That Law Messing with Political Campaigns Is Even Bigger

Look familiar? We pulled this post from the Morning Report. Get the latest news straight to your inbox by subscribing today.

For the last year, we have been covering the impacts of SB 1439, the state law that requires elected officials to recuse themselves from votes that could impact the interests of anyone who gave them more than $250 in campaign contributions. 

Here’s an example: If a developer contributed $500 to a City Councilmember’s re-election campaign, and that developer’s project came up for a vote, the City Councilmember could not vote on the item. Or, they would have to return the money within a month of learning the vote was coming to them. 

It has had a major impact on political campaigns in San Diego and across the state. 

The news: The city of San Diego’s Ethics Commission has now concluded that the law not only applies to contributions to the candidates for their races for city offices but also for their campaigns for Central Committees for political parties. 

Politics Report: Campaign Finance Rocked by New Law

by Andrew Keatts and Scott Lewis May 27, 2023

Several candidates ran for both their offices and Central Committee seats. They raised money for those party seats and may have thought it was separate and could accept donations that the other campaign would avoid. Nope, says the Ethics Commission.

The Ethics Commission provided its own example: 

“Stated differently, if a Councilmember received a $300 contribution from Person X to a committee established to support that Councilmember’s run for a Central Committee seat, and within 12 months Person X appeared before the City Council regarding a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, that Councilmember could not participate in that proceeding.”

And there’s more: “Additionally, donations made to any committee connected to an elected official will likely be aggregated for the Levine Act analysis. In this hypothetical, if Person X donated $150 to the committee established for the Councilmember’s Central Committee seat, and a separate $150 to the Councilmember’s reelection campaign for the Council seat, that Councilmember also could not participate in a proceeding involving Person X.”