Behested payments may be legal, but sting Newsom

behested payments – Gov. Gavin Newsom’s behested payment requests are not illegal in California, but they have long carried a public stink—especially now, as federal scrutiny looms over whether his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, is under investigation and as nonprofit ties raise d

A few words from the governor’s office can change the temperature of an entire political summer. This week, after Gov. Gavin Newsom said the U.S. Department of Justice may be investigating his wife. Jennifer Siebel Newsom. the focus quickly narrowed to a familiar but volatile subject: the millions in charity payments Newsom has solicited—known as “behested payments.”.

Those payments are not illegal under California law. Still, many critics have treated them as fundamentally unsavory for years. The basic problem is the word itself. A behest is, by definition, a command or at least a strong suggestion. When a politician is effectively soliciting money—no matter the cause—the appearance lingers that donors could expect something back.

That’s part of what makes the moment so fraught for Newsom. The scrutiny comes not just from political opponents, but from an environment where optics can become narrative—and narrative can become leverage.

Common Cause program manager Sean McMorris has been pushing back on this practice for more than a decade. He said the payments don’t violate any laws. but they are “ripe for abuse.” His point is blunt: companies and people don’t usually hand over millions just to be good citizens—especially when they’re being asked by a politician.

McMorris frames it in everyday terms: if you or I called PG&E and asked it to give a few million to our preferred cause. he doubts we’d get far. even if the beneficiaries were described in the most heartwarming way imaginable—kittens. puppies. or children in need. “The entire system. ” he said. “doesn’t really work unless you’re shaking down people who you know need things from you as a politician.”.

Newsom isn’t the first California figure to use behested payments. Gov. Jerry Brown used them to secure millions for charter schools he supported. City leaders have leaned on the same mechanism as well—mayors including Antonio Villaraigosa. Eric Garcetti. and Karen Bass. with uses ranging from jobs programs to renovations connected to official residences.

The practice has never been confined to Democrats. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, used behested payments for travel and after-school programs. Republican James Gallagher. who recently won a congressional seat. used them to fund computers for schools while he was in the state Legislature. Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones raised millions. including help getting $800. 000 in donations to fund a replica of a historic ship for the maritime museum in his San Diego district.

Even President Donald Trump can be described this way, with corporate-paid ballroom and birthday bash cited in the broader discussion around behested-style influence.

For that reason, supporters argue the system is simply how political life works in California. And critics say that is exactly why it persists. California legislators are unlikely to clamp down on behested payments right now—especially when such action would look like a direct criticism of Newsom and Democrats in general. The practice is old. The backlash can’t easily be turned into a clean legislative fix without drawing fire from both sides.

But not everyone agrees the payments are the moral hazard critics make them out to be. Jessica Levinson. a Loyola Law School professor who focuses on election and governance issues. argues money in politics is not new—and that at least behested payments are mostly required to be acknowledged. Anything over $5,000 must be reported to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, which maintains a public database. Levinson says that makes behested payments more transparent than other forms of political giving. such as “dark money” donations to mysterious political action committees.

On top of that, she points out that money is going to specific charitable purposes. She doesn’t describe the payments as an “evil mechanism.” In her view. people want to give money close to powerful figures. and that gives donors a choice between different kinds of political channels—independent expenditure groups. political committees. or nonprofits.

For Newsom personally, that may mean the headache isn’t universal. The uneasy part is proximity. Some of the nonprofits Newsom solicited are connected to Siebel Newsom, and those organizations have paid her a salary.

Here, the optics become difficult even for those who accept the legal structure. The account makes clear there is no distinction for a behest given to a charity with direct ties to the politician—and that critics argue there should be. The fact that salaries can be funded through behested payments is also not new.

It has happened before. The account points to Villaraigosa being paid through behested funds for his work as the state “infrastructure czar” in 2022. It also cites Bass considering paying former L.A. Police Commissioner Steve Soboroff through behested-funded nonprofits for his work after the recent fires—only to have public scrutiny pressure him to forgo the funds.

None of that is meant to close the federal door. Newsom’s office said that along with the FBI, agents from the IRS have been knocking on doors and asking questions.

That is where the legal certainty in California stops helping. If Washington’s “fine-tooth combs” return nothing, the conversation will likely narrow back to politics. If they find something, it will land on a different kind of record—one built less on public databases and more on federal scrutiny.

The sequence of facts is hard to miss: behested payments are legal in California. widely used across party lines. and reportable in the public record—yet the same mechanism keeps producing discomfort because it blurs the line between charity and access. And now. with federal attention and the prospect of a DOJ probe involving Siebel Newsom. the practice has become something more than policy debate. It has turned into a vulnerability.

The lesson, at least in how this story is taking shape, isn’t simply about one governor. It’s about ambition colliding with the kind of scrutiny that arrives when power meets perceived leverage—and when the wink-wink ambiguity of solicitation creates room for investigators to look closer.

For California politicians, the message is immediate: everyone has done it, but not everyone pays the price. Newsom is now finding out what it means to have a powerful enemy like Trump. one who has shown he will use the full power of the American government for his own purposes—where gray can slide into wrongdoing under enough pressure.

All of us, the account says, will have to wait and see whether the investigation picks up dirt. For now, the uncomfortable truth remains: behested payments may not be illegal in California, but in a time like this, they are the kind of thing that can be weaponized quickly—and remembered longer.

Gavin Newsom Jennifer Siebel Newsom DOJ investigation FBI IRS behested payments Common Cause Sean McMorris Jessica Levinson Loyola Law School California Fair Political Practices Commission nonprofits ethics political influence