D.C.-based California Justice & Public Safety PAC with major funding from Soros has reported more than $400,000 in spending to influence voters in the 2022 Contra Costa DA Race

Knox also benefits from out-of-county funds, but most are from within Contra Costa including $170,000 from Deputy Sheriff’s Association PAC

By Allen D. Payton

Over $400,000 has been spent by the California Justice & Public Safety Political Action Committee based in Washington, D.C. to support Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton’s re-election campaign. According to a Form 496 report filed on May 14 by the committee on the Netfile.com website, $206,700 in expenditures were made for “Digital Advertisement Production Supporting Diana Becton”. An additional $201,387.03 was spent by the independent expenditure committee according to another Form 496 report filed on May 14 on “Digital Advertisement Production Opposing Mary Knox”.  California Justice & Public Safety PAC Form 496 051422 #1   California Justice & Public Safety PAC Form 496 051422 #2

According to influencewatch.org, “California Justice & Public Safety PAC is a left-of-center PAC that was created in 2018 to fund the campaigns of progressive Democratic candidates for district attorney in several cities in California. The organization is the California branch of the vast ‘Safety and Justice’ network, a project of left-leaning billionaire George Soros that used a network of similarly named state-level PACs to finance the campaigns of progressive Democratic candidates for district attorney in more than a dozen of America’s cities.”

According to the Justice & Public Safety PAC website, the Soros-backed effort has been “winning races in 14 states over the last 6 years.” Also according to influencewatch.org, “Justice and Public Safety PAC is a left-of-center PAC that focuses on supporting the campaigns of progressive district attorneys in the Commonwealth of Virginia. ^[1] The PAC receives most of its funding from left-leaning billionaire George Soros and Democracy PAC, which also receives much of its funding from Soros. ^[2] It is one of several similarly-named PACs that receive substantial funding from Soros and contribute to the campaigns of progressive district attorneys across the U.S.”^[3]

They include Becton both during her 2018 campaign, and now, this year’s. The progressive Democrat DA’s also include San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin and Los Angeles County’s George Gascon, both of whom are facing possible recalls. Becton formed a statewide organization with them and San Joaquin County DA Tori Verber Salazar, entitled Prosecutors Alliance of California.

 

Knox’s Campaign Also Benefits from Out-of-County PAC Funds, But Most From Within Contra Costa

Knox’s campaign was also the beneficiary of out-of-county political action committee funds, including $10,000 from the Oakland Police Officer’s Association PAC on May 5. According to the Netfile.com website a Form 496 was filed by the Contra Costans for Progress and Justice, a coalition of business, labor and people that care about public safety in support of Mary Knox for District Attorney 2022 showing $50,096 was spent on a “Mailer (Estimated Costs)” and showing the “Cumulative to date total $70,684.75” which the Oakland POA’s PAC helped pay for. Contra Costans for Progress & Justice PAC Form 496 050322  Contra Costans for Progress & Justice PAC Form 496 050522 Contra Costans for Progress & Justice PAC Form 496 051922

However, according to a separate Form 496 report filed on May 3 by the independent expenditure committee most of their funds spent were from within Contra Costa County, including $170,000 from the Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriff’s Association Independent Expenditure PAC, $7,500 from Alves Ranch Property Holdings, LLC in Alamo, $10,000 from the Concord Police Association PAC, $3,000 from the Brentwood Police Officers Association PAC and $2,500 from the Walnut Creek Police Association PAC (WCPA PAC). Contributions of $500 each were received from the Moraga and Pleasant Hill Police Officers Associations PACS. A total of $3,600 in contributions included in that report were received from sources outside of the county. The report shows $20,588.75 was spent on digital ads to support Knox’s campaign.

The most recent Form 496 report filed on May 19 by the Contra Costans for Progress and Justice committee shows an additional $20,000 contribution from the Contra Costa Deputy Sheriff’s Association PAC, $20,000 from the Peace Officers Research Association of California PAC (PORAC PAC) Small Contributor Committee based in Sacramento and an additional $2,500 from two Contra Costa County residents. The report also shows an additional $29,316 was spent on a mailer and shows cumulative to date total expenditures of $100,000.70.

Questions for Becton Go Unanswered

Becton was asked for comment about the spending by the PAC and funds from Soros via email Friday morning, May 20. She was also asked if it is good to have so much out-of-county and out-of-state funds spent to influence an election in Contra Costa County. Becton did not respond.

