In June, Oakland’s City Council enacted significant changes to the funding rules surrounding officeholder accounts for its elected officials.
These accounts allow elected officials to raise and spend money related to their official duties, covering expenses such as travel, meals, and contributions to community organizations like charities and schools.
The newly passed legislation increased the fundraising limit for district council members from $25,000 to $75,000, and the at-large seat limit rose from $30,000 to $100,000.
Furthermore, the mayor, city attorney, and city auditor also saw increases in their fundraising ceilings.
Councilmembers Kevin Jenkins, Janani Ramachandran, and Ken Houston, who introduced the proposal, argued that the previous fundraising caps had not been adjusted since 1999, making the increase necessary to adequately support their constituents.
Despite the council’s approval, the Oakland Public Ethics Commission, tasked with preventing corruption, did not endorse the new limits.
The commission pointed out that most council members rarely reached the previous cap of $25,000 and reminded the council that there are already mechanisms, such as behested payments, enabling council members to direct funds from private entities to local organizations and charities without those funds entering their accounts.
With a new year began, the public has begun to see the fundraising activities of these officials, prompting curiosity about how much money has been raised and where it is being spent.
As the ethics commission anticipated, many council members reported minimal activity within their officeholder accounts, indicating that the new fundraising limits may not be immediately utilized.
Among the council members, however, Jenkins and Ramachandran, who were advocates for the contributions increase, reported notable expenditures.
For the first half of 2025, Jenkins accumulated expenditures totaling thousands on meals and other official engagements, while Ramachandran’s expenses approached $18,000, all directed to a company with ties to her romantic partner and communications director.
When approached for an interview, Jenkins was unavailable, but Ramachandran clarified to The Oaklandside that her spending was linked to services provided by the firm, which did not take fees.
Here’s how each district’s council member fared in terms of fundraising and expenditures.
District 1: Zac Unger
Unger, who took office in January, didn’t raise any funds during the April-June 2025 timeframe.
However, he had a balance from the previous year in his account.
He spent a total of $448, which left him with a remaining balance of $1,671 in his officeholder account.
Campaign finance records show he returned $248 in surplus funds to the city, making expenses for office-related activities.
Ending his 2024 campaign with a significant balance of $57,288, Unger has transferred those funds into a separate committee for his upcoming reelection in 2028.
When asked if he plans on fundraising for his officeholder account, Unger replied, “Maybe. Honestly, I haven’t given it any thought.”
District 2: Charlene Wang
Wang, who was elected in April, reported on her campaign’s finances rather than her officeholder account.
In the first half of 2025, she raised an impressive $101,600 and spent $114,873, leaving an end balance of $7,991 in her account.
Wang did not respond to interview requests for further comments.
District 3: Carroll Fife
After being reelected last November, Fife continues to maintain an officeholder account she initially set up in 2020.
According to her recent disclosure, Fife raised a modest $860 in 2025 while spending $1,149, leaving a cash balance of just $73 and $268 in debt.
Much of her expenditure went toward payments to American Express.
Fife explained to The Oaklandside that her account was primarily utilized for web-related services such as Mail Chimp.
District 4: Janani Ramachandran
In the first half of 2025, Ramachandran’s officeholder account brought in $1,220 but spent a striking $17,917, which left her with a remaining balance of $1,499 and a $5,000 loan outstanding to her account.
Earlier this year, Ramachandran described officeholder accounts as a crucial tool for council members to aid organizations and entities in their districts that lack other funding sources.
All her account expenditures were directed to Alternative Approach Agency, a marketing and public relations firm associated with her romantic partner Osagie Edebiri and her communications director Ebhodaghe Esoimeme.
City officials confirmed that Esoimeme, a permanent part-time employee drawing a salary from the city, is prohibited from receiving additional compensation through officeholder accounts for normal job responsibilities.
In response to inquiries, Ramachandran stated, “They aren’t actually getting paid any fees.
These are all costs for the actual materials of the deliverables and technology.”
She noted that her account covers high-quality technology for video production on social media and the cost of a newsletter, among other things.
According to Ramachandran, her officeholder account also funded the complete overhaul of her council website, equipment for media communications, resource materials distributed in her district, and promotional items for community events.
Esoimeme did not respond to requests for an interview.
District 5: Noel Gallo
Gallo, elected in 2024, has reported no contributions or expenditures from an officeholder account, asserting that he has never had one.
“I don’t receive money or take money from people for an officeholder account,” he stated.
District 6: Kevin Jenkins
In the designated timeframe, Jenkins raised $9,025 and spent $5,744, accumulating $8,270 in unpaid expenses.
This left him with a cash balance of $10,386 in his officeholder account.
His reported expenditures included a $500 donation to Oakland Tech Girls Basketball and $932 on campaign materials from the Olive Street Agency.
Additionally, Jenkins spent $206 on Uber rides and $482 for airfare to attend a late-May convention.
A sizable portion of his expenses included costs for meals during meetings at various restaurants in Washington D.C., totaling significant amounts.
Expenses for meals included: $434 at Epic Steak in San Francisco and about $322 at Scott’s Seafood in Oakland.
Other notable expenditures were for meals linked to meetings outside of Oakland, including $233 for a convention discussion meeting at the Hilton Mix Lounge in Anaheim, $699 for a farewell party at District Oakland, and lesser amounts for meetings at various restaurants in Northern California.
Although Jenkins was unavailable for an interview, his chief of staff, Patricia Brooks, relayed an emailed statement affirming that his officeholder account expenditures complied with city regulations.
He stated, “At all times, the office has adhered to both the letter and the spirit of the rules governing the use of officeholder funds.”
District 7: Ken Houston
Houston, who began serving in January, has not filed a report detailing contributions or expenses for his officeholder account.
Despite his advocacy for increased contribution limits to ensure better funding for community services, Houston admits to not having set up an officeholder account.
He noted, however, that he intends to create one to support community events and resources.
Until then, he has financed some constituent-based projects personally.
Houston stated, “I have people in line to give me money for my officeholder’s account because they know what I’m doing out there.”
At-Large: Rowena Brown
In January, Brown assumed office but has yet to entirely shift her campaign account into an officeholder account.
She disclosed $2,800 in contributions and $2,759 in expenses for the first half of 2025, with a remaining balance of $2,095.
Her most significant expenditure was $1,400 towards Alexandra Parvizshahi, who serves as the treasurer for Brown’s officeholder committee.
Additionally, she made smaller payments for web and professional services from Google, Square Space, and Verizon.
In a statement, she expressed that she is currently adjusting to her role, emphasizing the importance of raising the contribution limits to support Oakland residents, enhance funding for community engagements, and promote various projects without straining the city budget.
Brown also mentioned her support for creating a position within the ethics commission to bolster government accountability.
Amidst the raised limits and mixed participation levels among council members, it becomes crucial to monitor how these funds are utilized and whether they will ultimately serve the intended purpose: benefiting the communities they represent.
image source from：oaklandside
