A Sacramento County Superior Court judge has rejected a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an anti-pay-to-play law prohibiting elected officials from voting on matters involving the people and companies who contribute to their campaigns.
In his ruling Thursday, May 25, Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi determined the law, which went into effect in January, does not violate either the state or federal constitutions.
“The United States Supreme Court has recognized that preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance is a compelling state interest,” Sueyoshi wrote. “Defendants have provided sufficient evidence that SB 1439 sought to address this corruption by eliminating an exception for local elected officials in the legislative history.”
SB 1439, signed into law 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 has contributed more than $250 to their campaigns. The prohibition covers contributions made 12 months before and after the vote. A similar requirement already existed for officials appointed to local and state boards, but SB 1439 expanded California’s Political Reform Act to include most elected officials as well.
The lawsuit filed in February by a coalition of special interest groups attempted to stop the implementation of the law, alleging it is overly broad, improperly alters the state’s Political Reform Act and infringes on free speech protections related to the right to petition governments. The coalition said it feared the law would prevent involvement in local politics by effectively making it so businesses and their employees could no longer 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 ruling for those that want to…
Read the full article here