How’s this for cozy party politics?

Even as the state Democratic Party’s executive committee is being asked to endorse a November ballot measure that would cap prescription drug prices in California, a top party member — who is also on the Assembly speaker’s payroll — is pulling down $12,500 a month from the pharmaceutical industry to help defeat it.

Records show that Eric Bauman wears many hats these days, and that he has critics in his own party questioning his role in the $68 million campaign to defeat the California Drug Price Relief Act initiative.

The measure, backed chiefly by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, would cap the price that any state agency or care program could spend on prescription drugs at what the federal Department of Veterans Affairs pays.

Records on file with the secretary of state’s office show that VictoryLand Partners, a consulting firm registered to Bauman’s home address in North Hollywood, has been paid $12,500 a month since early February to consult with the pharmaceutical industry and its allies that are fighting the measure.

Last year, Bauman reported receiving more than $100,000 from VictoryLand Partners, some of it paid by health care interests. VictoryLand was active in the industry’s successful campaign against Proposition 46, the November 2014 ballot measure that would have lifted the cap on damages in medical malpractice lawsuits.

The paid political work comes while Bauman pulls down $145,000 a year as a full-time senior adviser to Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Los Angeles.

A spokesman for Rendon’s office said he was unaware of Bauman’s moonlighting but that his job was running constituent services in L.A. and that his side work didn’t appear to pose a problem.

Bauman insists there are no conflicts and that his state work doesn’t involve advising Rendon on pharmaceutical or other policy matters.

“I’m certainly not using my personal influence with anybody on this matter,” Bauman said. “The truth of the matter is, this is not an issue I’m very much involved in.”

Bauman said most of the campaign work was being done by his two business partners — his husband, Michael Andraychak, and Adam Seiden, who works under him as executive director of the L.A. County Democratic Party.

But some party insiders and consumer advocates aren’t so sure, and they’re worried about Bauman’s clout as a state party vice chairman and favorite to succeed retiring Democratic boss John Burton next year.

“The Democratic Party needs conflict-of-interest rules to prevent party insiders from being paid by drug companies and hospitals to steal the party seal from consumer-oriented ballot measures,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group supporting the drug pricing initiative.

Mark Capitolo, a spokesman for Californians for Lower Drug Prices, a group campaigning for the initiative, said Democrats have been fighting for years to bring down the cost of medications.

“It would be outrageous if a committee funded by the drug companies and backed by the California Republican Party and Cal Chamber (California Chamber of Commerce) is allowed to infiltrate our party and purchase our silence on an issue so critical,” Capitolo said.

“I have a complex life,” Bauman said. “But I am one of the most loyal, active Democrats you will see — unquestionably.”

Bauman isn’t the only high-powered Democrat being paid to oppose the measure. Sacramento lobbyist Jason Kinney is working on the “no” campaign while also being paid by the state Democratic Party to act as communications director for Senate Democrats.

However, Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the “no” campaign, emphasized that a number of Democrats and their allies are coming out against the measure not because of any backroom politics but because “it’s poorly drafted and not going to lower drug costs.”

BART gamble: BART directors are taking a big roll of the dice with the $3.5 billion general obligation bond they just voted to put on the November ballot in San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

BART’s own polling, done in January by Fairbanks, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, showed the bond with 66 percent support out of the gate — rising to 77 percent after voters hear how the bond would help BART.

Support dropped to 69 percent, however, when homeowners were told the bond would raise their property taxes anywhere from $30 to $55 a year.

A more recent poll by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce found support at only 61 percent in the city. The bond needs a two-thirds cumulative vote in the three counties to pass.

A third poll, commissioned by state Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda — a vocal critic of BART spending — found support in his district covering Contra Costa and portions of Alameda County at 43 percent.

“Its going to be tough sell out here,” Glazer said.

If the bond passes, BART will get a new tracks and a new control system that will allow it to run six more East Bay trains an hour in and out of San Francisco at commute time.

If it fails, “we’ll be patching up the aging system with Band-Aids,” said BART board President Tom Radulovich.

S an Francisco Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross appear Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays. Matier can be seen on the KPIX TV morning and evening news. He can also be heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7:50 a.m. and 5:50 p.m. Got a tip? Call (415) 777-8815, or email matierandross@ sfchronicle.com. Twitter: matierandross