CC_Minutes_2004_1122 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Regular Meeting - 11/22/04 Minutes - Page 13 was appropriate for disclosure (i.e., name, address, association). Professor Schultz noted that, under federal law, name, address and employer was required, and the City ordinance could mirror federal law; opining that the more information required, the better information would be provided (i.e., name address, employer, occupation). Councilmember Schroeder questioned, once the limit was set, what would keep someone from dividing their contribution to get underneath the disclosure limits. Professor Schultz opined that a lower limit would prevent circumvention of the law, and it might be useful for the Council to set minimal thresholds in certain circumstances. Councilmember Schroeder questioned how to manage or police the ordinance to ensure compliance. Professor Schultz opined that, ultimately all ordinances required voluntary compliance, and it would need to be determined through development of reporting forms, the total aggregate amount, and require all contributors of a certain amount, and how those documents would be audited, hoping that people were honest. Councilmember Ihlan noted that the reporting forms usually require a signature and statement attesting accuracy, and noting a penalty for any violations. Councilmember Ihlan questioned if the ordinance would accomplish anything, and why the need for making it a requirement under City Code, and not just a voluntary disclosure. Professor Schultz opined that such an ordinance was good public policy and produced good government for citizens. Professor Schultz further opined that such a document should be readable by citizens to make it meaningful. Councilmember Schroeder sought Professor Schultz' reaction whether this ordinance may push a candidate to self-finance their entire campaign, which could favor an incumbent since they're