In a dramatic escalation of campaign activity, developers and real estate interests have funneled an unprecedented amount of money into independent expenditures supporting Malibu City Council incumbent Paul Grisanti. While these funds do not go directly into Grisanti’s campaign accounts, they represent the largest financial backing ever seen in a local election, with developers spending heavily on his behalf in a bid to secure his re-election.
The surge in spending, which comes from independent groups not officially connected to Grisanti’s campaign, has raised concerns among local residents and critics of commercial development. The spending blitz, much of it arriving in the final weeks of the race, underscores what some are calling a desperate attempt by developers to keep Grisanti in office as their champion for large-scale commercial projects.
Recently filed financial disclosures show that Moving California Forward, an independent expenditure committee, has received substantial donations from key real estate and development interests to fund advertising, mailers, and other efforts promoting Grisanti. These contributions include $24,000 from Brixton Real Estate Investments LLC – MV Land, based in Solana Beach, California, and $36,000 from the Building Industry Association of Southern California PAC, split into two donations of $15,000 and $21,000.
Other significant contributors include Diversified Pacific Development Group LLC, which donated $10,000, and Lewis Pacific Partners, which added $15,000 to the war chest. Additionally, Golden State Voter Participation Project and Orange County Families each contributed $5,000. These donations, totaling tens of thousands of dollars, highlight the scale of developer-backed spending supporting Grisanti’s re-election.
Unlike direct campaign contributions, which are subject to strict limits and disclosure rules, independent expenditures are not capped, allowing donors to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections as long as they do not coordinate with the candidate’s official campaign. For Grisanti’s critics, this massive wave of outside spending is emblematic of a troubling trend—developers looking to shape Malibu’s future without direct accountability to the voters.
“These developers are scared,” said a longtime Malibu resident and vocal critic of the spending. “They’re spending huge amounts to support Grisanti because they know if he’s not re-elected, their projects could face a lot more scrutiny. The people of Malibu have a right to ask what kind of influence this money is buying.”
For years, Grisanti has been seen as a key ally for developers seeking to build large-scale commercial projects in Malibu, including controversial hotel developments along Pacific Coast Highway. His stance on land use and development issues has consistently aligned with the interests of developers, many of whom see him as crucial to advancing their projects.
The unprecedented scale of independent spending on Grisanti’s behalf marks a turning point in Malibu’s electoral politics. While independent expenditures are not uncommon, the sheer amount of money flooding into this election has left many residents uneasy about the future of their community.
“The level of outside money being spent in this election is stunning,” said a political analyst who specializes in local California elections. “This is by far the largest independent expenditure effort we’ve ever seen in Malibu, and it’s driven by a very clear agenda—developers want to keep Grisanti in office because they see him as their best chance to push through major projects.”
Grisanti’s supporters, many of whom come from real estate and development industries, argue that his approach to growth is both practical and necessary, particularly as Malibu faces broader economic pressures. Without Grisanti’s leadership, they argue, the city risks becoming stagnant, unable to adapt to changing times.
However, his opponents see it differently. They point to Grisanti’s support of the Hakim Brothers’ controversial hotel project—one of many proposed developments they say would erode Malibu’s character and natural beauty. His critics also note his opposition to key safety measures on Pacific Coast Highway, a heavily trafficked and dangerous road, which they say reveals his priorities.
While Grisanti himself is not receiving the funds directly, the independent efforts on his behalf have amplified his visibility and influence in ways that his campaign alone could never afford. These expenditures—targeted ads, promotional mailers, and a deluge of pro-Grisanti messaging—are reshaping the narrative in the election’s closing days, leaving some residents wondering whose interests will truly be represented if Grisanti secures another term.
As voters prepare to head to the polls, the question remains whether these massive independent expenditures will drown out the voices of those who have long fought to preserve Malibu’s small-town identity in the face of rapid development. The outcome of this election could have lasting consequences for the city—and for the powerful development interests vying to reshape it.
Leave a Reply