Multiple Bay Area transit agencies would benefit from the five-county sales tax measure. Photo: MTC. Graphics source: Connect Bay Area
Paid effort also working before June 6th deadline in 5 Bay Area counties
By Allen D. Payton
On Wednesday, April 22nd, volunteer transit advocates celebrated gathering 46,300 signatures for the regional transit sales tax funding measure to help qualify it for the November ballot.
“’As of today, we’ve surpassed 46,300,’ wrote advocate Cyrus Hall in a celebratory email, according to a report by StreetsBlog SF. The goal was that by now they would ‘collect 45,000 grassroots signatures for Connect Bay Area by today.’”
While the effort must gather a total of the required 186,000 valid signatures of registered voters in the five Bay Area counties of Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara by June 6, the Connect Bay Area has raised more than $3 million to fund the paid-for effort.
“Insiders told Streetsblog that the larger, paid signature-gathering campaign is also on track, although its exact tabulations are a guarded secret,” the report added.
As previously reported, the proposed half-cent sales tax increase in four of the counties and one cent in San Francisco will last for 14 year duration and would generate about $1 billion per year.
Revenue from the tax measure will benefit multiple transit agencies in the region including Tri Delta Transit, County Connection and WestCat, as well as AC Transit and BART which serve Contra Costa County residents.
Following is a county-by-county breakdown of the County Specific Dollars. It does not include money going to BART, Muni, AC Transit and Caltrain, or to regional improvements that aren’t designated by county, such as coordinated fare programs and accessibility improvements:
County Agencies:
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (2.5%, $26.51M)
Alameda County Transportation Commission (1%, $10.26M)
San Mateo County Transit District (4.7%, $50M)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (25.1%, $264.07M)
Small Operators:
Contra Costa County small operators (1.5%, $15.75M)
Alameda County small operators (0.5%, $5.25M)
SF Bay Ferry (0.7%, $7M)
Golden Gate Transit (0.1%, $1M)
Without new and sustainable operations funding, the BART Board could shut down two of its five lines, close as many as 15 stations, and reduce service from 4,500 trains per week to just 500, with trains running only hourly and no weekend service. (See related article)
Source: Sandra White for Antioch City Council District 4 2026
Will focus on economic growth, public safety, community investment & partnerships, fiscal accountability
Hoping third times’ a charm
By Sandra White for City Council campaign
Sandra White, human resources executive, current president of the Antioch Rotary Club and former Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commission Chair, announced her candidacy for Antioch City Council, District 4 during a campaign kick-off on April 18.
As a resident of Antioch, White has seen firsthand the challenges facing local families, small businesses, and public safety resources, and is committed to delivering practical, results-driven solutions.
She also currently serves as a Standby City Council Member for Mayor Ron Bernal. Her volunteer endeavors included serving on the Antioch Unified School District Advisory Board and previously the Contra Costa County Community Corrections Partnership Community Advisory Board, which focused on re-entry programs for formerly incarcerated individuals.
This will be her third attempt at replacing incumbent Monica Wilson, now serving in her fourth term on the council since first being elected in 2012, but who has yet to announce for re-election in November. White ran in both 2020 for the two-year term and 2022 for the current four-year term.
White brings extensive experience in business operations, workforce development and organizational leadership, with a campaign focused on economic growth, public safety and strengthening community investment and partnerships, and fiscal accountability.
“Antioch is at a critical turning point,” said White. “We have an opportunity to build a safer, stronger and more economically vibrant city. I’m running to bring accountable leadership, common-sense solutions and a stronger, safer future for our community.”
White works as Vice President of Human Resources for a multi-state organization, Center for Social Dynamics, providing autism services to children, where she has led initiatives focused on workforce growth, operational efficiency, and building high-performing teams. According to her bio on the organization’s website, “She loves volunteering in her community and racking up airline mileages. Sandra earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology from California State University, East Bay, and a Master of Associate degree in Counseling Psychology from John F. Kennedy University.”
Her professional experience is complemented by a strong record of community involvement in Antioch, including efforts supporting public safety, education, and youth development.
White’s Campaign Priorities Include:
• Economic Development: Attract businesses, support small businesses, empower entrepreneurs, and create sustainable local jobs. Strengthen City leadership by hiring department heads and staff with proven economic development experience and measurable results.
