Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves online disclosure filing for officeholder, campaign reports after debate over burden on small candidates
Summary
After lengthy debate about costs and access for small campaigns, the Los Angeles City Council approved the Ethics Commission's committee report requiring online filing of officeholder and campaign disclosure statements; officeholder accounts passed unanimously and the campaign-account measure passed 9-1.
The Los Angeles City Council on March 6 approved a committee report that will require certain campaign and officeholder disclosure statements to be filed online, a move the Ethics Commission and some council members said will make financial records more accessible to the public.
The measure, which the Ethics Commission proposed to take effect for filers at or above a $25,000 activity threshold, passed in two parts: the committee report as applied to officeholder accounts was approved 10-0, and the committee report as applied to campaign accounts was approved 9-1.
Councilmember Chick said the proposal was a "first step" toward broader transparency and said mandated online filing would make reports easier for voters to review. "I strongly believe that the next step we should be moving towards is that when contributions are deposited in accounts, they should be filed also online," Chick said.
Liam Pelham, director of the Ethics Commission, told the council the commission's web-based system has been operating since August and is "free" and "easy to use." Pelham said the system is designed so even small filers can enter information online and that it makes the data searchable for the public and press. "It is a system that is free, it is easy to use, it's easy to navigate, and it provides timely access for the public," Pelham said.
Some council members raised concerns that requiring candidates to file electronically would place a burden on grassroots or low-budget campaigns. Councilmember Pacheco argued that smaller candidates often cannot afford professional treasurers or the extra technical work and suggested the city fund the data entry instead. "If we wanna do this for citywide candidates, I might have a different viewpoint," Pacheco said, adding that the proposal could "hurt the little guy." Councilmember Walters proposed that, as an alternative, candidates file paper reports that the Ethics Commission would scan and make searchable.
Pelham and other supporters said scanned images are less useful because they are not searchable or sortable, which reduces their value for reporters and the public. Pelham noted the commission planned to accommodate campaigns that use third-party software by allowing data uploads and to keep the mandatory date aligned with the commission's implementation timeline.
Council debate also included proposals to raise the proposed threshold from $25,000 to $50,000; the transcript records discussion of that alternative but the final council action approved the committee report as presented. Council members said they hope the online system will improve public access and reduce the time needed for staff to make information available.
The Ethics Commission said the system will be ready to support mandatory filings if the council's action is implemented, and that officeholder statements first required online would not be due until later in the calendar year under the schedule discussed.
The council approved the committee report as applied to officeholder accounts 10-0 and as applied to campaign accounts 9-1. The record shows extensive debate about technical access, candidate burden and the proper threshold for mandatory filing.
