Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Funding Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
AB 789 would lift temporary cap on campaign funds for security amid rising threats to public officials
Summary
AB 789 eliminates a lifetime $10,000 cap on campaign funds used for security (through Jan. 1, 2029), citing escalating threats to elected officials, candidates, staff and families. Supporters including the Orange County District Attorney and League of California Cities said the cap is insufficient; the committee discussed limits on payments to
Assemblymember Bonta presented AB 789 to remove a lifetime $10,000 cap on using campaign funds for security expenses for elected officials, candidates, staff and immediate family until Jan. 1, 2029; beginning Jan. 1, 2029, the bill would impose a $10,000 per-calendar-year cap. The author and supporters framed the measure as a response to escalating threats and political violence targeting public officials and candidates.
Supporters included Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer (represented by Audrey Rotacek), who described sustained threats and security expenses that can exceed the current cap; the League of California Cities also testified in support. The bill would require that expenses be directly related to duties of running for office or holding office, documented, and reported in campaign filings, and would exclude payments to relatives within the third degree of consanguinity and certain prohibited items such as firearms, per the committee—s analysis and technical assistance from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
Senator Choi questioned the rationale for a temporary unlimited cap through 2029 and pressed whether family members or in-laws could be paid. The author and an FPPC representative clarified that payments to relatives (within the third degree or in-law categories as defined) are excluded and that FPPC guidance was incorporated into the bill text to preclude payments to relatives and to clarify reporting requirements.
The committee moved the bill forward; the hearing record shows the measure advanced from committee with the recorded tally reported in committee proceedings.
Votes at a glance: Motion to pass; committee result recorded as yes 4, no 0 (one member on call/absent per roll-call text in the hearing record).
Ending: The author said the change is a time-limited response to elevated threats and that documentation and FPPC reporting rules would continue to apply.