• Public Safety: Support full police staffing, reduce response times, and maintain safe neighborhoods and thriving business districts.
• Community Investment & Partnerships: Expand youth programs, strengthen community services, and improve overall quality of life for Antioch residents.
• Fiscal Accountability: Ensure responsible budgeting, transparency and long-term financial stability while protecting taxpayer dollars.
“We cannot spend more than we bring in,” White added. “Antioch needs disciplined financial leadership, transparency and a high-performing team focused on delivering long-term economic success.”
White’s campaign will focus on engaging residents, listening to community concerns, and building practical solutions that reflect the needs of District 4 and the broader Antioch community.
“This campaign is about bringing people together, listening to our community, and making sure every voice in Antioch is heard.”
Residents interested in learning more, volunteering, or supporting the campaign are encouraged to contact Sandra White at sandra.white4antioch@gmail.com or by calling (510) 303-5880, and follow-on social media at Facebook: Sandra White for Antioch, on Instagram: @sandrawhiteforantioch and TikTok: sandrawhiteforantioch.
The dedicated public servant and CPA with an MBA offers 14 years of experienced financial leadership, integrity
By Allen D. Payton
For more than 14 years, Peter Karumbi has proudly served the people of Contra Costa County through his work in the Auditor‑Controller’s Office. His career began as an entry‑level Accountant I, and through hard work, integrity and a deep commitment to public service, Karumbi advanced to his current role as Assistant Auditor‑Controller.
With current Auditor-Controller Joanne Bohren not running for election after being appointed to the position last year, Karumbi is seeking the position with her support.
He is committed to:
Protecting the fiscal integrity of the County’s financial records;
Ensuring compliance with the California Constitution, state codes and Board of Supervisors directives;
Providing accurate, timely financial information to the public and county partners; and
Supporting county departments, employees, special districts and regional agencies with professionalism and respect.
Karumbi is also endorsed by retired Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller Robert Campbell, Retired Assistant County Auditor-Controller Harjit Nahal and California State Treasurer Fiona Ma.
His journey reflects not only professional growth but also a genuine dedication to strengthening the financial foundation of our county.
“I understand the responsibility that comes with managing public resources, and I have devoted my career to ensuring accuracy, transparency and accountability in county financial operations,” Karumbi said. “I understand the responsibilities of this office because I’ve spent my career performing them.”
He also has experience in the private sector having worked for four-and-a-half years in Accounts Payable for Ross Stores, Inc. in Pleasanton.
Karumbi earned the designation of Certified Public Accountant in 2015 and earned a Master’s of Business Administration in 2013 from Cal State East Bay’s School of Business & Economics.
The first-time candidate for public office is married to Margaret Ng’ang’a and they have four daughters.
On Tuesday, a Contra Costa Superior Court judge declined to expedite a lawsuit demanding changes to proponents’ ballot arguments for Measure B, the county’s proposed five-year, 0.625% sales tax increase. That decision means voters will receive a County Voter Information Guide containing false and misleading statements about the tax increase.
This is not just a problem with Measure B. And it could get worse as advocates for taxes and bond measures make increasingly aggressive claims, irrespective of the facts, and without fear of a judicial remedy.
The case, filed March 27 on behalf of two Contra Costa voters, targets both the Primary Argument in Favor of Measure B and the Rebuttal Argument to the Primary Argument Against Measure B. The respondents are the five authors of those arguments, including a sitting County Supervisor.
The legal challenge was brought under California Elections Code section 9190, which allows voters to seek a writ of mandate during a 10-day public examination period to require that ballot arguments be amended or deleted if they are “false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements” of the law.
The Dubious Claims
The complaint identified over a dozen specific claims in the ballot arguments alleged to be false and/or misleading. Here are three that are especially notable.
Exaggerated $1.5 Billion Loss: The argument claims that “according to the county health director, our health system will lose more than $1.5 billion over the next five years.” This appears to have been based on Board of Supervisors materials which mentioned a $300 million annual loss for the five year life of the tax.
But at the March 3 Board meeting Supervisor Candace Andersen flagged the original $300 million annual loss figure as inaccurate. The Board’s adopted Resolution No. 2026-40 was amended to project cumulative losses of approximately $239 million through 2029. The County’s own budget presentation cited a six-year cumulative figure of $509 million. This is roughly one-third the amount we will see in the voter guide.
