California Campaign Cash, Legal Bills and Unanswered Questions

By

October 14, 2026

When a member of Congress opens a legal defense fund, it usually makes national news. Reporters dig into the donors, and ethics experts ask whether federal rules allow the lawmaker to spend donor money to fight specific types of legal battles.

Investigations into state legislators is hit or miss when it comes to media scrutiny. In California, where citizen journalists and federal probes have uncovered a series of high-profile fraud and corruption cases this year, Democratic state Sen. Susan Rubio’s defense fund has drawn virtually no public attention. The lack of scrutiny has continued even after the Los Angeles Times and other media outlets have identified Rubio as the only possible person accused in a plea deal of taking illegal campaign contributions and soliciting bribes in a sprawling marijuana pay-to-play scheme, which has ensnared several local officials.

Rubio opened the defense fund in early 2024, collecting at least $161,000 in contributions so far, as well as $85,000 in loans from her Senate campaign committee. She has used the funds to pay at least $95,000 to a Los Angeles-based law firm Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump Holley LLP, or KWIKH, which specializes in entertainment law and civil and criminal defense cases, and another $9,000 to Nossaman LLP, a national law firm with a range of legal practices, including litigation. Another $127,000 in payments to KWIKH came from Rubio’s Senate campaign committee.

The same year she opened the defense fund, Rubio, who previously served on Baldwin Park’s city council, said she was questioned in the federal marijuana bribery public corruption probe. Her ex-husband, whom she has repeatedly accused of domestic violence, also was suing her for defamation at the time.

The public silence about the legal set-up and payments is striking because the federal probe has been anything but quiet. In August, the Los Angeles Times ran the headline: “Cash buried in L.A. politician’s backyard helped expose marijuana corruption scheme.”

The cash in the backyard

The “L.A. politician” in question is Baldwin Park Councilmember Ricardo Pacheco, who buried nearly $63,000 in illicit cash in his backyard amid the “green rush” of marijuana legalization a decade ago. After federal agents found the money, Pacheco began cooperating with the government. His cooperation helped open a wide FBI investigation into bribes paid for marijuana permits and political favors across Los Angeles County and beyond.

Officials in Compton, Commerce, and San Bernardino County have since pleaded guilty. So has Baldwin Park’s former city attorney. His unsealed plea agreement describes an unnamed official identified as “Person 20.” It says Person 20 took $30,000 in illegal campaign contributions and asked a cannabis company for a $240,000 bribe.

In December 2024, the Los Angeles Times reported that only one person fits that description: Susan Rubio. She served on the Baldwin Park city council with Pacheco before winning her Senate seat in 2018. The investigation is ongoing. Rubio, who says the FBI has told her she is not a target of the probe, has not been charged and has denied taking bribes.

Two legal fights, one pot of donor money

Amid the federal probe, Rubio was fighting a defamation lawsuit from her ex-husband, former Assemblyman Roger Hernandez. She won it in 2025 and has paid her lawyers with donor money from two sources: the legal defense fund and her Senate campaign committee.

California law allows a legal defense fund to pay for an elected officials’ attorneys when a case arises directly from a campaign, legislative, or official duties. If any federal allegations are filed in the marijuana bribery case, those would involve Rubio’s time on the city council and her 2018 Senate campaign, so they may meet that test. But the Hernandez suit grew out of a marriage that ended a decade ago amid domestic violence accusations. That’s a tougher fit, according to legal experts familiar with California campaign finance law, but it’s the explanation she has cited.

Rubio’s filings with the Secretary of State to set up the fund don’t mention the federal probe. They say the fund was created to defend her against Hernandez’s lawsuit and “pending litigation.” Hernandez is appealing the 2025 ruling, and Rubio has continued to accept donations, including $12,000 from Yasmin Davidds, a women’s empowerment activist, a combined $15,000 from two Native American tribes, and thousands more from casino and horse-racing entities and Visa Inc., according to state records.

Using the funds to defend against an ex-husband’s lawsuit raises questions about whether Rubio’s use of her Senate campaign and legal defense funds is proper, legal experts argue.

“It doesn’t appear to be on its face a justifiable and legal reason for a legal defense fund to pay legal fees associated with that action,” said Tom Hiltachk, an election-law specialist and a partner at Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk LLP, which mainly represents GOP clients and causes.

Hiltachk also told RealClearPolitics that Rubio’s use of her Senate campaign committee to pay the same law firm “further exemplifies the fact that [the Hernandez case] doesn’t appear to be campaign or service-related.”

For years, California Fair Political Practices Commission advice letters have said the answer “depends on the facts of each case.” If there’s a question, Hiltachk said most election lawyers simply ask the FPPC to weigh in and provide an advice letter.

“You can ask the FPPC for advice, and it doesn’t cost anything,” he said. “If they okay it, it’s an immunity card.”

Rubio spokesman Giovanni Ruiz didn’t respond to a question about whether Rubio asked the FPPC for written approval before opening the legal defense fund. Instead, he argued that the ex-husband’s lawsuit “arose” from her official duties as a state senator.

