How CalMatters investigated California’s campaign finance watchdog

Stay up to date with free briefings on issues important to all Californians. Subscribe to CalMatters Get nonprofit news in your inbox today.

A new CalMatters analysis It found that investigations by the Fair Political Practices Commission, California’s campaign watchdog, can take years and are sometimes resolved only after the politician under investigation wins an election or vacates office, leaving some voters in the dark when filling out ballots and vetting a candidate’s choice. character.

When we started covering this story, we started with a simple question: How long will it take for the commission to solve cases? Finding the answer was not easy.

Data Collection

Throughout our investigation, we filed nine public records requests, analyzed more than 3,000 pages of documents, and spoke with a total of 25 people, including former and current commissioners and employees, ethics advocates, state and local elected officials, and individuals who filed complaints. commission.

Collection of case data

First of all, we submitted a Public Records Act request to the commission. We requested data on all cases solved through January 1, 2024, including details of those cases and when each was opened and closed. We also requested the cases that remained open since the beginning of the year.

By the way, to double-check this data, we also compared the results obtained from our records request with the data analysis of open and closed cases that we downloaded directly from the commission’s website. case search portal.

Data we collect:

• Records request database: A database containing open and closed cases we received from the commission in response to our public records request. The earliest record was a lawsuit filed in 2002; The next oldest opened in 2009. We narrowed the database to only include cases filed since 2017. (See wrong situation closing dates and Inconsistencies in data after 2016.)
• Downloaded database: A database of case information that we have compiled based on the Commission’s existing data own case search portal. We used this information to cross-reference the registration request database but found too many flaws in the data to be trusted. (See Limitations and Commission Responses.)

Because of all the inconsistencies we noticed in both databases, we decided not to rely too heavily on them for detailed statistics, but instead use them largely as a reference guide. We have only used the records request database to calculate the duration of cases since 2017. We cross-checked the records request database with the commission’s search portal, agendas, and reports for specific case information.

Using the records request database, we analyzed the time it took to resolve each case by calculating the number of days between the date the case was opened and the date it was closed.

Collection of documents and statistics

We reviewed thousands of pages of documents and hours of meeting footage to paint a more accurate picture of the commission’s enforcement efforts. We also reviewed the commission’s administrative staff reports, case practice records, commission meetings and agendas, staff memos, budget amendment proposals, and legislative reports.

The Commission publishes caseload and case resolution statistics, including the number of warning letters and fines issued each year, as follows: annual reports and executive staff reports presented at each committee meeting.

Investigating specific cases

We filed six public records requests for documents related to specific cases involving state and local officials and requested records from both the commission and politicians, including details of open investigations into Gov. Gavin Newsom, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and Attorney General Rob Bonta. For example, the commission sent us documents related to its ongoing investigation into Newsom’s delinquent payment order that the governor’s office has refused to share.

In the case of former Compton City Councilman Isaac Galvan, we created a communication timeline between enforcement staff and Galvan’s associates based on documents we received from the commission to evaluate how the case took six years to resolve. We cross-referenced his bank records and his interactions with the commission. social media posts for specific details, such as promoting the movie “Daddy’s Home 2” the same day a subpoena server tried to reach him and posting a chat ad with friends that the committee’s investigation concluded was paid for with campaign money.

Findings

Investigation length

We learned that cases that took longer to resolve skewed the average: According to our analysis of the records request database, a total of 15% of cases closed during this period took more than two years to resolve; the longest lasted almost seven years. .