And even the $509 million estimated loss is unlikely to materialize. With Democrats almost certain to regain control of the House (and possibly the Senate), they will be able to implement their stated intention of reversing HR1’s federal budgetary changes that impact Medi-Cal.
Further, about a quarter of the remaining estimated funding loss is attributable to scheduled reductions in federal subsidies to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) like Contra County Regional Medical Center. As we discuss on our Stop Measure B website, DSH funding cuts were first included in the 2010 Affordable Care Act and have been repeatedly postponed by Congresses controlled by both parties. It is reasonable to expect these postponements to continue through at least 2031 when the tax sunsets.
Groceries, Food, Housing, and Medical Care: The argument states “Measure B won’t increase the cost of groceries” and “It exempts food, housing, and medical care.” The petition notes that the words “food,” “groceries,” “housing,” and “medical care” appear nowhere in the Measure B ordinance’s exemptions. Hot prepared foods are subject to sales tax, as are non-food groceries. Lumber, cement, and roofing materials (items associated with housing) are taxable. Over-the-counter drugs are taxable.
90,000 People “Will” Lose Health Insurance: The argument states that “more than 90,000 people will lose health insurance” if Measure B fails (emphasis added). The word “will” makes this statement false and misleading under California election law.
Contra Costa Health staff gave supervisors a broad range of the number of beneficiaries who may lose Medi-Cal coverage due to new rules, with 90,000 being near the midpoint. These projections are estimates, contingent on future legislative and administrative decisions that have not yet been finalized. No one can say with certainty how many residents will lose coverage.
There is a further problem that the ballot argument glosses over. Even if Medi-Cal rolls shrink in Contra Costa County, it does not necessarily mean our neighbors are becoming uninsured and will flood emergency rooms. People cycle off Medi-Cal for many reasons: they move away, they obtain employer coverage, they age into Medicare, or they pass away. Proponents misleadingly conflate any reduction in Medi-Cal enrollment with people left without coverage.
Implications Beyond Measure B
Unless you read this article or the plaintiff’s court filings, you will not be aware of these inaccuracies. And that points to a serious defect in California election law.
Ballot proponents (or opponents) can make false and misleading arguments, and get away with it, because the court process usually cannot unfold quickly enough to meet the County’s aggressive timetable for editing, translating, printing, and mailing ballot guides.
To remedy this problem, process reforms are needed. Either several additional days should be added to the pre-election timetable for claims like the ones against Measure B to be heard and adjudicated. Alternatively, California should move away from printed voter guides and instead post them on the web. Not only would that provide more time to edit inaccurate arguments prior to public exposure, but taxpayers would also save money on printing and mailing costs. It would be good for the environment too!
Marc Joffe is the President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association.
Include Assessor, Auditor-Controller and County Superintendent of Schools
By Allen D. Payton
Because the incumbent didn’t file to run for re-election in the June 2nd primary by Friday, March 6, the filing period has been extended five business days in three county-wide offices.
According to the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder’s Office Elections Division the deadline for filing nomination documents has been extended (to non-incumbents only) to March 11, 2026, for the following County offices: Assessor, Auditor-Controller and County Superintendent of Schools.
Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer in 2022. Source: Contra Costa County
Announces retirement after 40 years in public office effective Dec. 2026 at end of current term
Supports Assistant County Assessor Vince Robb as his replacement
ByRobin Cantu, Assessor’s Customer Services Coordinator, Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office
On Friday, March 6, 2026, Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer announced he would not run for re-election to a ninth term. He first served in public office as the Martinez City Clerk when he was elected in 1986.
The announcement reads, he “will retire from his position as County Assessor in December 2026, concluding more than three decades of dedicated public service to the residents of Contra Costa County
“First elected in 1994, Kramer has been entrusted by the voters of Contra Costa County for eight consecutive terms over the past 32 years. During that time, he has overseen significant modernization and improvements within the Assessor’s Office, working to ensure that property assessments are conducted with fairness, transparency, and efficiency.
“It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve the people of Contra Costa County,” said Kramer. “I am deeply grateful to the voters who placed their trust in me eight times over the past three decades. Their confidence and support have meant a great deal to me throughout my career.”
Kramer also emphasized the contributions of several key members of his leadership team who have played an essential role in strengthening the office’s service to the public. He expressed special appreciation to Vince Robb, Assistant County Assessor; Peter Yu, Assistant County Assessor; and Robin Cantu, Assessor’s Customer Services Coordinator, for their outstanding dedication and leadership.
