Forsyth's growth machine

Big money buys bigger influence

Recent elections in Forsyth County have proven that money doesn’t just talk — it decides who gets heard. A review of campaign finance reports from Mendy Moore, Alfred John and Laura Semanson's 2024 campaigns and Kerry Hill's 2022 campaign show the same tired pattern of powerful interests quietly bankrolling candidates who are in a position to return the favor later. While no filing conclusively proves illegal activity, a close look shows recurring issues across all four campaigns, including pay-to-play, bundling and questionable marketing expenditures. At the very least, these red flags should make voters pause.

PAY-TO-PLAY

Growth in Forsyth County’s is alive and well, and developers know campaign contributions are one of the best ways to invest in it. A healthy chunk of these candidates' donor base reads like a who’s-who of local development interests. The same builders and land-use attorneys who profit from rezoning are cutting big checks to the very people voting on them. These contributions from individuals and organizations with a direct stake in government decisions is one of the clearest ethical questions emerging from these filings.

For example, Hill’s campaign accepted $1,000 from Friends of Micah Gravley, who is a Georgia Department of Transportation board member, overseeing multimillion-dollar contracts and infrastructure projects. While technically legal, this contribution is an obvious conflict-of-interest as it creates the appearance that political donations could influence major public contracts or policy decisions.

John, Semanson and Moore's campaigns received repeated large contributions from local developers, engineers and construction firms. High-dollar checks from companies such as Vertical Earth, ACR Engineering and Winter Construction were concentrated at a handful of addresses, raising questions about whether donors were seeking favorable consideration on local zoning, permits or contracts and highlighting the intersection of campaign finance and potential influence.

Across all campaigns, clusters of contributions from single addresses—some shared by LLCs and individuals—suggest a network of donors closely tied to the candidates, creating optics of “pay-to-play” fundraising. While it’s all perfectly legal, “legal” doesn’t mean voters shouldn’t ask why developers keep investing in county commission races like they’re buying stock in the future.

A WEB OF LLC CONTRIBUTIONS

Campaign finance records also show a pattern of donations coming from LLCs with similar names and shared addresses, suggesting coordinated contributions. For instance, two entities - Prime Peach Investments, LLC and Prime Peach Properties, LLC - donated thousands to Moore, John and Semanson around the same time from two different addresses linked to the same individuals. One being Rajesh Jampala, who also contributed around the same time from these addresses, tying the network together.

For instance:

• On April 20, 2024, Prime Peach Investments, LLC contributed $3,000 to Mendy Moore using an address on Pinnacle Lane in Suwanee. That same day, Prime Peach Properties, LLC—another entity with a nearly identical name—donated another $3,000 to Moore, but this time using an address on Wykeshire Court in Cumming.

• Also on April 20, Rajesh Jampala donated $1,000 to Moore under his own name, using the Wykeshire Court address.

• On May 13, 2024, Prime Peach Investments, LLC contributed $2,500 to Chairman John, while Prime Peach Properties, LLC made an identical $2,500 donation to John—again using a different address.

• Then, on May 10, Jampala donated $2,500 to Laura Semanson, once again listing the Wykeshire Court address.

• That same day, Semanson also received $2,500 from Vankata Vadlamudi, who used Prime Peach’s Pinnacle Lane address.

The timing is notable. Just weeks before these donations poured into candidates’ campaigns, Jampala—doing business as Prime Peach Hwy. 9, LLC—purchased a 41.25-acre property on Dahlonega Highway for $2.8 million.

No development plans have been filed yet, but the contributions raise questions about whether donors were investing in political goodwill ahead of potential rezoning or permitting decisions.

OUT OF STATE INFLUENCE

The questionable contributions don’t stop there.

A donor listed as “People’s Group”—using a residential address in Chester Springs, Pennsylvania—contributed the maximum allowable $3,300 to Chairman John on May 4 and to Moore on May 23.

On May 8, Semanson received a $3,300 donation from the same Chester Springs address under a different name - Kalyon Achanta - despite using the same Chester Springs address.

Why would an out-of-state entity with no clear ties to Forsyth County max out contributions to three local candidates under multiple names?

SKIRTING AROUND DONATION LIMITS

This isn’t the first time suspicious campaign contributions have surfaced in Forsyth County elections.

During Commissioner Kerry Hill’s 2022 reelection campaign, Justin Hawkins, CEO of Tailtrix and former head of the Forsyth County Republican Party, donated $1,000 to her campaign under his own name and a Cumming residential address.

That same day, Hill received $3,000 from “Taxpayers for Justin Hawkins”—which used the same address.

Even more strangely, two additional donations from Hawkins on that day—each for $1,600—appeared in her campaign finance report just a few pages later.

MARKETING

Alfred John’s 2024 rebid for chairman wasn’t just powered by a torrent of cash, he also had quite the marketing budget that, if nothing else, deserves some scrutiny.

John's campaign spent over $75,000 , with a staggering chunk going directly to John himself.

Yes, the candidate paid himself over $50,000 for “marketing”—all while also paying outside firms, including over $12,000 to SRG and $5,000 to Agency Strategies, for the same purpose.

So, who was actually handling the campaign’s marketing? If SRG and Agency Solutions were both paid to handle it, why did John need to personally collect over $50,000 for the same purpose?

While reimbursements for legitimate campaign costs aren’t inherently unethical, paying yourself tens of thousands of dollars for a service you’re also outsourcing is certainly questionable.

What's more, SRG received tens of thousands of dollars from the other commissioners' campaigns, including nearly $40,000 from Moore, nearly $10,000 from Hill and roughly $4,000 from Semanson.

Again, none of this is illegal. But if you’re wondering why local races now look like state-level productions, the answer is simple: they’re bankrolled like it.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Forsyth County voters aren’t strangers to growth, development and the political money that follows. But the campaign finance filings from Forsyth's recent elections prove just how routine questionable fundraising has become. Developers write checks, corporations find back doors, donors bundle from the same household and candidates funnel cash into consultants who keep the machine running.

The law may tolerate it, but voters don’t have to.