Why a CA campaign finance law could get blown up

In 2022, California lawmakers tried to stop “pay to play” by local elected officials — taking campaign money from various groups and then approving licenses, building permits and other goodies for the same donors. 

The law passed easily, but business groups sued to kill it in 2023. They failed, but now, there’s a move afoot in the Legislature to roll it back, as CalMatters politics reporter Yue Stella Yu explains.

The law at issue limits campaign contributions to $250 to local office holders from a donor with official business before those officials. Senate Bill 1243, which got through the Senate elections committee on Tuesday, would raise that limit to $1,000 and loosen other restrictions — which the current law’s defenders say would gut it.

The committee debate got spicy: The bill’s author, Sen. Bill Dodd, a Napa Democrat, rammed it through without any amendments, over the objections of chairperson Catherine Blakespear, an Encinitas Democrat, who wanted to treat all groups equally and not have special carve-outs for housing and unions.

Dodd told Stella that he believes legislators didn’t understand the implications of the 2022 law when he voted for it. Now, however, “it has become very apparent that there are problems.”

• Dodd, during the hearing: “The idea that our local elected officials can be bought and sold for $250 is both laughable and frankly offensive.”

But Blakespear, who cast the lone “no” vote in committee Tuesday, said Dodd’s bill “has too many problems.” California Common Cause and California Clean Money Campaign argue that the proposal favors certain industries and reduces transparency.

And what does the author of the 2022 law think of all this? Sen. Steve Glazer, an Orinda Democrat, told Stella that Dodd’s bill “makes it easier to corrupt local officials and it is wrong.”

Read more about the debate in Stella’s story.

In other Capitol happenings on Tuesday:

• Food insecurity: As part of #HungerActionDay, food banks and anti-poverty organizations gathered to speak out against potential cuts to CalWORKs programs, as well as to expand food assistance programs such as CalFresh. According to the California Budget & Policy Center, 1 in 6 California children are food insecure.
• Victims’ rights: The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence rallied with other victims advocates and legislators to push back against potential funding cuts to crime victim services. In addition to the state’s budget shortfall, federal funds for these services are declining, leaving California nonprofit programs and domestic violence shelters at risk.
• Offshore wind: Several Assemblymembers pushed for a proposed $1 billion bond issue to finance port improvements for offshore wind turbines. Assemblymember Rick Zbur, a Los Angeles Democrat and a co-author of the proposal, said securing funding for wind energy projects “is a crucial step” to meet the state’s climate goals.

As some major insurers continue to halt or stop offering policies — leaving California homeowners struggling to find coverage — legislation pushing companies to consider wildfire mitigation efforts are underway, writes CalMatters economy reporter Levi Sumagaysay.

Research shows that mitigation, such as altering a roof’s shape, installing vents or clearing out nearby trees and bushes, is effective at reducing wildfire risk — at times by as much as 75%. Three bills underscore the weight legislators put on mitigation as a way to ease the state’s insurance market mess. 

• SB 1060 would require insurance companies to incorporate mitigation when considering whether to write or renew policies.
• AB 2983 calls for the state Insurance Department and the California Office of Emergency Services to determine whether investments in mitigation have any impact on the availability of insurance policies.
• AB 2416 would require the insurance department to regularly determine whether to update its 2022 Safer from Wildfires guidelines, which detail steps property owners can take to protect their homes. According to the department’s website, adopting its measures “can help you save money on your insurance.”

Sen. Josh Becker, a Menlo Park Democrat who authored SB 1060, told Levi that “we believe that if you do the homework, you should get the credit.” 

But others are skeptical how seriously insurers take these prevention efforts into account. At a public hearing on insurance issues last week, Nevada County Supervisor Heidi Hall said that residents in her community have spent “tens of thousands of dollars” protecting their homes, and that the county has spent millions to curb wildfires. And yet, “we’re not seeing discounts from insurance companies. They’re still leaving,” she said.

Read more about the bills in Levi’s story.

Also from CalMatters economy reporter Levi Sumagaysay:

The tech billionaire-backed initiative to create a new community in Solano County believes it has collected enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot, California Forever CEO Jan Sramek said Tuesday. 

California Forever submitted 20,472 signatures to the county registrar, more than the 13,062 valid signatures needed for the controversial measure to be put on the ballot. If it makes it on the ballot, voters will be asked to rezone farmland for the proposed development between Travis Air Force Base and Rio Vista.

At a press conference in downtown Vallejo, Sramek said the number of signatures collected is higher than he expected and is “a testament” to how much support there is for the project. The project promises to bring to northeast Solano County a walkable community, help toward down payments for new homes and more. Sramek added that by signing the petition, supporters said “we want to end long commutes. We want (more) homes now.”

California Forever also promises thousands of jobs paying at least 125% of the average wages in Solano County — or more than $80,000 annually — but has not named employers that will provide those jobs; Sramek said the company will be “talking about” possible employers in the next few weeks.

• Greg Ritchie, vice mayor of Vacaville, at the press conference: “The new city will enable people to experience upward mobility… not just gigs, but employment that can turn into amazing careers.”

Solano Together, a coalition of community residents, officials and environmental groups against the project, pointed to its recent poll that showed overwhelming opposition, and said a new city “would increase traffic while paving over valuable agricultural lands and diverting valuable resources from existing communities.”

Fairfield Mayor Catherine Moy said she wants to protect Travis Air Force Base, the county’s “way of farming” and its open space.

• Moy: “I’m not convinced at all that this is good for Solano County.”

The county registrar released a schedule of what comes next: It will count the signatures through May 6, and conduct a random review of 3% of the signatures to verify them through June 11. If the number of approved signers falls within 95% to 110% of 13,062, the registrar will conduct a full review of the signatures through Sept. 5.

After receiving a multibillion-dollar windfall from Congress during the COVID pandemic, how did California public colleges and universities spend all their cash?

California colleges struggling with steep enrollment drops and lost tuition dollars received more than $8 billion from the federal government in 2021, according to CalMatters reporter Adam Echelman. The schools had limited guidance on how to spend the money, though they were required to give about half towards “institutional” needs and the other half directly to students.

With the final June 30 deadline to spend the money looming, most schools have burned through the cash, often through major purchases. UCLA, for example, reported spending most of its institutional funds to recoup “lost revenue” from tuition and dorms. And Evergreen Valley College in San Jose spent its institutional needs dollars on new technology, tuition discounts and waivers for students with fines and fees. 

The money for students went to those most in need, typically less than $1,000 each. According to federal reports, students often spent it on daily necessities, such as housing, food and transportation.

For more details on how colleges and students spent their COVID relief dollars, read Adam’s story.