“Vince Robb and Peter Yu have been exceptional partners in managing the complex responsibilities of the Assessor’s Office, bringing professionalism, expertise, and a strong commitment to public service every day,” Kramer said. “Robin Cantu has also been instrumental in ensuring that our office maintains a high level of responsiveness and service for the public.”
Kramer noted that their leadership—along with the dedication of the entire Assessor’s Office staff—has helped bring the efficiency, professionalism, and public service of the office to an all-time high level.
“I want to thank every member of the Assessor’s Office, past and present, who has worked so hard to serve the residents of Contra Costa County,” Kramer added. “Together we have worked to make the business of property value assessment as simple, transparent, and accessible as possible for the public.”
As he prepares for retirement, Kramer said he is proud of what the office has accomplished and grateful for the opportunity to serve the community.
“Public service has been a privilege, and I will always be thankful for the trust placed in me by the people of Contra Costa County,” Kramer said.
Supports Assistant County Assessor Vince Robb
Asked on Friday if he had groomed someone to take his place, Kramer said, “The Assistant County Assessor, Vince Robb, in my office is a good choice. The other two have never appraised a single property. Nobody has experience or credentials like Vince. He has 20 years’ experience in the Assessor’s Office.”
He was referring to Nick Spinner, whose ballot designation is Senior Systems Engineer in the Contra Costa Elections Division list of candidates for the June 2nd primary election, and Kismat Kathrani, whose designation is Software Technology Entrepreneur.
About Kramer
In the bio on his campaign website which is still up as of Saturday, March 7th, Kramer wrote, “I was born in Contra Costa and raised in East County. My high school was Pacifica High in West Pittsburg (Go Spartans!) and I graduated in 1968. Back then the area was called West Pittsburg, but now it is called Bay Point. It was a small high school but we played hard in local sports and competed well against larger central county schools. It closed in 1976 and is now Riverview Middle School on Pacifica Ave. Having a high school of our own, rather than sending kids to Concord or Pittsburg, was a real anchor for the community.
“After high school I attended DVC for a year, then went to mortuary school in San Francisco. Working in mortuary and funeral services is a very specific calling. It is not for everyone, but for those that answer the call it can be fulfilling. It taught me a deep respect for life, caring for the living, and humbleness in the face of the awesome hereafter. Working as an embalmer introduced me to the CC Coroner’s office, and I worked there for several years. It might be how I keep my sense of humor when things are gloomy. I continued my education at USF studying public administration at night, while I worked for the county. This began my career in public service.
“I settled and raised my family in Martinez, the County Seat of Contra Costa. the adopted home town of environmentalist John Muir and the birthplace of baseball hero Joe DiMaggio. I still live there today.
“Bitten is a strong word for it, so maybe I was nipped by the political bug in the mid-80s in Martinez. I wanted to be involved in my community, give back, and continue to serve. I ran for City Clerk and won. As clerk I was not voting on issues like the city council, but I was part of the process and aware of the machinations of local government. As city clerk I donated my monthly salary to provide scholarships to local students. Education helped my rise up and build a foundation, and I wanted to give back to the community rather than take from it.”
Official County Bio
According to his official 2022 bio on the Contra Costa County website, “Gus grew up in Bay Point, California, and is a graduate of the San Francisco College of Mortuary Science and the University of San Francisco.
His public career in Contra Costa County began in 1974. Kramer embarked on his tenure with the County at the Contra Costa County Sheriff Coroner’s Office, later moving to the Contra Costa County Probation Department, and finally to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department until 1994 when he was elected to the position of County Assessor. In addition to his service to Contra Costa County and its residents, Kramer was also elected to the position of Martinez City Clerk in 1986.
“As County Assessor, Kramer has overseen remarkable improvements to streamline the operations of his office, eliminate backlogs, and achieve higher levels of public service, all while operating substantially under budget.
“The State Board of Equalization acknowledged his office as one of the best managed assessor’s operations in California. Gus Kramer is a member of the California Assessors’ Association and the International Right of Way Association and has more than 43 years as a licensed real estate salesperson.”
He now has 47 years as a licensed real estate agent, Kramer said.
During his work for the County Public Works Department real estate division he shared, “I valued commercial and residential real estate to be purchased for public works projects.”