Knox Issues Statement

Knox’s campaign issued the following this past week:

In light of recently reported contributions from an out-of-state PAC funded by George Soros, Mary Knox, candidate for Contra Costa District Attorney released the following statement:

“An out-of-state billionaire is now spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to influence voters and drown out the voices of local donors in the District Attorney’s race,” said Deputy District Attorney Knox. “Our grassroots campaign has deeply resonated with Contra Costa voters who want to see our DA focused on restoring safety and reducing crime. It’s clear that my campaign has made an impact that is now

driving out-of-state spending in this race. I remain focused on ensuring our message reaches voters across our county.”

Knox has served as a prosecutor in the Contra Costa District Attorney’s office for 37 years and has extensive trial experience. Knox has earned the endorsement of every law enforcement agency in the County, as well as state and local organizations such as the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, PORAC, the California Narcotics Officers Association and the California Gang Investigators Association. Mary has advanced social justice while preventing crime in Contra Costa County. She brought anti-bias training to the District Attorney’s Office and has fought to end discrimination against women in the Contra Costa County’s District Attorney’s Office.

Mary Knox and the incumbent are the only candidates running for election as District Attorney. Since this election will be won by a simple majority, the election of the next District Attorney of Contra Costa County will be determined by the votes cast on June 7, 2022.

About Mary Knox

Mary Knox has dedicated her life to making Contra Costa County safer. For more than 37 years, Mary has served as an experienced prosecutor and advocate for crime victims. As a lead prosecutor in the District Attorney’s office, Mary has won high profile cases against some of the most notorious criminals in Contra Costa County history. She worked to dismantle the criminal gangs who have preyed upon our most disadvantaged communities, and she has engaged in meaningful violence reduction by instituting effective strategies to reduce crime and prosecute violent criminals. To discourage freeway shootings, she secured $3.5 million for freeway security cameras. She brought in $3.5 million in federal funding to combat sex trafficking. And, after recent smash and grab robberies, Mary developed a three-point plan to hold organized crime syndicates accountable and prevent future crimes.

Born and raised in Walnut Creek, Mary Knox attended UCLA and then Pepperdine Law School.

During law school, Mary worked as a law clerk in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in the Sexual Assault Unit and in a second clerkship in the Juvenile Unit. Once Mary graduated from law school, she came home and has worked as a prosecutor in the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s for the past 37 years while raising her son, Darien, as a single mother.

Key Endorsements (for a complete list visit maryknox4da.com):

• Crime Victims United
• Police Officer Research Association of California (PORAC)
• California Narcotic Officers’ Association (CNOA)
• California Correctional Peace Officers Association
• Central Coast Gang Investigators Association
• National Latino Police Officer Association – Contra Costa County NLPOA Advocacy Chapter
• Chinese American Political Association (CAPA) PAC
• Contra Costa County Sheriff, David Livingston
• Mitchell Celaya III, Calistoga Police Chief
• Douglas Krathwal, Retired San Pablo Police Chief
• Joseph Aida, Retired San Pablo Police Chief
• Walt Schuld, Retired San Pablo Police Chief
• John Moore, Retired Pleasant Hill Police Chief
• Dan Lawrence, Retired Clayton Police Chief
• Tom Holt, Former Police Lieutenant from the Contra Costa Community College District
• Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
• Contra Costa District Attorney Investigators Association
• El Cerrito Police Officer Association
• Hercules Police Officer Association
• Martinez Police Officer Association
• Oakley Police Officer Association
• Pinole Police Officer Association
• Pittsburg Police Officer Association
• Pleasant Hill Police Officer Association
• San Ramon Police Officer Association
• Antioch Police Officer Association
• BART Police Officer Association
• Brentwood Police Officer Association
• Richmond Police Officer Association
• San Pablo Police Employees’ Association
• Clayton Police Officer Association
• Concord Police Officer Association
• East Bay Regional Parks Police Officer Association
• Walnut Creek Police Officer Association

To learn more about incumbent DA Becton’s campaign, click here. The election is June 7.

PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT

Paid for by private individual

UPDATE: Per the Therriault campaign, he was not confirmed for this event and will not be in attendance.

Dear Voters,

Please save the date for Tuesday, May 31, 2022, at 6pm in Antioch. We are inviting you to a MEET & GREET of the candidates: Contra Costa County District Attorney, incumbent Diana Becton and Mr. Benjamin Therriault, the challenger for Contra Costa County Sheriff Department.

Your presence will be greatly appreciated. Please confirm if you are coming since this is an invitation only event to reserve a space for you.

