Home Contra Costa County Contra Costa District Attorney Fined $45k for Spending Campaign Money on Personal Use

Contra Costa District Attorney Fined $45k for Spending Campaign Money on Personal Use

by ECT

The Fair Political Practices Commission on Monday made public it’s decision to fine Contra Costa District Attorney Mark Peterson $45,000.

The move comes after the FPPC found Peterson violated the Police Reform Act on 9-occassions. The instances were between 2011 to 2015.

In full, here is a statement by Mark Peterson:

District Attorney Mark Peterson announced that he had reached an agreement with the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding use of campaign funds during 2011-2015.  The Enforcement Division will present the agreement to the Commission for its approval on December 15, 2016.

Mr. Peterson’s statement follows:

I served as the treasurer of my own campaign committee from 2011 until 2015, after which I hired a professional paid treasurer. During that five-year period, I borrowed, in increments, a total of $66,373 from the Mark Peterson for District Attorney 2014 Committee.   I used the funds to pay for day-to-day expenses, like meals, gas, cell phone bills, and other personal expenses.  I considered the money a loan, kept track of those expenses at all times, made periodic repayments, and over time, repaid the Committee in full.

In 2015, the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) contacted me about a routine audit.  In response, I hired a professional treasurer and immediately contacted the Enforcement Division of the FPPC to make them aware of the expenditures and my plan to address my error.  I cooperated fully and provided my contemporaneous records regarding the expenditures and reimbursements for their review, as well as all of the underlying documents.

The FPPC Enforcement Division has noted: “To his credit, upon learning of the FTB audit Peterson contacted the Enforcement Division, admitted his violations and fully cooperated with the investigation.”

It is with disappointment and regret that I acknowledge the mistakes I made regarding my campaign financing account.  As a result of these mistakes, I have agreed to pay the Fair Political Practices Commission a $45,000 administrative fine.

Although I have fully reimbursed the Committee for all of the personal expenditures, I make no excuses.

I am humbled and embarrassed by my mistakes, for which I take full responsibility, and I apologize for my regrettable errors.

Mark Peterson
Contra Costa County District Attorney


Below is the text from the Complaint as posted on the FPPC Website:

Beginning in January of 2011 and continuing until October of 2015, Peterson routinely used Committee funds for personal expenditures. This included using the Committee debit card for personal items such as meals at restaurants, gasoline, clothing, movie tickets, hotel rooms, cellular telephone bills, etc. Peterson also made a number of cash withdraws from the Committee bank account and used the cash for personal purposes, and transferred funds from the Committee account to his personal bank account. In total, Peterson made personal use of $66,372.03 in campaign funds. He reimbursed the Committee for all of the personal expenditures.

mark-peterson-fined-by-fppcThe Committee’s campaign statements for 2011 through June, 2015 did not reflect any of the approximately 600 expenditures made by Peterson for personal use. Nor did the statements show the reimbursements Peterson made to the Committee. The cash balances listed on each campaign statement also did not reflect Peterson’s personal use of campaign funds.

In a letter dated October 7, 2015 from the Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”), Peterson received notice the Committee had been selected for an FTB audit. Between October 15, 2015 and December 20, 2015, Peterson reimbursed the Committee a total of $33,000. Peterson had previously reimbursed the Committee approximately $30,000. In March of 2016, before FTB began its audit, Peterson contacted the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission through his attorney and admitted to making personal expenditures with campaign funds between 2011 and 2015 as detailed above. Peterson cooperated with the Enforcement Division and provided contemporaneous records regarding the expenditures and reimbursements.

VIOLATIONS

Counts 1 through 9 – Personal Use of Campaign Funds From 2011 through 2015, Peterson spent $66,372.03 of campaign funds on personal expenditures not related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose in violation of Government Code section 89512.

CONCLUSION

This matter consists of nine counts of violating the Act, which carry a maximum administrative penalty of five thousand dollars ($5,000) per count, and $45,000 total. In determining the appropriate penalty for a particular violation of the Act, the Commission considers the typical treatment of a violation in the overall statutory scheme of the Act, with an emphasis on serving the purposes and intent of the Act.

Additionally, the Commission considers the facts and circumstances of the violation in context of the factors set forth in Regulation 18361.5, subdivision (d)(1)-(6): the seriousness of the violations; the presence or lack of intent to conceal, deceive or mislead; whether the violation was deliberate, negligent, or inadvertent; whether the respondents demonstrated good faith in consulting with Commission staff; whether there was a pattern of violations; and whether the violator, upon learning of the violations, voluntarily filed amendments.

The Act provides that campaign contributions be held in trust for expenses associated with election of the candidate, or for expenses associated with holding office. This serves the purpose of drawing a distinct line between campaign contributions and payments directly to public officials. When an official makes personal use of campaign funds, it erodes public confidence in the political process by blurring that line between lawful contributions and payments to public officials. Because of the importance of the prohibition on personal use of campaign funds, the penalties for such violations are high.  Examples of prior comparable cases include:

