Lake County Record-Bee

$2M owed with no consequenc­es for non-payers

State lawmakers, 21 superior court judges among those who owe money

- By Laurel Rosenhall

California’s secretary of state’s office has failed to collect $2 million in fines owed by politician­s, lobbyists and campaign donors who the office says filed disclosure reports late, a CalMatters analysis shows. It’s allowed some of the largest fines to languish for many years with no consequenc­es to those who are supposed to pay up.

The debts are owed by a range of political players, according to a list published on the secretary of state’s website that details outstandin­g fines as of April 1. It shows fines owed by 26 state lawmakers and 21 superior court judges, as well as former legislator­s, losing candidates, ballot measure campaigns, Democratic and Republican clubs and corporate and labor-backed political action committees.

Some of the fines are very small. About 300 of them are less than $100, reflecting paperwork filed a few days late — a routine violation of campaign finance law that’s the political equivalent of a parking ticket.

But 45 of the fines are more than $10,000, and some are for violations more than a decade ago — raising questions about whether California is effectivel­y enforcing its campaign finance law that is meant to promote transparen­cy and prevent corruption.

“Enforcemen­t in California is horribly lax up and down the scale, whether it’s regulatory compliance or criminal compliance,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Associatio­n. “The rules ought to be clear, they ought to be fair, they ought to be enforceabl­e and they ought to be enforced.”

The secretary of state’s office sends three letters to people who owe the fines, but doesn’t take steps beyond that to collect the money, spokespers­on Joe Kocurek said. In the past, he said, staff members called people who were behind on paying their fines, but that became too time consuming.

“It’s a large amount of money, and so the question is: What can we legitimate­ly do?”

The problem has persisted long before Shirley Weber, the current secretary of state, took office in January. Still, she said she’ll look into the issue to see if any changes should be made. Though $2 million is a tiny portion of California’s more than $200 billion annual budget, it’s roughly as much as the state spends to educate about 190 students for a year.

“It’s a large amount of money, and so the question is: What can we legitimate­ly do?” Weber said in an interview this week. “They’ve done things in the past, (but) what good is a fining system, if you can’t enforce it?”

Sam Mahood, a spokespers­on for U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla — who was secretary of state for six years before Weber — said the office “has limited resources and enforcemen­t mechanisms to collect late fines.” Even so, it collected more than $3.6 million in fines during Padilla’s tenure, he said.

The lax enforcemen­t is a far cry from the experience ordinary California­ns face if they, for example, neglect to pay a traffic ticket. Those fines increase when people don’t pay. Eventually, people can be charged with a misdemeano­r for not paying, or have their tax refunds seized through a debt collection process.

“Once you get a fine in the criminal justice system, it compounds and increases and it easily takes over your life if you are low-income,”

said Natasha Minsker, a lobbyist who has pushed for more leniency in traffic fines.

The fact that these fines (on politician­s and judges) can go unpaid without any consequenc­e, it’s definitely an illustrati­on of privilege.”

A bureaucrat­ic maze

Legislator­s write laws and judges enforce laws, so they have an especially high duty to obey them. CalMatters analyzed the list posted on the secretary of state’s website and contacted lawmakers and judges who, according to the list, owed more than $1,000 as of April 1. CalMatters also contacted campaigns that owe more than $30,000 and politician­s who owe relatively small amounts but hold prominent positions.

The process revealed a byzantine system of accountabi­lity. Until CalMatters contacted them, many officials on the list said they had never been notified about an outstandin­g fine. Others said they were aware of it, but were negotiatin­g to have it reduced or waived. Some were confused that the secretary of state was lodging campaign finance violations because they had already resolved an issue with the Fair Political Practices Commission.

While the FPPC is responsibl­e for enforcing broader provisions of the campaign finance law, both agencies can levy fines for late disclosure reports. The Commission on Judicial Performanc­e also can discipline judges for violating campaign finance law.

“The fact that these fines (on politician­s and judges) can go unpaid without any consequenc­e, it’s definitely an illustrati­on of privilege.”

The largest outstandin­g fine for a public official is nearly $38,000 owed by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jennifer Madden stemming from her 2016 campaign. She did not return multiple messages seeking comment. In 2019, she paid a $4,000 fine to the FPPC for failing to file required campaign disclosure­s in 2016.

CalMatters found several instances where officials said they are working to resolve the fines, either by paying them off or asking to have them waived:

Assemblyme­mber Eloise Reyes, a San Bernardino Democrat, owes nearly $15,000 from her 2016 campaign. She said in a statement that her attorneys are working to resolve the issue “and once that occurs any outstandin­g fines will be paid as soon as possible.”

State Sen. Shannon Grove, a Bakersfiel­d Republican, owes a total of $3,940 from campaigns in 2012, 2014 and 2018. The fines “should have been paid in full when we were first notified,” Grove said in an email. “I regret the payment was not made on time, as promised to me. I have been assured by my Treasurer that the fines will be paid in full by (midApril).”

Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Annette Rees owes $2,410 from her 2020 campaign. She said the secretary of state notified her of the fine last month — a year after she had resolved the same issue with the FPPC, which resulted in a warning letter.

“I filed an appeal of the (Secretary of State) fines,” Rees wrote in an email. “I am currently awaiting a decision in my appeal.”

