## Facts

- Two Sacramento Superior Court actions were filed concerning campaign disclosure duties under California’s Political Reform Act and were consolidated on appeal.
- Michael O’Key was an employee of the Assembly Democratic Caucus, an association of Democratic members of the California Assembly that was authorized by statute and Assembly resolution to hire and direct employees whose salaries were paid by the State of California.
- In May and June 1976, O’Key was permitted to set aside some of his ordinary caucus responsibilities so that he could perform work for the Friends of Tom Suitt Committee, a political committee supporting Assemblyman Tom Suitt’s reelection.
- O’Key spent at least three working days in May and at least three working days in June on campaign activities, including soliciting campaign funds, working on campaign strategy and planning, coordinating volunteer activities, and preparing a campaign budget at Suitt’s request.
- During the time O’Key performed campaign work, he continued to receive his full state salary and received no compensation from Suitt or the committee.
- Neither Suitt nor the committee reimbursed the state for the salary attributable to the time O’Key spent on campaign work.
- The Political Reform Act required the committee to file periodic campaign statements disclosing contributions received and expenditures made; the Act treated certain nonmonetary support, including compensated employee time furnished for campaign purposes, as a reportable contribution.
- The committee did not disclose the value of O’Key’s compensated time; it contended that because caucus employees generally perform political work, O’Key’s campaign activity was not a reportable contribution, and it also disputed that the Caucus could be treated as a “person” under the Act.
- The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) sued Suitt and the committee seeking to compel disclosure, while the committee filed a separate action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging FPPC’s interpretation; the trial court ruled against FPPC on the contested interpretation, and FPPC appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Assembly Democratic Caucus is a “person” within the meaning of the Political Reform Act.
2. Whether a caucus employee’s state-paid time devoted to campaign work for a candidate committee constitutes a reportable in-kind “contribution” that the committee must disclose.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the Assembly Democratic Caucus qualifies as a “person” under the Political Reform Act’s broad definition.
- The court held that compensated employee time furnished for campaign purposes—here, state-paid salary attributable to O’Key’s campaign work—may constitute a reportable contribution to the benefiting committee.
- The court reversed the trial court’s rulings to the extent they were inconsistent with these conclusions and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- The Political Reform Act defines “person” broadly to include associations and other organizations or groups of persons acting in concert; a legislative caucus organized and operating as an association can fall within that definition.
- Absent an express statutory exclusion, an entity connected to government operations is not automatically outside the Act’s disclosure scheme for purposes of identifying the source of campaign support.
- A “contribution” under the Act is not limited to cash; it includes nonmonetary items and services with economic value provided for election-related purposes.
- When an employer permits an employee to provide campaign services on compensated time, the value of that compensation can be treated as an in-kind contribution from the paying entity to the recipient committee, and the committee must report it in required campaign statements.
- The committee’s disclosure duty turns on whether something of value was furnished for campaign purposes without reimbursement, not on a claim that the payer’s general mission is “political” in nature.

## Conclusion

Fair Political Practices Commission v. Suitt holds that the Assembly Democratic Caucus is a “person” under the Political Reform Act and that the value of state-paid salary for caucus staff time spent performing campaign work for a candidate’s committee may be treated as a reportable in-kind contribution that the committee must disclose.


Fair Political Practices Commission v. Suitt, 90 Cal. App. 3d 125 (1979)