Pay to Play?
![stacks%20of%20money[1].jpg](http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvgov/stacks%2520of%2520money%5B1%5D.jpg)
Campaign disclosure statements were due last month. I haven't had a chance to review them yet for the cities I cover, and I don't think I'll find anything interesting since elections are still a year away.
I love seeing these statements -- which, by the way, everyone can ask to review if they go to their City Clerk and ask to review a copy of the form 460s for the candidate or elected official of your choice. You can see who supports the candidates, whether its other elected officials, or attorneys or developers. Any time there is a project or a business that comes in that is not popular with the residents, reporters look to the campaign statements to see if any money was pumped in to any council member.
But whether that money plays a role in the council members' decision, we can never be sure. Each time I ask a council member if it did, they get very annoyed with me and then respond with something like, "I can't be bought." Some residents think that is BS. In Rosemead, Walmart's nearly $300,000 finanical support of Jay Imperial and Gary Taylor in the recall election is routinely brought up at council meetings.
What do you think? Are campaign contributions just a means to get a person elected, or does it display a pay to play attitude?
It depends on how much money you're talking about. Given the cost of running for office, $100 or even $1000 or $2000 isn't going to buy anyone's vote. But $300,000 (actually closer to $500,000)? Yeah, based on personal observation, that definitely buys a city council member's loyalty. Taylor and Clark never have a cross word to say about their sponsor.
My observations would lead me to believe it's a "pay to play" forum.....your right, the officials almost always claim they can't be "bought".
However the outcome usually leads one to believe otherwise. It is definitely time to re-vamp campaign contributions and election laws on the local level.