A new California law that took effect this year may be the most important political reform the state has enacted in a half century. No wonder special interests and the politicians they help elect are trying to kill it. The law takes aim at the practice known as “pay-to-play,” where individuals, groups and corporations make campaign contributions to local government officials just before and after they vote on items providing a direct financial benefit to the donor.

You might think that such blatant conflicts of interest were already against the law but they were not. Since the 1970s, California’s Political Reform Act has banned conflicts where elected officials vote on matters affecting their own financial interest. And since the 1980s, we have banned appointed members of local boards and commissions from taking action on matters that affect contributors when the appointee receives donations for a political campaign.

But politicians who were directly elected to their positions rather than appointed were exempt from that ban. Senate Bill 1439, which I authored, closed that loophole. The bill is simple. It says that local elected officials can’t vote on matters that have a direct financial effect on interests that have contributed $250 or more to the official’s campaign in the previous year. It also blocked local officials from accepting such a contribution for a year after the vote.

The new law will apply to votes on real estate developments, trash hauling contracts and other matters where there is a direct link between an official’s vote and the financial interests of the donor. The need for the bill was made clear by recent cases around the state. In 2016, a Los Angeles developer contributed $50,000 to a campaign committee supporting a city councilmember just two months before a scheduled vote on the developer’s project.

In 2018 and 2020, nearly a third of about $125,000 donated to Huntington Park city council members came from eight companies and their executives who had contracts pending with the city, according to an investigation by KCET. While it rarely makes the headlines, it is common knowledge that local officials solicit contributions from private interests who have matters pending at the city council or county board of supervisors. That kind of strong-arming is not a crime unless the public official links their action to the recipient of a contribution.

But preventing the public official from voting when they receive such a contribution would reduce the incentive for that kind of corrosive behavior. Although the bill passed without an opposing vote in either the Senate or the Assembly, special interests and local officials sued to try to block the law’s implementation. Their arguments were disingenuous, and a Sacramento Superior Court judge agreed last week, rejecting the lawsuit and upholding SB 1439. Their claim that the law violated the free speech of donors ignored that the law applies to elected officials, not contributors.

Donors are still free to support whoever they want. Elected officials are simply not allowed to vote on matters that directly benefit those who contribute to their campaigns. The argument that the law is flawed because it does not apply to spending by independent campaigns on behalf of elected officials is also misleading. Those making that case know full well that the Supreme Court has ruled that such spending is protected by the First Amendment and couldn’t be included in SB 1439.

Finally, the same interests complaining about SB 1439 violating their right to make contributions are questioning why it doesn’t also apply to state officials. Although the lion’s share of state decisions apply to the general public, not specific interests, I agree that the same rules should apply to state officials in the few cases where it is relevant.

I intend to pursue that reform as a follow-up to SB 1439. We need to preserve SB 1439 – and expand it – so we can ensure that our government officials are making decisions for the public interest, not the special interests.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various author’s articles on this Opinion piece or elsewhere online or in the newspaper where we have articles with the header “COLUMN/EDITORIAL & OPINION” do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints or official policies of the Publisher, Editor, Reporters or anybody else in the Staff of the Hemet and San Jacinto Chronicle Newspaper.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Rooting out local government corruption in California starts by ending pay-to-play appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The biggest winemaker in the U.S. wants to open an East Coast bottling and distribution center in South Carolina, investing $400 million and hiring up to 500 people. But its request for open tasting rooms where the public can sample wines has some lawmakers and small businesses crying sour grapes.

E & J Gallo Winery’s call for tasting rooms in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars is seen as a prized catch for Chester County, one of the poorest areas of South Carolina. The California winemaker even likens its plan to the at first modest mid-1990s investment by BMW in South Carolina — now one of the state’s biggest manufacturing success stories with 11,000 employees.

But the public tasting rooms request has caused the measure to grind slowly through the Legislature in a state where quirky alcohol laws protect small retailers, harkening back to the days of saloons and booze only in private clubs and bartenders making drinks with minibottles typically found on airplanes..

A bill allowing the tasting rooms passed barely before a deadline earlier this month, and a House subcommittee gave its OK on Thursday, a critical step with just nine legislative days remaining in the 2021 session.

Gallo picked South Carolina over Georgia and North Carolina for its East Coast operations, a strategic move to cut costs since nearly two-thirds of its customers live east of the Mississippi River, said Ron Donoho, a vice president for the winemaker.

He said the upscale rooms likely would be in tourist areas and allow a group of 10 or so people to gather for about an hour and taste a number of different wines in thimble-full amounts. After the tasting, each person could buy up to six bottles of wine.

“Many consumers will worry about making the wrong choice so we’ve learned over time that those satellite tasting rooms and that consumer experience and building brand engagement with consumers is really essential to building your business,” Donoho said.

But the tasting rooms are where the state’s liquor laws enter the debate. Liquor stores in the state can’t buy their product directly, but must instead go through wholesalers. There are 1,000 liquor stores in the state, but any one person or corporation can’t own more than six and in many cases are limited to just three different locations.

In 1892, South Carolina nearly approved prohibition, but instead gave the state a monopoly on the liquor business. Corruption followed, but the state remained slow in changing its laws. There are no true bars, just private clubs. Public places that sell liquor must also have a restaurant operation.

Until 1973, people brought their own liquor to have a mixed drink with a meal. For the next three decades, drinks could only be made using a full minibottle of each liquor, like the ones served on airplanes. One Long Island Ice Tea in those days took four full minibottles and was 24 ounces (700 milliliters).

“South Carolina has such a piecemeal system for alcohol developed through the years and there are a lot of people who are protective of their interests,” said Rep. Micah Caskey, a Republican from West Columbia.

Wholesalers and liquor stores are against the bill because they don’t want Gallo to be able to sell the wine directly after the tastings. Lawmakers responded by changing the bill so Gallo would have to buy their own bottles from wholesalers.

That didn’t help liquor stores, said George McLaughlin, who owns three locations and estimates about 40% of his business is Gallo wines. He also suggested if Gallo can sell wine directly to buyers, the winemaker might then cut out wholesalers.

“If a husband and wife can buy 12 bottles, they don’t need to go to their local store,” McLaughlin said. “When they take out 40% of my market share, I’m going to lost 40% of my staff.”

The state’s dozen or so small wineries also showed up Thursday to speak out against the bill or at least ask to be able to band together and open their own off-site tasting room.

Larry Cozine opened the South Bend Winery in Greenwood last year, and now he sees Gallo potentially taking away business from the live music and supper clubs at his business.

“I’ve invested my life savings in the business. I’ve put my entire family’s destiny on this like Gallo did all those years ago.” Cozine said. “I’m Gallo now.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post S Carolina quirky liquor laws give sour grapes to wine giant appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.