“Because these lawsuits arose from her legislative activities rather than personal matters, Senator Rubio sought legal counsel and confirmed that the use of her legal defense fund was permissible under [California’s] Fair Political Practices Commission regulations,” he said in a statement.

Domestic violence is a centerpiece of Rubio’s Senate work. She chairs the state Senate Select Committee on Domestic Violence. On Sept. 30, 2026, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed her bill known as the Reclaim Act. The law helps survivors stop abusers who file lawsuits against them. When she introduced it, her office described her as a survivor who has obtained three restraining orders.

The federal marijuana bribery investigation

Robert Tafoya was Baldwin Park’s city attorney for nine years. He pleaded guilty to federal bribery and tax evasion in December 2023, but his plea agreement stayed sealed until December 2024 because he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

The agreement describes Person 20 as an official who could fire the city attorney and who ran for state office from 2017 through November 2018. It alleges that around October 2017, Person 20 asked Tafoya for $15,000 in cash. After winning the June 2018 primary, Person 20 allegedly asked for another $15,000. Tafoya paid both times, and the money went into the campaign through straw donors.

Tafoya said he paid because Person 20 could remove him if he didn’t – and would likely send him state work after the election if he complied. The plea deal also says Person 20 asked for $240,000 from a marijuana company that wanted a city permit. The company apparently refused.

The Los Angeles Times found that only council members can remove Baldwin Park’s city attorney. Rubio sat on the council and won her 2018 Senate primary. Every other candidate the paper examined lacked one or both of those traits. Campaign records show Tafoya’s law firm gave Rubio’s 2018 campaign $2,600. CalMatters counted at least $18,000 from Tafoya to Rubio over the years.

A Rubio spokesman told the Times that Tafoya had made unwarranted allegations against numerous individuals in order to reduce his sentence. He said the FBI has told Rubio that she is not a target, and Rubio has volunteered hours of her time to help investigators. The spokesman also pointed to her council vote against a cannabis business. In a January 2025 CBS News interview, Rubio denied taking bribes; asked whether she denied being Person 20, Rubio demurred. “I’m not saying that,” she said.

The wider probe, which is still ongoing, resulted in prison time for some defendants. On Aug. 24, 2026, Pacheco and former Compton Councilmember Isaac Galvan were each sentenced to 18 months in federal prison. Pacheco was on the council from 1997 to 2020 and pleaded guilty in 2020. Galvan admitted arranging $70,000 in bribes to Pacheco for a client who wanted a cannabis permit.

In December 2024, then-Assemblyman Bill Essayli, a former federal prosecutor, filed a legislative ethics complaint about Person 20 without naming Rubio. The Senate Ethics Committee declined to investigate, citing a rule against taking up allegations more than three years old. Essayli now runs the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, which is handling the Baldwin Park cases. No charges against Person 20 have been made public. (The Justice Department generally does not confirm or deny investigations.)

The Hernandez lawsuit

Rubio’s ex-husband Roger Hernandez sued Rubio and her sister, Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio, in May 2022. He also named former El Monte Councilmember Maria Morales and El Monte City Manager Alma Martinez. Both former El Monte officials were dropped from the case in 2023.

Hernandez made two claims. First, he said the sisters defamed him by talking publicly about domestic violence allegations against him. Second, he said they pressured the El Monte City Council to reject an energy contract with a company that had hired him to lobby, which cost him consulting fees.

Both claims failed. In October 2022, a judge struck the defamation claims under California’s anti-SLAPP law. Years before, a court had determined that there was enough evidence to grant Rubio a restraining order against Hernandez, and the judge ruled Hernandez could not argue that question again. According to MyNewsLA, the ruling also noted that the sisters made their statements while promoting domestic violence legislation. Hernandez appealed, then dropped the appeal, and it was dismissed in October 2023.

On Sept. 11, 2025, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Allison Westfahl Kong ruled against Hernandez on the remaining claim about the contract. She found no evidence linking the sisters’ actions to the council’s vote. She also called the fees Hernandez expected to earn “too speculative.”

What the law allows

California law allows a state officeholder to open a separate legal defense account. The money may pay only attorney fees and related costs. The case must arise “directly out of” a campaign, the electoral process, or “the performance of the officer’s governmental activities and duties.”

The rules are generous in one way and strict in another. Donors may give unlimited amounts, though every gift must be reported.

Related rules cover paying legal bills from a regular campaign account. It allows the payments when a lawsuit arises from an official’s “activities, duties, or status” as an officeholder, either as a senator or from a previous position as a public official. The statute specifically mentions “defense of an action to enjoin defamation.” According to the sisters’ law firm, Hernandez’s suit sought to bar them from speaking about Rubio’s accusations that he had treated her violently.  

If the state FPPC, the nonpartisan agency that enforces campaign finance law, finds Rubio broke the rules, it could require her to repay the money from her own pocket.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.