Can a public official be held liable for a violation of the California Civil Code of Civil Procedure if they have a financial relationship with a private enterprise that does business with the public agency of which they are a member?

Cases involving public officials that find a corrupt practice or conflict of interest proscribed by statute or by the common law characteristically involve situations in which the official received a direct monetary benefit as a result of a financial relationship with a private enterprise that did business with a public agency of which the official was a member. (See, e.g., Stigall v. City of Taft (1962) 58 Cal.2d 565, 25 Cal.Rptr. 441, 375 P.2d 289 [member of city council an owner of a plumbing company awarded a contract]; People v. Elliott (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 410, 252 P.2d 661 [attorney-client relationship between board member and bus company]; People [166 Cal.App.3d 898] v. Darby (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 412, 250 P.2d 743 [board member received rents as landlord of company awarded high percentage of gross ice cream sales to the school district].) No case has found a violation of statutes such as are relied upon by respondents as a result of an implied promise to cease activities otherwise protected by the First Amendment on the ground the cessation of such activities would confer an economic benefit on a public official. Indeed, we are unable to find any pertinent case involving the conflict of interest or bribery of a public official in which such a novel contention was ever advanced.