Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council advances amendment to ban transfers between candidate committees in first reading (4–2)

City of Orange City Council · November 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

On a 4–2 vote the council approved introduction and first reading of Ordinance No. 19-25 to reinstate a ban on transfers between candidate-controlled committees and tighten transparency; public speakers were split on constitutional and fairness grounds.

The City Council voted 4–2 on Nov. 12 to introduce and give first reading to Ordinance No. 19-25, which would reinstate a prohibition on transfers between candidate-controlled committees and make other changes intended to improve transparency in campaign finance reporting.

Council Member Demetrio, who brought the item forward, said he worked with the Fair Political Practices Commission and the state Attorney General’s office to ensure the language was legally defensible and narrowly tailored to prevent circumvention of contribution limits. He argued the change would prevent ‘‘money laundering’’ techniques that can obscure donor intent and influence.

Public commenters urged the council to restore the ban, with Shirley Grindle saying the change would correct prior weakening of the city’s ordinance and restore fairness. Reggie Mundicus and others opposed the reinstatement on First Amendment grounds and urged the council to leave the ordinance with the ability to amend by council action.

Opponents including Mayor Pro Tem Bilodeau warned the council that such restrictions may face judicial scrutiny and could chill political participation; Bilodeau said the city already posts campaign reports online and urged more frequent reporting rather than new prohibitions. Council discussion reflected both transparency and free‑speech concerns before the council voted 4 in favor, 2 against, with one absence.

The vote advances the ordinance as a hot-file first reading; it will return for further readings and formal adoption at subsequent meetings if the council proceeds.