Future Plans
Asked what his plans are for the future, Kramer exclaimed with a laugh, “I gotta find something to do!”
Seriously, he said he will find something where he can apply his skills, knowledge and experience, probably in real estate.
The BART Board voted to close all stations serving East County if the proposed Nov. sales tax measure fails. Source: BART
Contra Costa’s 4 representatives vote to adoptAlternative Service Plan to balance budget including 1,170 employee layoffs
Ridership still down 50% post-COVID
ByAllen D. Payton
On Thursday, Feb. 26, 2026, the BART Board of Directors, on vote of 8-1, adopted an Alternative Service Plan outlining specific budget balancing details to solve a $376M deficit for the next fiscal year if no new funds become available to BART. According to a District press release, BART is facing a structural deficit of $350M to $400M because ridership is still down 50% compared to pre-pandemic levels and BART’s current funding model relies heavily on passenger fares.
As previously reported by the Herald, the stations on the list for potential Phase 1 closure in January 2027 include the 10 lowest ridership stations: North Concord, Orinda, Pittsburg Center, Oakland International Airport, West Dublin/Pleasanton, Castro Valley, San Bruno, South Hayward, South San Francisco and Warm Springs/South Fremont.
Phase 2 Closures Include Antioch and Pittsburg/Bay Point Stations
The Phase 2 – July 2027 Segment Closure Scenario, Contingent on Phase 1 implementation, would result in a 70% reduction in train hours and 25% reduction in system miles; Segment closures would stop service on most system segments opened after 1976: Yellow line service would end at Concord, shuttering the Pittsburg/Bay Point and Antioch Stations; Orange line service would end at Bay Fair,; Blue line service would be discontinued shuttering the West Dublin/Pleasanton Station; Most stations south of Daly City would be closed except for direct service to SFO would continue for revenue retention; Service continues to Milpitas and Berryessa due to terms of BART/VTA agreements.
Based on Proposed Transit Tax Measure Failing
The plan is based on the assumption a sales tax increase measure proposed for the November ballot in five Bay Area counties fails. As previously reported, voters would be asked to consider a one-half sales tax increase in Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties and a one-cent sales tax increase in San Francisco County. The 14-year regional transportation sales tax would generate approximately $980 million annually with 60 percent dedicated to preserving service on BART, Muni, Caltrain and AC Transit, as well as San Francisco Bay Ferry and smaller transit agencies providing service in the five counties to keep buses, trains and ferries moving, including WestCat, County Connection and Tri Delta Transit. About one-third of the revenue would go to Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Santa Clara VTA, SamTrans and the Alameda County Transportation Commission, with flexibility to use funds for transit capital, operations, or road paving projects on roads with regular bus service.
Also, as previously reported, an effort is underway to gather signatures to place the measure on the ballot. The sales tax increase would be in addition to the half-cent sales tax for BART operations in Contra Costa, Alameda and San Francisco counties in place since the 1960’s.
Motion and Vote Details
Following public comments and discussion among the Board members a vote was taken on the following motion: The Board adopts the attached Resolution “In the Matter of Initially Approving an Alternative Service Plan to Take Effect January 2027 in the Event the Connect Bay Area Measure Fails to Receive Voter Approval at the Statewide General Election on November 3, 2026 and BART is Unable to Secure Other Revenue Sources.”
The motion was made by District 4 Director Robert Raburn, seconded by District 1 Director Matt Rinn, and passed on a vote of 8-1 with the additional support of District 7 Director Victor Flores, District 2 Director Mark Foley, District 3 Director Barnali Gosh, District 8 Director Janice Li, Board Vice President and District 9 Director Edward Wright and Board President and District 5 Director Melissa Hernandez.
District 6 Director Liz Ames was the only member of the Board of Directors to vote “No”.
Foley represents portions of Central County and all of East County, Rinn represents portions of Central Contra Costa County, all of Lamorinda and most of the San Ramon Valley, Gosh represents all of West County and Hernandez represents portions of San Ramon.
Approved Plan Details
The plan includes specific cuts and financial strategies needed to balance both the FY27 (July 1, 2026-June 30, 2027) and FY28 (July 1, 2027-June 30, 2028) budgets. The plan includes service cuts, station closures, fare increases, a 40% reduction in system support services, laying off 1,170 employees and a series of deferrals and one-time resources. The plan does not name specific stations to be closed and makes clear the BART Board will be responsible for all decisions on station closures. You can read the Alternative Service Plan resolution, resolution attachment and presentation to the BART Board.