  • In the Matter of Dean Florez, Dean Florez for Lt. Governor 2010, and Dean Florez for State Controller 2014 (FPPC Case No. 12/213). Respondent Dean Florez, a former State Senator, made personal use of funds totaling $26,541.89 from two controlled committees. He did not reimburse the committees for the personal expenditures. On November 14, 2013, the Commission approved a settlement in which the respondents agreed to a penalty of $5,000 per count for 12 counts of personal use for a total administrative penalty of $60,000.
  • In the Matter of George Shirakawa, George Shirakawa for School Board, and Shirakawa for Supervisor (FPPC Case No. 12/662) Respondent George Shirakawa, a county supervisor and former school board member, made personal expenditures with campaign funds totaling approximately $131,670 over a five-year period. Shirakawa said he reimbursed his committees for a substantial portion of the money he had used but the exact amount of reimbursements was not determined. On April 25, 2013, the Commission approved a settlement in which the respondents agreed to a penalty of $5,000 per count for 10 counts of personal use for a total administrative penalty of $50,000.
  • In the Matter of Tina Baca Del Rio, Friends of Tina Baca Del Rio and Tina Baca Del Rio for Commerce City Council 2013 (FPPC Case No. 12/832). Respondent Tina Baca Del Rio, a city council member, made personal expenditures with committee funds totaling $3,634.09. She claimed she reimbursed her committee for the expenditures but could not provide records to substantiate her claim. On September 15, 2016, the Commission approved a settlement that included, amongst a number of other violations, 3 counts of personal use at $5,000 per count

In this case, the total amount Peterson spent on personal expenditures was significantly more than the amounts in the Dean Florez and Tina Baca Del Rio cases but was less than half of the amount of personal expenditures in the George Shirakawa case. Unlike the cases discussed above, Peterson did fully reimburse the Committee. Peterson contends that he considered the expenditures a loan from the Committee and that he always intended to repay the Committee. But Peterson’s personal use of campaign funds was not disclosed on his campaign statements and he used campaign funds to make personal expenditures for five years. During this period, Peterson successfully ran for re-election in 2014, while continuing to make personal expenditures from his campaign account. While Peterson did keep track of the personal purchases and reimburse the Committee account from time to time, over half of the money he reimbursed to the Committee occurred after he learned the Committee bank records would be subject to an FTB audit. To his credit, upon learning of the FTB audit Peterson contacted the Enforcement Division, admitted his violations, and fully cooperated with the investigation.

PROPOSED PENALTY
After considering the factors of Regulation 18361.5, and the penalties imposed in prior cases, we propose a penalty of $5,000 per count resulting in a total penalty of $45,000.

You may also like

17 comments

This guy is a crook!! Dec 6, 2016 - 1:56 pm

This guy should be thrown out of office!!!

Jackson Dec 6, 2016 - 4:39 pm

Sure wish I could steal, I mean borrow, $60K interst free and when caught then pay it back and say sorry, keep my job. Then turn around and charge citizens for same crimes he commits. Corrupt Politicians!! Hypocrites and leaches they are and yet THE PEOPLE continue to vote them in office.

Nick Dec 6, 2016 - 5:36 pm

At least he reimbursed the funds that he “borrowed.” Others just outright steal, with no intention of reimbursement. He paid it back before being caught. When caught, he was fined, and rightfully so.

Ken Dec 8, 2016 - 5:03 pm

No he admitted he “borrowed it for five years” when notified an audit was being conducted. He wasn’t forth coming he knew he was going to be caught.

Nick Dec 11, 2016 - 9:20 am

No, if you READ THE CHART, he started borrowing and reimbursing IN 2011. He found out about the audit from FTB IN 2015. He’d already paid back over 29K. Do ignorant people even bother to read the article before they post stupid comments?

Sammy Dec 19, 2016 - 2:37 pm

Actually you are ignorant for even thinking that this borrowing aka stealing is okay. A thief is a thief and should be punished as one.

Nick Dec 19, 2016 - 6:17 pm

No, I’m saying he paid it back before he was caught. People who OUTRIGHT STEAL do not pay it back. I said he was fined, and rightfully so. Sammy, you’re ignorant. Learn to read the comments correctly.

These people are fined, not jailed. Which says they don’t consider it stealing. If it was stealing (with no intention of reimbursement) they’d be in jail.

Julio Dec 6, 2016 - 7:32 pm

Agree with Nick.

JJ Dec 6, 2016 - 7:51 pm

Sounds just like the stipend theft by Piepho that Peterson wouldn’t prosecute. Corrupt politicians are still alive and well in Co Co County. I guess when you steal and pay it back in Contra Costa it’s not a criminal offense.

Lawman Dec 7, 2016 - 12:07 am

JJ, there was no “stipend theft” by Piepho. You don’t get to make thing up because you are confused. Get a clue, get the facts and get over your own personal ignorance. There was nothing to prosecute because there was no crime. Your attempts to repeatedly knowingly and falsely accuse constitutes a crime. Should we get a subpoena and come after you? I’m beginning to think so. What a dummy…

Ken Dec 8, 2016 - 5:06 pm

Sounds like a threat…

JJ Dec 12, 2016 - 7:40 pm

He can threaten all he wants. The truth hurts Dumb A.. In fact what he did was worse. Yes, stolen stipends, got caught and paid em back. Then didn’t own up to it.
Subpeona all you want because the facts are clear. A crooked politician is just that. A thief too.

The Dude Dec 7, 2016 - 11:19 am

I bet this guy is upset that he got caught.

Not a mistake Dec 10, 2016 - 8:09 pm

Contacted in 2015 about a audit and paid 33,000 back that year. He knew he was in the wrong. And claims that it was a mistake. I call BS. He figured the gig was up due to an audit and decided to pay it up.

Ken Dec 11, 2016 - 7:03 pm

Irregardless he was over 35k in the rears. This man is held to a higher standard. He should be of sound moral character and beyond reproach. Your comments make me curious as to your motives. Why are you so angered by people expressing their opinion about this hypocrite.

Nick Dec 11, 2016 - 9:18 pm

Ken, because I’m annoyed by stupid people. By the way, there is no such thing as in the rears. It’s in arrears. Another ignorant post.

Ken Dec 11, 2016 - 11:32 pm

You sir are a douche bag, happy trolling

Comments are closed.