09.03.04 Correspondence Regarding Charter AmendmentDAVID J. KENNEDY
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9232
Email: dkennedy@kennedy-graven.com
September 3, 2004
Ms. Janet Lewis
City Clerk
City of Crystal
4141 Douglas Drive North
Crystal, MN 55422
RE: Charter Amendment: Campaign Contributions
Dear Janet:
You've asked that I supply you and the Council with some possible language implementing the
proposed Charter amendment for campaign contributions to candidates for mayor and council
member.
As you know, the amendment requires the adoption of an ordinance or resolution carrying out the
amendment's requirement for a definition of the sources of such contributions. The charter
commission discussed this point at some length both before its initial proposal saying "from any
source" was rejected by the council and prior to submitting the present version which leaves the
policy question of those sources to be identified by candidates to the judgment of the city council.
Thus the sole question (except for the two points mentioned below) which will be presented to the
council if the amendment is adopted is whether the term "source" means "anyone" or will it have
some more limited meaning.
I cannot, of course, recommend any definition, but I can say that the ordinance or resolution (I do
think an ordinance would be best because of its attendant publicity) could say something like the
following:
- In this ordinance the term "source" means a natural person, a corporation or
partnership or any other legal entity as defined by law. (This means that the
statutory definition of "person" which covers everyone and everything would apply.)
- In this ordinance the term "person" means a natural person, or corporation or
partnership, or other legal entity as defined by law except (e.g.):
1. The candidate;
2. The candidate's spouse;
3. A member of the candidate's family;
DJK-252766v1
CR225-5
Ms. Janet Lewis
September 3, 2004
Page 2
I think the actual definition of any exclusion is relatively easy: the decision as to what those
exclusions should be is rather difficult; and I think there is why the commission, recognizing that
the amendment directly affects the mayor and members of the council felt that only those persons
could make the best judgment on the point. Keep in mind, too, that the ordinance can be changed
rather easily if experience tells the council that some modification is necessary.
Two other points: First, the amendment refers to campaign contributions "as defined by law". The
statutory definition is as follows: (Minn. Stat. Section 211A.02, subd. 5:) "Contribution:
Contribution means anything of monetary value that is given or loaned to a candidate or committee
for a political purpose. "Contribution" does not include a service provided without compensation
by an individual."
Second: The amendment permits the ordinance to adjust the $100 limit by some appropriate index.
The language might be:
The $100 limitation of the ordinance must be adjusted annually on July 1 by use of
the consumer price index published annually by U.S. Government.
As for the rest of the ordinance, I would think it would:
I , Charge the City Clerk with administration responsibility.
2. Require the Clerk to develop appropriate reporting forms.
3. Specify the date (or extensions of that date) for submission of the report.
4. Specify the methods to be used to publicize the filing — or omission to file — of the reports.
As for penalties for non-compliance, I don't think any are necessary since failure to make the
required report will be rather obvious to any interested party.
Very truly yours,
David J. Kennedy
DJK: jms
cc: Steve Bubul
DJK-252766vl
CR225-5