Two years ago, without a single “no” vote among them, California legislators passed legislation to curb the kind of pay-to-play corruption that has plagued local governments across the country.
Business groups, campaign donors and local elected officials have tried to overturn the law, and this session pushed two bills designed to do just that. Legislators should reject any attempt to undermine the law and focus on changes that make it clearer and easier for local officials to comply.
Senate Bill 1439 by Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda) extended the 1982 law known as the Levine Act, which prohibits appointed members of the Board and local commissions from voting on licenses, permits or other agreements that have direct financial benefits for people. who contributed more than $250 to campaigns for elected office.
The 2022 bill extends the ban to local elected officials, including city council members, school boards, water boards and county boards of supervisors, who were previously exempt from the Levine Act. The new law requires officials to abstain from voting on matters involving donors for one year after campaign contributions are received. They must also refuse political donations from any person or organization for one year after voting to benefit from the donor.
The aim is to reduce conflicts of interest and pay-to-play politics. The exchange of money between those seeking approval to build a project or public contract and those granting the approval creates a perception of quid pro quo, which undermines public confidence in the decision. Narrow and specific time limits for receiving campaign contributions and voting on behalf of donors help reduce the perception of favoritism. And it’s not a new idea.
The Los Angeles City Council – reeling from a series of corruption scandals involving real estate interests – voted in 2019 to ban campaign contributions from developers with projects requiring city approval. The city also prohibits donations from lobbyists and registered bidders for city contracts.
This is why the strong opposition to the provisions of SB 1439 is surprising and noteworthy. Business group sued to repeal the law, arguing that it will discourage members from making political contributions and violate the constitutional protection of free speech. Sacramento Superior Court Judge uphold the lawnoted that the US Supreme Court has recognized that preventing quid pro quo corruption or appearing to be in the state’s interest.
Business groups and some local officials then moved to the Legislature to overturn the law. Government organizations, including the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the League of California Cities, complained the law was too broad and the contribution limits too low, making it difficult to enforce.
Glazer and the good government groups that supported the legislation acknowledged some fine adjustments. This year, Glazer introduced Senate Bill 1181 to address implementation issues without undermining the intent of the original law. He also said he is considering raising the $250 contribution threshold for recusal. Advocates, including the California Clean Money Campaign, have suggested $500 would be enough.
Senate Bill 1243 by Sen. Bill Dodd (D-Napa) will limit the recusal time frame and raise the threshold to $1,000. That is very high. That would make the law work in many cities that already limit campaign contributions below $1,000, so no single donation would trigger pay-to-play protections. A bill by Assemblywoman Tina McKinnor (D-Hawthorne) would have raised the threshold to $1,500 but, thankfully, it died in committee last week.
Opponents of pay-to-play restrictions argue that the law makes it harder for candidates who lack the financial means to raise money for their campaigns. But the law does not limit all donors, only those who have permits, contracts or other decisions pending before the elected body. And if critics of the law say that the only way to fund city council campaigns is to freeze donations from people who do business with the city, well, that’s an argument for public campaign financing, not for removing safeguards against corruption.
Trust is essential to a functioning government and is easily lost when elected leaders are caught putting their own interests ahead of the public interest. The Legislature made the right decision two years ago to combat pay-to-play corruption among local officials. They don’t have to reverse it now.
