Rialto Adopts Campaign Finance Changes Amid Calls for Postponement and Transparency

In a contentious 4-1 decision Tuesday, the Rialto City Council approved a resolution to establish campaign contribution limits by clarifying what some take to be an ambiguity in California state law regarding election cycles, specifically their start and end dates. Supporters argue the resolution clarifies existing rules while Mayor Joe Baca Sr. and community advocates consider the timing suspicious and disadvantageous to those running for office. 

The council adopted Resolution No. 8551 after rejecting Baca’s motion to table the item until after the November municipal elections. Mayor Pro Tem Ed Scott, Councilmembers Edward Montoya Jr., Karla Perez and Andy Carrizales voted in favor of the measure, with Baca casting the lone dissenting vote. 

The central issue was not whether campaign contributions would increase, as the limit remains capped at $5,900 per donor. Instead, the contention was how that limit would be understood and applied. The resolution establishes a contribution limit of “$5,900 per calendar year,” a change from the former wording of “$5,900 per election cycle,” according to the staff report. The contribution limits apply to candidates running for mayor, city council, city clerk and city treasurer, replacing Rialto’s reliance on California’s default campaign contribution rules. 

Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, the limit will be adjusted every odd-numbered year based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario region. 

City Attorney Eric Vail told the council the proposal arose after campaign finance training done earlier this year after the implementation of the Levine Act revealed uncertainty over when California law permits candidates to begin raising money for elections. 

“The reason that we’re suggesting this is . . . there’s no really good definition for what an election cycle means in terms of when a candidate can start . . . receiving campaign contributions for a particular election cycle,” Vail said during Tuesday night’s meeting. He added that the resolution would establish an annual contribution cycle while maintaining the state’s existing contribution limit and would provide a “more uniform system of when contributions can be made each year for elections.”

Vail acknowledged concerns raised during public comment but said he believed the council should act before the filing period for the November election closed.

“I felt compelled to bring this resolution to the council before the deadline for people, for candidates, to file their papers,” he said. “No one asked me to do this. I did it on my own initiative . . . trying to . . . give you all clear guidance as to when you could receive money for a particular election.”

Baca questioned both the timing of the proposal and its practical effect.

Noting that Vail has served as city attorney since 2020, Baca asked why the issue had not been raised earlier rather than during an election cycle. He argued that allowing candidates to receive the maximum contribution during each calendar year would disproportionately benefit incumbents, who already possess established donor relationships. 

“The persons in office have a better advantage because we deal with quite a lot of individuals,” Baca said before moving to table the item until after the November election. The motion died for lack of a second. 

Speaking with Inland Empire Community News after the meeting, Baca said his objection was about fairness. 

“I felt that was politically motivated. It shouldn’t have been brought up. It’s not fair to any individual who is running for public office,” Baca said, adding that a newly elected council could have revisited the issue after November. 

In Baca’s view, the language adopted in the resolution provides incumbents the chance to raise more money due to overlapping cycles. 

“If a person had already maxed out [their contribution limit] and gave me $5,900, I couldn’t get any more under this cycle,” Baca said. “But because there’s going to be another cycle that’s coming up, I could get that $5,900.” 

Beyond Baca, opposition included residents and community advocates Brenda Parker and Ana Gonzalez.

During public comment, Parker urged the council to “table” the resolution until after the election, arguing that residents deserved an opportunity to understand the proposal before the council voted. 

“The community should be given the opportunity to take a look at this, to read it, for us to understand it, and for us to either support it or not support it,” Parker said. “But we should be able to weigh in on it because this is our city, and you all serve us.”

Echoing that request, Gonzalez reminded councilmembers that Rialto unanimously voted in 2020 to follow California’s campaign contribution limits under Assembly Bill 571. She argued that if the city intended to establish its own campaign finance ordinance, residents should have a meaningful opportunity to help shape it. 

“If we were to adopt our own ordinance or rules for campaign financing, then it should include the majority of the residents that are interested in inputting language for a resolution,” Gonzalez said.

In separate interviews, both Parker and Gonzalez said their principal concern was the process by which the council adopted the resolution. 

Parker repeatedly questioned why the measure required immediate action rather than waiting until after the election. 

“The main issue is that once again, here we are, the community is asking to be included . . . We the citizens live here and you still don’t hear us out,” she said. “Why is it of such urgency?” 

Gonzalez argued the state’s regulations are clear and that the resolution creates additional fundraising opportunities for candidates with established donor networks, making it more difficult for grassroots candidates who rely on smaller contributions from residents and local businesses. 

“The state regulation is pretty basic and it’s, you know, clear . . . they [the council] reworded the language to allow folks to raise $5,900 every year, when it typically is $5,900 per election,” Gonzalez said. “So there’s a lot of people that want to run for office but they don’t because they see that they’re up against big-dollar candidates.” 

Longtime Rialto resident Linda Chapman likewise criticized the council for moving forward without additional public outreach. 

“It would not have hurt them to table [the resolution], so everybody in the city understood what they were doing,” Chapman said. “What I’m saying is the people sitting on that dais do not take the time to engage their constituents, and I think it’s not fair.”

Supporters of the measure, however, rejected assertions that the resolution benefits incumbents. 

Scott said the proposal simply resolved longstanding uncertainty exposed during the city’s Levine Act briefings. He emphasized that the resolution does not increase the $5,900 contribution limit, does not alter the Levine Act and instead establishes a clearer campaign contribution cycle for all candidates. 

“It needed to be corrected and fixed,” Scott said. “The state rules are really not very good,” adding that he believes the entire campaign contribution framework, from the state to the national level, needs to be reworked. 

Scott also disputed the claim that incumbents will have an advantage under the newly adopted resolution. 

“I don’t see any big advantage from one person to another person because we adopted the same resolution that many cities around us have adopted and the county has also adopted, ” he said, adding that challengers may also establish campaign committees and raise funds under the same rules. 

Montoya said the guidance he received regarding California’s campaign finance rules was unclear and convinced him the city needed greater clarity. He explained that he sought answers from elected officials, the city attorney and other sources but received conflicting interpretations of when an election cycle actually begins. 

“Nobody has any clear answers, and we need some clear answers because it’s not fair to any of the candidates,” Montoya said.

While Montoya acknowledged residents’ concerns regarding public notice, he said that delaying the vote would move the controversy to another election. 

“All this offers me is clarity,” he said.

Even so, while Resolution No. 8551 is written to apply neutrally, critics and supporters remain split on its practical effects: Does the shift from “per election” to “per calendar year” merely clarify state law or does it inadvertently permit candidates to increase the amount they may legally raise for their campaign?

Councilmembers Carrizales and Perez did not respond to IECN’s interview requests. Likewise, at the time of publication, City Attorney Vail has not responded to requests for comment. 

IECN sought clarification from Kaufman Legal Group in Los Angeles. At the time of publication, they have yet to respond.