SLO County Board wants to cap campaign donations at $25,000 — more than 5 times state limit
San Luis Obispo County leaders want to cap campaign contributions at $25,000 per person — an amount that’s five times the statewide limit that will go into effect next year.
The county Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted 3-1 to direct staff to prepare an ordinance limiting contributions ahead of a new California law that will impact how much money candidates running for political office will be able to receive.
District 2 Supervisor Bruce Gibson cast the lone dissenting vote.
Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2019 signed AB 571, which will cap campaign donations at $4,700 starting in January 2021 in all cities and counties that don’t already have their own election finance laws, according to a county staff report.
In San Luis Obispo County, this will apply to 10 elected officials, including the five supervisors, the district attorney and the sheriff. Cities will need to set their own campaign finance laws or abide by the state default limit.
The contribution cap would apply to all individuals and organizations donating to candidates, but it wouldn’t impact political action committees (PACs) or groups that raise funds to campaign on behalf of those running for office.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPCC), an independent, non-partisan board, will enforce the new law in communities that don’t specify otherwise.
Peschong pushes for $25,000 limit
District 1 Supervisor John Peschong — a partner at political consulting firm Meridian Pacific, which has previously worked with local candidates — pushed for the county’s contribution limit to be raised to $25,000.
Peschong said he didn’t need to recuse himself from the discussion because his company won’t take part in races for elected offices until after he completes his tenure as supervisor.
“My firm has not done any political races in San Luis Obispo County for elected county offices for the last four years since I’ve been elected,” Peschong said. “I will not be doing any while I serve as supervisor in San Luis Obispo County.”
Meridian was an active player in county races prior to Peschong’s election — the firm advised District 5 Supervisor Debbie Arnold during her 2012 campaign.
And the company has remained involved in local politics even after Peschong became a supervisor. In 2018, Meridian received nearly $650,000 to fight Measure G, a ballot measure that would’ve banned new oil wells and fracking in unincorporated areas of the county, according to a New Times story.
Even if Peschong’s company doesn’t participate in any local races for elected offices while he’s a supervisor, Meridian could reap the benefits of a higher donation cap after he leaves his position.
After declining to recuse himself, Peschong suggested the $25,000 donation cap is appropriate because it matches the size of the largest contribution made in the lead-up to the March District 5 primary between Arnold and challenger Ellen Beraud.
“I went back and looked at a number of campaigns,” Peschong said. “There was one campaign in North County for supervisor that received a donation, I believe, of $25,000. So that was probably the most in the primary election of this last year, and so I would put the limit at $25,000. That’s what I would like to see.”
Beraud in January received a $23,000 contribution from William Szymczak, a developer invested in county cannabis projects, according to a previous Tribune story and public campaign finance reports. At the time, Arnold criticized the payment, calling it “pay to play.”
Peschong also suggested a $200,000 cap on the amount candidates could loan themselves — double the $100,000 state default limit.
He proposed the District Attorney’s Office should enforce the donation cap instead of the FPCC, as a way of “keeping it local.”
Supervisors debate donation cap
Arnold said the large donation to Beraud “didn’t sway the outcome of the election.” Even so, she said, the fact that there’s no limit on PAC contributions means candidates may need a way to combat advertising being done on opponents’ behalf.
“Sometimes candidates need to be able to collect to compete with messages that are being put out there,” Arnold said. “They may not be accurate, or you might want to expand on that message.”
Gibson said he didn’t support raising the contribution limit beyond the state’s $4,700 default.
“I look around and see the amount of money that has gone into certain supervisorial campaigns, and I, frankly, don’t think it’s a good thing,” he said.
He pointed out that the $4,700 cap currently applies to State Senate and Assembly races, and it hasn’t impacted the amount of advertising candidates have undertaken.
“There is no lack of messaging, with or without substance, that comes under those limits,” Gibson said.
He also said a lower limit forces candidates to expand their donation base and “make connections that are important to the elected official that prevails once they’re in office.”
Gibson disagreed with the idea that the district attorney — an elected official who would also have to abide by the contribution limit — should enforce the donation cap. Allowing the FPPC to enforce the contribution limits would also save local taxpayers money, he said.
“I think there’s a fundamental conflict of that person being an elected official,” he said. “With that office having been politicized, I think we set ourselves up for trouble.”
District 4 Supervisor Lynn Compton said she’s “a little uncomfortable with the $25,000” limit, although she thinks the state’s $4,700 cap is too low. However, Compton expressed support for a local ordinance that could be adjusted after being approved.
“I don’t like defaulting to the state on things, so I like the fact that we’re going to do our own ordinance, it sounds like,” she said. “If we decide it’s not working, then we can tweak it in the future, as long as we have something in place.”
The ordinance will be introduced to the board for a first reading on Nov. 10, and it will return for a hearing on Nov. 17.
This story was originally published October 21, 2020 at 12:15 PM.
