COMMENT. This regulation sets out the duties of candidates and treasurers only with respect to campaign statements. Among the duties imposed by this regulation on candidates and treasurers with respect to committee campaign statements is to "cause to be checked, and, if necessary, corrected, any information . . . which a person of reasonable prudence would question based on all the surrounding circumstances of which the treasurer [candidate] is aware or should be aware by reason of the treasurer's [candidate's] duties under this regulation and the Act." The circumstances that trigger a duty to inquire under this standard are limited to those circumstances actually known to the candidate or treasurer and to those circumstances the candidate or treasurer should be aware of in carrying out the candidate's or treasurer's duties under the Act and regulation. They do not include circumstances a candidate or treasurer "might" or "should have known" if the candidate or treasurer had gone beyond the candidate's or treasurer's required duties. For example, Mr. Jones gives Mr. Smith $100 in cash and instructs him to write a check to the candidate's controlled committee and to conceal the true source of the contribution. The committee reports the contribution received from Smith. If neither the candidate nor treasurer has knowledge of the questionable nature of the contribution and neither, through performance of their respective duties (such as monitoring campaign records or reviewing campaign statements), could have learned facts that would lead one to question the contribution, the candidate and treasurer have no duty of inquiry with respect to the contribution. There is no duty of inquiry even though Smith would have revealed the true source of the funds if he had been asked.
Once circumstances are known that raise a question concerning the accuracy of information on a campaign statement, an inquiry is required. It is not possible in a regulation to describe with particularity every factual situation that might trigger a duty to inquire because the circumstances that could arise with respect to any particular campaign transaction are endless. For example, a duty to inquire may be triggered in the case of a contribution as a result of the size of the contribution, the reported source, the likelihood of that source making a contribution of the size reported, the circumstances surrounding receipt, or the manner in which the contribution is recorded in campaign records.
The burden of inquiry is likely to fall more heavily upon the treasurer because it is the treasurer, rather than the candidate, upon whom the major record keeping and reporting responsibility falls. Therefore, the treasurer is more likely than the candidate to be the person who, by reason of performance of duties, is aware of or should be aware of facts which would give rise to a duty of inquiry.
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 2, § 18427
2. Repealed 4-13-78 by operation of Section 11422.1(c), Government Code. (Register 79, No. 16).
3. New section filed 4-20-79; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 79, No. 16).
4. Amendment of subsection (d) filed 1-25-80; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 80, No. 4).
5. Editorial correction of section title filed 1-9-81 (Register 81, No. 2).
6. Amendment of section heading filed 2-17-82; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 82, No. 8).
7. Amendment filed 10-31-2008; operative 1-1-2009. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements and not subject to procedural or substantive review by OAL) (Register 2008, No. 44).
8. Editorial correction of effective date in HISTORY 7 (Register 2008, No. 49).
9. Amendment of subsections (a), (a)(5)-(c)(2), (c)(4) and (d) filed 5-12-2021; operative 6-11-2021 pursuant to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, section 18312(e). Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements and not subject to procedural or substantive review by OAL) (Register 2021, No. 20).
Note: Authority cited: Section 83112, Government Code. Reference: Sections 81004, 84100, 84213 and 91004, Government Code.
2. Repealed 4-13-78 by operation of Section 11422.1(c), Government Code. (Register 79, No. 16).
3. New section filed 4-20-79; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 79, No. 16).
4. Amendment of subsection (d) filed 1-25-80; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 80, No. 4).
5. Editorial correction of section title filed 1-9-81 (Register 81, No. 2).
6. Amendment of section heading filed 2-17-82; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 82, No. 8).
7. Amendment filed 10-31-2008; operative 1-1-2009. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements and not subject to procedural or substantive review by OAL) (Register 2008, No. 44).
8. Editorial correction of effective date in History 7 (Register 2008, No. 49).
9. Amendment of subsections (a), (a)(5)-(c)(2), (c)(4) and (d) filed 5-12-2021; operative 6/11/2021 pursuant to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, section 18312(e). Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements and not subject to procedural or substantive review by OAL) (Register 2021, No. 20).