Leaked Memos Reveal How 14 California Lawmakers Plan to Target Political Rivals

Fourteen candidates for the California Legislature appear to be feeding talking points directly to outside political groups through their campaign websites — a practice that election law experts say edges dangerously close to violating the state’s campaign finance rules, according to a CalMatters review of legislative race websites across the state.

The maneuver, known in political circles as “red boxing,” involves candidates posting polished attack lines, opposition research or B-roll video on their own campaign sites in a format that’s easy for so-called independent expenditure committees to lift and turn into advertisements. Because those committees are legally barred from coordinating directly with candidates, the red-box technique offers a workaround: candidates publish the material publicly, and sympathetic outside groups — often bankrolled by unions, corporations or wealthy donors — simply use it.

CalMatters identified at least three cases this election cycle in which digital ads from outside groups closely mirrored packaged messaging found on candidate websites, raising questions about whether those expenditures should legally be considered “coordinated” spending rather than independent — a distinction that matters because coordinated spending is subject to strict contribution limits, while independent expenditures are not.

One example comes from Santa Ana, where Assembly candidate Jessie Lopez’s campaign website features a bright red box labeled for Democratic and No Party Preference voters. It criticizes her opponent, fellow councilmember David Penaloza, for backing a city contract with the surveillance technology firm Flock and for accepting money from what the site calls special interests, while touting Lopez as a fighter for working people.

Days later, an online ad with strikingly similar themes — Penaloza’s Flock vote, his ties to “big tech billionaires,” and nurses’ and teachers’ endorsements of Lopez — began circulating on Facebook and Instagram. It was funded by Working People United, a group backed by SEIU California State Council that has poured more than $1.4 million into the race supporting Lopez since the spring. Neither Lopez’s campaign nor the group sponsoring the ad responded to requests for comment.

Campaign veterans say the tactic, once mostly seen in congressional races, has become commonplace up and down the state as political spending by outside groups continues to climb.

“After Citizens United and all of that, and big money getting into politics, it’s gotten crazy,” said Jorge Contreras, California director of the Working Families Party, which is backing Lopez. “Because of that, candidates are using red boxes to try to communicate.”

Under California’s campaign finance limits, individual donors, corporations and unions can give candidates no more than $5,900 per election. But there’s no cap on what they can give to independent expenditure committees — so long as that spending isn’t coordinated with, or done at the request of, the candidate. Patrick Llewellyn of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit focused on campaign finance reform, said red boxing undermines the very premise of that separation.

“When a candidate red boxes and spending is then done in response to that red box, it just belies any commonsense understanding of independence,” Llewellyn said, noting that other states and cities have begun cracking down on the practice even as it continues to spread.

A spokeswoman for California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, Shery Yang, said existing regulations generally presume that red boxing constitutes coordination. But she would not say whether the commission — long criticized for sluggish enforcement — has ever taken action against a campaign for the practice or is investigating any current cases.

Democratic strategist Steven Maviglio said the tactic has picked up steam over the last two election cycles as campaigns borrow strategies proven effective in federal races, confident that state regulators lack the staff to catch them. “Like it or not, the state watchdog doesn’t have the capacity to do their job,” he said.

Former FPPC Chairman Dan Schnur pointed to a structural problem: the commission’s budget is controlled by the same lawmakers it’s supposed to police. “There’s not much of an incentive for an elected official to give them enough funding or staff to do their job in a comprehensive way,” he said.

The pattern shows up well beyond Orange County. In the Imperial Valley’s Assembly District 36 — a seat Republican Jeff Gonzalez flipped in 2024 despite a 12-point Democratic registration edge — oil, gas and business-aligned groups have spent roughly $3.4 million boosting Gonzalez and attacking Democratic challenger Ida Obeso-Martinez, mayor of Imperial.

Until recently, Gonzalez’s campaign website included a now-deleted memo tucked inside a folder labeled “What Voters Want to Know,” laying out potential lines of attack against Obeso-Martinez under headers including pay raises, taxes and “woke” politics. Soon after, a group called Families for Affordable Living — funded largely by McDonald’s franchise owners, utility companies and oil interests — released an ad hitting Obeso-Martinez over a city council pay increase, closely echoing the memo’s language.

Obeso-Martinez’s campaign has since taken a similar approach, adding a “Communications” page to her own website urging that voters see more negative messaging tying Gonzalez to President Trump. Her consultant declined to comment, as did representatives for the opposing outside group.

Perhaps nowhere has outside spending been heavier than in the North Bay’s battle between Marin County Supervisor Eric Lucan, a moderate Democrat, and Rohnert Park Councilmember Jackie Elward, a more progressive Democrat. Nearly $7 million in outside money has flowed into that race — more than $4.5 million boosting Lucan, largely from the crypto-funded group Grow California, and about $2 million supporting Elward from labor unions.

Elward’s campaign site recently featured a “need to know” section reminding voters that ads opposing her and supporting Lucan were funded by, in the campaign’s words, out-of-district billionaires, pharmaceutical interests and utility companies. Days later, a union-backed group called Workers for Jackie Elward released a nearly identical ad questioning why wealthy tech donors were spending so heavily on Lucan’s behalf. The page has since been taken down, though Elward’s consultant, Doug Linney, said all of the website’s content was simply public information voters deserve to see.

Lucan, for his part, has publicly condemned the outside spending in his own race, posting on social media last month that “dark money” was distorting the contest and corroding public trust. Still, his campaign website continues to host B-roll video footage that has turned up in numerous ads funded by Grow California. A campaign spokesperson, who goes by “four waters,” said the footage has simply been picked up by supporters and media outlets and denied any coordination with outside groups. Grow California did not respond to requests for comment.

Former Los Angeles Assemblymember Mike Gatto, a Democrat, said the explosion of outside spending has fundamentally reshaped how legislative campaigns are run. “It was actually quite common just 10, 15 years ago for entire legislative races to be decided just based on what the candidates themselves raised,” he said. “That is increasingly becoming very rare.”

Original source: CalMatters