While holding that expenditures of public funds to oppose a local tax-repeal initiative were not improper, the California Supreme Court on April 20 rejected a lower court's opinion that said that any expenditure of public funds is OK as long as it does not say vote "yes" or vote "no."
Instead, the court said: "(W)e conclude that the statute relied upon by the Court of Appeal (Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, California's anti-SLAPP statute) was not intended, and should not be interpreted, to displace the analysis and standard set forth in our decision in Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.3d 206. We further conclude that a municipality's expenditure of public funds for materials or activities that reasonably are characterized as campaign materials or activities – including, for example, bumper stickers, mass media advertisement spots, billboards, door-to-door canvassing, or the like – is not authorized by the statute in question, even when the message delivered through such means does not meet the express-advocacy standard."
At issue was Measure O, a November 2002 measure placed on the ballot by residents who wanted to phase out Salinas' 6 percent utility users' tax. After the measure was proposed, the City Council approved a series of budget cuts that would become effective if the initiative passed, and these cuts were discussed at subsequent council meetings and were placed on the city's taxpayer-funded website. City officials also produced a one-page document about the cuts that was made available to the public and was placed in a newsletter mailed to residents.
In referencing the Stanson case, which the Supreme Court reaffirmed, the court said: "Acknowledging in Stanson that in some circumstances '[p]roblems may arise … in attempting to distinguish improper 'campaign' expenditures from proper 'information' activities' (Stanson, supra, 17 Cal.3d 206, 221), we explained that '[w]ith respect to some activities the distinction is rather clear' thus, the use of public funds to purchase such items as bumper stickers, posters, advertising 'floats,' or television and radio 'spots' unquestionably constitutes improper campaign activity [citations], as does the dissemination, at public expense, of campaign literature prepared by private proponents or opponents of a ballot measure. On the other hand, it is generally accepted that a public agency pursues a proper 'informational' role when it simply gives a 'fair presentation of the facts' in response to a citizen's request for information [citations] or, when requested by a private or public organization, it authorizes an agency employee to present the department's view of a ballot proposal at a meeting of such organization.'"
The decision was written by Chief Justice Ronald George, and was concurred in by the other six Supreme Court justices, although Justice Carlos Moreno also wrote a concurring opinion.
Cal-Tax submitted an amicus brief in the case. While the high court did not agree with taxpayers' advocates on all counts, Cal-Tax President Teresa Casazza praised the total impact of the ruling, saying that while it allows the use of taxpayer funds to provide information, it prohibits the expenditure of public funds on the type of campaign-like activities that had been approved in the lower court's ruling.
The case is Angelina Morfin Vargas v. City of Salinas, S140911, April 20, 2009.
Cal-Taxletter, April 24, 2009
© 2009 California Taxpayers'
Association.
All Rights Reserved.