![](https://www.smwlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/planet-volumes-wobva5QEEk8-unsplash.jpg)
Recent Changes to Levine Act’s Campaign Contribution Requirements
June 7, 2024The upcoming campaign season is an opportune time for local governments and candidates to review recent changes to the Levine Act’s campaign contribution requirements. These aim to limit so-called “pay to play” practices, by prohibiting certain campaign contributions of $250+ that were previously allowed. They also establish recusal requirements that did not previously exist.
The Levine Act is codified in Government Code section 84308 and was amended by SB 1439 in 2022). Under the Act a local appointed or elected official must not accept aggregate campaign contributions of more than $250 from those involved in a proceeding before them about a license, permit, or other entitlement. The relevant timeline runs for 12 months before the proceeding, while the proceeding is pending, and for 12 months after the proceeding. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has a Pay-to-Play Limit and Prohibitions (Section 84308) webpage that provides extensive guidance and resources including detailed definitions, training webinars, fact sheets with helpful examples, regulations, and recent advice letters.
If an official receives an aggregate campaign contribution of more than $250 and later learns that the donor is involved in a proceeding coming before them, the official will need to recuse themselves unless they satisfy rules governing prompt return of the contribution, including public disclosure. Candidates should be on the lookout for such situations. And because of the way campaign contributions are aggregated, this means being on the lookout for not only contributions of $250 or more, but also smaller contributions that, taken together, amount to more than $250.
While appointed or elected officials are ultimately responsible for compliance, local entities also have a strong interest in safeguarding their decision-making processes by assisting appointed and elected officials in their duty. The best approach here will likely vary between local entities. What works in a small city may not be helpful in a large county, and vice versa. Regardless of the entity involved, however, the best place to start is a thorough understanding of the new law. Also, it is important to note that the Levine Act remains an area of active interest for the state legislature, so watch for future changes in the law. Pending bills currently include AB 2911 (McKinnor), SB 1181 (Glazer), and SB 1243 (Dodd).
For more information on how your agency and officials can comply with the Levine Act, contact Osa Wolff. Osa thanks former SMW fellow Stacy Lee for her work on this article.