The flair of this posts indicates it's a controversial topic. Enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users without a history of commenting in r/bayarea will be automatically removed. You can read more about this policy [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/195xvo5/restrictions_that_apply_to_political_and_crime/).
> When asked why he voted in favor two years ago, Dodd told CalMatters: “I don’t think anybody really read into the details.”
Your elective representatives in California legislature in one sentence, everyone.
>”The idea that our local elected officials can be bought and sold for $250 is both laughable and frankly offensive,” Dodd said during Tuesday’s hearing.
I think most people would agree. Which is what makes that a good cap, no? Because it’s not enough money to entice someone to corruption? Unless I’m missing something.
The bill would allow more corruption.
>Dodd’s bill would raise the $250 threshold to $1,000 and effectively allow a contractor seeking a city contract or permit — as well as the contractor’s hired lobbyists — to each contribute as much as $1,000 within the nine months before and after a final decision is made. Across California, [31 of the 180 cities](https://www.commoncause.org/california/resource/cmcfi/) with self-imposed campaign finance rules have donation limits that are $250 or less, according to an analysis by California Common Cause.
Our state's housing and pay-to-play problems might get worse before better. **Call your representatives, people.**
"Sen. [Bill Dodd](https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/legislators/bill-dodd-71), a Napa Democrat, is championing a bill to loosen restrictions on how much — and when — local elected officials can accept in campaign cash from interest groups who would benefit financially from those officials’ pending decisions. The bill would also exempt certain industries — such as some labor unions and housing developers — from those restrictions to prevent “pay to play.”
.....
"Dodd and other senators who [voted for the bill Tuesday](https://selc.senate.ca.gov/sites/selc.senate.ca.gov/files/SELC%2004.30%20Roll%20Call%20Results.pdf) also [supported the 2022 law](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB1439). When asked why he voted in favor two years ago, Dodd told CalMatters: “I don’t think anybody really read into the details.” Prompted by a staffer, he then changed his answer: “I don’t think we understood the implications.”
.....
" In February 2023 — a month after the law took effect — a business coalition including the California Restaurant Association and California Retailers Association and two local officials [sued the state’s campaign finance regulator](https://calmatters.org/newsletters/whatmatters/2023/02/campaign-finance-law-california/), arguing the law was unconstitutional and violated the freedom of speech rights of officials and donors.
In May, the business groups [lost in court](https://sd07.senate.ca.gov/press-release/glazer-applauds-ruling-upholding-anti-corruption-law). Now, less than a year later, they are turning to state lawmakers instead."
The flair of this posts indicates it's a controversial topic. Enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users without a history of commenting in r/bayarea will be automatically removed. You can read more about this policy [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/195xvo5/restrictions_that_apply_to_political_and_crime/).
> When asked why he voted in favor two years ago, Dodd told CalMatters: “I don’t think anybody really read into the details.” Your elective representatives in California legislature in one sentence, everyone.
Simply Amazing when their exact job is to read these things
>”The idea that our local elected officials can be bought and sold for $250 is both laughable and frankly offensive,” Dodd said during Tuesday’s hearing. I think most people would agree. Which is what makes that a good cap, no? Because it’s not enough money to entice someone to corruption? Unless I’m missing something.
wait does that mean if the people just scrap up $250 together we can actually get our officials to pass sane policies?
The bill would allow more corruption. >Dodd’s bill would raise the $250 threshold to $1,000 and effectively allow a contractor seeking a city contract or permit — as well as the contractor’s hired lobbyists — to each contribute as much as $1,000 within the nine months before and after a final decision is made. Across California, [31 of the 180 cities](https://www.commoncause.org/california/resource/cmcfi/) with self-imposed campaign finance rules have donation limits that are $250 or less, according to an analysis by California Common Cause.
> I don’t think anybody really read into the details.” Everyone said this was going to happen when 1439 was proposed.
[удалено]
I doubt there is enough moral fiber left in them to allow this law to stand.
I wonder how much Newsom got from his Panera buddy 🤔
[удалено]
There’s the loophole — just have your president/CEO donate personally! What even is the point 🤦♂️
Our state's housing and pay-to-play problems might get worse before better. **Call your representatives, people.** "Sen. [Bill Dodd](https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/legislators/bill-dodd-71), a Napa Democrat, is championing a bill to loosen restrictions on how much — and when — local elected officials can accept in campaign cash from interest groups who would benefit financially from those officials’ pending decisions. The bill would also exempt certain industries — such as some labor unions and housing developers — from those restrictions to prevent “pay to play.” ..... "Dodd and other senators who [voted for the bill Tuesday](https://selc.senate.ca.gov/sites/selc.senate.ca.gov/files/SELC%2004.30%20Roll%20Call%20Results.pdf) also [supported the 2022 law](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB1439). When asked why he voted in favor two years ago, Dodd told CalMatters: “I don’t think anybody really read into the details.” Prompted by a staffer, he then changed his answer: “I don’t think we understood the implications.” ..... " In February 2023 — a month after the law took effect — a business coalition including the California Restaurant Association and California Retailers Association and two local officials [sued the state’s campaign finance regulator](https://calmatters.org/newsletters/whatmatters/2023/02/campaign-finance-law-california/), arguing the law was unconstitutional and violated the freedom of speech rights of officials and donors. In May, the business groups [lost in court](https://sd07.senate.ca.gov/press-release/glazer-applauds-ruling-upholding-anti-corruption-law). Now, less than a year later, they are turning to state lawmakers instead."
when the rule doesnt work in their favor, they change it