SB 0779 - Fiscal Note

Fiscal Note - SB 0779 - Allows for the public financing of certain election campaigns

COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH

OVERSIGHT DIVISION

FISCAL NOTE

L.R. NO. 3308-01

BILL NO. SB 779

SUBJECT: Political Parties: Elections, Public Financing

TYPE: Original

DATE: February 23, 1998

---

FISCAL SUMMARY

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
Democracy Trust **	$0	$0	$0
General Revenue **	$0	$0	$0
Total Estimated Net Effect on All State Funds **	$0	$0	$0

** Long-range impact expected beyond fiscal note time period.

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
None	$0	$0	$0
Total Estimated Net Effect on All Federal Funds	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
Local Government	$0	$0	$0

Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses

This fiscal note contains 4 pages.

FISCAL ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTION

Officials from the Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) assume the proposal would result in the need for an additional five staff members, including two Report Auditors (2 FTE at $22,000 each per year), two Field Investigators (2 FTE at $30,000 each per year) and one Secretary (1 FTE at $18,500 per year). Also, an expansion in the computer system would be necessary for a one-time cost of $40,000 for database development and $25,000 for updating electronic filing software. The MEC would incur additional meeting costs, due to the requirement to meet once every three weeks, in contrast to the present meeting schedule of meeting every six weeks.

However, in a previous similar proposal, MEC requested only three additional staff to implement the proposal. Since the MEC would have similar duties in this proposal, Oversight assumes consistency should be maintained relating to staffing additions and assumes costs for one Report Auditor, one Field Investigator and one Secretary should be reflected, resulting in annual costs of approximately $150,000.

Since this proposal would apply to state elections after November 8, 2000, Oversight assumes any associated fiscal impact would not begin until FY 02. Therefore, such costs would be beyond the fiscal note time period and are not included in the fiscal impact specifications below. However, the long-range administrative fiscal impact could be approximately $150,000 annually to General Revenue. Additionally, there would be unknown costs to General Revenue depending on how much the General Assembly appropriated for campaign finance. The Democracy Trust Fund would have unknown income, depending on the amount of appropriation from General Revenue as well as unknown costs, depending on the expenditures made by certified candidates.

Officials from the Office of the State Treasurer (STO) assume the additional work load to track these accounts/expenditures may or may not require an additional FTE, depending on the amount of accounts, as well as the number of transactions.

Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) assume the fiscal impact that could result from new commitments which could result from the creation of the offense(s) outlined in this proposal is unknown. In addition, changes in penalty provisions for current crimes could result in additional costs due to new commitments and/or longer sentences. The utilization of these laws for both new offenses and enhanced penalties for current offenses depend upon actions of prosecutors and the courts. If additional persons would be sentenced to the custody of the DOC due to the provisions of this legislation, the DOC would incur a corresponding increase in operational costs either through incarceration (average of $30.37 per inmate, per day) or through supervision provided by the Board of Probation and Parole (average of $2.47 per offender, per day). Due to the side variance of crimes and punishments including newly created crimes and punishments, the fiscal impact as it relates to the DOC is unknown.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

To implement the proposal, officials from the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) assume they would need .25 Assistant Attorney General I (.25 FTE at $30,000 per year) to investigate and prosecute public officials pursuant to this act. However, in a similar previous proposal, the AGO assumed it would have no fiscal impact. Therefore, Oversight assumes the AGO could absorb any additional work load resulting from this proposal and has not included such costs in the fiscal impact specifications below.

Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR), Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS), Office of the Secretary of State (SOS), Office of State Pubic Defender (SPD), Office of Administration (COA) and the Office of Prosecution Services (OPS) assume the proposed legislation would have either minimal or no fiscal impact on their agencies.

FISCAL IMPACT - State Government							FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
							(10 Mo.)
	$0	$0	$0
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
	(10 Mo.)
	$0	$0	$0
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business

No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.

DESCRIPTION

The proposed legislation would establish public funding for state elections. Candidates would be required to meet certain qualifying conditions.

Qualified candidates would receive a "fair election credit card" issued by the State Treasurer with which they could draw money from a Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) account. Candidates

would file a sworn statement with the MEC at the time of filing, stating they would comply with all the provisions of the public funding law.

The proposal would further provide for partial funding, campaigns conducted without public funds, penalties for non-compliance, reporting and disclosure of contributor information.

The MEC would have responsibility for administration and enforcement of this act, except where expressly stated otherwise. This proposal would create the Democracy Trust Fund to provide the public financing benefits to be funded by annual appropriation of the General Assembly.

DESCRIPTION (continued)

This proposal would also specify the amount of public funding available for various state elections; limit the use of money from private sources and personal funds by participating candidates; offer additional public monies to match the spending of candidates who reject public funding; require "independent expenditures" over specified amounts to be reported and possibly matched by public monies; place limits on contributions to political parties and the amount of money participating candidates may accept from political parties and specify penalties for violating provisions of this bill.

The proposal would apply to state elections after November 8, 2000.

This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental space.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Missouri Ethics Commission

Office of the State Treasurer

Department of Corrections

Office of the Attorney General

Department of Revenue

Office of State Courts Administrator

Office of the Secretary of State

Office of State Public Defender

Office of Administration

Office of Prosecution Services

Jeanne Jarrett, CPA

Director

February 23, 1998