California Governor Gavin newsom has found himself in the midst of a contentious debate surrounding behested paymentsa practice that, while legal, has raised significant ethical concerns. These payments, solicited by politicians for nonprofits, have become a focal point of scrutiny, particularly as Newsom considers a potential presidential run in 2028.
The recent revelation that the U.S. Department of Justice may be investigating Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsomhas brought behested payments into the spotlight. These payments, which are not illegal, involve politicians requesting donations for charitable causes. However, the proximity of some of these nonprofits to the Newsom family has sparked criticism and raised questions about the appearance of conflicts of interest.
The Nature of Behested Payments
Behested payments are donations made at the request of a public official for a charitable cause. While these payments are legal, they can create the appearance of a quid pro quowhere donors expect favorable treatment in return. This practice has been used by politicians across the spectrum, from Jerry Brown to Arnold Schwarzeneggerto fund various initiatives and projects.
The transparency surrounding these payments is a double-edged sword. On one hand, any donation over $5,000 must be reported to the California Fair Political Practices Commissionensuring a level of accountability. On the other hand, the practice allows politicians to direct funds to causes they support, often bypassing traditional campaign finance limits.
The Newsom Family and Behested Payments
The controversy surrounding Newsom deepens with the revelation that some of the behested payments he solicited went to nonprofits connected to his wife. Jennifer Siebel Newsom is involved with several nonprofits, including the California Partners Project and the Representation Project. While Siebel Newsom does not draw a salary from the latter, the former has received significant donations, raising eyebrows among critics.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission recently fined Newsom $31,500 for failing to report 36 behest donations totaling $5.5 million. Newsom’s office attributed the late reporting to the focus on emergency response during the 2026 wildfiresbut the incident has added fuel to the fire of criticism.
The Broader Context of Behested Payments
Behested payments are not a new phenomenon in California politics. They have been used by politicians of all stripes to fund a wide range of initiatives, from education and public health to disaster relief. However, the practice has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, with critics arguing that it creates a system ripe for abuse.
Sean McMorristhe transparency, ethics, and accountability program manager at Common Causeargues that behested payments are ‘ripe for abuse’ because they allow politicians to direct money in ways that would otherwise be restricted by campaign finance or conflict-of-interest laws. McMorris points out that these payments often come from entities that have interests before the politician, creating a perception of pay-to-play.
Despite the criticism, behested payments can also do a lot of good. During the pandemic, Newsom used behested payments to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for programs to help Californians. Jessica Levinsona professor at Loyola Law Schoolargues that behested payments are not inherently evil, as they ensure that money goes to nonprofits rather than independent expenditure groups or political committees.
The Political Implications
As Newsom considers a potential presidential run, the scrutiny over behested payments could have significant political implications. The practice, while legal, creates an appearance of ethical ambiguity that could be exploited by political opponents. The ongoing investigation by the Department of Justice adds another layer of complexity to the situation.
Newsom’s office has maintained that the late reporting of behested payments was due to the focus on emergency response during the wildfires. However, the incident has raised questions about the transparency and accountability of behested payments. As the debate continues, it is clear that behested payments will remain a contentious issue in California politics.
