Updated Feb. 29, 5:11 p.m.
The Sacramento City Council changed its campaign donation rules on Tuesday, months after a commission dismissed ethics complaints made against two candidates.
The new rules clear up confusion over what the city calls an “off-election year” period. City staff won’t need to worry about changing the definition every two years to reflect whether the primary election happens in March or June.
Sacramento didn’t update the definition last year, leading two people to file complaints against mayoral candidate Flo Cofer and City Council member Kaite Valenzuela, who’s running for reelection. The complaints claimed they exceeded fundraising limits. But the Sacramento Ethics Commission ruled that Cofer and Valenzuela didn’t violate city campaign laws.
The rule change approved on Tuesday will apply to the 2026 election.
Updated Nov. 21, 11:53 a.m.
The Sacramento Ethics Commission dismissed a complaint against City Council member Katie Valenzuela on Nov. 20, one month after issuing the same ruling on a similar case.
Commissioners unanimously voted in Valenzuela’s favor, finding she didn’t violate fundraising limits while accepting contributions for her reelection campaign during a certain period of time.
The decision comes one month after the commission ruled that mayoral candidate Flojuane Cofer didn’t break city campaign fundraising rules, either.
Steven Miller of the law firm Hanson Bridgett LLP, who investigated the complaints against Valenzuela and Cofer, changed the recommendation he submitted last month. He initially recommended that the commission determine Valenzuela broke a campaign contribution rule despite making good faith efforts to comply with “a confusing Municipal Code scheme.”
“In order to be equitable to Council member Valenzuela and consistent with the commission’s own actions, I therefore recommend that the commission find that sufficient evidence does not exist to establish that a violation has occurred here,” Miller said Monday.
City Clerk Mindy Cuppy said the City Attorney’s Office won’t pursue criminal action against Valenzuela. Cuppy also said — as she did last month — that the city plans to update the campaign contribution rules.
“The code is inherently inaccurate,” Cuppy said during the Nov. 20 meeting. “In one place it says one thing and in one place it says the other.”
Valenzuela attended the commission hearing and said she will abstain from voting when the revisions come to the City Council for approval.
Updated Oct. 24, 1:13 p.m.
The Sacramento Ethics Commission on Oct. 23 dismissed a complaint against mayoral candidate Flojuane Cofer and found she didn’t violate a campaign fundraising rule.
Voting unanimously, the commission disagreed with part of an independent evaluator’s recommendation on how to deal with the complaint.
Steven Miller of the law firm Hanson Bridgett LLP recommended the commission determine that Cofer accepted campaign contributions past the city’s limit for a certain period of time. But all three of the commissioners present — two were absent — voted no violation occurred after Cofer and her attorney gave a presentation.
“Our reading of the law is unassailable; we are in compliance with it,” Cofer said in the hearing. “In fact, if there’s any confusion, understandable or otherwise, it lies with Mr. [Steven] Maviglio and the other candidates.”
Maviglio, a political consultant, filed the complaint against Cofer and alleged she gained an advantage over other people running for mayor. Maviglio didn’t attend the commission meeting Oct. 23.
The commission didn’t hold the scheduled hearing on a similar complaint against Council member Katie Valenzuela, who is running for reelection. The commission has to reschedule the discussion because it didn’t have a quorum after Commissioner Linda Ng recused herself. Ng said she removed herself from the hearing because she is part of a community group that received in-kind support from Valenzuela’s office.
To prevent similar issues over the “off-election year” period in the future, City Clerk Mindy Cuppy said she worked with the City Attorney’s Office on a revised ordinance. The amendment is ready to go to the law and legislation committee and will prevent needing to change the dates every two years, Cuppy said.
“We wanted to make sure that the two complaints in question are resolved before we move forward with any update,” Cuppy told the commission. “Because it really doesn’t take effect for two more years. But we didn’t want to muddy the waters by having an update moving through the system at this time.”
Ethics Commission Chair Susan Underwood said the city will reschedule the hearing on the complaint against Valenzuela as soon as possible.
Original story, published Oct. 19:
An independent investigator found the city of Sacramento’s campaign contribution rules are confusing and recommended a commission on Oct. 23 not punish two candidates who are facing ethics complaints.
The Sacramento Ethics Commission can consider the investigator’s reports and determine how to deal with the complaints, but it’s unclear whether the city will change the rules, including one that could raise constitutional questions.
The city hired the law firm Hanson Bridgett LLP to evaluate complaints against mayoral candidate Flojaune Cofer and current City Council member Katie Valenzuela. Steven Maviglio, a political consultant, alleged Cofer violated city codes by accepting more campaign contributions than allowed in an “off-election year.” Grant Rabenn, a lawyer, alleged Valenzuela did the same while preparing to run for reelection.