BART has already made budget cuts across all departments and instituted a series of cost controls, including rightsizing service, labor savings, operational efficiencies, and reducing BART’s office space footprint. At the same time, BART has also worked to increase revenue by installing new fare gates, leasing out BART parking lots, and offering new fare products such as Clipper BayPass. View a detailed list of cost savings implement by BART at bart.gov/fiscalcliff.
Alternative Service Plan Details
To take place in January 2027:
3-line service (Yellow, Blue, and Orange line service only, with limited peak service in only the peak commute direction on the Red and Green lines).
30-minute frequencies on every line.
Closing at 9 pm seven days a week.
This service plan represents a 63% reduction in train hours.
30% fare and parking fee increases (the estimated average fare would increase from $4.98 to $6.38).
Target approximately $30M in savings over 6 months from non-service budget reductions to fleet and non-fleet maintenance, police, cleaning, and administrative support functions.
Continue deferrals of priority capital allocations and retiree medical contributions.
Balance remainder of FY27 with one-time resources and financial deferrals.
Following the January 2027 cuts, staff will continuously assess ridership and revenue impacts and the performance of all District functions to determine if further reductions can be safely and legally implemented.
To take place in July 2027 if feasibly safe:
Target over $175M in annual cost reductions through a cumulative 70% reduction in service hours:
Maintain 3-line service, 30-minute frequencies on each line, closing at 9pm.
Close up to 15 stations and/or up to 25% of system track miles.
The BART Board will be responsible for all decisions on station or line segment closures.
Increase fares and parking fees up to a cumulative 50%. The estimated average fare would increase to $7.26.
Target annual operating expense savings of more than a cumulative $130M from non-service budget reductions to fleet and non-fleet maintenance, police, cleaning, and administrative support functions.
Continue to defer retiree health contributions; defer most remaining capital allocations.
Contingency:
If at any point it is determined BART can’t safely or legally operate with available resources, stop passenger service.
Use existing District tax revenues to secure system assets.
Work to determine system’s future.
Use of the State Loan
BART can’t use state loan money to avoid station closures and service cuts if no new revenue becomes available because without new revenue, there is no way to pay the loan back. The state loan primarily helps with cash flow if a November 2026 transit funding measure is successful. It is a bridge loan that gives BART reassurances money will be available to continue to deliver the best service possible until the sales tax dollars from the successful ballot measure become available for BART’s use. This is projected to happen in July 2027 but could take longer. If a funding measure succeeds, BART will use $97M in loan funds to help balance the FY27 budget.
“Califraudia” estimated at $250 billion of fraud, waste and abuse
By Jenny Rae Le Roux
SACRAMENTO, CA — Today, CAL DOGE, the unofficial California Department of Government Efficiency, launched on Jan. 26th by candidates for governor, Steve Hilton and for state controller, Herb Morgan, announced it has untangled a web of funding from the Prop 64 (state marijuana legalization law) authorized California Cannabis Tax Fund (CCTF) – supposed to be used for substance abuse prevention – that instead is building the Democrat political machine in California.
An investigation into Elevate Youth California, which is one of the financial intermediaries that received $370M from the CCTF, found that Elevate Youth distributed 517 micro-grants, with an average grant size of $700K, to multiple organizations that do nothing related to substance abuse and instead build the Democrat voter base. These organizations explicitly fund “social justice youth development”, “civic engagement”, and “power building.”
According to Prop 64 and the supposed oversight group for Elevate Youth, The Center at Sierra Health Foundation, the tax is designated to support “funding and technical assistance for organizations that are developing or increasing community substance use disorder prevention, outreach and education focused on youth.” Instead, Elevate Youth is distributing funds to organizations – such as $1M for “civic engagement” to Young Invincibles, which has stated values of “Young Adult Power, Equity, Community, Collaboration, and Bold Ideas” but says and does nothing related to substance abuse prevention.
“After collecting $1 billion annually from the Cannabis Tax, that money should be spent on substance abuse prevention as stated in the law, not political organizing to keep Democrats in charge of California’s decline,” said Jenny Rae Le Roux, Director of CAL DOGE. “Funneling money through financial intermediaries to hundreds of non-profits that spend those funds on partisan Democrat political organizing must stop, and the age of accountability must begin.”
