These two Sacramento County officials are suing to stop transparency in politics | Opinion

What do a Sacramento County supervisor, a Rancho Cordova city councilmember and a litany of California building and business trades coalitions have in common? They’re all suing the California Fair Political Practices Commission over a new law that restricts local elected officials from taking money from donors who need their vote.

It’s a common practice known as “pay to play,” and it’s particularly telling that Sacramento County Supervisor Pat Hume lent his name to the lawsuit since he took many thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from developers during his successful campaign for supervisor last year.

California Senate Bill 1439 was enacted on Jan. 1 this year with little fanfare and even less opposition. The bill, now a law, slightly amends the 1974 Political Reform Act — to require local elected leaders to disclose campaign and personal contributions made to them. The key part of the law is this: Local elected officials can no longer vote on issues before them if said issues involve individuals or companies that contributed more than $250 to them within 12 months of a vote. They would have to recuse themselves, a common-sense move by the legislature and governor to save local elected officials from themselves by preventing them from voting on issues within a year of getting money from people with business before them.

Why would anyone oppose this? Well, all of a sudden, many do.

The Family Business Association of California, the California Restaurant Association, the California Retailers Association, the California Building Industry Association, the Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange and several other building and business associations have signed on to a lawsuit against the new law.

The list of plaintiffs includes two familiar individuals: Hume and Rancho Cordova City Councilmember Garrett Gatewood.

Hume wrote in an emailed statement that, though his “issues with (the) law are many,” he believes there is a “Constitutional question at play regarding free speech in the political arena.”

“My biggest objection, though, is that this law only applies to those who bring applications forward, not for those who have a vested interest in opposition or for whom opposition is used as a negotiating tactic,” Hume wrote.

Hume declined to respond to a request to clarify that statement, which doesn’t fully explain his objections. The law does not impinge on any person, any corporation, or any association’s constitutional right to free speech via donations or contributions; it simply requires public transparency from the official or a recusal.

Here is why this is needed: Tom Winn Communities, a residential and commercial developer operating in Rancho Cordova, is still free to make a donation of $4,900 to Councilmember Gatewood’s campaign fund, as the developer did in June 2022. It’s just that Gatewood would now be prohibited from voting on business involving Tom Winn Communities before his council for 12 months before or after that donation. Such as he did in April 2022, when Gatewood voted to approve a General Plan amendment, EIR, rezoning and development agreement of a Tom Winn Communities development two months after he received their contribution.

Under the new law, Gatewood would have had to either recuse himself from that discussion, return the money after the donation was made, or face a misdemeanor offense and a possible fine of $5,000.

Hume, too, would likely have to recuse himself quite a bit from county business given the many thousands of dollars he took in campaign donations from local developers, businesses and building associations while serving as a supervisor and an Elk Grove councilmember.

In court documents, Hume states that “his duties as an elected official are significantly impaired” by the new law and that “(u)nder SB 1439, such contributions will require Plaintiff to recuse himself from making certain decisions required to be made by the County Board of Supervisors.”

Is SB 1439 perfect? No, members of the Legislature are still exempt. Future legislation will have to address that obvious omission, but SB 1439 is a valuable tool in local politics.

Critical issues, such as California’s climate crisis, are heavily influenced at the local level; it’s more important than ever for Sacramento County supervisors and local city councilmembers to make land use decisions with climate impacts in mind.

It’s unsurprising that recipients of developer money would not acknowledge the influence that campaign contributions can have on those land use decisions, and that they continue to deny the effect that constant sprawl has on our climate.

This lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against SB 1439. That would be a shame and a setback that would serve only to further obfuscate financial transparency in local politics.

It’s also a shame that two of Sacramento County’s own local elected officials, Hume and Gatewood, have lent their names to the effort to stop SB 1439.