More details to follow…

Host: Ms. Lovetta Tugbeh

Co-host: Ms. Lydia Natoolo

Other host Organizations:

Congressional Coalition of Africans-Diaspora

Nigerian Americans Public Affairs Committee (NAPAC)

Africans in America Alliance (AAA)

For location and to RSVP text or call us at (925) 727-8291.

10th District includes portions of Antioch

Oakley resident Katherine Piccinini announced that she has filed paperwork with the Contra Costa Elections Division and is certified as an official Write-In Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, 10th District race in the June 7th Primary Election.  The 10th Congressional District was recently changed due to re-districting and now includes much of Contra Costa County, including Oakley, Brentwood, parts of Antioch and Central Contra Costa County, as well.

If she gets enough voters to write her name on the June ballot, it will appear on the November ballot.

“I am a mother, a grandmother, and a Constitutionalist,” Piccinini stated. “I am concerned about the direction of our great nation.”

She said she was concerned no viable challenger had filed paperwork to run against incumbent, liberal Congressman Mark DeSaulnier in the Primary.

“DeSaulnier has voted yes to budget after budget where America has overspent beyond our means, incurring 10’s of trillions in debt that our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay back,” Piccinini said as one of her reasons for the challenge.

She also discussed other parts of DeSaulnier’s voting record, noting he even voted no on the ‘Infants Born Alive Protection Act’ H.R. 4712 which would have required health care professionals to provide life-saving care to babies born during botched abortions.

Shortly after announcing her candidacy, Piccinini received numerous endorsements from several community groups including the East Contra Costa Republican Women Federated, where she serving as president in her third year; Lamorinda Republican Women Federated and the San Ramon Republican Women Federated; the California Delta Region Republican Party organization on social media; Rachel Hamm, candidate for Secretary of State; David E Burton San Diego East County Conservatives; George Yang, candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction; Congressional District 9 candidate Jim Shoemaker; Assembly District 16 candidate Joe Rubay; Assembly District candidate Janell Proctor; Assembly District 14 write-in candidate Rich Kinney and former AD-11 Assembly candidate Erik Elness.

Piccinini outlined several of her platform issues, including financial accountability, such as reigning in our $30.4+ trillion dollar national debt by auditing, reducing spending and advancing a balanced budget amendment, support for the Bill of Rights, including the Freedom of Speech, Religion, and our Right to Bear Arms, as well as supporting federal voucher efforts for school choice, reducing federal restrictions on water for California’s Central Valley farmers, closed borders and stopping federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

Piccinini stands for individual liberty and Constitutional government with Congress exercising the “power of the purse” to control spending, as well as encouraging pride in the founding principles that make America exceptional.

“Speaking with fellow citizens, so many are frustrated and very concerned with the lack of honesty, integrity and morals of our elected representatives in Washington DC,” she also stated, “We the people deserve better than that.”

Piccinini has been involved with her community as a soccer mom and coach for the youth; a parent advocate, and property manager. She worked and served at the Delta Community food bank for 4 years. In 2019, she took the initiative to support the East Contra Costa Women’s Republican club, increased the membership by 50% and then became President of the organization. Her commitment is to stand for truth and freedom and represent District 10 with honor.

You can follow Katherine Pinnicici’s campaign on Facebook at Piccinini 4 Congress and on Instagram at piccinini 4 congress.

To vote for Piccinini in the June 7, 2022 Election, fill in the bubble in the “write in” area and neatly print her name, “Katherine Piccinini” on the write in line.

Submits campaign finance report on May 2 but not provided to public by City Clerk Householder until this week

By Allen D. Payton

Following three anonymous complaints to the state Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) against him for his Stop the #KAREN Recall for Mayor Lamar Thorpe 2022 campaign committee finances, and three letters sent to him by the FPPC on April 26 demanding a response within 14 days, Thorpe submitted a Form 460 report on May 2. It shows the contributions received and expenditures made by his campaign committee between Dec. 13, 2021, and March 31, 2022. (See related article)

But the report wasn’t posted on the city’s website by City Clerk Ellie Householder until this week. The deadline for submitting signatures for the recall was Wednesday. However, the leaders of the effort announced the company hired to gather signatures stole their funds and didn’t turn over the estimated 11,000 signatures, more than the 9,511 required to force Thorpe to the ballot. (See related article)

Thorpe’s 460 report also shows the $2,500 contribution reported by the IBEW 302 PAC as made on Dec. 20 was not received by his committee until Jan. 14, twenty-five days later. Had that been received by Thorpe’s committee before Dec. 31, 2021, it would have required him to submit a Form 460 by Jan. 31, 2022, revealing all the contributions of $100 or more that were received by the end of last year. (See related article)

84% of Contributions from Outside Antioch

The 460 report shows Thorpe lists all contributions regardless of amount, totaling $81,482.96 of which $1,045.75 was from himself in the form of in-kind contributions, for printing and other items he paid for out of his personal funds. Of the $80,437.21 in monetary contributions 84% or $67,909 originated outside of Antioch. The largest amounts came from special interests including $23,500 from developers, $15,000 from cannabis businesses, $7,600 from union PACS and an organizer, $5,513.38 from garbage company interests, plus $1,800 from politicians including $250 from Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton.

