A new state law targets ‘pay-to-play’ in politics. What does it mean for SLO County? | Opinion

A new California law aims to put an end to “pay-to-play” in local politics — and it will directly affect every mayor, every city council member and every county supervisor in the state.

The intent is to safeguard against corruption — or even the appearance of corruption — by discouraging politicians from accepting large campaign contributions from donors hoping to influence their votes.

It sounds like a step in the right direction — one that’s overdue.

Except, there are concerns that this particular law, SB 1439, could reduce transparency in campaign financing.

“This is scary as heck to me,” .said Caren Ray Russom, who was recently reelected mayor of Arroyo Grande. “I fear that what it’ll end up doing is creating even more dark money out there.”

Here’s how SB 1349, authored by state Sen. Steve Glazer, works:

Local officials will no longer be allowed to deliberate or cast a vote on an application for a “permit, license or entitlement” if they’ve accepted more than $250 from the applicant within the previous 12 months.

The rule also applies to contributions of over $250 from applicants’ opponents, if the opponents have a financial interest in the decision.

There is a caveat: If officials were not aware they had accepted such a contribution, they have the option of returning the money in order to preserve their right to vote.

Once a final decision is made, officials may not accept a contribution from the applicant for another 12 months.

While the bill took effect in January, it is not retroactive, which means it doesn’t apply to donations accepted over the past year.

The special interest problem

True or not, the very term “pay-to-play” has become synonymous with sleazy politics, conjuring up images of the mustachioed Monopoly Man handing over bulging sacks of money to shady politicians.

It’s widely viewed as a quid-pro-quo: An applicant — let’s say it’s a housing developer — makes a big campaign contribution, and the recipient returns the favor when the project comes up for a vote.

There’s already a state law that forbids appointed officials — such as California coastal commissioners — from accepting contributions and then voting on the donor’s project.

According to its backers, SB 1439 closes the loophole that exempted local elected officials from that restriction.

It earned broad support both in the Legislature — not a single lawmaker voted against it — and from organizations, including California Clean Money, the League of Women Voters of California and California Common Cause.

Well-known cases of corruption were cited as cautionary tales: In Huntington Park, for example, several companies donated thousands of dollars to City Council members and then received lucrative city contracts.

Cannabis connection

Here in San Luis Obispo County, there have been several accusations of pay-to-play — especially in the aftermath of the felony case that landed cannabis entrepreneur Helios Dayspring in prison for bribing the late Supervisor Adam Hill.

Dayspring also made legal campaign contributions to other local candidates for office, as did other cannabis investors hoping for favorable decisions from local agencies.

In the 2020 5th District supervisor’s race, for instance, one cannabis investor contributed $23,000 to Supervisor Debbie Arnold’s opponent. That played right into Arnold’s hands; she accused opponent Ellen Beraud of being “in the pocket” of Big Cannabis.

The specter of dark money

Will SB 1349 discourage special interests from bankrolling local campaigns in the future — or lead to more workarounds, as Mayor Russom fears?

A spokesman for Sen. Glazer gave this response:

“It is true that people can still contribute to PACs, but it’s not likely that PACs, which typically have a broad membership, would be focused on a single developer’s application,” policy analyst Stephen Harmon said via email.

“Having said that, Senator Glazer has pledged to monitor the situation and consider further action if the PACs start ramping up contributions in these situations.”

“Again, this bill is about trying to curtail direct corruption of votes,” he added.

Yet loopholes have made some local politicians skeptical.

“People will always get around a law,” Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Legg said.

Good point.

What, for example, is to prevent an applicant from making a hefty campaign contribution by using a third party, such as a friend or colleague?

That’s alarming. We need more transparency in campaign financing — not less — especially given the hundreds of thousands of dollars raised even in local races.

Voters deserve to know who is financing political campaigns so they can judge for themselves if a candidate is “in the pocket” of special interests and vote accordingly.

As much as we support restrictions that “curtail direct corruption of votes,” that’s not good enough.

If lawmakers really mean business, they will work on legislation to root out the far more insidious indirect corruption of votes.

This story was originally published January 8, 2023 at 5:30 AM.