老夫子传媒

California鈥檚 secretary of state鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 published on the secretary of state鈥檚 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 鈥� a routine violation of campaign finance law that鈥檚 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 鈥� raising questions about whether California is effectively enforcing that is meant to promote transparency and prevent corruption.

鈥淓nforcement in California is horribly lax up and down the scale, whether it鈥檚 regulatory compliance or criminal compliance,鈥� said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. 鈥淭he rules ought to be clear, they ought to be fair, they ought to be enforceable and they ought to be enforced.鈥�

The secretary of state鈥檚 office sends three letters to people who owe the fines, but doesn鈥檛 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.

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

鈥淚t鈥檚 a large amount of money, and so the question is: What can we legitimately do?鈥� Weber said in an interview this week. 鈥淭hey鈥檝e done things in the past, (but) what good is a fining system, if you can鈥檛 enforce it?鈥�

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

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

鈥淥nce 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,鈥� said Natasha Minsker, a lobbyist who has pushed for .

鈥淭he fact that these fines (on politicians and judges) can go unpaid without any consequence, it鈥檚 definitely an illustration of privilege.鈥�

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鈥檚 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 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 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 鈥渁nd once that occurs any outstanding fines will be paid as soon as possible.鈥�

• State Sen. Shannon Grove, a Bakersfield Republican, owes a total of $3,940 from campaigns in 2012, 2014 and 2018. The fines 鈥渟hould have been paid in full when we were first notified,鈥� Grove said in an email. 鈥淚 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 (mid-April).鈥�

• 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 鈥� a year after she had resolved the same issue with the FPPC, which resulted in a warning letter. 鈥淚 filed an appeal of the (Secretary of State) fines,鈥� Rees wrote in an email. 鈥淚 am currently awaiting a decision in my appeal.鈥�

• 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. 鈥淥nce they receive a determination from the Secretary of State, the committees will pay any remaining fees that have not been waived or reduced,鈥� 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鈥檛 accept the forms through the county鈥檚 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 鈥渞ecently admitted the waiver was never processed,鈥� 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: 鈥淪ometimes there is a mistake in billing. While it鈥檚 in dispute, we are not going to pay it.鈥�

In other cases, officials said they were unaware that the secretary of state鈥檚 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 to the FPPC for filing 2018 campaign disclosures late. He 鈥渘ever got anything from the secretary of state saying, 鈥榊ou owe $10,000,鈥欌�� 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. 鈥淭o 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,鈥� 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. 鈥淚 want to follow the law to the letter of the law,鈥� Aceves said in a phone interview. 鈥淲hat鈥檚 odd to me is that there weren鈥檛 any notifications at all, and now it鈥檚 five years later.鈥�

• 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鈥檚 campaign heard from the secretary of state鈥檚 office 鈥渢hat the fine was assessed in error and that they would be returning Senator Roth鈥檚 check,鈥� Harrison said in an email.

• GOP gubernatorial candidate John Cox, who says he will challenge Gov. Gavin Newsom if there鈥檚 a recall election, owes $650. 鈥淐alifornia residents face a maze of burdensome regulations covering nearly every part of their lives,鈥� he said in a statement. 鈥淭his is a perfect鈥� example.鈥�

• State schools superintendent Tony Thurmond owes $550 from a 2014 campaign for Assembly. His spokesperson David Beltran called it a clerical error and said 鈥渋t鈥檒l be paid immediately.鈥�

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.

鈥淪ome of these folks on this list haven鈥檛 been in existence in forever. And so as a result鈥� who do you contact?鈥� she said.

Confusing enforcement

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

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

鈥淲e were concerned that if you put it all in one agency there could be a problem,鈥� Stern said. 鈥淚t 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.鈥�

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 : 鈥淢y 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.鈥�

Similarly, the secretary of state鈥檚 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 and was never notified that his name sat on a list of outstanding fines: 鈥淚f the secretary of state is defaming people with nonsense like this, that just underscores the incompetence of the office.鈥