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 Monday. The primary election is set for March 5, 2024.