Other grantee organizations, such as the Jakara Movement Grant, which was provided $1M for Sikh youth empowerment and voter registration, and Asian Refugees United, which was granted $800K for LGBTQ+ Asian Storytelling, have no connection to substance abuse prevention.
Estimates $250 Billion of Fraud, Waste and Abuse
Based on a preliminary review by Hilton, and his running mate Morgan, entitled “Califraudia”, California’s exposure to fraud, waste, and abuse across major state programs is estimated at $250 billion. This estimate, based on independent analysis, underscores the urgent need for formal audits, investigations, and enforcement as a matter of basic fiscal responsibility.
Hilton added, “In seven days of work, CAL DOGE has already uncovered more fraud than Gavin Newsom and his regime have done in their seven years in power. And we’re not even elected yet! This is exactly why I set up CAL DOGE in the first place, to expose fraud and corruption in the system so we can act to stop it on day one. Democrats and their shadow network of leftist front organizations are stealing taxpayers’ money for their own partisan ends. We pay the highest taxes in the country yet get the worst results – and now we are finding out why, and where our money is really going. There is much more to come from CAL DOGE and its work will play a huge part in ending 16 years of Democrat one party rule this November.”
Following are additional details on the investigation and the team that connected the dots:
Californians Voted For the $370 Million in Cannabis Tax Dollars to Fund “Drug Prevention.” Instead, the Tax Bankrolls Leftwing Political Activism.
When California voters approved Proposition 64 in 2016, they were told cannabis tax revenue would fund youth substance abuse prevention. Six years and $370.25 million later, Rhetor’s AI-powered forensic audit — conducted in partnership with CalDOGE — reveals where that money actually went: into a sprawling network of 517 grants funding political organizing, voter registration drives and “social justice youth development,” all administered by a single nonprofit intermediary operating as a shadow agency of the state.
How the Money Moves
The California Department of Health Care Services does not distribute Proposition 64 cannabis tax funds directly to community organizations. Instead, they issue a master contract to The Center at Sierra Health Foundation, a 501(c)(3) that has become the de facto bank for the state’s equity, prevention and youth funding.
The Center at Sierra Health Foundation retains 15 to 20 percent in administrative fees then sub-grants the remaining funds to community-based organizations through its own application process.
The state does not pick who gets the grants. The intermediary does, bypassing the rigorous procurement processes mandated for direct government contracts under the Department of General Services and State Controller oversight.
The result is a three-stage pipeline — master contract to fiscal intermediary to sub-grants — that creates layers of separation between taxpayer dollars and their ultimate use.
Lining the Governor’s Pockets
The pipeline starts with the governor’s office, and the relationship between The Center at Sierra Health Foundation and the governor extends well beyond a standard contract. According to the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s Behested Payment Transparency Report (pg.19-20), in 2020 alone, Sierra Health Foundation was the third-largest payor of behested payments statewide at $14,747,724 and the single largest payee of behested payments statewide at $30,869,901 — payments Newsom solicited from private companies.
Newsom himself was the top behesting official in the state that year at $226.8 million total (pg. 20), and Sierra Health Foundation ranked among his top three financial partners in the system.
The financial trajectory of The Center at Sierra Health Foundation tracks accordingly. IRS Form 990 filings show The Center’s revenue exploded from $11.8 million in 2018 to $197 million in 2024 — with 96.5 percent of that revenue coming from government contracts. The Center’s CEO Chet Hewitt’s total compensation rose from $407,726 to $612,730 over the same period, a 50 percent increase that mirrors the growth in state contract volume almost perfectly. Behested payments are legal in California with no dollar limits, but the California Fair Political Practices Commission itself flagged the scale as concerning enough to implement new transparency regulations.
The Grants Say the Quiet Part Out Loud
The pipeline flows from the governor’s office to the The Center at Sierra Health Foundation, the fiscal intermediary, who determines grant recipients. Rather than awarding grants to recipients that qualify for Proposition 64’s original purpose — fighting substance abuse — The Center uses Prop. 64’s taxpayer dollars to fund leftwing activist organizations.
