Xavier Becerra says he didn’t know that his former chief of staff and former political aide were taking money from his California campaign account and lying to the government about it.
On the gubernatorial debate stage on Thursday, he played the victim. Prosecutors said he was not involved, he claimed.
But his rivals in the primary — including Steve Hilton and Katie Porter — weren’t having it.
In fact, they suggested, Becerra could still be indicted. Maybe even if he made the general election.
Of course they’d say that, Becerra countered. This is an election. Anything goes.
The way the media tell the story, Dana Williamson and Sean McCluskie raided Becerra’s old campaign account to fund lavish lifestyles. The Department of Justice has leaned into that narrative, saying in a press release that Williamson, McCluskie, and lobbyist Greg Campbell stole “approximately $225,000 in funds” from Becerra’s campaign “to pay for McCluskie’s bicoastal lifestyle.”
Williamson also allegedly defrauded the pandemic-era Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) by taking loans for her lobbying firm, even though lobbying firms were not eligible.
No doubt, ordinary greed may have been a factor.
And as Republican Carl DeMaio of the State Assembly noted last year, the Williamson case exposed Sacramento’s “unelected and largely unknown network of political consultants and lobbyists who are enriching themselves and trading favors on behalf of their clients.”
But this was more than just an attempt to grab cash.
As the federal indictment against Williamson has it, the entire purpose of the $225,000 scheme was to allow McCluskie to take a job in Washington working for “Public Official 1” — Becerra.
Becerra, whom President Joe Biden had appointed to lead the Department of Health and Human Services despite his total lack of experience in health care, wanted his trusted staffer in D.C.
The problem: McCluskie would have to take a salary cut. And he had bills to pay.
So, the indictment alleges, Williamson took campaign funds — and her own money — and laundered it through a company which, in turn, paid McCluskie’s wife for a no-show job.
The scheme was set up so that Becerra could have his man.
Becerra says he didn’t know about the theft. But he benefited, albeit indirectly.
So when Becerra claims he didn’t know, that’s a little hard to believe.
At the very least, it should prompt more questions.
