Sometimes an issue comes up during an election that is bigger than any one candidate.
This is one of those issues.
My campaign has been built around three principles:
Integrity. Transparency. Accountability.
Those principles only matter if we apply them consistently, even when it is politically inconvenient.
So I want to start with the facts.
On September 30, Regency Properties, L.P. and affiliated entities, the entity identified in public records with Surf & Sand Resort, contributed $100,000 to a political committee whose stated purpose is supporting Sue Kempf, Alex Rounaghi and Mark Orgill for Laguna Beach City Council.
Two days later, that committee reported approximately $61,465 in independent expenditures supporting the three incumbents.
This is the largest single contribution in Laguna Beach history.
Currently, Laguna Beach limits what one contributor can give directly to a candidate or candidate-controlled committee to $500 per election.
Now, I have heard the response: this is legal. PACs exist. The candidates did not ask for the money and cannot control what an independent committee says.
That may answer one legal question.
It does not answer the public-interest question.
Legal is not the same as appropriate.
California law allows independent political spending. I am not disputing that. But when one business interest can put $100,000 behind a committee supporting three sitting councilmembers in a town of roughly 22,000 people, residents have every right to ask whether this is the kind of election system we want to normalize.
Saying, “this is how elections work now,” should not end the conversation.
It should start one.
Because there is a question of scale.
A question of influence.
And a question of precedent.
And that matters because this is not Sacramento. This is not Washington, D.C.
This is Laguna Beach. Five people sit on our City Council.
And there is another piece of context residents should understand.
A Laguna Beach City Councilmember is paid $908 a month.
This is not a six-figure political office. It is a local public-service position.
Yet one business interest has put $100,000 behind a committee supporting three people for those seats.
So I think residents are entitled to ask a very simple question:
Why is keeping three people in relatively modestly compensated local offices worth $100,000 to one business interest?
I am not suggesting I know the answer. That is exactly why transparency matters.
The value of a City Council seat is not the salary. The value is the authority that comes with it the ability to vote on development, land use, contracts, budgets, regulations and decisions that can have enormous financial consequences.
That is why the scale of this spending deserves scrutiny.
Those five people make decisions about development, our neighborhoods, our businesses, our coastline, public safety, infrastructure, our budget and the future character of this town.
So when one business interest puts $100,000 behind a committee supporting three of those five seats, residents are entitled to ask questions.
What interests does that contributor have before the City?
What relationships exist?
Was there any communication or coordination with the candidates being supported?
And what safeguards exist to make sure future City decisions remain independent from political spending?
I want to be very clear:
I am not alleging a quid pro quo. I do not have evidence of one.
And I am not alleging that this contribution is illegal.
But transparency means we do not dismiss legitimate questions simply because something may be legally permitted.
The incumbents may say:
We didn’t know. We weren’t involved. There was no coordination.
If that is true, they should say it clearly.
That is why I invited all three incumbents here today.
But “we didn’t know” may answer the coordination question.
It does not answer the larger question.
Do they believe $100,000 from one interest is an appropriate level of outside spending in a Laguna Beach City Council election?
Would they say the same thing if $100,000 were being spent to elect their opponents?
Because that is the standard that matters.
If somebody put $100,000 behind an independent committee supporting me, I would expect the same scrutiny.
I would expect the press to investigate it.
I would expect my opponents to question it.
And I would expect residents to demand transparency from me.
That is accountability.
Every candidate in this race has been invited here today. Everyone who participates will have an opportunity to speak. Nobody is required to agree with me.
This is about making sure this conversation happens in public.
The precedent we accept today can become the standard future candidates and political interests rely on tomorrow.
If $100,000 becomes normal, what comes next?
$200,000?
$500,000?
At what point does a small-town election begin to look like the very political system so many people are frustrated with?
If we want integrity in City Hall, integrity has to begin before Election Day.
If we want transparency from government, transparency has to apply to our elections.
And if we want accountability from elected officials, that standard has to apply regardless of who benefits.
Laguna Beach belongs to its residents.
Integrity is more than meeting the minimum requirements of the law.
Transparency is more than filing the required paperwork.
And accountability means being willing to address not only what is legal, but what is appropriate and what precedent we are setting for the future.
Extraordinary political spending deserves extraordinary transparency.