The Controversial California Pay To Play Bill: What You Need To Know

The California Pay To Play bill, also known as SB 1243, has been a controversial piece of legislation that has seen both support and opposition from various groups and lawmakers in the state. Here is an in-depth look at what exactly this bill entails, its history, and the debate surrounding it.

What is the California Pay To Play Bill?

The California Pay To Play bill, introduced by Senator Bill Dodd, proposes to amend an existing law passed in 2022 that placed limits on campaign contributions from certain groups to local elected officials. The 2022 law prohibited entities like businesses, contractors, and lobbyists that have matters pending before local officials, like permits or licenses, from donating over $250 to those officials’ campaigns within a specified time period

The current SB 1243 bill aims to revise these limits in a few key ways

• Raises the contribution limit from $250 to $1000
• Lengthens the time period restrictions for donations from 12 months to 18 months
• Exempts certain groups like housing developers and labor unions from the restrictions

Essentially, this bill would allow more leeway for interested parties like developers and contractors to contribute larger amounts to the campaigns of officials who oversee their project approvals and permits. Supporters argue this will even the playing field, while opponents believe it enables “pay to play” practices and political corruption.

A Brief History: The Path to Passing the 2022 Law

The 2022 law placing tighter restrictions on local campaign donations was passed in response to multiple high-profile “pay to play” scandals in California cities like Los Angeles and Huntington Park. These cases saw city officials allegedly accepting bribes and kickbacks in exchange for awarding lucrative contracts and permits to certain developers and businesses.

The law was authored by Senator Steven Glazer, who argued it was needed to combat corruption and rebuild public trust. It passed unanimously through the state legislature in 2022 and went into effect January 2023.

However, it was quickly met with a lawsuit from business groups who argued it was unconstitutional. While the business groups lost their suit in May 2023, they continued lobbying state lawmakers for changes, which led to Senator Dodd’s SB 1243 bill proposing to amend the law.

The Debate: Supporters vs Opponents of Changing the Law

The SB 1243 bill has sparked heated debate, both among lawmakers and interest groups in the state.

Supporters of the bill include:

• Sen. Bill Dodd and other legislators who voted for changes, arguing the 2022 law needs amending to avoid unintended consequences.

• Developers and construction groups like the California Building Industry Association, who say the low limits unfairly restrict their participation and favor wealthy self-financed candidates.

• Labor unions like the California Labor Federation, who secured exemptions from the tighter restrictions.

Opponents of the bill include:

• Sen. Steven Glazer, author of the 2022 law, who strongly opposes any efforts to dilute the limits and says it will enable corruption.

• Good government groups like California Common Cause, who argue the changes reopen the door to special interest influence and “pay to play” practices.

• Some local elected officials, who believe the lower limits help combat perceived corruption.

Proponents of the changes say the higher limits and carve-outs for groups like housing developers are necessary to allow reasonable donations and avoid stifling participation. Opponents counter that diluting the law so soon after passage unravels important reforms before they have a chance to work.

The Bill’s Path Through the State Legislature

The SB 1243 bill passed its first test in the Senate Elections Committee in April 2024, although the committee chair Senator Catherine Blakespear voted against it citing concerns. However, with Senator Dodd refusing amendments, the bill moved forward backed by the real estate and construction lobby.

The bill will need a two-thirds majority vote in both the full State Senate and Assembly to pass, which observers note will be challenging given the strong opposition. If successful, the measure will then proceed to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk.

However, the bill faces time pressure, as it has to clear the legislature by the end of August 2024 or it dies. This short window, an upcoming election season, and thecoordinated pushback from reform advocacy groups adds complexity to the bill’s outlook.

The Stakes: Implications of Potential Changes

If passed into law, the SB 1243 bill would have significant implications for state and local politics in California. The loosening of limitations on campaign donations to local elected officials could reshape the dynamics between special interests, developers, and city councils.

Additionally, the exemptions for certain groups like housing developers could fundamentally alter how real estate projects get approved in cities across the state. Unions would also benefit.

On the other hand, if the bill fails to pass the legislature in some form or is vetoed by the Governor, it would be a major victory for grassroots advocates of getting special interest money out of politics. However, the existing 2022 law would remain controversial.

Regardless of the outcome, the heated debate over this bill has illuminated the tensions between lawmakers seeking to regulate money in politics versus boost affordable housing production and economic development. How these priorities get balanced will significantly impact the state in the years to come.

The California Pay To Play bill remains one of the most hotly contested legislative measures in Sacramento right now. While its final fate remains uncertain, it provides a fascinating case study on the intersection between campaign finance laws and special interest influence in the state. Close observers await the next rounds of this ongoing saga with great interest.