County supervisors used obscure events fund to solicit over $100K from influential donors since 2024

Swearing in ceremonies for county supervisors are typically unassuming — one might even say dull — affairs.

In recent years, newly elected officials took the oath of office during regular Board of Supervisor meetings inside the county administration building and gave brief remarks before a small audience.

Last summer, Democratic Supervisor Paloma Aguirre took a different approach.

Her office organized a blowout swearing in celebration at the Waterfront Park, where a huge tent stretched over seated attendees and belly bar tables dotted the lawn.

According to filings KPBS obtained through a public records request, the District 1 office spent over $9,000 on catering, nearly $8,000 on audiovisual services and about $600 on floral arrangements. A mariachi band serenaded guests to the tune of $800.

Aguirre’s office paid for the event using gifted funds from major corporations and local companies, including Cox Communications, AT&T, manufacturer Solar Turbines and golf club developer T2 Borrego LLC.

The office deposited the money into an obscure account called the “Special Events Trust Fund.” And even though Aguirre was newly elected, she had inherited thousands of dollars in the District 1 account from former Democratic Supervisor Nora Vargas, who abruptly resigned the seat in January 2025.

A monthslong KPBS investigation found supervisor offices received over $100,000 in these gifted payments since 2024. By characterizing the donations as payments to their district offices — as opposed to the individual supervisors — there’s virtually no limit to how much they can solicit and receive from donors.

The investigation also found:

• Nearly all of the gifts were concentrated among the offices of Vargas/Aguirre (at least $33,000), District 2 Republican Supervisor Joel Anderson (at least $27,000) and District 3 Democratic Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer (at least $42,000) 
  

• Lawson-Remer spent tens of thousands of dollars last year on the annual State of the County event at the San Diego Natural History Museum, where she gave the keynote speech. Expenditures included more than $6,000 for teleprompter services, more than $7,000 for printed materials and nearly $10,000 for catering at the invitation-only event. 
  
• In addition to local events organized by his office, Anderson used thousands of dollars for mailers leading up to his 2024 reelection — raising questions about compliance with electioneering restrictions when public money is involved.
  

• At least several of the gifted payments came from donors with business before the county. In one case, a labor union secured a new county contract with raises and benefits improvements after donating nearly $5,000 to Lawson-Remer’s office. The supervisor then put out a press release touting the labor agreement. 
  

• Following the money can be difficult. The county did not require supervisors and their staffs to file publicly-posted notices disclosing the gifts until late 2023. Since then, many of the mandatory payment reports were submitted months or over a year late. Others provide virtually no details about how the offices planned to spend the money. 

The practice raises concerns about transparency and the potential for untoward political influence, according to political scientists, government accountability advocates and former state regulators who spoke to KPBS.

“There is an influence factor going on where the candidate knows who's giving, how much they're giving,” said Sean McMorris, the transparency, ethics and accountability program manager at Common Cause California. “And in the public's eyes, that can influence possibly how an elected official votes on policy that could be favorable to those people or entities.”

While KPBS found no evidence that the supervisors violated political contribution laws, some experts said state campaign finance regulators might want to examine the county’s system for compliance issues.

Supervisors Lawson-Remer, Anderson and Aguirre declined interview requests. Their offices also did not provide copies of expenditure receipts in response to a request KPBS made more than two weeks before publication.

(Democratic Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe’s office — which spent about $1,000 in gifted payments since 2024 — promptly provided 10 receipts for purchases related to a Juneteenth celebration last year. Republican Supervisor Jim Desmond reported no gifted payments to his office, according to county records.)

Beth Willon, press secretary for Lawson-Remer, defended the District 3 supervisor’s solicitation of payments and how the money was used.

“Every dollar was deposited into a trust account managed by the Auditor and Controller and spent exclusively on event costs,” Willon wrote in response to emailed questions. She added, “Every sponsor on this list gave to support a public event with full transparency, under county policy, and with zero strings attached.”

