Julie Lythcott-Haims first learned that she might be heading toward a legal showdown with California's campaign finance watchdog last August, when she was gearing up to run for Palo Alto City Council.

A former attorney and Stanford University's dean of freshmen who is widely known as a best-selling author and speaker on the subjects of parenting, race and identity, Lythcott-Haims found out at that time that running for office may create some professional complications, she said in an interview this week. Thanks to the Political Reform Act, a law that California voters approved in 1974, local elected officials are prohibited from taking payments for "any speech given, article published, or attendance at any public or private conference, convention, meeting, social event, meal, or like gathering."

For Lythcott-Haims, who over the past year had derived more than half of her income from speaking engagements and writing workshops, this created a potential hurdle. She said that once she became aware of the prohibition on honoraria, she immediately got on a Zoom call with an attorney to talk about the law and how it may affect her.

She said based on the attorney's advice, she decided that she should run and, should she win and honorarium payments become an issue, challenge the rule, which was adopted in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal.

"I moved forward on the advice of my lawyer, who assured me this law was not meant to encompass someone who does the kind of work that I do," she said. "I have behaved in good faith and ethically at every step here."

The honorarium rule, she argued, raises an important question: Should a law that was enacted to battle bribery and corruption be applied to local candidates whose speaking engagements and workshops have little or nothing to do with their public responsibilities?

"I knew the question had to be answered," Lythcott-Haims said. "I knew the FPPC regulation might apply to someone like me."

For Lythcott-Haims, the question isn't purely academic. As an author, Lythcott-Haims said her sources of income fluctuate heavily from one year to another. When she is working on a book, a large chunk of her income comes from her publisher. During the period between books or after a book is published, she relies more on income from speaking engagements and workshops.

Currently, she does not have a book proposal in place and most of her earnings come from speaking. She said that over the past 12 months, income from speeches and workshops made up about 74% of her earnings.

That, however, would have to change under the guidance that she received earlier this month from the Fair Political Practices Commission. In its April 7 advice letter, the commission concluded that Lythcott-Haims has a legitimate business that has preceded her council service and, as such, she can continue to receive compensation for writing books and articles. However, FPPC also concluded that moving forward, she will "only be able to receive compensation for speeches and other public talks so long as speech making is not the predominant activity of her business," according to the letter from FPPC General Counsel Dave Bainbridge and Assistant General Counsel Brian G. Lau.

Specifically, she "may not receive compensation for a speaking engagement until her business' income for speechmaking drops to 50% or below for the 12 months prior to the speaking engagement, and the hours devoted to speech making is less than 50% of her business hours," the letter concluded.

As an "informal advice letter," the FPPC's April 7 response carries somewhat less legal weight than a "formal advice letter," which also involves the legal division and which gives the requester not only legal guidance but also protection when following that guidance, according to Jay Wierenga, FPPC's communication director.

At the same time, even an "informal" letter carries some legal weight because it is considered "guidance to a public official," according to Wierenga. And now that it has been issued, to contest its conclusions Lythcott-Haims would have to bring her argument to the five-member FPPC commission, which could then provide guidance to the legal division or issue a "formal opinion" on the April 7 letter, according to Wierenga.

While commissioners don't vote on advice letters, Wierenga said in an email that they can and do offer guidance to the legal division at times and if the majority wants to dispute an advice letter, then it can vote to rescind the letter, instruct the legal division to change its way of thinking on the specific topic or vote to issue a formal opinion, which would carry more weight than the advice letter.

That is what Lythcott-Haims is now preparing to do. In the next few months, she hopes that she will have a chance to make her case to the five-person commission, she said.

Limiting her speaking engagements over the next year would require her to take what amounts to a 25% pay cut, which is a challenge for most people who aren't extremely wealthy, Lythcott-Haims said. While her company, Love Over Time LLC, is valued at between $100,000 and $1 million, according to her financial disclosures, and she described herself as privileged and "upper middle class," limiting speaking engagements to under 50% of her income would require significant "belt tightening" with her family and she'd have to have a difficult conversation with her partner about ways to control expenses and the viability of her continuing to serve on the council.

"That would be a difficult but necessary conversation I'd have to have," she said.

She believes the questions she is raising with the FPPC speak to a broader issue of council representation. If applied broadly, the advice could deter other authors and thought leaders from seeking public service, she argued.

Lythcott-Haims noted that she spends between 20 and 30 hours per week on her council work (which comes with a $12,000 annual stipend) and, as such, does not have the time to write a book proposal while serving. The situation, she suggested, begs the question: "Can only the independently wealthy or retired people serve the city, and what does the city lose if that's true?"

"Many elected officials have written books. Many elected officials want to be able to speak about their books, they want to be able to speak about their work. It seems against public policy for me to say, 'Some of our most highly educated and thoughtful people shouldn't be able to hold elected office because somehow there's a conflict.' … It seems against public policy that we'd prohibit a swath of smart, engaged people from serving," she said.