One contribution listed on the report from SR Ventures, LLC provides no address or description. But a search on the City’s website shows it’s a cannabis business proposed to be located at 300 G Street in downtown Antioch and is affiliated with Brentwood-based Sean McCauley Investments, Inc.

16% of Contributions from Within Antioch

Only 16% or $12,528.21 originated from within Antioch, even though Thorpe wrote, “Thank you, Antioch for raising over $80,000 in two weeks” in a Jan. 15 post on his official Facebook page. Of that amount, most of it came from just a few individuals, including $5,000 from Dustin Hoke of Delta Dispensary, an Antioch cannabis business; $2,499 from America De Leon who is listed as retired; $2,000 from business owner Devlin (misspelled Delvin on the report) Braswell; $500 from Antioch Parks and Recreation Commission Chair Marie Arce and her husband Joseph, and another $500 from Ronald Muhammad who is listed as self-employed. Councilwomen Monica Wilson and Tamisha Torres-Walker contributed $250 and $100 respectively, but Torres-Walker’s contribution originated from the address of a home in Pinole. But that amount was included in the Antioch total, since she lives in Antioch. Only $1,679.21 was contributed by other Antioch residents.

70% of Contributions from Special Interests

A total of $56,615.38 in contributions to Thorpe’s campaign committee was from special interests from within and outside of Antioch including $20,000 total from cannabis businesses.

The report also shows a total of only $4,374.36 in expenditures leaving a balance of $77,108.60 at the end of March.

Questions for Householder, Deputy City Clerk

The following questions and information were emailed to Householder and Deputy City Clerk Christian Garcia on Wednesday, May 11.

“Has Lamar submitted his Amended 410 form, yet? Lamar’s Form 460 filed on May 2 for 1/1/22 thru 3/31/22 is now on the city clerk’s website. What day was that uploaded, please? Was that done, today? Because it wasn’t there last Friday.”

Questions for Thorpe

The following questions were sent to Thorpe on Thursday morning, May 12.

“Why haven’t you submitted an Amended 410 form showing your committee was qualified, yet since your committee received at least $2,000 as of Jan. 10 according to your Form 460 report?

On a related matter, why did you report the $2,500 contribution from IBEW 302 PAC as being received on Jan. 14 when they reported it was made on Dec. 20? Did you ask them to hold it until your fundraiser so you didn’t have to file your 460 by Jan. 31?

Now that the recall has failed, will you be returning the remaining $77,108.60 to contributors since the funds weren’t spent? If not, what do you plan to do with it, use it for a campaign for State Senate in a possible special election, next year if Steve Glazer wins for State Controller in November?”

No responses were received from Householder, Garcia or Thorpe by Friday morning, May 13.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Over $23,000 paid to company, $15,000 contribution from former Assemblyman Jim Frazier

More than enough signatures gathered but not received by committee; police report to be filed

City Clerk Householder denies request for extension

Organizers question if Thorpe paid company to not turn over signatures

By Allen D. Payton

Leaders of the effort to recall Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe announced Wednesday that they had failed due to theft of funds by the professional company hired to gather signatures of registered voters which didn’t turn over signatures to the recall committee. Plus, over 1,500 signatures gathered by volunteers submitted to the committee for verification were not returned. Over $23,000 was paid to the company. A total of $45,000 was raised for the effort including $15,000 contributed by former Assemblyman Jim Frazier’s campaign committee in late April.

The following statement was issued:

“The Committee to Recall Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe was unable to submit the required 9,511 signatures needed to put the initiative on the November ballot

Due to various reasons, including Covid and a paid signature company that failed to turn over signed petitions after receiving payment, the recall will not be on the November ballot. Signing efforts during this recall period showcased that close to 11,000 Antioch residents signed the petitions believing that Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe is not providing good leadership for the City of Antioch and we thank them for stepping forward.

