Blab Politics
Californias Ethics Portal Leaves Voters in the Dark on Donor Conflicts, Exposing $347 Million in Unrestricted Behested Payments
California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) operates a public portal that catalogs the state’s “behested payments” – money solicited by elected officials and routed to a third party. The database, however, shows only the donor’s name, the recipient, and the dollar amount, omitting whether the donor had ongoing business or legal proceedings before the government when the contribution was made. That gap means voters cannot tell whether a donation was tied to a potential conflict of interest.
Behested payments differ from campaign contributions. California law caps campaign checks at $39,200 per election for a governor, but it does not limit how much a state official can solicit for a nonprofit, public project, or outside cause. A donor who would otherwise be limited to $39,200 can give millions to a nonprofit if the money is requested by a state official and reported as a behested payment.
The FPPC requires officials to file a Form 803 within 30 days for any behested payment totaling $5,000 or more in a calendar year. The form contains a box where the official can indicate whether the donor is “a named party or the subject of a proceeding before (the official’s) agency.” The agency has not uploaded the full Form 803 to its portal, and the FPPC has declined to provide the documents in response to multiple requests.
According to the FPPC’s records, Governor Gavin Newsom has solicited 42 behested payments from 23 donors, totaling $4.28 million for the California Partners Project, a nonprofit founded by First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom. Blue Shield of California, one of those donors, has given more than $21 million at the request of state officials, including a $20 million donation in 2020 to Enterprise Community Partners and a $15 million no‑bid contract in 2021 to run California’s COVID‑19 vaccine network. Blue Shield also donated to Newsom’s inauguration in 2019 and 2023 and spent $1.5 million lobbying the governor’s office during the 2019‑2020 legislative session.
The omission matters because the FPPC’s database does not reveal whether any of these donors had ongoing business or legal matters before the state at the time of their payments. While the agency acknowledges that the public would want to see that information, it is not made available online. Some cities, such as Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Sacramento and Long Beach, post full disclosure forms that include conflict‑of‑interest information, but the FPPC does not provide that level of detail for state officials.
Senate Bill 760, signed into law on January 1, 2026 by Governor Newsom, is the most recent reform of California’s behested‑payment system. The bill exempts payments that result from a “public appeal” such as a televised or online message, and codifies existing FPPC regulations that require disclosure when a donor has a perceived conflict of interest. Senator Brian Allen, who authored the bill, said the changes were prompted by conversations with lawyers who advised him not to name nonprofits that helped after the Palisades Fire.
The FPPC has fined Newsom on multiple occasions for failing to file reports on time. The agency’s communications director has not responded to requests for comment. The governor’s spokesperson has described behested payments as a “lawful, bipartisan tool to support charitable and public‑service efforts that benefit Californians.” Blue Shield’s spokesperson declined to comment on the agency’s disclosure practices.
The lack of conflict information in the FPPC portal limits journalists’ and voters’ ability to connect the dots between donors and potential influence. According to legal expert Richard Briffault, the omission “is another way of trying to influence government.” The issue remains unresolved, as the FPPC has not yet made the full Form 803 data publicly available.
At this time, the FPPC continues to collect behested‑payment information, but the agency has not updated its online portal to include conflict‑of‑interest details. The next steps for voters and watchdog groups will involve continued requests for the full disclosure forms and potential legislative action to mandate the release of that information.
Behested payments differ from campaign contributions. California law caps campaign checks at $39,200 per election for a governor, but it does not limit how much a state official can solicit for a nonprofit, public project, or outside cause. A donor who would otherwise be limited to $39,200 can give millions to a nonprofit if the money is requested by a state official and reported as a behested payment.
The FPPC requires officials to file a Form 803 within 30 days for any behested payment totaling $5,000 or more in a calendar year. The form contains a box where the official can indicate whether the donor is “a named party or the subject of a proceeding before (the official’s) agency.” The agency has not uploaded the full Form 803 to its portal, and the FPPC has declined to provide the documents in response to multiple requests.
According to the FPPC’s records, Governor Gavin Newsom has solicited 42 behested payments from 23 donors, totaling $4.28 million for the California Partners Project, a nonprofit founded by First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom. Blue Shield of California, one of those donors, has given more than $21 million at the request of state officials, including a $20 million donation in 2020 to Enterprise Community Partners and a $15 million no‑bid contract in 2021 to run California’s COVID‑19 vaccine network. Blue Shield also donated to Newsom’s inauguration in 2019 and 2023 and spent $1.5 million lobbying the governor’s office during the 2019‑2020 legislative session.
The omission matters because the FPPC’s database does not reveal whether any of these donors had ongoing business or legal matters before the state at the time of their payments. While the agency acknowledges that the public would want to see that information, it is not made available online. Some cities, such as Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Sacramento and Long Beach, post full disclosure forms that include conflict‑of‑interest information, but the FPPC does not provide that level of detail for state officials.
Senate Bill 760, signed into law on January 1, 2026 by Governor Newsom, is the most recent reform of California’s behested‑payment system. The bill exempts payments that result from a “public appeal” such as a televised or online message, and codifies existing FPPC regulations that require disclosure when a donor has a perceived conflict of interest. Senator Brian Allen, who authored the bill, said the changes were prompted by conversations with lawyers who advised him not to name nonprofits that helped after the Palisades Fire.
The FPPC has fined Newsom on multiple occasions for failing to file reports on time. The agency’s communications director has not responded to requests for comment. The governor’s spokesperson has described behested payments as a “lawful, bipartisan tool to support charitable and public‑service efforts that benefit Californians.” Blue Shield’s spokesperson declined to comment on the agency’s disclosure practices.
The lack of conflict information in the FPPC portal limits journalists’ and voters’ ability to connect the dots between donors and potential influence. According to legal expert Richard Briffault, the omission “is another way of trying to influence government.” The issue remains unresolved, as the FPPC has not yet made the full Form 803 data publicly available.
At this time, the FPPC continues to collect behested‑payment information, but the agency has not updated its online portal to include conflict‑of‑interest details. The next steps for voters and watchdog groups will involve continued requests for the full disclosure forms and potential legislative action to mandate the release of that information.
