when the formula is first submitted to the Controller, and each time the formula is revised thereafter, the service authority shall include a detailed explanation of how the service authority determined the apportionment between per capita abatements and service area. (7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, the Controller may allocate to the service authority in the County of Humboldt the net amount of the abandoned vehicle abatement funds received from the fee imposed by that authority, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 9250.7, for calendar years 2000 and 2001. (e) A plan that has been submitted to the Controller pursuant to subdivision (d) may be revised pursuant to the procedure prescribed in that subdivision, including compliance with any dates described therein for submission to the department and the Controller, respectively, in the year in which the revisions are proposed by the service authority. Compliance with that procedure shall only be required if the revisions are substantial. (f) For purposes of this section, "abandoned vehicle abatement" means the removal of a vehicle from public or private property by towing or any other means after the vehicle has been marked as abandoned by an official of a governmental agency that is a member of the service authority. (g) A service authority shall cease to exist on the date that all revenues received by the authority pursuant to this section and Section 9250.7 have been expended. (h) In the event of a conflict with other provisions of law, this section shall govern the disbursement of money collected pursuant to this section and from the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Trust Fund for the implementation of the abandoned vehicle abatement program. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_468_bill_20070710_amended sen v95.htm1 7/23/2007 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Administration SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Relations Recommendations COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 6, 2007 HO RCA ATTAC,H M ENTSSTATU S ` 2 �� �s . ,.. s Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not A plicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached ❑ Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached ❑ (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over $5,000) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ❑ Not Applicable EXPL �IATI N.4FO M1 StNG ATT CHME TS' REVIEWED RETU,,RNEDxxx FORWARQED ..,,". Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial !� City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION= FOR,RET URN'OF ITEM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: Dapkus Page 1 of 1 Ross, Rebecca From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 1:45 PM To: Ross, Rebecca Cc: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW:AB 1430 Attachments: AB 1430 Assembly Bill -Bill Analysis Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: Larry K. Gallup [mailto:lkgallup@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:56 AM To: Hardy, ]ill; Dapkus, Pat Subject: AB 1430 To Jill Hardy, Pat Dapkus - First, thank you for opportunity to meet with IRC to discuss AB 1430. Since that meeting new information I believe has come to light. As per the Senate Rules Committee/Senate Floor Analyses of July 13, 2007, a question(s) about the meaning of"member communications" has been referred to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for interpretation. The FPPC has confirmen that they are looking at it. Whether it will be on their agenda for the August 16 meeting is not known yet. Therefore because (1) League of California Cities has a "watch" position, and (2) the FPPC is studying it, it is suggested that the HB City Council take a "watch" position. Attached is Senate Analysis, referral to FPPC is in middle of text under "Ongoing Regulatory Process." Thank You Larry Gallup Wt 8/2/2007 AB 1430 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Pagel of 7 Ross, Rebecca From: Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7 Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 5:39 PM Subject: AB 1430 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis ------------------------------------------------------------ (SENATE RULES COMMITTEE I AB 14301 (Office of Senate Floor Analyses 1 11020 N Street, Suite 524 I 1 1 (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) I 1327-4478 I 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: AB 1430 Author: Garrick (R) , et al Amended: 5/8/07 in Assembly Vote: 27 SEN. ELECTIONS, REAPP. & CONST. AMEND. CMTEE. 4-1, 7/10/07 AYES: Battin, Cogdill, Padilla, Calderon NOES: Migden ASSEMBLY FLOOR 77-0, 5/24/07 - See last page for vote SUBJECT Political Reform Act of 1974 : contribution limitations: communications SOURCE State Building and Construction Trades Council DIGEST This bill prohibits local governments from adopting campaign finance ordinances that restrict communications between an organization and its members unless state law similarly restricts such communications, or by regulation by the Fair Political Practices Commission. ANALYSIS Existing law provides that payments made for communications to members, employees, shareholders, or families of members, employees, or shareholders of an 8/2/2007 AB 1430 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 2 of 7 organization for the purpose of supporting or opposing a candidate or a ballot measure are not contributions or CONTINUED AB 1430 Page 2 expenditures, if those payments are not made for general public advertising such as broadcasting, billboards, and newspaper advertisements. However, such payments made by a political party for communications to its members that would otherwise qualify as contributions or expenditures are to be reported in the same manner as contributions or expenditures. Existing law provides that nothing in the Political Reform Act (PRA) shall nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions of any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, except that those limitations and prohibitions cannot conflict with the provision of state law that provides that payments made by an organization for communications to its members are not contributions or expenditures. Existing law prohibits a person from making a contribution to a political party totaling more than $30,200 in a calendar year for the purpose of making contributions for the support or defeat of candidates for elective state office, or for the purpose of making expenditures at the behest of a candidate for elective state office for communications to party members related to the candidate's candidacy for elective state office. [Proposition 34 of 20001 This bill prohibits local governments from adopting campaign finance ordinances that restrict communications between an organization and its members unless state law similarly restricts such communications. Specifically, this bill prohibits a local jurisdiction from doing any of the following: 1. Imposing source restrictions on payments for member communications that are not expressly made applicable to member communications by a state statute or by a regulation adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) . 2. Adopting limits on payments to a political party committee for member communications that are not expressly made applicable to member communications by a state statute or FPPC regulation. 