Anderson, who did not respond to a list of emailed questions, said in a statement, “We’re grateful for the people that support our community events.”

Aguirre did not respond to emailed questions.

Special events fund

Under state political contribution laws, individual elected officials can accept a total of $630 worth of gifts from a single source per year, according to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), which enforces state laws on campaign finance and political contributions.

Gifts given to an agency, however, have no such limits under state law. But San Diego County code establishes some guardrails. Gifts of more than $5,000 to an agency would generally require ratification by the Board of Supervisors before the department can use the gift.

Supervisors appear to have a keen awareness of this threshold. Since 2024, the offices of Districts 1, 2 and 3 received at least a dozen gifts between $4,500 and $4,999, including from the San Diego County Probation Officers Association, Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of San Diego County, Jamul Indian Village and the United Domestic Workers of America. There wasn’t a single gift over $5,000, according to county records.

Alexander Nguyen

/

KPBS

“You have to ask yourself, why are they concerned about going over that limit and having to get approval from the whole Board of Supervisors?” McMorris posited. “We can speculate that they don't want the publicity.”

Under the Board’s Special Events Trust Fund policy, the funds are supposed to be used for “special events” — but that phrase “is to be interpreted generally.”

Anderson’s office, for example, spent thousands of dollars in gifted funds for a fentanyl safety workshop, a sanctity of life event and a legislative open house. He also spent over $11,000 of gifted payments on mailers in the months and weeks leading up to the 2024 general election. Anderson was up for reelection that year.

It’s unclear what Anderson included in the mailers — his office has not provided copies in response to a public records request — but the timing raises concerns, according to campaign finance experts.

The FPPC has strict rules for mass mailers paid for using public funds. Within 60 days of an election, for example, a mailer cannot contain the elected official’s photo or signature; mass mailers inviting constituents to a district office’s event would also be prohibited within that window.

Anderson’s office did not respond to emailed questions about the nature of the mailers, if they were intended to target voters and whether they complied with FPPC restrictions. In 2009, the FPPC fined Anderson $20,000 after he exceeded campaign donation limits as State Assemblymember.

Donors with business before the county

Last spring, the United Domestic Workers union paid $4,999 to the District 3 office for “general public events.” Lawson-Remer used the money for her State of the County address at the San Diego Natural History Museum.

Months later, the Board of Supervisors approved a new county contract with United Domestic Workers for in-home supportive services workers. The agreement included “significant raises, benefit improvements, training and recruitment initiatives,” according to a union press release.

The day the Board approved the contract, Lawson-Remer put out a press release touting the agreement.

Willon, Lawson-Remer’s press secretary, said the contribution had no impact on the supervisor’s actions.

“Supervisor Lawson-Remer's support for workers, fair wages, and labor protections is documented well before her time on the Board and well before any of these contributions,” Willon wrote in an email. She added, “The idea that a community sponsorship influences how this supervisor votes misreads both her record and how these donations work.”

United Domestic Workers declined to comment.

It’s not the only example of donations coming from entities with business before the county.

David Wick runs the real estate and logistics company National Enterprises, which is the largest landowner in Otay Mesa as of last year. Wick has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to political action committees and candidates on both sides of the aisle.

“One of the ways I show support is by making political contributions to leaders who I believe are creating a positive impact in our society,” said Wick in an email. “I am not in the business of making contributions for political gain.”

Last year, he gave a payment of $4,999 to the District 3 office.

“Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer contacted me and asked if I would contribute to help fund the dinner at her State of the County Address held at the Natural History Museum in Balboa Park,” Wick wrote, “as the County did NOT have the funds to feed the people who showed up.”

Wick is behind a proposed landfill and recycling center in east Otay Mesa. Voters overwhelmingly approved the facility in 2010, but the project has since faced pushback and growing scrutiny.

