California limits pay-to-play politics in local elections, but federal law enables a loophole
California has limited the amount a local candidate can accept from an individual donor before they must abstain from voting on issues that benefit that contributor, but independent expenditures offer a limitless alternative for individuals and groups that want to advocate for the election of candidates and the passage of measures that advance their agendas.
“People who want to obfuscate who they are and why they’re giving are going to give to an IE,” said Sean McMorris of the transparency organization California Common Cause. “(Electeds) can more legitimately say, ‘their money doesn’t affect my vote.’ Whether the public believes it or not is up to them.”
Sacramento voters this March took part in their first election since the state enacted a moratorium on elected officials voting on decisions that benefit people who gave more than $250 to support their campaign. However, much larger checks to support the election of local politicians were funneled through unrestricted political action committees — which are formed to support candidates and policies that advance a registered group’s priorities.
A PAC can take unlimited contributions from individuals and businesses and use them to advocate for the election of the group’s preferred candidates. For example, the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber Political Action Committee (Metro-PAC), which, according to their website, “amplifies the voice and policies of the Metro Chamber and really makes a difference for the business community,” in January filed an IE report to the city in support of council candidate Phil Pluckebaum.
That form listed the names of donors and the dollars contributed. Bardis and Miry Development and its owners and affiliates contributed a total of $25,000 and health insurer Centene/Health Net gave $5,000.
The fact that these businesses donated to the Metro-PAC rather than directly to Pluckebaum means that he can still take part in votes if either company seeks a city subsidy or other financial benefit.
These companies have a history of business dealings that have required the council’s approval. Centene, a Fortune 500 company, in 2017 got an up to $13.5 million city incentive to build its Natomas campus. Last month the council approved a controversial Bardis & Miry condo project in Campus Commons.
Centene spokesman Darrel Ng declined comment for this story. Pluckebaum did not respond to messages seeking comment.
Independent expenditures are treated differently than direct campaign contributions because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The justices found that placing limits on independent expenditures infringes on the free speech rights of “groups such as corporations, labor unions, or other collective entities.”
“The Supreme Court has tied our hands with IEs,” McMorris said. The only way that will change is if the majority of the Supreme Court would change from Republicans to Democrats.
The use of IEs will likely ramp up during the November general election — the first time since 2016 Sacramento has had a competitive mayoral race.
An IE report supporting mayoral candidate Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento, raised $275,000 ahead of the primary, mostly from unions. An IE against him supported by fast food franchise owners and the California Apartment Association raised over $600,000. They used that money to pay for negative mailers that flooded voters’ mailboxes.
McCarty’s competitor candidate Flojaune Cofer has rejected corporate contributions to her campaign, but she could still benefit from independent expenditures because federal stipulates that IEs must be spent without coordination with any candidate.
