Federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of California issued subpoenas in early September seeking six years of records connected to the California State Protocol Foundation, a nonprofit that has paid for Governor Gavin Newsom's international travel.
According to subpoenas reviewed by the San Francisco Standard, investigators want the foundation's donor lists, its fundraising records, receipts, and communications involving the governor and a circle of current and former aides. One subpoena, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael D. Anderson, states plainly that the records are for use in a criminal investigation pending in that district. The material is headed to a grand jury.
The subpoenas also seek records concerning money spent on the governor's residence, living costs and personal expenses.
Start with what this is not.
No charges have been filed. The subpoenas do not identify a specific alleged crime. Nobody has been accused of anything, and the issuance of a subpoena is not evidence of guilt.
Conservatives should say that first and say it clearly, because we will want that standard applied to our own people, and we have complained loudly and correctly when it was not.
Newsom has acknowledged the investigation since June and says the administration is searching for a crime rather than following evidence of one. He is entitled to that defense and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Now the part that is worth caring about regardless of how this ends.
Set the prosecution aside entirely and look at the arrangement.
The California State Protocol Foundation is a private nonprofit that has covered official travel costs for California governors for more than two decades, funded by private donations rather than taxpayers. On paper that sounds thrifty. In practice it means a sitting governor's overseas travel, and reportedly some portion of his residence and living expenses, are underwritten by private parties whose identities the public does not readily know.
Ask the obvious question. Who donates to a fund that pays for a governor's lifestyle, and what do they want?
Separately, a review of state records found Newsom has directed more than $7.5 million in donations from outside groups since 2019 through what California calls behested payments. That practice is legal. A public official asks a donor to give money to a favored cause, and the donor, who frequently has business before the state, obliges.
Legal is not the same as clean.
This is a structural problem, not a partisan one.
Be honest about the history. The Protocol Foundation has funded California governors for over twenty years, which means it funded Republicans too. If the arrangement is corrupting, it did not become corrupting in 2019.
That is not a defense of Newsom. It is a reason to attack the structure rather than just the man, because attacking the man gets you a news cycle and attacking the structure gets you a reform that outlasts him.
Every state in the country should be asked the same set of questions. Who pays for the governor's travel? Who pays for the residence? Are those donors disclosed in real time, with amounts? Do they hold contracts, permits or regulatory matters before the state?
Conservatives have spent years arguing that undisclosed money buys influence. We are right about that. We do not get to be right about it only when the money flows to the other party.
One caution our readers should hear from us rather than from someone else.
Gavin Newsom is the most likely Democratic presidential nominee in 2028, and this investigation is being conducted by a Justice Department that serves a Republican president.
That fact does not make the investigation improper. Public officials do not get immunity because they are running for something. But conservatives who spent a decade objecting to federal law enforcement being aimed at political opponents should understand exactly what precedent is being built, because precedents do not stay with the people who build them.
The San Francisco Standard has already published a piece arguing the probe may help Newsom in 2028. They have a point. Martyrdom is the cheapest fuel in American politics, and we have watched it work.
The way to avoid handing him that is simple. Let the process run without commentary from politicians, let the grand jury do its work, and keep the public argument focused on disclosure rather than on predicted indictments.
What CRPAC wants.
Not a perp walk. A rule.
Any private entity paying for a governor's travel, residence or personal expenses should disclose every donor and every amount, publicly and promptly. Behested payments should be reported in real time with the donor's business before the state identified alongside.
That reform would apply to Gavin Newsom. It would also apply to every Republican governor in America, and it should.
If the arrangement is honest, disclosure costs nothing. If it is not, disclosure is the whole point.
According to subpoenas reviewed by the San Francisco Standard, investigators want the foundation's donor lists, its fundraising records, receipts, and communications involving the governor and a circle of current and former aides. One subpoena, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael D. Anderson, states plainly that the records are for use in a criminal investigation pending in that district. The material is headed to a grand jury.
The subpoenas also seek records concerning money spent on the governor's residence, living costs and personal expenses.
Start with what this is not.
No charges have been filed. The subpoenas do not identify a specific alleged crime. Nobody has been accused of anything, and the issuance of a subpoena is not evidence of guilt.
Conservatives should say that first and say it clearly, because we will want that standard applied to our own people, and we have complained loudly and correctly when it was not.
Newsom has acknowledged the investigation since June and says the administration is searching for a crime rather than following evidence of one. He is entitled to that defense and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Now the part that is worth caring about regardless of how this ends.
Set the prosecution aside entirely and look at the arrangement.
The California State Protocol Foundation is a private nonprofit that has covered official travel costs for California governors for more than two decades, funded by private donations rather than taxpayers. On paper that sounds thrifty. In practice it means a sitting governor's overseas travel, and reportedly some portion of his residence and living expenses, are underwritten by private parties whose identities the public does not readily know.
Ask the obvious question. Who donates to a fund that pays for a governor's lifestyle, and what do they want?
Separately, a review of state records found Newsom has directed more than $7.5 million in donations from outside groups since 2019 through what California calls behested payments. That practice is legal. A public official asks a donor to give money to a favored cause, and the donor, who frequently has business before the state, obliges.
Legal is not the same as clean.
This is a structural problem, not a partisan one.
Be honest about the history. The Protocol Foundation has funded California governors for over twenty years, which means it funded Republicans too. If the arrangement is corrupting, it did not become corrupting in 2019.
That is not a defense of Newsom. It is a reason to attack the structure rather than just the man, because attacking the man gets you a news cycle and attacking the structure gets you a reform that outlasts him.
Every state in the country should be asked the same set of questions. Who pays for the governor's travel? Who pays for the residence? Are those donors disclosed in real time, with amounts? Do they hold contracts, permits or regulatory matters before the state?
Conservatives have spent years arguing that undisclosed money buys influence. We are right about that. We do not get to be right about it only when the money flows to the other party.
One caution our readers should hear from us rather than from someone else.
Gavin Newsom is the most likely Democratic presidential nominee in 2028, and this investigation is being conducted by a Justice Department that serves a Republican president.
That fact does not make the investigation improper. Public officials do not get immunity because they are running for something. But conservatives who spent a decade objecting to federal law enforcement being aimed at political opponents should understand exactly what precedent is being built, because precedents do not stay with the people who build them.
The San Francisco Standard has already published a piece arguing the probe may help Newsom in 2028. They have a point. Martyrdom is the cheapest fuel in American politics, and we have watched it work.
The way to avoid handing him that is simple. Let the process run without commentary from politicians, let the grand jury do its work, and keep the public argument focused on disclosure rather than on predicted indictments.
What CRPAC wants.
Not a perp walk. A rule.
Any private entity paying for a governor's travel, residence or personal expenses should disclose every donor and every amount, publicly and promptly. Behested payments should be reported in real time with the donor's business before the state identified alongside.
That reform would apply to Gavin Newsom. It would also apply to every Republican governor in America, and it should.
If the arrangement is honest, disclosure costs nothing. If it is not, disclosure is the whole point.