Sen. Steven Bradford owes $1,490 and Assemblyme­mber Chris Holden owes $1,160, both from their 2020 campaigns. The Los Angeles Democrats have asked to have the fees waived, according to their lawyer Stephen Kaufman. “Once they receive a determinat­ion from the Secretary of State, the committees will pay any remaining fees that have not been waived or reduced,” Kaufman said by email.

Marin County Superior Court Judge Sheila Shah Lichtblau owes $1,090 from her 2016 campaign. Her treasurer, David Lichtblau, said he filed required disclosure­s on time with the county elections office, but that the secretary of state didn’t accept the forms through the county’s electronic filing system. He said that he resubmitte­d them directly to the state, and that he and the county registrar requested that the state waive any penalties. The secretary of state “recently admitted the waiver was never processed,” David Lichtblau wrote in an email, adding that he has re-submitted the request and expects the fine to be waived in the next two weeks.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon owes $90, from his 2016 and 2020 campaigns. He believes the fines should be waived, said his campaign spokespers­on Bill Wong: “Sometimes there is a mistake in billing. While it’s in dispute, we are not going to pay it.”

In other cases, officials said they were unaware that the secretary of state’s list shows they owe outstandin­g fines until CalMatters raised questions:

Assemblyme­mber Carlos Villapudua, a Stockton Democrat, owes more than $10,000 from his 2018 run. A campaign spokesman said Villapudua was not notified of the fine. Last year, Villapudua paid a $483 fine to the FPPC for filing 2018 campaign disclosure­s late. He “never got anything from the secretary of state saying, ‘You owe $10,000,’” said Lee Neves.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge JoAnne McCracken owes $4,097 from a 2010 campaign. She said it must be an error because she never received notice of a fine. “To my knowledge, I do not have an outstandin­g fine nor did I fail to comply with any reporting requiremen­ts during my 2010 campaign for judge. In fact, your email is the first time I have heard of this,” McCracken wrote to CalMatters.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Efrain Matthew Aceves owes $1,450 from his 2016 campaign. He also said he had no knowledge of the fine until contacted by CalMatters. “I want to follow the law to the letter of the law,” Aceves said in a phone interview. “What’s odd to me is that there weren’t any notificati­ons at all, and now it’s five years later.”

Sen. Richard Roth, a Riverside Democrat, owed $1,120 from his 2016 campaign.

He was unaware of the fine until questioned by CalMatters, attorney James C. Harrison said, but promptly paid up after learning of it. Days later, Roth’s campaign heard from the secretary of state’s office “that the fine was assessed in error and that they would be returning Senator Roth’s check,” Harrison said in an email.

GOP gubernator­ial candidate John Cox, who says he will challenge Gov. Gavin Newsom if there’s a recall election, owes $650. “California residents face a maze of burdensome regulation­s covering nearly every part of their lives,” he said in a statement. “This is a perfect… example.”

State schools superinten­dent Tony Thurmond owes $550 from a 2014 campaign for Assembly. His spokespers­on David Beltran called it a clerical error and said “it’ll be paid immediatel­y.”

Weber did not address any specific fine but said that her office may have difficulty collecting some debts if campaign committees disband after an election.

“Some of these folks on this list haven’t been in existence in forever. And so as a result… who do you contact?” she said.

Confusing enforcemen­t

The FPPC has its own log of outstandin­g fines — which stands at $414,112 for cases from 2014 to 2020, according to spokespers­on Jay Wierenga. It includes fines for various violations of California’s political ethics law, not just for filing disclosure reports late. But its procedure can include more repercussi­ons than the secretary of state’s: It refers outstandin­g debts to the Franchise Tax Board, which can garnish tax refunds and state lottery winnings.

Bob Stern, who helped write California’s campaign finance law in the 1970s, said it was intentiona­lly designed with multiple channels of enforcemen­t, even though that comes with some inefficien­cies.

“We were concerned that if you put it all in one agency there could be a problem,” Stern said. “It was a conscious decision we made to have different agencies enforce the law because we wanted to ensure there was somebody out there who would enforce the law.”

But that divided responsibi­lity and an apparent lack of coordinati­on has also led to some confusion.

A 2014 campaign committee that hoped to overturn a law allowing transgende­r students to use the bathroom of their choice (but never qualified for the ballot) owes more than $42,000 in fines, according to the secretary of state. Treasurer John Fugatt said the committee had paid off its fine to the FPPC: “My understand­ing is that the secretary of state fees are then waived once an FPPC agreement is reached. Not sure why these are still showing as due.”

Similarly, the secretary of state’s list shows that unsuccessf­ul Assembly candidate Robert Bernosky, a Hollister Republican, owes more than $34,000 from a campaign in 2012. But his attorney Harmeet Dhillon said Bernosky paid a $2,500 fine to the FPPC and was never notified that his name sat on a list of outstandin­g fines: “If the secretary of state is defaming people with nonsense like this, that just underscore­s the incompeten­ce of the office.”

Until CalMatters contacted them, many officials on the list said they had never been notified about an outstandin­g fine. Others said they were aware of it, but were negotiatin­g to have it reduced or waived. Some were confused that the secretary of state was lodging campaign finance violations because they had already resolved an issue with the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States