8/2/2007 AB 1430 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 3 of 7 AB 1430 Page— 3 3. Adopting limits on the scope of payments considered directly related to the making of a member communication, including costs associated with the formulation, design, production and distribution of the communication such as surveys, list acquisition, and consulting fees that are not expressly made applicable to member communications by a state statute or FPPC regulation. Ongoinq_ RequlatorvProcess In implementing the provisions of the PRA governing member communications, the FPPC has adopted a regulation that sets parameters for what constitutes a "payment for communications to members" by an organization. Among other provisions, Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Section 18531.7 (Regulation 18531.7) defines various terms used in the member communications statute (including "organization, " "member, " "shareholder, " and "family") , specifies what constitutes a payment for communications, provides a safe harbor for communications inadvertently directed to nonmembers, addresses payments for member communications made at the behest of a candidate or committee, and specifies the reporting requirements for member communications made by entities that are considered committees under the PRA. The FPPC is currently reviewing its regulations governing member communications, and is deciding whether to modify Regulation 18531.7, to adopt new regulations, or both. Among the issues being considered by the FPPC in reviewing its member communications regulation are whether to extend the regulation (or adopt a new regulation) to govern member communications by political parties (Regulation 18531 .7 defines the term "organization" to exclude political parties, so communications by political parties are not currently covered by Regulation 18531.7) , and what rules and restrictions (if any) should be placed on member communications by political parties. Fulhorst Opinion Request Some of the issues that the FPPC plans to address in reviewing its regulations governing member communications, as detailed above, came to light due to an opinion request sent to the FPPC from Stacey Fulhorst, the Executive Director of the City of San Diego AB 1430 Page 8/2/2007 AB 1434 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 4 of 7 4 Ethics Commission. Ms. Fulhorst posed 10 questions to the FPPC on how existing law governing member communications was to be enforced, including (1) whether a member communication made by a political party at the behest of a candidate is considered a contribution to that candidate, (2) whether contributions earmarked for member communications at the request of a candidate are considered contributions to the candidate, and (3) whether a local jurisdiction can enact a law defining as a "contribution" any payment for member communications that are made at the behest of a candidate, and therefore subjecting such payments to local contribution limits. The FPPC ultimately declined to issue an opinion in response to Ms. Fulhorst 's request, and instead decided to incorporate the questions raised in her request into its review of regulations governing member communications. However, because the issues raised in Ms. Fulhorst 's request are directly related to some of the issues addressed by this bill, any new or revised regulations that result from the FPPC's review of its member communication regulations could directly impact issues addressed by this bill. FISCAL EFFECT Appropriation: No Fiscal Com. : No Local: No SUPPORT (Verified 7/12/07) State Building and Construction Trades Council (source) American Motorcyclist Association District 37 Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs California Democratic Party California Labor Federation California League of Conservation Voters California Off-Road Vehicle Association California Pro Life Council California Republican Party California State Council of Laborers National Rifle Association of America National Right to Life Committee Peace Officers Research Association of California San Diego Off-Road Coalition Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 AB 1430 Page 5 Service Employees International Union State Council OPPOSITION (Verified 7/12/07) 8/2/2007 AB 1430 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 5 of 7 California Clean Money Campaign California Common Cause California Public Interest Research Group City of San Diego Ethics Commission League of Women Voters of California Sacramento City Councilmember Steve Cohn ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT According to the author's office, this bill clarifies existing law regarding protected 'member communications' for political parties, labor unions, and other membership organizations. Existing state law allows local jurisdictions to establish regulations 'not in conflict ' with state law or regulations promulgated by the FPPC. However, some local jurisdictions have begun the process of attempting to promulgate local laws and regulations that conflict with the clear meaning of the PRA and FPPC regulations and which, as such, are in clear conflict with both bodies. In particular, local jurisdictions have begun the process of attempting to restrict the First Amendment free speech of political parties and labor unions to communicate with their memberships without regulation by or from local jurisdictions. This bill clarifies the clear intent of the PRA and FPPC regulations to allow membership organizations to communicate with their own members, and the primacy of state government's authority to interpret the clear meaning of the PRA. Political parties, labor unions, and other membership organizations have a clear First Amendment right, bolstered by the actual language and clear intent of the PRA and the FPPC, to communicate with their own members. This bill clearly defines this right, so that there will be no future confusion. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION Opponents state: AB 1430 Page 6 "AB 1430 would prevent many cities and counties from enacting any laws that would restrict the funneling of large contributions through political parties to benefit candidates -- even when the candidate, party, and donor coordinate the payment and expenditure. Without such safeguards, local contribution limits would be rendered meaningless. Contribution limits are a fundamental and 8/2/2007 AB 1430 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 6 of 7 constitutional means that many cities and counties can and do use to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption in their elections. AB 1430 would create an enormous loophole in these laws, allowing special interest groups to use large campaign contributions to dominate city elections and exert undue influence over city officials. "The right of many cities and counties to regulate their own elections is enshrined in the state constitution and Political Reform Act. AB 1430 threatens to abridge these rights, substituting the view of the state legislature for that of voters and local officials as to what campaign finance laws best meet the needs of local jurisdictions. " _ASSEMBLY FLOOR AYES: Adams, Aghazarian, Anderson, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Benoit, Berg, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Brownley, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeSaulnier, DeVore, Duvall, Dymally, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feucr, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Garcia, Garrick, Hancock, Hayashi, Hernandez, Horton, Houston, Huff, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Karnette, Keene, Krekorian, La Malfa, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Lieu, Ma, Maze, Mendoza, Mullin, Nakanishi, Nava, Niello, Parra, Plescia, Portantino, Price, Richardson, Sharon Runner, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Smyth, Solorio, Spitzer, Strickland, Swanson, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Walters, Wolk NO VOTE RECORDED: Soto, Nunez, Vacancy DLW:mw 7/13/07 Senate Floor Analyses AB 1430 Page 7 SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** 8/2/2007 AB 1430 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 7 of 7 8/2/2007