Cali Closes ‘Pay-to-Play” Loophole for Local Officials/BuildersDaniel Dobbs2023-05-25T12:36:18-07:00
Anytime a law passes (bi-partisan) and has lobbyists screaming like a stuck pig, it’s a winner for the voters!
What’s galling is the state had to pass a law sanctioning so-called “legal influence peddling.”
A new campaign finance law aimed at bringing more transparency to local politics soon figures to reshape the role of money in virtually every city and county office in California.
Get the Lowest Interest Rate, Fees, and Fastest Service
YouTube – Straight Talk Lending – Daniel Dobbs
Supporters believe the rule will work as intended and curb so-called “pay-to-play” corruption by requiring local elected officials to openly declare who they get money from and avoid voting to help those specific donors.
“It’s one of the most significant reforms of the last 50 years,” said state Sen. Steve Glazer, D- Orinda, who co-authored the bill with Sen. Scott Wilk, R-Victorville. “It affects every jurisdiction, city, and county across the state.”
“Unfortunately, there is “no political appetite” to apply the new rule to lawmakers in Sacramento, though an extension may happen in the future.”
“Stop Us Before We Bribe, Again, Seriously?”
But critics predict the opposite. Once SB 1439 is fully implemented, the critics argue, dark money will be more influential.
On its face, the mechanics of the new rule Newsom signed into law in September after it passed through the Legislature without a single “no vote.
Starting Jan. 1, any member of an elected agency – including most school boards, water districts, city councils, and county boards of supervisors – can’t vote on any issue that could affect anybody who donated $250 or more to the elected official’s campaign.
The voting ban lasts for 12 months after a donation is received, and a contribution can range from cash to in-kind assistance (like accounting or legal advice) to catering lunch at a campaign event.
A violation would be a misdemeanor under California law.
The rule lets a politician “cure” a violation by giving the money back within 14 days of casting a vote, but only if they can show they didn’t “know” they were helping the donor and didn’t seek donations for their vote.
The rule does not address anonymous contributions from political action committees or independent political contributions.
That loophole is part of why critics believe the real-life effect of SB 1439 could differ from its intent. Critics claim the new rule also is aimed at an old, previously addressed problem.
State laws already make it illegal for officials to trade votes for campaign money.
Also, at least 17 cities in California already prevent elected officials from voting on real estate projects connected to campaign contributors.
The bill’s authors note that it is based on the Levine Act, which, they argue, has successfully prevented pay-for-play behavior by officials on appointed boards, such as the California Coastal Commission and the Local Area Formation Committee, since it took effect in 1982.
But there is also “legal influence peddling,” where donors with an interest can get before an elected body and spend unlimited cash to get that passed,” said Glazer. “The possibility of individual influence on local elected officials is rife at every type of municipality”.
But, Glazer added, “local politics by far offers the most opportunity for pay-to-play influence peddling.”
The Fair Political Practices Commission, which will oversee the enforcement of SB 1439, is planning for the new rule to be far-reaching.
Starting Jan. 1, officials elected to as many as 3,800 agencies in California will fall under the new guidelines, says Jay Wierenga
In counties such as Los Angeles and Riverside, industries as diverse as Hollywood; e-commerce could favor or oppose local officials based on their stances on zoning rules or environmental laws.
Even some regional municipalities with small populations – such as the City of Industry and Irwindale – could be affected by big projects if local leaders have campaign donation connections to companies that operate there.
“Me thinks, doth protestest too much”
Shakespeare-Hamlet
The “sometimes-opaque relationship” of business to municipal and county politics is why some consultants and others say the opportunity for big money to hold sway in city and county issues will go up, not down”.
Probolsky said, “the cost of winning an election to a city government post can now run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
“To get that money, new politicians generally start by seeking donations from family, friends, co-workers, small business owners, and others who live in their communities.”
These political profiles can show you who’s making the big political contributions in your state and where the money’s coming from (by city, by zip code, and graphically with our “money maps”).
“It’s far more common for money to be donated because the contributor agrees with a candidate on issues or ideas, not for a specific favor or vote.”
“Depending on how those officials respond to SB 1439, the political influence of many of those donors – “their politically protected, free speech,” might be taken away.”
Note: Only the public official’s ability to receive a “donation” is limited.
“You’re not going to find any elected official who will argue against this because saying anything makes them look bad,” Probolsky said. ”
“Many elected officials might recuse from casting votes out of caution, not because they actually will be violating any law.”
“I think it could make a big difference on close votes. If one vote is disqualified, many issues might be delayed.
“And suppose the council is a split vote. In that case, it could be a long-term issue on many projects,” said Scott Smith, an attorney representing San Clemente and Aliso Viejo and whose firm, Best Best and Krieger, represents about 200 cities in California.
But while Smith believes the new rule will require local officials to “adjust” – including the potential of declaring a financial conflict of interest in front of a room full of voters – he sees it as a win for small donors, generally, and for political transparency.
“It will provide greater visibility with less effort from the public. It will broaden the base of political voices,” Smith added.