To be transparent with the community, due to what we believe is criminal activity and fraud by a professional signing company hired to assist us in signature gathering, paid signatures were not turned over or collected after paying over $23,000. In addition, over 1,500 signatures, gathered by volunteers, were delivered to the signature company, paid to validate as registered voters, were not returned.

All funds used for paying for signatures were contributed by residents, businesses and others who support the recall. The signing firm has not been responsive, has skipped town and is believed to be in another state.

Due to the Covid State of Emergency during this recall process, a request was made today to Antioch City Clerk Ellie Householder and Antioch City Attorney Smith to approve an extension, allowing additional days to continue collecting signatures. There is precedence for approving a Covid extension, as seen with the approved extensions to the governor’s recall attempt and other local jurisdictions throughout the state.  Unfortunately, Antioch City Clerk Ellie Householder quickly denied the extension request.

We would like to thank all of the volunteers, contributors and supporters who have participated and encouraged the Recall Antioch Mayor Thorpe effort.

We are now pursuing recourse against the signature gathering company and individuals responsible for what we believe is defrauding members of our community.

As we continue to investigate what transpired, we will be filing a police report with the Antioch Police Department. With this now being on-going investigation, no further public statements will be made as to not interfere with the investigation process.

Regards,
Committee to Recall Mayor Lamar Thorpe”

————-

Recall Leaders Share More Details, Question if Thorpe Paid Company Not to Turn Over Signatures

A variety of questions were asked of several recall leaders.

Asked if some of the people hired to gather signatures went unpaid, Kathy Cabrera responded, “Yes, many of the pro signers got stiffed.”

Asked if Householder gave a reason for the denial, committee treasurer Tom Hartrick simply responded, “No.”

When asked if they can appeal Householder’s decision to a judge, Cabrera said, “an attorney we spoke with said that’s not an option.”

Asked why they didn’t pay the signature gathering company as they submitted the signatures to the committee instead of a lump sum, Hartrick replied, “pro signers do draw payments up front.”

Asked if anyone contacted Jim Frazier since most of that $23K came from him?” Hartrick responded, “have not contacted Frazier.”

When asked if the committee is still responsible for paying the signature gatherers for the signatures that they had gathered but weren’t paid for, Lindsey Amezcua responded, “No. The company was responsible for paying the gatherers. They are subcontractors under the company.”

Asked how much was raised and spent by the committee, “Right near $45K” she shared.

Asked if they thought Thorpe had paid the company to not turn over the signatures, Amezcua responded, “yes, I’ve heard from a few people involved that they wouldn’t be surprised if he was involved.” In addition, Cabrera replied, “Oh, yeah, that’s exactly what we thought. Even one of the pro signers thought so, also.”

Questions for Thorpe

The recall committee’s statement and following questions were sent via email to Thorpe Wednesday evening.

“Do you have any comment in response to the failure of the recall against you?

Did your Stop the #KAREN Recall for Mayor Lamar Thorpe 2022 committee pay the signature gathering company more money than what the recall committee was paying them to not turn over the signatures, as some paid signature gatherers have told recall organizers?

Questions for Householder

The following questions were sent to Householder Wednesday night: Recognizing the difficult situation the Thorpe recall leaders are facing why did you deny their request for an extension?

Since you have a clear conflict of interest as the mayor’s self-admitted “best friend” and that you “have each other’s back”, shouldn’t you have recused yourself from the entire process and either allow Deputy City Clerk Christina Garcia to make the decision, the county clerk or the Primo Master Municipal Clerk Stephanie Smith who was going to be brought in for the prima facia signature count, today to handle the extension request?

Questions for Frazier

Attempts to reach Frazier were unsuccessful prior to publication time, asking for any comment about the matter and if he would support an investigation into whether Thorpe paid the company to not turn over the signatures.

As previously reported, to date, Thorpe has only filed an initial Form 410 for his beat the recall committee on Dec. 9, 2021, prior to it being qualified. But he later boasted on his official Facebook page in mid-January that he had raised over $84,000. An Amended Form 410 was due within 10 days after his committee was qualified, which The only confirmation of any funds being contributed to his campaign

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

What you need to know about voting in Contra Costa

By Dawn Kruger, Civic Outreach/Engagement Specialist, Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department

Debi Cooper, County Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters, announced today that all registered voters in Contra Costa County should have received their County Voter Information Guides and will soon receive their Official Ballots for the upcoming June 7, 2022 California Primary Election. Ballots will be mailed to voters on May 9th.  If you do not receive your ballot by May 20th, email ballot@vote.cccounty.us or call 925-335-7800.  State Voter Information Guides are also either in the mail, or soon to be mailed, from the Secretary of State’s office.

