IT ALL CAME OUT' — Gavin Newsom Blows Up After Being Exposed Live On Air
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — June 19, 2026
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has drawn renewed scrutiny over his use of behested payments, a practice in which elected officials solicit donations from corporations, wealthy individuals, and organizations to support specific causes or charities.
State disclosure records show that Newsom has reported more than $347 million in such payments since 2011. That figure represents more than 62 percent of all behested payments reported by California elected officials over the past 15 years, according to data from the California Fair Political Practices Commission. By comparison, former Gov. Jerry Brown solicited roughly $35 million in behested payments during his time in office.
Behested payments are legal under California law, but critics have long argued that the practice creates opportunities for influence peddling by allowing officials to direct money from interests that have business before the state outside of traditional campaign finance limits.
Records indicate that approximately $4.8 million in behested donations have gone to the California Partners Project, a nonprofit co-founded by Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. Critics have raised concerns about the appearance of a conflict of interest in those arrangements.
Several large donors to Newsom-backed initiatives later received favorable state actions. Blue Shield donated $20 million during the pandemic and subsequently received a no-bid contract related to vaccine distribution. 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 while benefiting from state decisions involving tribal gaming.
Newsom has paid a $31,500 ethics fine related to the late disclosure of certain behested payments. He and his wife are also the subjects of multiple federal investigations, though details of those probes have not been publicly disclosed.
Supporters of the practice note that many of the funds have supported wildfire recovery, education programs, healthcare initiatives, and disaster relief efforts. Critics, including political strategist Dan Schnur and Sean McMorris of California Common Cause, have described the system as ripe for abuse and noted that politicians often solicit donations primarily from entities with interests before them.
Assemblyman David Tangipa has characterized behested payments as a vehicle for political influence peddling, arguing that while the practice may be legal, it raises serious ethical concerns.
May you like
The issue has gained attention amid broader debates about transparency, campaign finance, and the influence of money in California politics. Newsom has not issued a detailed public response to the latest round of scrutiny beyond previously defending the charitable uses of the funds. The controversy continues to fuel discussions about whether California’s behested payment system requires reform to reduce the potential for conflicts of interest.