The county is preparing an environmental impact report for the project. The landfill and recycling center would require building and grading permits from the county. If the project makes changes to the county’s General Plan, community plans, zoning or other ordinances, it could require Board of Supervisors approval, according to county spokesperson Tammy Glenn.

Rams Hill, a golf club and planned community in Borrego Springs, has also gifted money to supervisor offices in recent years. Two contributions tied to the community — $4,900 to District 1 in 2024 and $4,500 to District 3 last year — were both for “general public events.” Aguirre’s office confirmed the supervisor used the gift to District 1 for her swearing in ceremony.

Rams Hill is seeking to amend its community plan and rezone certain areas to accommodate future growth. This requires substantial review and approval from the county.

Rams Hill did not respond to a request for comment.

Late reports, lack of details

KPBS’ reporting confirmed supervisors have been accepting gifted payments to their Special Events Trust Fund accounts for many years — but the county’s Disclosures of Gifts and Contributions webpage only goes back to late 2023.

That’s because the county only recently began requiring supervisor offices to file FPPC paperwork — known as a Form 801, or payment/gift to agency report — to document each donation to their office.

“This update ensures that reporting is consistent, transparent and aligned with FPPC standards,” said county spokesperson Sarah Sweeney.

KPBS’ investigation found supervisor offices consistently fell short of this goal.

The county is supposed to post these filings online; earlier this year, the county uploaded over a dozen outstanding filings in response to a KPBS public records request. In response to emailed questions, Sweeney said the county has started a review of all Special Events Trust Fund records going back to 2019 “to make sure any filings within that window are accounted for and publicly available.”

The county requires Form 801s to be filed within 30 days of an agency using the payment. Dozens of filings from the supervisors’ offices took months to submit, KPBS found. Some were over a year late.

A number of filings also lack details that the FPPC requires to ensure transparency. Over a dozen filings from Districts 1, 2 and 3 contain the same generic, verbatim description: “For general public events to benefit the community.”

Former FPPC officials who spoke to KPBS were perplexed by the vague language.

“As somebody who studies these things and understands that we have them for anti-corruption reasons and also public trust reasons, that kind of raised my spidey senses,” said Abby Wood, professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and a former FPPC commissioner. “According to the instructions, they’re supposed to say a specific description of the (gift’s) use.”

In some instances, supervisor offices submitted additional forms to specify how they used the money.

While other elected offices throughout the state also reported gifts, none of those examined by KPBS came close to the amounts reported in San Diego County.

“The county Board of Supervisors is very savvy,” said a former FPPC official who spoke to KPBS on background because they now work in private practice. “You don’t usually see this many gifts to agencies for a local jurisdiction.”

Imperial and Riverside counties, for example, told KPBS they have no records of Form 801 payments to supervisor offices in recent years.

When lawmaker offices do accept gifts, it’s typically for a physical item or travel to a conference. Two Orange County supervisor offices filed Form 801s in recent years — one for 20 boxes of Girl Scout cookies and another for tickets to a county Hispanic Chamber of Commerce event.

While no state lawmaker offices received gifts, according to public records obtained by KPBS, the Joint Rules Committee received a few donated pieces of art and the Legislative Black Caucus received a commissioned portrait of a former lawmaker.

For San Diego County supervisor offices, the gifts have been exclusively monetary payments since 2024, according to Form 801 filings.

The former FPPC official who spoke on background said the county’s system for soliciting and processing gifts is likely legal — but that doesn’t mean constituents will be comfortable with it.

“There’s definitely an argument that it violates the spirit of the law because there’s so much money coming in,” the former official said. “It can leave people with a sticky feeling because there’s the appearance that you’ve curried favor with that public official.”

McMorris, however, suggested the FPPC may want to take a closer look.

“It appears to be quite a gray area,” he said. “It definitely raises questions about either the law being clarified or this jurisdiction looking into whether this is an appropriate way to go about collecting money.”