A Sacramento County Superior Court judge has thrown out a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an anti-pay-to-play law that bars elected officials from voting on issues involving individuals and companies that contribute to their campaigns.
In his ruling on Thursday, May 25, Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi determined that the law, which took effect in January, does not violate either the state or federal constitutions.
“The United States Supreme Court has recognized that preventing counterparty corruption or its occurrence is a compelling state interest,” Sueyoshi wrote. “Defendants have provided sufficient evidence that SB 1439 was intended to address this corruption by eliminating an exception for local elected officials in the legislative history.”
SB 1439, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in November, requires public office holders, from city councils to school boards, water boards and county supervisors, to recuse themselves from votes and discussions involving anyone who contributed more than $250 to their campaigns. The ban covers contributions made 12 months before and after the vote. A similar requirement already existed for appointed officials on local and state boards, but SB 1439 expanded the California Political Reform Act to include most elected officials as well.
The lawsuit was filed in February by a coalition of special interest groups sought to halt the law’s implementation, claiming it is overbroad, unduly alters the state’s Political Reform Act and violates free speech protections related to the right to petition governments. The coalition said it feared the law would prevent participation in local politics by making businesses and their employees no longer able to support elected officials in their communities.
Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, co-authored the bipartisan bill with Sen. Scott Wilk, R-Victorville. Glazer called the judge’s decision a “home run for those who want to end pay-to-play practices in our local governments.”
“The court’s ruling rejected all the claims of these special interest groups who fought to maintain their pay-to-play schemes,” Glazer said. “It’s a strike against the power of wealthy financial interests that are corrupting government decisions.”
Glazer said the law may be the “most important policy reform of the last 50 years.”
“Don’t take the money, rebuild public trust. I think that’s the key message from the judge’s decision today,” Glazer said.
SB 1439 passed the Legislature unanimously in 2022 and had no opposition at the time. The law was supported by the good-government organization California Common Cause, which described it as “a common-sense and long-overdue pro-democracy reform” that already exists in other states and in certain cities in California
Repealing the law would go against the “will of the people,” said Jonathan Mehta Stein, executive director of California Common Cause.
“This law protects Californians from pay-to-play corruption and the appearance of corruption that plagues our cities and counties, and helps restore faith in our leaders and our government,” he said.
Plaintiffs behind the lawsuit included the California Family Business Association, the California Restaurant Association, the California Retailers Association, the California Construction Industry Association, the California Property Association California Business Council, California Business Roundtable, Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange, California Technology and Manufacturers Association, Rancho Cordova City Council. Garrett Gatewood and Sacramento County Supervisor Pat Hume.
The coalition of business associations expressed their disappointment in a joint statement, calling the law hypocritical for excluding state lawmakers and labor groups from the limitations.
“We remain concerned about the weaponized use of this law by NIMBY organizations seeking to block new housing or competing business interests seeking to prevent competitive business growth,” the statement said. “While we consider future legal options to protect the important constitutional right to free speech exercised through campaign contributions, we call on the FPPC to monitor and inform the public about harmful abuses of this law.”
The Fair Political Practices Commission, the state agency charged with implementing and enforcing the law, acted as a defendant in the case and was represented by the California Attorney General’s Office. FPPC President Richard Miadich said the commission has continued to work on establishing regulations to fully implement the law, despite the lawsuit, and plans to adopt those new rules in June.
“We are pleased that the outcome upholds a significant expansion of what is known as the ‘pay-to-play’ law,” Miadich said. “With a unanimous vote in the Legislature and the governor’s signature, we can see overwhelming, bipartisan support for increased transparency and the accountability of elected officials to do what is right for the public.”