Through its investigation, Hanson Bridgett LLP found the rules for “off-election year” contributions are confusing because the City Council usually adjusts the definition of the time period to align with whether the primary election takes place in March or June. The “off-election year” typically ends one year before the next election, the law firm wrote in its reports to the ethics commission. But the city didn’t update the timeframe this year, causing the “off-election year” to overlap with the “primary election period,” which has different rules.
Cofer’s campaign treasurer and Valenzuela sought guidance on the issues from the City Clerk’s Office, according to the investigations. Ultimately, Hanson Bridgett LLP determined both Cofer and Valenzuela made good faith efforts to comply with “a confusing Municipal Code scheme,” but violated city law by accepting more than $34,000 in total campaign contributions between Jan. 1 and June 30. The law firm recommended the commission not take further action, such as issuing a reprimand, warning letter or penalty.
John Pelissero is a senior scholar in government ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. He said the campaign fundraising limits are designed to create a level of fairness and should be clear to all candidates. Pelissero added that the fact Valenzuela later returned contributions to bring her total below the limit demonstrates ethical awareness.
“But I think there's also a level of ethical awareness that the whole City Council needs to own,” Pelissero said. “And that is that they created, perhaps unintentionally, a situation that kind of undermines the trust that the public can have in how elections are going to be conducted in the city of Sacramento.”
Complainant criticizes the city
Rabenn, who filed the complaint against Valenzuela, said the council member could have clarified the city code in a meeting on March 28. The council approved new limits for campaign contributions during the meeting, but no one pulled the item from the consent calendar for a discussion. Rabenn also called out the City Attorney’s Office, which according to the investigations, agreed with the City Clerk’s Office that confusion over the “off-election year” period is understandable.
“As a lawyer and former federal prosecutor, I'm also floored by the City Attorney's incompetence in this matter,” Rabenn said in an emailed statement. “If lawyers can't understand basic regulations and clearly communicate the implications of those regulations to clients, they should not be practicing attorneys, let alone counsel for the government. In the end, the lack of any enforcement in response to Councilmember Valenzuela's violation of the law speaks to the city's complete incompetence and selective enforcement of crimes that so many residents like me have come to endure.”
CapRadio requested an interview with the City Attorney’s Office, but it referred questions to the City Clerk’s Office because it is responsible for information regarding elections. The City Clerk’s Office said it would not be appropriate to comment on the issues before the ethics commission meeting, city spokesperson Tim Swanson said.
Deputy City Attorney Matthew Ruyak told Hanson Bridgett LLP he thought it was an oversight that the city didn’t update the definition of the “off-election year,” according to the reports.
Valenzuela said she takes campaign law seriously.
“In this instance, I consulted with my treasurer, the City Clerk, and the City Attorney before proceeding with additional fundraising after April 1st,” Valenzuela said in an emailed statement. “I plan to submit a written response for Monday's hearing, but am looking forward to putting this matter behind me so I put my full energy back into serving our community.”
Maviglio, who filed the complaint against Cofer, criticized the report from the independent evaluator Hanson Bridgett LLP.
“Cofer has run roughshod over law without any consequence,” Maviglio said in an emailed statement. “Instead of enforcing the law, the evaluator offered a smorgasbord of excuses for defying the city spending cap, giving her a major advantage over the three other candidates who understood and complied with the law.”
Cofer’s campaign texted a statement supporting the investigation’s recommendation.
“We launched our campaign in April of this year, well within the one-year primary election period, and we agree with the independent evaluator that there are no grounds for action,” the statement said. “We're proud of all the small donors, volunteers, voters, and endorsers who continue to join our shared vision to elect Dr. Flo as Mayor and build a city where everyone can go to sleep with a roof over their head.”
Contribution limit raises constitutional issues
In a memo addressed to the ethics commission, Cofer’s attorney Jon Ivy also alleged the city’s cap on the total amount of campaign contributions candidates can receive is unconstitutional. Ivy cited a 2021 federal court ruling on the case Thompson v. Hebdon, which dealt with an Alaska state law limiting campaign contributions. Hanson Bridgett LLP agreed Sacramento’s limit raises constitutional issues.
“This complex constitutional issue is beyond the scope of our investigation, though it may impact any efforts to enforce the Municipal Code’s aggregate cap on contributions,” Hanson Bridgett LLP wrote in the report.
The city did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the potential constitutional concerns after previously declining an interview request for this story.
Pelissero, the government ethics expert, said another consideration related to the complaints is the virtue of trust.
“You want to, as a candidate, create an environment through your actions and behavior in which the public will trust you and be willing to support your candidacy, believing that you will be a good representative,” Pelissero said.
The Sacramento Ethics Commission is scheduled to discuss the complaints during its 5:30 p.m. meeting Oct. 23. The primary election is set for March 5, 2024.
Follow us for more stories like this
CapRadio provides a trusted source of news because of you. As a nonprofit organization, donations from people like you sustain the journalism that allows us to discover stories that are important to our audience. If you believe in what we do and support our mission, please donate today.
Donate Today
