On campaign finance reform, Sens. Toni Atkins and Steven Bradford are hypocrites | Opinion

Toni Atkins and Steven Bradford have so much in common: They are both California senators (Atkins is the outgoing senate leader), and they both have campaign accounts open to run for lieutenant governor.

They both sent out invitations to fundraisers in the final days of the most recent legislative session. They both may never even appear on the ballot as a candidate for lt. governor. And they are both complete hypocrites regarding campaign finance reform.

Opinion

Both Atkins of San Diego and Bradford of Gardena voted for Senate Bill 1439 in 2022. Authored by Steven Glazer (D-Orinda), SB 1439 has created chaos for local government elections across California. The bill amended the Political Reform Act of 1974 to prevent local government officials — but not the Legislature — from voting on a matter impacting a campaign contributor of more than $250 who has made the contribution within the past year. SB 1439 allows the elected official to vote if the contribution is returned prior to the vote.

The goal of the bill is a worthy one. This is an attempt to keep political donations from influencing policy-making at the local government level. Yet the bill probably achieved the opposite.

All over the state, this legislation is keeping money out of local government races. But the reason is not contribution limits, it’s because elected officials and donors don’t understand the law or its logic. The confusion is caused by setting a new contribution limit: the year time period following the contribution on votes since that contribution. A lack of understanding and confusion is not good policy implementation. The ones who do understand it are institutional donors who make political donations part of their local business model. The small donor who is passionate about a candidate, meanwhile, is far less likely to want to get caught up in the regulation of their free political expression.

For example, if you are a city council member and accept a contribution of $250, the assumption is that you have been influenced by that contribution. In many cases, local elected officials may receive hundreds of donations. Twelve months after each is received, the elected official has to keep track of who gave what and for how much. It almost makes the contributions more a part of the policy process as local elected officials constantly have to remind themselves who did and did not donate to them.

Yet, just as the legislative session was coming to a close, we had Atkins and Bradford each looking for contributions of $5,000 or more on the same day (not the same year) as legislation was being voted on with events right across the street from the Capitol. Both senators voted for this wrongheaded legislation — a prime example of “do what I say, not as I do.”

Another big issue is that SB 1439 is a legislative incumbent protection plan. How can legislators be effectively challenged by a popular local elected official if the legislator is raising money in $5,000 increments and the local mayor is accustomed to raising money in $249 increments?

What this legislation really does is push money into independent expenditure committees that are not subject to this rule. Unlimited dollars can flow from any source, yet the law assumes that legislators aren’t in control and have no knowledge of the expenditure or the funders. I promise that every legislator knows exactly who funded independent expenditures for and against them.

We need to stop this game of ineffective limits and nonsensical rules. Get rid of the limits and require complete, full and immediate disclosure. Business groups are doing us all a favor by challenging this measure in court.

Step up and be consistent, Sens. Atkins and Bradford. Either chart a path forward that places the same good government principle on you and your legislative colleagues, or remove this restriction on local government campaign finance.

Matt Rexroad is a political consultant and attorney.