Here’s what you need to know about voting in the upcoming election:

Register to Vote:

To ensure you receive a ballot in the mail, confirm that you are registered to vote and that your address is correct at cocovote.us/myvotinginfo. If you need to register or update your registration, visit registertovote.ca.gov. After May 23rd, new voters will need to register and vote in person at the Elections Division in Martinez, at one of the County’s early voting sites, or at a polling place on Election Day.

Voting by Mail:

Vote by Mail now happens for every election!  Great news!  All eligible voters will continue to receive vote by mail ballots, and your return envelope is postage paid. Put your completed ballot in the envelope, seal it, sign it, and mail it to us. Voted ballots returned by mail must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received within seven (7) days of the election to be considered timely. 

You can drop your ballot in the mail, at one of the County’s 37 official drop boxes or at any of our in-person voting locations. Official drop boxes will be open for service when ballots are mailed to voters. Dropping your ballot at an official drop box is just like dropping it at the Elections Office and saves taxpayer dollars by reducing the cost of return postage. 

Voters can find a list of convenient drop-box locations and early voting locations at cocovote.us/drop-boxes. Ballots must be dropped off no later than 8:00 p.m. on Election Day.

Avoid long lines and be sure your vote is included in the Election Night count – Vote early and mail or drop off your ballot so the Elections Division receives it by Friday, June 3rd.   

You can track your ballot! 

Ballot tracking is a service provided by the Secretary of State that will send you notices about your ballot, including when it’s mailed, received, and counted. Know where your ballot is every step of the way!  Sign up at https://WheresMyBallot.sos.ca.gov.

“We want registered voters to know that the Elections Office is your trusted source of information about elections,” said Registrar of Voters, Debi Cooper. “If you have any questions about voting or elections, please reach out to us.” 

For more information about the June 7, 2022 Primary election, go to our website at  www.cocovote.us and select the “June 7, 2022 Statewide Election” icon, or call 925-335-7800 M-F 8 am to 5 pm.

By Allen D. Payton

According to Jay Wierenga, Public Information Officer for the state Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) in an email on Monday, May 2, 2022, “three, anonymous complaints were received regarding the Mayor of Antioch. This is all that is releasable at this time. I/we can’t and don’t comment on complaints or investigations, but my office can answer general, procedural questions.”

The complaints allege Lamar Thorpe has not filed campaign finance reports showing contributions to and expenditures by his Stop the #KAREN Recall of Lamar Thorpe committee.

“All complaints received by FPPC Enforcement Division are taken under review to determine whether to open an investigation,” Wierenga continued. “Fact-gathering during this process is not an investigation.” “All complaints are reviewed to determine their merit, if there is enough information, facts, evidence provided to indicate any potential (potential) violation of the Political Reform Act. If not, complaints are dismissed (and can be resubmitted if any new, additional, pertinent information is included). If so, then an investigation begins.

The review usually takes a few days to a few weeks, with an addition 14 days available as an extension if Enforcement so determines.”

The FPPC sent letters on April 26 to Thorpe and his campaign committee, for each of the three complaints giving them 14 days to respond. One of the letters was also addressed to Thorpe’s committee treasurer, Vicki Robinson.

The three complaints contain the following accusations:

FPPC Complaint No. COM-04112022-01033  COM-04112022-01033

Campaign Statements Not Filed; Not Filed Online (84605)

Lamar Thorpe claimed to have received $80,000 in contributions to fight a recall”

FPPC Complaint No. COM-04172022-01087  COM-04172022-01087

Campaign Statements Not Filed

No form 460 filed for contributions and he has claimed to have received $80k

FPPC Complaint No. COM-04262022-01154  COM-04262022-01154

Campaign Statements Not Filed

Semiannual Statements (84200)

The committee received a contribution in the amount of $2500 in December of

2021 and failed to file a form 460

One complaint included a copy of page from the Form 460 campaign finance report filed by the IBEW 302 Community Candidates PAC showing the previously reported contribution of $2,500 on Dec. 20, 2021. The other two complaints included a screenshot of Thorpe’s posting on his official Facebook page about raising over $80,000, also previously reported. (See related article)

Each of the letters include the following messages from the FPPC:

“The Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission enforces the provisions of the Political Reform Act (the “Act”).¹ The Enforcement Division received an anonymous complaint alleging that you may have violated the Act’s campaign disclosure provisions.

