SLO County’s ‘unabashedly partisan’ district attorney shouldn’t police local elections

The San Luis Obsipo County Board of Supervisors has a chance to do something good for our local democracy by limiting campaign contributions in county elections but our board’s conservative majority has clearly signaled they’re not interested.

Supervisors Lynn Compton, Debbie Arnold and John Peschong have rushed to get local campaign rules in place before new state regulations set by AB 571 take effect Jan. 1, 2021.

They want individual contribution limits hiked to $25,000 per donor, more than five times the state’s $4,700 cap that would otherwise go into effect next year.

They have to act fast — before the end of this month — or we default to the state limit. They’re so intent on pushing their ordinance through that our board must meet in an unusual Friday session.

I remain opposed to this ill-considered proposal, which will cost taxpayers money and give enforcement to our actively partisan District Attorney.

The only rationale offered for these exorbitant levels is that lower amounts would push money toward independent expenditure (IE) committees, where contributions can’t be limited. Most IEs, however, aren’t formed to support cash-strapped candidates — they’re typically set up for negative campaigns against opponents.

While IEs are legally prohibited from coordinating with any campaign, unprincipled candidates often take full advantage: The IE attacks their opponent while the candidate denies any responsibility for the assault.

Just this year, we saw a striking example. In the District 5 supervisor race, incumbent Debbie Arnold and challenger Ellen Beraud raised over $600,000 between them. Still, a group called Friends of Veterans in SLO County was formed to smear Beraud over a vote she cast opposing the specific design of the Atascadero Veterans Memorial.

As a Tribune editorial noted on Feb. 21, “this Friends of Veterans PAC is cynically attempting to manipulate voters by rewriting the history of a solitary vote, abusing its context and shoveling it out to an electorate as thinly veiled emotional fearmongering.”

“Politics as usual,’” you might sigh.

But here’s the disturbing part: DA Dan Dow was a founder and executive committee member of this PAC and contributed money to it — an unprecedented political act by a sitting SLO County DA.

Dow’s activism is an extension of his close relations with local conservatives. He endorsed both Arnold and John Peschong in this year’s elections. Dow’s wife, Wendy, contributed to those campaigns and to Lynn Compton’s 2014 race. Compton reciprocated with a donation to the Friends PAC.

In defending his role as an active partisan campaigner, Dow — self-describing as “a very patriotic American veteran” — was “shocked” at Beraud’s vote.

I’m shocked that we might give campaign spending enforcement authority to a unabashed political partisan like our current DA. For that matter, no local elected official should be in charge of local campaign regulations.

Beyond the unseemly prospect of the board majority raising the roof on campaign spending and installing their political comrade as a clearly compromised enforcer, the county’s taxpayers will be paying to enforce the new rules. If we default to the state limits, enforcement responsibility and cost remain where they are now, with the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission.

In two recent preliminary votes on this matter, I’ve opposed these exorbitant local allowances because they’re bad for local democracy. A comment letter submitted by local attorney Erica Boltodano and joined by 27 other prominent citizens makes the point well:

“Reasonable campaign contribution and candidate loan limits, like those set forth in AB 571, will reduce the risk of actual and perceived corruption in our county government. We elect leaders to represent our best interests, not the deepest pockets. The mere appearance of corruption is detrimental to the public’s trust in our elected leaders and, right now, people are hungry for trust in their elected leaders.”

As we emerge from the noise and bluster of our general election, I hear clearly our community’s desire for good government and honest elected leadership. As of this writing, the board has received a combination of more than 600 emails and calls on this matter. I haven’t seen one supporting the $25,000 local limit. Not a single one.

I hope my fellow supervisors hear that message as well and choose to do the right thing.

Bruce Gibson represents District 2 on the county Board of Supervisors.

This story was originally published November 19, 2020 at 11:18 AM.