SLO County may set campaign donation limit at $25,000. That smells like corruption
John Peschong, county supervisor and long-time political operative, wants us to believe he has no financial conflict of interest in raising the ceiling on campaign contributions.
But he unquestionably does, and it’s so flagrant that only the most gullible, deluded or cynical would fail to call it what it is: corruption.
The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors this week set in motion a new local law that sets allowable campaign contributions for local elections — overriding a new state law, AB 571. This move, coming next year, will affect county supervisor races and county offices such as the sheriff and district attorney.
Signed by Gov. Newsom in 2019, it gives county supervisors the option of setting their own limits — like the SLO city cap of $300 per contributor — or doing nothing and defaulting to the current contribution cap of $4,700 on state legislative campaigns.
On a 3-1 vote, with Second District Supervisor Bruce Gibson dissenting, the board Tuesday set the local campaign contribution cap at $25,000 — more than five times the limit on state campaigns, and so high that there might as well be no limits at all.
Supervisors directed staff to come back with a formal ordinance Nov. 17 so the board can vote it into law before Jan. 1, 2021.
The new year brings the start of the local 2022 campaign cycle, with the primary election looming just 14 months hence, in March 2022.
Up for re-election then will be Gibson, 4th District Supervisor Lynn Compton, District Attorney Dan Dow, Sheriff Ian Parkinson, County Clerk Tommy Gong and several other countywide officeholders. Also on that ballot will be whomever the governor appoints to fill the seat of the late 3rd District Supervisor Adam Hill.
Peschong, a founding partner of political campaign firm Meridian Pacific, made at least $100,000 in salary from that political smut merchant, according to his 2019 statement of financial interest filed with the county. This is in addition to his county salary.
The haul from Meridian Pacific should require Peschong to recuse himself from any discussion of this ordinance, given that it directly affects his income, per California’s seminal Political Reform Act, adopted in 1974.
Prior to making the self-serving motion to move forward with the $25,000 spending cap, Peschong claimed Meridian Pacific hadn’t worked on any campaigns while he was a sitting supervisor for the past four years.
Yet his firm had, indeed, collected $643,000 from the campaign opposed to the anti-fracking Measure G in 2018, while he sat on the board.
Perhaps remembering this mid-meeting, Peschong amended his remarks with this hair-splitter: “I have not worked for any elective county office holder election for the past four years and will not during the next four years.”
While Peschong claims his firm will refrain from local campaign work while he’s in office, it could still conduct campaign work in the future. In effect, he’s setting the amount of money his firm can make from local campaigns four years from now.
Peschong could well see a direct financial benefit then — meaning he has a financial conflict now.
But wait, there’s more: nothing in the ordinance prohibits Meridian Pacific from engaging in local political campaigns any time it wishes. We’re just supposed to trust Peschong to keep his word.
Traditional principled norms for elected officials — that is, compliance with the law — customarily would prompt Peschong to refrain from discussing such issues, not to mention recusing from any vote.
That he is talking about it at all is a serious ethical breech, given the clear self-dealing that even the crookedest Tammany Hall scoundrel would have to admit. In truth, Peschong shouldn’t even have been seated at the dais when this matter came up.
Adding insult to ethical injury, Peshong included in his motion that the spending cap be enforced not by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, but the SLO County district attorney, the proselytizing partisan, Pastor Dan Dow.
Said Gibson, opposing Peschong’s motion: “I cannot support having the DA enforce this, especially not the DA we have in office right now.”
Gibson’s point: Even if we had an ethical DA – which we don’t – it’s a mistake putting an elected official in charge of campaign finance enforcement, especially one who’d be policing his own campaign for re-election in 2022.
Given the rank financial conflicts involved, this entire affair warrants a complaint to the FPPC.
If this state watchdog agency were to rule Peschong’s business dealings posed a financial conflict, the ordinance would be invalidated because the vote adopting it was corrupt.
Put bluntly, this stunt stinks of sleaze. Enough already.
Columnist Tom Fulks serves on the San Luis Obispo County Democratic Central Committee.
This story was originally published October 21, 2020 at 12:31 PM.