Elevate Youth, for example, the most significant vertical managed by The Center, is funded exclusively by Prop. 64 taxpayer dollars. Yet Elevate Youth’s grant application form explicitly names “social justice youth development” and “civic engagement” as criteria for grantees, terms that appear nowhere in the statutory language of Prop. 64’s Youth Education, Prevention, Early Intervention, and Treatment Account.
Similarly, grant recipients, like United Way of Santa Cruz County, which was awarded $834,075.00 from Elevate Youth, focuses on “activism” and “BILPOC (Black, Indigenous, Latino, and People of Color) and LGBTQ+ youth and families.”
Voters approved cannabis tax revenue for substance abuse prevention. DHCS redefined “prevention” to include political organizing — then buried it inside the grant criteria of a nonprofit intermediary most Californians have never heard of.
Political Activism at Clinical Prices
The math exposes the disconnect.
According to the DHCS YEPEITA report, the Elevate Youth program reached 89,727 participants. Divide $370.25 million by that figure and the cost per participant is $4,126.
Actual clinical substance abuse treatment costs between $2,000 and $5,000 per patient. Elevate Youth California is charging clinical-grade prices for non-clinical projects, including “civic engagement” workshops, leadership development seminars and “community mobilizing” training. These are not treatment programs. They are organizing programs priced like treatment programs.
The Receipts
Elevate Youth’s specific grant awards make the mislabeling undeniable.
Since 2020, the Jakara Movement has received $1.8 million for “Sikh youth empowerment and prevention.” Grant activities include voter registration drives. Under the program’s framework, registering voters is classified as substance abuse prevention.
Pacific Clinics received $1 million for its “Youth IMPACT Project” — designed to “strengthen the leadership skills” of immigrant youth and “mobilize people to achieve change.”
The Center does not hide its ideological aims. They are codified in its program descriptions. The San Joaquin Valley Health Fund lists “power building” and “civic engagement” as core pillars of its health equity strategy. The Center has funded partners to conduct door-to-door canvassing for the Census and voter registration — explicitly linking political capital to health outcomes.
Hidden in a Sea of Grants.
The $370.25 million was not distributed through a handful of large, auditable contracts. It was dispersed across 517 individual grants, averaging $716,150 each.
This fragmentation makes traditional auditing nearly impossible. No single grant is large enough to trigger intensive audit scrutiny. The dispersal prevents consolidated oversight of outcomes. And because The Center — not the state — manages the sub-granting process, no single state auditor has a comprehensive view of where the money lands or what it produces.
How Rhetor Found It
This is the kind of fraud pattern that manual auditors miss by design. When grants are deliberately fragmented across hundreds of recipients, the mislabeling only becomes visible at scale.
Rhetor’s AI analysis — deployed as part of its CAL DOGE partnership — cross-referenced RFA language, grant award descriptions, cost-per-participant calculations and program outcome reporting across the full portfolio of 517 grants. The pattern detection surfaced what no individual audit could: a systematic reclassification of political organizing as public health spending, replicated across hundreds of awards.
What This Means
Californians voted for youth drug prevention. They got a taxpayer-funded political organizing infrastructure — administered by an unelected nonprofit, shielded from procurement oversight and priced at clinical treatment rates for activities that have nothing to do with substance abuse.
The receipts are public. The grant guidelines are public. The cost-per-participant math is public. None of this was hidden. It was just fragmented enough that no one was supposed to connect the dots.
Rhetor and CAL DOGE connected them. The question now is whether Californians will act or wait until Sacramento sends the next $370 million into the same pipeline.
Note: The original figure cited for Elevate Youth’s funding for the Jakara Movement was $350,000. Our updated data found that Elevate Youth has granted $1.8 million to the Jakara Movement since 2020.
The CAL DOGE team includes investigators, tech advisors and citizen journalists. If you have a tip, send it to Califraud.com, a secure whistleblower platform, paid for by the Steve Hilton for Governor 2026 campaign, that allows current and former state employees and members of the public to report fraud, waste, abuse and systemic mismanagement without fear of retaliation.
CAL DOGE, named after Elon Musk’s DOGE which was formed and worked to find wasteful spending, fraud and abuse in the federal government and disbanded last November, is not the same as California DOGE, started in Nov. 2024. The new effort publishes findings, tracks spending at the program level, and advances reform proposals to restore trust, lower costs, and make California government work again for the people who pay for it. For more information about CAL DOGE see https://caldoge.rhetor.ai.
