Newsom Blows Up As Fraud Probe Heats Up
Newsom Faces Mounting Scrutiny Over Massive ‘Behested Payments’ Operation As Federal Investigations Loom
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is coming under renewed scrutiny as questions intensify over his sweeping use of “behested payments,” a legally permitted but increasingly controversial fundraising practice that critics say has allowed powerful interests to gain access and influence outside the normal boundaries of campaign finance law.
The issue is drawing fresh attention as federal investigations involving both Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom continue to raise political and ethical concerns around the governor’s orbit.
At the center of the controversy is the enormous amount of money Newsom has solicited from corporations, wealthy donors, special interests, and organizations with business before California’s government.
Under California law, behested payments allow elected officials to request donations for charities, nonprofits, government programs, or other outside causes. Supporters often describe the practice as a way to raise private funds for public good. Critics, however, say it has become a glaring loophole that lets well-connected donors curry favor with politicians while avoiding traditional campaign contribution limits.
According to state disclosure records reviewed by multiple news outlets, Newsom has reported more than $347 million in behested payments since 2011.
That staggering figure makes Newsom an outlier even in a state known for big-money politics. It represents more than 62 percent of all behested payments reported by California elected officials over the last fifteen years.
Data from the California Fair Political Practices Commission shows that California politicians collectively directed roughly $556 million toward charities and causes between 2011 and 2026. Newsom alone accounted for nearly two-thirds of that total.
The size of Newsom’s operation has shocked even veteran observers of California politics.
“There’s no question that Newsom has used this privilege far more frequently than other elected officials,” political strategist Dan Schnur told the Orange County Register.
The contrast with previous governors is significant. Former Gov. Jerry Brown reportedly solicited roughly $35 million in behested payments during his time in office — only a fraction of Newsom’s reported total.
But the controversy is not only about the size of the payments. It is also about where some of the money went.
Records indicate that approximately $4.8 million in behested donations were directed to the California Partners Project, a nonprofit co-founded by Jennifer Siebel Newsom.
For critics, that arrangement raises obvious questions about conflicts of interest, transparency, and whether the governor’s political power has been used to benefit organizations connected to his own family.
Sean McMorris of California Common Cause warned that behested payments are “ripe for abuse,” pointing to the way elected officials can steer money from interested parties in ways that would be restricted or prohibited under normal campaign finance rules.
“The public is not stupid,” McMorris said. “There’s a reason why these politicians primarily reach out only to people, entities and special interests who typically have interests before them.”
Those concerns have deepened because several major donors later benefited from state actions, contracts, or policy decisions.
Blue Shield donated $20 million to Newsom-backed initiatives during the pandemic. Months later, the company received a no-bid state contract tied to California’s vaccine distribution efforts.
Kaiser Foundation contributed nearly $10 million before later receiving a major role in California’s Medi-Cal system.
The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria donated millions to organizations linked to Newsom and his wife’s initiatives while also benefiting from favorable state decisions connected to tribal gaming disputes.
Critics acknowledge that proving an explicit quid pro quo can be difficult. But they argue that the larger problem is the system itself — one that encourages powerful donors to stay in the good graces of elected officials who hold authority over contracts, regulations, policy decisions, and state approvals.
Assemblyman David Tangipa recently called the practice a vehicle for “political influence peddling.”
“While something may be legal, we all know that it’s wrong,” Tangipa said.
The growing controversy comes at a difficult moment for Newsom. The governor recently acknowledged that he and his wife are the subjects of multiple federal investigations, though details remain limited.
Newsom also agreed to pay a $31,500 ethics fine tied to the late disclosure of certain behested payments, adding more fuel to the debate over whether California’s political elite are being held to the same standards as everyone else.
Supporters of the practice argue that many of the funds have gone toward causes such as wildfire recovery, education, healthcare, workforce development, and disaster relief.
But critics counter that the charitable purpose does not erase the ethical concern. A donation can support a good cause and still create a troubling pathway for influence when the money comes from entities seeking favorable treatment from the government.
The core question is simple: Why should any elected official be allowed to solicit unlimited money from corporations, wealthy interests, and organizations with business before the very government that official controls?
That question becomes even harder to ignore when some of the money ultimately flows to organizations tied to the politician’s own family.
For years, behested payments remained one of the quieter corners of California politics. Now, Newsom’s unprecedented use of the practice is becoming a major test of whether the state’s political class is serious about transparency — or whether the rules are written to protect the powerful.