SLO County may pass reviled $25,000 campaign donation cap Friday. Blame 3 tone-deaf supervisors

In spite of substantial public opposition, the conservative majority of the Board of Supervisors appears committed to adopting a $25,000 cap on campaign contributions to SLO County candidates.

That would be a huge mistake — one voters should remember come election time.

A public hearing is scheduled for 8 a.m. Friday — it was not heard at Tuesday’s regular board meeting due to lack of time — but the board already has voted 3-1 on two separate occasions to adopt a $25,000 cap, rather than stick with the $4,700 limit set by state law.

Unless they decide to pay attention to their constituents, it appears unlikely that the three conservative supervisors — John Peschong, Debbie Arnold and Lynn Compton — will back down, in spite of the negative reaction.

Bruce Gibson, the only supervisor who’s voted against the $25,000 limit, said his office has received more than 250 phone calls and emails opposed to the high cap.

The local chapter of the League of Women Voters, one of the most respected and influential organizations in the county, has put out an “action alert” asking members of the public to let the board know that they are opposed to big money in local politics.

“The proposed ordinance moves our county in the wrong direction with campaign finance reform and will exacerbate the public’s perception that money controls elections, further eroding the public’s confidence in our local elections,” the League’s message says.

Mike Brown, executive director of the conservative lobbying group COLAB, has also spoken in favor of lower limits. He pointed out that spending on local campaigns used to be much lower.

“It was much more democratic than what it is today, where you have these huge PACs and organizations, some backed by big corporations, some by municipal and state labor unions, influencing the politics of these governments,” he said at an October meeting.

And Cal Poly political science Professor Michael Latner says the $25,000 cap — which is five times higher than most other counties — would amount to “essentially auctioning off our candidates to the highest bidders.”

So why won’t the board pay attention?

Peschong, who proposed the $25,000 cap, says the high limit will give candidates the ability to counter campaigns financed by independent entities, such as political action committees, that can spend unlimited money as long as they don’t coordinate with the individual campaigns.

Supervisor Gibson suggested the board limit that spending as well.

“If we’re concerned about that, we should bring forth an ordinance that would clamp down on that as well,” he said at a recent board meeting.

If only it were that simple.

Unfortunately, limiting independent campaign expenditures is not allowed.

“The Supreme Court case of Citizens United vs. FEC held that an independent expenditure is political speech, not coordinated with the candidate, and therefore, unlimited contributions are allowed,” County Counsel Rita Neal said via email.

That’s still no excuse to allow the kind of runaway spending that would make it impossible for lesser-known candidates with no connections to monied interests to compete.

After all, this isn’t a Los Angeles County where candidates must reach out to millions of voters. We are a small county, and there are plenty of opportunities to contact voters through channels that cost little or nothing, such as candidate forums, interviews with local media and door-to-door canvassing.

It’s extremely disappointing that the board majority seems intent on allowing special interests to exert more and more influence in county elections for positions such as supervisor, district attorney and sheriff.

At the very least, they should be willing to consider a compromise that would be more palatable to the general public, such as a $7,500 limit or, at most, $10,000.

This is an opportunity for a politically divided board to act in the best interests of all their constituents — conservative, liberal and apolitical — by voting to limit the corrupting influence of special interest money in our local elections.

We strongly urge the board to reconsider its position and lower the cap on contributions to candidates for county office.

This story was originally published November 9, 2020 at 8:03 AM.