Campaign Fund Use Expansion Bill Nixed By Governor

A bill that would expand the usage of campaign funds to include more security-related expenses was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday because of confusing language over what constitutes “security expenses”.

Assembly Bill 37, authored by Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Oakland), would have expanded the allowable usage of campaign funds to pay or reimburse the state for the costs of installing and monitoring a home or office electronic security system, and for the 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. The bill would have also required the return of the security system to the committee that paid for the security system 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.

AB 37 largely flew under the radar this year because of not being an overtly large expansion of campaign funds usage, as well as the bill not affecting most political candidates in the state. However, Bonta pushed the bill forward since authoring it late last year, arguing that campaign funds should cover security expenses more because of the rise in threats against candidates. Specifically, she noted numerous threats against Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and former Senator Richard Pan over LGBT and health care bills they brought forward, as well threats against Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) over legislation on abortion.

“As public servants, there is a lot we sacrifice to serve, this includes spending time with family and our privacy. However, the one thing we should never be willing or expected to give up is our sense of safety. Unfortunately, we have seen an increase in threats against public officials, especially women, and harassment against legislative staff who are serving the constituents who elected us to office,” explained Assemblymember Bonta.

“The political rhetoric across the country is becoming increasingly alarming, with lawmakers across the country from local school boards to congressional leaders constantly receiving threats,” said Bonta earlier this year. “When Trump took office as President and spewed lie after lie about how the election was stolen, radicalized followers have taken it upon themselves to confront public officials, and even their family members, by any means necessary, often justifying the need for violence.”

Bonta’s bill fails to make it past Newsom

While AB 37 was quickly challenged because of Bonta not defining what exactly security expenses would entail and what limits would be placed on the expansion, many lawmakers quickly signed onto the bill because of the financial burden of security expenses on the campaign being shifted from out-of-pocket to campaign funds.

“Since I was first elected to public office in 2010, we’ve seen a terrifying spike in threats and violence against elected officials – myself included,” added Senator Wiener. “It’s been harrowing to deal with endless threats on social media; I’ve gotten thousands over the past few years. A couple of months ago, we’ve even received bomb threats and bomb-sniffing dogs had to search my home. I’m grateful to Assemblymember Bonta for her work to make sure elected officials, our staff and our families are protected.”

The bill made it past the Assembly and Senate with few no votes last month, but was not a sure thing to go past Newsom largely because of the still vague language in the bill. This was confirmed during the weekend when Newsom ultimately voted no on AB 37 because of it’s failure to define what exactly “security expenses” are.

“I am returning Assembly Bill 37 without my signature,” wrote Newsom in his AB 37 veto statement. “This bill would expand what qualifies as an allowable use of campaign funds for security-related expenses.

“While I support the author’s intention, the bill as drafted does not clearly define “security expenses.” Without more guidance on what would or would not be allowed as a legitimate use of campaign funds, this bill could have unintended consequences and could lead to use of political donations for expenditures far beyond what any reasonable donor would expect. We must ensure political donations are utilized in a manner consistent with their intended purpose. For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.”

Assemblywoman Bonta has yet to respond to the veto.