Bill Would Increase Cap on Security Expenses for Candidates, Elected Officials

AB 789 comes after notable attacks on elected officials and data indicating a national rise in political threats, harassment, and hostility.

SACRAMENTO – Today, Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Oakland) announced new legislation, principal co-authored by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, to strengthen her candidate security legislation, which was signed into law by Governor Newsom last year.

“Everyone should feel safe running for office and representing their community. However, local and state candidates in California face a significant cap on security spending compared to those running for federal offices. This comes at a time when we’re seeing an increase in threats and harassment targeted at candidates for local office, especially women, candidates of color, and LGBTQ+ candidates,” said Assemblymember Mia Bonta. “I’m proud to author AB 789 to protect candidates, elected officials, their families, and staff because safety should never be something we sacrifice for the good of serving our community.”

AB 2041 updated California’s 30-year-old candidate finance policies by doubling the lifetime cap on security expenses from $5,000 to $10,000 and extending eligibility for security expenses to include a candidate’s or elected official’s family and staff. The new legislation, amended into AB 789, would remove the cap on security spending through 2028 and implement a $10,000 annual cap going forward.

“Political violence has no place in America. And in the current environment — after the deadly shooting of Minnesota legislators and their families and other tragedies — we must make sure elected officials can go about serving the public safely. Assembly Bill 789 does just that. I appreciate Assemblymember Bonta for her commitment to this issue and making sure electeds, their immediate families and staff can respond to any threat and keep safe,” said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Salinas).

Princeton University research confirms what can already be felt – hostility against public officials is on the rise. Earlier this month in Minnesota, one state lawmaker was murdered and another injured alongside their spouses in what has been reported as a politically motivated assassination; this comes on the heels of Governor Shapiro and his family being evacuated from their residence in Pennsylvania due to an arson attack and ongoing threats to legislative staff . While Congressional and Senate candidates are spending upwards of a million dollars on security measures, California candidates reporting to the California Fair Political Practices Commission face a shockingly low limit.

These threats, harassment, and violence disproportionately affect female candidates and even dissuade them from running. From California Women’s List’s 2023 Report:

Nearly two-thirds of women (65.38%) experienced harassment during their campaign, compared to 50% of men.
The data was even more stark for women of color–54.76% of whom experienced stalking at least once during their campaign (28.57% reporting experiencing stalking frequently or very frequently)– and LGBTQ+ women, 53.33% of whom experienced stalking during their campaign.

AB 789 continues Assemblymember Bonta’s multi-year commitment to protecting candidate security most recently with AB 2041 (2024), which was signed into law. AB 2041 received bipartisan support and was among the most-watched bills in the legislature last year.

Assemblymember Mia Bonta represents California’s 18^th Assembly District encompassing the East Bay including Oakland, Alameda, and Emeryville. She also chairs the Assembly Health Committee

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 2041, Bonta. Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign funds: security expenses.

The Political Reform Act of 1974 regulates the use of campaign funds held by candidates for elective office, elected officers, and campaign committees. The act authorizes a candidate or elected officer to use campaign funds to pay or reimburse the state for the costs of installing and monitoring a home or office electronic security system if specified conditions are met. These conditions include that the candidate or elected officer has received threats to physical safety that have been verified by law enforcement and that no more than $5,000 in campaign funds be used for this purpose.

This bill would eliminate those conditions. The bill would instead authorize a candidate or elected officer to use campaign funds to pay or reimburse the state for the reasonable costs of installing and monitoring a home or office electronic security system or for another tangible item related to security, and for the reasonable costs of providing personal security to a candidate, elected officer, or the immediate family or staff of a candidate or elected officer, provided that the threat or potential threat to safety arises from the candidate’s or elected officer’s activities, duties, or status as a candidate or elected officer or from staff’s position as staff of the candidate or elected officer. The bill would permit a maximum of $10,000 of campaign funds to be expended for these purposes by a candidate or elected officer during their lifetime. The bill would not authorize campaign funds to be used to pay, or reimburse the state, for firearms. The bill would require the return of the security system or other item to the committee that paid for the security system or other item or reimbursement by the candidate, elected officer, immediate family, or staff, to the campaign fund account of the committee that paid for the security system or other item, and reporting of the reimbursement or expenditure on the candidate’s or elected officer’s campaign statement, as specified. The bill would require the candidate or elected officer to maintain detailed accounts, records, bills, and receipts relating to an expenditure or reimbursement for security, as specified. The bill would also require a candidate or elected officer to submit a form to the Fair Political Practices Commission that documents, under penalty of perjury, the threat or potential threat that necessitated the expenditure of campaign funds for security purposes.

By requiring the submission of a form under the penalty of perjury if campaign funds are used in the above manner, the bill creates a

new crime and therefore establishes a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

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 of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements.

This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Digest Key

Vote: 2/3 Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES

Previous

April 26, 2024 – Bill to Allow Elected Officials to Use Campaign Funds for Security

Bill Would Increase Cap on Security Expenses for Candidates, Elected Officials

Press Release

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

Digest Key

Contra Costa Superior Court Appoints Sarah Lind as Court Executive Officer

Update: Contra Costa County to Talk Guaranteed Income Pilot

You may also like