After Gov. Gavin Newsom announced this week that the US Department of Justice may investigate his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, media and experts who benefited from millions of charity payments he solicited from non-profit organizations, including those he is involved in.
Those donations, known as “solicited payments,” are illegal in California, but, long before Newsom started asking for them, many found them unpopular — with good reason. The best, after all, is by definition a command or at least a strong suggestion.
Whenever a politician orders money, regardless of the purpose, there is at least the appearance that the manufacturer – Meta, Google, Blue Shield for example – may expect something in return.
It may seem absurd that the Trump administration could investigate Newsom for questionable ethics, when Trump has removed everything from crypto-coins to sneakers from the Oval Office. But the problem Newsom now faces is that the payments he's asking for are actually dubious, and whether they're legal or not, they serve a very good purpose in forcing a presidential candidate. Mainly because some charities are tied to his wife.
“The Newsom case is wide open, but this has been a problem for years,” Sean McMorris said. He is the director of transparency, ethics and accountability at Common Cause, a nonpartisan organization that has been raising the alarm about solicitation payments for more than a decade.
McMorris said that while these payments do not break any laws, they are “open to abuse” because companies and individuals may not be collecting money just to be good citizens. If you or I called PG&E and asked them to give a few million to our favorite causes, I doubt we'd have much luck, even if it involved cats, puppies or small children in need.
The whole process, McMorris notes, “doesn't really work unless you move people who you know need things from you as a politician.”
Jerry Brown used the requested fees to get millions for the charter schools he funded. Lesser luminaries like mayors (including Antonio Villaraigosa, Eric Garcetti and Karen Bass, to name just the last three in LA) have used it for all kinds of things from jobs programs to fixing up official residences.
And it's far from a Democratic thing. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, used them to pay for trips and after-school programs. Republican James Gallagher, who recently won a congressional seat, used them to fund school computers during his time in the state Legislature. Senate Minerals Leader Brian Jones has raised millions, including helping secure $800,000 in donations to fund a historic ship replica for a maritime museum in his San Diego district.
Trump himself could be considered the king of solicitation payments, with his company-paid ballroom and birthday bash.
In fact, folks, get me a politician with a little wit, and I'll show you a trail of requested payments from pet projects. For that reason alone, it is unlikely that California legislators will take any steps to stop themselves, especially now if doing so would be seen as criticizing Newsom and Democrats in general.
And, to be honest, the requested payments can do a lot of good. Newsom charged huge fees during the crisis, raising hundreds of millions for programs to help Californians through that social crisis.
For that reason and others, not all experts find them very troubling. Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor with expertise in electoral and governance issues, points out that money in politics is nothing new and that at least the requested payments (mostly) are required to be accepted. Anything over $5,000 and the politician must report it to the California Commission on Political Practices, which keeps public records.
That makes the requested payments more transparent than dark money donations to an obscure political action committee. And at least the money will be for a good cause, be it historic ships or computers for kids.
“I actually don't think they're as bad as some people make them out to be,” Levinson said. “I mean, my feeling is like, let's live in reality, right? People are going to want to give as much money to or as close to powerful people as possible, and I think we have a choice between money going to private expense groups or political committees or going to non-profit organizations.”
So the requested payments themselves may not be a headache for Newsom. But some of the payments Newsom requested went to nonprofits that Siebel Newsom was involved with, and which paid her salary. That proximity is uncomfortable for most of us. There is no distinction for a request made by a charity with direct ties to a politician, but perhaps there should be.
However, the paychecks requested are also illegal, and have been done before, even by Newsom. Villaraigosa was paid with the money allocated for his work as the “infrastructure king” of the state back in 2022. Bass considered paying former LA Police Commissioner Steve Soboroff through nonprofits funded by his work after a recent fire before public scrutiny forced him to forfeit the funds.
None of this is to say that Newsoms is not active in government investigations. Newsom's office said that along with the FBI, IRS agents have been knocking on doors asking questions. All of us — maybe the Newsoms included — will have to wait to see if the feds' fine-toothed combs pick up any dirt.
If there's a lesson to be learned at this point, it's about ambition and hubris. Tolls are easy money for California politicians and businesses as usual – everyone does it. But maybe you shouldn't. It is neither black nor white.
Newsom is quickly learning what it means to have a powerful adversary like Trump, who has shown that he will use the full power of the American government for his own purposes. Someone who can tip the scales and slide white into gray and gray into guilt.
Federal investigators don't like to come up empty-handed, and the blinkered nature of the requested payback creates the kind of ambiguity that provides a compelling reason for an investigation — a risk of self-harm that surely makes every California politician nervous.
