Has newsom taken money from the people of ca
Executive summary
Available reporting shows Governor Gavin Newsom has raised and directed large sums in recent years — including $6.2 million raised online for his 2025 redistricting effort (200,000 donors) [1] and campaign war-chest figures reported at $37 million on hand during the Prop 50 campaign [2]. Allegations that Newsom “took money from the people of California” appear in partisan outlets and social posts, but public records and news reports instead document fundraising, donation routing through platforms like ActBlue, and legal scrutiny of some administration officials — not a definitive finding that he personally converted public funds to private use [3] [4] [5].
1. Fundraising vs. “taking” public money — different things
News coverage makes a clear distinction between soliciting donations and diverting state (public) funds. Multiple outlets report Newsom’s campaign and affiliated committees raised large sums for policy fights (e.g., $6.2 million raised online in one week for redistricting and hundreds of thousands in small-dollar donations during wildfire relief drives) [1] [4]. Those are private fundraising totals, not citations that state tax dollars were misappropriated to Newsom himself; available sources do not mention evidence that Newsom personally pocketed state funds [1] [4].
2. Where donations went — campaign, PACs, nonprofits and platforms
Reporting shows donations tied to Newsom’s initiatives flowed through campaign committees, PACs and third-party platforms. The redistricting drive relied on online small-dollar donations (200,000 donors) and major donors, and Newsom’s campaign acknowledged repurposing funds to support the measure [3] [1]. Coverage of wildfire relief notes a donation link on Newsom’s site routed to ActBlue and a Cal Fire Foundation page; critics said the form’s layout emphasized “Campaign for Democracy” (his PAC), prompting scrutiny even as Newsom insisted donations did not go to him or his PAC [4].
3. Accountability and disclosure in the public record
State and independent outlets tracked fundraising disclosures for the Prop 50 special election and redistricting fight, with updated totals and donor lists published [6]. Investigations and watchdog reporting tend to rely on those official filings; they show large sums raised by both sides in the redistricting battle (nearly $130 million reported across donors, per LAist’s accounting) but do not, in these reports, show a criminal finding that Newsom diverted taxpayer money into a personal account [6].
4. Allegations, partisan narratives and viral claims
Right-leaning and hyperpartisan sites have advanced claims that Newsom “funnelled” donations into a 2028 slush fund or otherwise abused funds; examples include an article in The Gateway Pundit repeating a hidden-camera narrative and assertions of funneling Prop 50 donations to a presidential war chest [7]. Mainstream outlets (The New York Times, The Guardian, LA Times) focus on fundraising totals, campaign strategy and official filings rather than endorsing those viral conspiracy claims [1] [2] [5]. The presence of such claims signals political motivations and should be weighed against public records.
5. Federal probe and what it covers
The Los Angeles Times reported that FBI interception notices were sent to current and former Newsom administration officials as part of a corruption probe; the story named specific aides and noted the probe predates the Trump administration and involves intercepted communications [5]. That reporting does not assert Newsom personally took money from Californians; it documents federal scrutiny of some insiders and underscores that legal processes are ongoing [5].
6. Two competing lines of interpretation
Supporters point to high-volume, small-dollar fundraising and broad public backing for measures (200,000 donors, $6.2M) as democratic mobilization and legitimate campaign finance practice [1]. Critics argue donation pages, PAC structures and reuse of campaign funds for ballot measures create opacity and potential for misuse — a concern amplified in partisan outlets and by opponents who raised large sums against Newsom-backed measures [4] [6]. Both views are present in the record.
7. Bottom line and where to look next
Current reporting documents significant private fundraising tied to Newsom and his initiatives, contested donation page practices, and an FBI probe involving administration officials — but the sources do not provide definitive evidence that Newsom personally “took money from the people of California” in the sense of embezzling public funds [1] [4] [5]. For verification, examine California Secretary of State campaign finance filings, the Attorney General/DOJ case filings referenced by the LA Times, and contemporaneous audits or official investigations; available sources do not mention those specific documents in this packet [6] [5].
Limitations: This analysis relies solely on the provided articles and snippets; not all primary filings or court documents are included among them, and some claims cited here come from partisan outlets whose motives are explicit [7] [4].