At this time, we have not made any determination about the allegations made in the complaint. We are requesting information, including documentation, about the allegations described above. Please submit your response in writing within 14 days from the date of this letter…”

The letters also include the reference at the bottom, “¹The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014.”

Questions for Thorpe, Householder Go Unanswered

Thorpe and City Clerk Ellie Householder were asked via email late Monday night if they had any comment about the complaints and what Wierenga wrote, and for copies of what he or his treasurer send to the FPPC in response.

Wierenga was then asked, “once a campaign committee has provided the FPPC with the requested documents are those available to the public/media?”

He responded, “No. Any correspondence within an investigation is not public until after a case is closed, when the case file then becomes public with the documents deemed to be releasable.”

“A subnote,” Wierenga continued. “Any documents filed with a filing officer are public through the filing officer/filing agency, just as they would be for anyone else at any time. Campaign finance documents are public documents and must be provided.”

In Antioch, the filing officer is the city clerk.

No response from either Thorpe or Householder was received as of Thursday night, May 5.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Only filed Form 410 for his not yet qualified anti-recall committee on Dec. 9, 2021; once committee qualified with $2,000 in contributions or expenditures he was required to file Amended form; 460 form was likely due Jan. 31, 2022; neither report yet on City’s website; questions go unanswered

By Allen D. Payton

Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe has either not yet filed at least one and possibly two of his required beat the recall campaign committee’s finance reports or his self-described “best friend”, City Clerk Ellie Householder is helping him keep that information from the public. As previously reported, according to the state Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) a committee is qualified once it receives contributions or makes expenditures of $2,000 or more. (See related article)

CORRECTION: In that article it was reported that Thorpe’s campaign to beat the recall filed its Form 410 showing he had formed the committee on Dec. 9, 2021. However, this reporter missed the fact that the box next to “Not yet qualified” was marked. Based on that oversight, I incorrectly claimed Thorpe was in violation of state campaign finance law because his committee did not file a Form 460 report by the Jan. 31, 2022, deadline showing who contributed $100 or more and the amounts, as well as expenses paid prior to Dec. 31, 2021. For that, I apologize.

Thorpe Still Possibly in Violation

Yet, while the article was incorrect that a Form 460 was required by Jan. 31, 2022, based on filing a Form 410 prior to Dec. 31, 2021, because the committee was not yet qualified, Thorpe was and is still in violation of state campaign finance law if he hasn’t yet filed an Amended Form 410 showing his committee is now qualified. That form was due within 10 days of his committee meeting the $2,000 threshold.

According to a Jan. 15 post on his official Facebook page, Thorpe claims he had raised “over $80,000” for his beat the recall committee. But as of May 2, the required Amended Form 410, showing his committee became qualified, is still not on the City Clerk’s website and neither he nor Householder will say if he has yet submitted it.

If Thorpe hasn’t, he is in violation of state campaign finance law and withholding that information from the public that voters have a right to know. If he did submit the Amended Form 410, then Householder is withholding that information from the public by not uploading it to the City Clerk’s website.

PAC Contribution on Dec. 20, 2021 Triggered Thorpe’s Reporting Requirements IF Received by Dec. 31

Plus, since then, it was learned that a contribution of $2,500 was made to Thorpe’s committee on Dec. 20, 2021, just 11 days after he filed his original Form 410 which should have triggered the filing of an Amended Form 410 by Dec. 30 and the filing of a Form 460 by Jan. 31, 2021. But no one will say when the contribution was received by Thorpe’s campaign committee or when the check was cashed. If it was on or after Jan. 1, 2022, then the Form 460 wasn’t due by Jan. 31, 2022, and isn’t due until August 1, and shows someone intentionally delayed the receipt of the contribution.

According to the NetFile website, which publicly reports campaign finance transactions, and the Contra Costa County Elections website on Dec. 20, 2021, a contribution of $2,500 from the Martinez-based union local IBEW 302 Community Candidates Political Action Committee (PAC) was made to the “Stop the Karen Recall for Mayor Lamar Thorpe 2022” committee, for which he is the controlling officeholder or candidate.

The PAC’s 1,201-page Form 460 reports it on both Schedule D, page 1,196 for Summary of Expenditures Supporting/Opposing Other Candidates, Measures and Committees and Schedule E, page 1,199 for Payments Made. Schedule D lists the “Recall for Mayor Lamar Thorpe City of Antioch” with the box marked next to “Oppose”. On Schedule E the expense is listed being made to “Stop the Karen Recall for Mayor Lamar Thorpe (ID# Pending) Antioch, CA 94531”. IBEW 302 Community Candidates PAC 460 form p1196 Thorpe Sched D    IBEW 302 Community Candidates PAC 460 form p1199 Thorpe Sched E

But neither his Amended Form 410 nor his Form 460 had yet been posted on the City’s website as of Monday, May 2 only his original Form 410 filed on Dec. 9, 2021.

Householder Appears to be Using Incorrect Finance Report Filing Schedule

Householder, in a Facebook post on her official City Clerk page on Monday, April 25, finally provided the 2022 reporting schedule that her office is following for Thorpe’s recall committee’s finances, which this reporter had requested before the previous article was published. It’s entitled “Campaign Filing Schedule for Committees Primarily Formed to Support/Oppose Local Measures Not Being Voted Upon in 2022” and shows, that the first 460 report is not required to be filed until Aug. 1, 2022.

However, this reporter was following a different, 2021 reporting schedule, entitled “Filing Schedule for Local Candidates and Officeholders (Including Superior Court Judges) Not Being Voted Upon in 2021” which shows But another 2021 reporting schedule entitled, “2021 Filing Schedule for Committees Primarily Formed to Support/Oppose Local Measures Not Being Voted Upon in 2021” is the correct one to follow because a recall his considered a local measure. Assuming Thorpe received the $2,500 contribution from the IBEW prior to Dec. 31, 2021, the mayor was required to file a 460 report for campaign finances between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2021, because his beat the recall committee had become qualified by receiving at least $2,000.

Questions for Thorpe, Householder, Deputy City Clerk Go Unanswered

Questions were sent via email to Thorpe, Householder and Deputy City Clerk Christina Garcia Monday, April 25, 2022, asking about the date his committee had met the qualification threshold and if his Amended Form 410 had been filed with the City Clerk’s office, as well as requesting a copy.

Thorpe was asked, “if your committee to beat the recall wasn’t yet qualified on Dec. 9, 2021, when you filed your 410 form, why did you file it that day? Were you anticipating contributions of at least $2,000 shortly thereafter that would trigger qualifying as a committee? What date did it qualify as a committee? Have you or your treasurer filed the committee’s Amended 410 form showing the date it qualified?”

Householder and Garcia were asked, “if his committee has filed its Amended 410 form, does your office have a copy? If so, can you please provide it to me? Also, if so, why hasn’t the committee’s Amended 410 form been posted, yet on the City Clerk’s website?”

In addition, Householder was asked on her official Facebook page who told her to follow the campaign finance report filing schedule she’s following for Thorpe’s recall.

Additional questions were emailed to all three on Tuesday afternoon, April 26. Thorpe was asked about the $2,500 contribution made by the IBEW PAC on Dec. 20, 2021 and why he didn’t file his Amended Form 410 within 10 days by Thursday, Dec. 30, and if not, why not and has he done so since then. He was also asked why he didn’t file a Form 460 by Jan. 31, 2022, for that contribution and any others, plus any expenditures made by his committee prior to Dec. 31. https://netfile.com/connect2/api/public/image/201824202

Householder and Garcia were asked if they were aware of the contribution of $2,500 from the IBEW 302 Community Candidates PAC on Dec. 20, 2021, to the Stop the #KAREN Recall for Mayor Lamar Thorpe 2022 committee. In addition, they were asked if so, why they would think Thorpe’s campaign committee wasn’t required to follow the 2021 filing schedule but instead, they are following the 2022 filing schedule, and who advised them to follow the schedule for 2022 instead of 2021.

They were also asked, “didn’t that contribution trigger the requirement for Lamar to file his Amended 410 form since his committee became qualified on that date?” and “didn’t it also trigger the requirement for him to file a Form 460 report by Jan. 31, 2022, since the contribution to his committee was made prior to Dec. 31, 2021?”

Additional unsuccessful attempts were made via phone call to both Thorpe and Householder to obtain answers to the questions. In addition, Thorpe was asked when he received the check from IBEW 302 PAC and if they were asked to hold it until after Jan. 1, so no Form 460 report would be due from Thorpe’s committee by Jan. 31, 2021.

Questions for IBEW PAC Treasurer Also Go Unanswered

Multiple attempts to reach Thomas Hansen the treasurer for the IBEW 302 PAC asking when the check to Thorpe’s committee was cashed were unsuccessful.

Three, anonymous complaints have been filed with the FPPC about Thorpe’s campaign committee finances. A separate report with additional details will be provided on this website, later this week.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.