In California, when individuals aspire to run for local government positions, they typically establish a candidate committee. This committee serves as a designated bank account for fundraising efforts, facilitating the collection of donations to cover campaign-related expenses like yard signs and television ads.
Beyond candidate committees, there exists another category known as officeholder accounts. These accounts are utilized by elected officials to manage expenses associated with their current roles, which include meals, travel, accommodations, and mailings for community events. Additionally, contributions from officeholder accounts can be made to charitable organizations and civic groups.
While officeholder accounts can finance a broad range of political and governmental activities, they cannot be used for future election campaigning or as supplementary income for staff carrying out their usual responsibilities.
In Oakland, city officials face specific restrictions concerning officeholder accounts. Current regulations stipulate a fundraising limit of $25,000 for district councilmembers, and $30,000 for those holding at-large positions. Astonishingly, since 2018, most Oakland elected officials have not even approached these contribution caps.
However, a faction of councilmembers now advocates for a significant increase in these limits.
In an upcoming council meeting, members will deliberate a proposal aimed at tripling the funding capacity for district councilmembers’ officeholder accounts — raising the threshold from $25,000 to $75,000 and from $30,000 to $100,000 for at-large councilmembers. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to elevate contribution ceilings for other elected positions: increasing caps for the city auditor from $25,000 to $100,000, for the city attorney from $30,000 to $100,000, and for the mayor from $50,000 to $100,000. Notably, the contribution limit for school board members would remain unchanged.
Councilmembers Kevin Jenkins, Janani Ramachandran, and Ken Houston advocate for the proposal by arguing the contribution limits have not seen adjustments since 1999. They contend that it is time for a review and increase.
One of the driving motives behind this proposal is to enable councilmembers to raise funds that can be directed toward civic groups, charities, and nonprofit organizations within their districts. Previously, Oakland allocated funds to each councilmember for discretionary grants but reduced these budgets due to fiscal constraints.
Councilmember Houston stated, “We’re in desperate times. The budget is cut. The community needs many things.”
However, the proposal does not carry unanimous support among city officials. The Public Ethics Commission (PEC), which oversees regulations aimed at ensuring governmental transparency and integrity, has refrained from endorsing the proposed changes.
At a recent commission meeting, commissioners raised various objections to increasing the fundraising limits. They observed that very few elected officials in Oakland have raised close to the existing contribution maximum. They also pointed out that the city already possesses a mechanism known as behested payments, through which elected officials can solicit donations directly to non-profits and community organizations within their districts.
Although there is no contribution cap on behested payments, the drawback is that amounts under $5,000 do not need to be reported, making them less transparent.
Commissioner Ryan Micik posed a provocative question: “Why not just go to those donors who have pledged funds and ask them to donate directly to these nonprofits and these causes you talked about?”
In response, Houston clarified his preference for the funds to channeled via his officeholder account, asserting this would allow for better oversight of how the money is utilized.
“I’m going to have reports back,” he insisted.
The response did not assuage Micik, who expressed concern over the potential for misuse, indicating that officeholder accounts have previously been linked to controversies in other cities. He stated, “The proposal emphasizes using these funds to help community-based organizations, but they can be used for things other than that – they can be used for meals, travel, for purposes that could be described as political purposes. They’ve been described as slush funds in certain cases.”
The PEC expressed a demand for further clarification regarding the inadequacies of behested payments and current contribution limits. The PEC further suggested that if the council decides to elevate the contribution caps, they should concurrently implement safeguards to guarantee funds are spent appropriately as intended.
Despite the commission’s expressed concerns, Council President Kevin Jenkins asserted that their arguments did not deter him. He expressed skepticism about claims surrounding the existing contribution cap’s impact, stating, “The argument against raising the limit is that nobody is coming close to it. So what difference would it make (to raise it)?”
Jenkins contended that increasing the limit would better equip councilmembers with resources for attending and hosting community events while also helping to alleviate the constraints of their notably modest office budgets.
He also pointed out that he currently utilizes a work computer that likely predates his predecessor.
Member Councilmember Carroll Fife also voiced mixed feelings about the proposed increase. She acknowledged the need for officials to access resources to better support their communities but warned that allowing a limit of $75,000 could pressure councilmembers to prioritize fundraising over serving constituents.
Additionally, Fife highlighted potential inequities: those councilmembers who have closer relationships with wealthy donors may find it easier to meet these fundraising goals.
Fife expressed, “It’s really challenging, especially if you have a working-class base, to raise these funds. I want to limit some of these big donors’ beliefs that if they contribute, they’ll have an outpaced access to these services.”
She suggested that relying on existing office budgets, no matter how limited, was a less politically charged approach.
To assess the ramifications of this legislative proposal effectively, it’s crucial to examine the recent usage of officeholder accounts by elected officials.
Analysis reveals that a majority of Oakland’s elected officials either do not utilize their officeholder accounts extensively or spend relatively modest sums on sponsorships for local organizations.
Among the notable examples, District 1 councilmember Dan Kalb, who exited office in early 2025, reported no activity on his officeholder account for 2024. In his previous terms, however, he had made a series of small donations and expenditures to support civic engagement and housing advocacy, as well as educational initiatives and local parks.
Incoming councilmember Zac Unger, who began his term in January, also reported a lack of activity in 2025.
District 2 representative Nikki Fortunato Bas’s reports indicated that her officeholder account garnered $225 in 2024, while expenditures totaled $7,050, thus concluding the year with no balance remaining.
Her spending encompassed payments for professional services, including over $900 to a translation service and $300 to Amazon for office supplies. Bas also made a series of civic donations throughout the year supporting various local organizations, including contributions to the Oakland Ballet Company, the Lovelife Foundation, and the Oakland Asian Cultural Center.
Having shifted to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, Bas referenced how council offices embody constrained budgets to fulfill non-personnel-related expenses. As such, officeholder accounts served as an avenue for covering the costs the city would not support.
Meanwhile, Charlene Wang, who joined the council in a special election in April, reported no activity in her officeholder account during 2025.
In District 3, councilmember Carroll Fife utilized her officeholder account more actively during 2024, raising nearly $5,000 and spending over $12,000, holding a remaining balance of $363.
Fife’s expenditures showcased a variety of costs; she earmarked funds for professional services, local businesses, community events, and even traveled to conferences, resulting in hotel bills and car rentals.
Expressing her own belief in the importance of transparency, Fife noted her concern that influential donors could unfavorably sway district priorities if councilmembers extensively relied on funding from their offices’ accounts. She expressed a commitment to subsequently reduce or cease her use of these funds, taken alongside her apprehension regarding the legislative proposal.
District 4 councilmember Janani Ramachandran revealed her officeholder account generated $7,910 during 2024, but only $112 was spent, leaving her with $18,196 at year’s end. Ramachandran underscored the usefulness of officeholder accounts for supporting community organizations with limited revenue sources.
Conversely, District 5’s Noel Gallo, now in his fourth term as of 2024, did not record any expenditures through his officeholder account.
In District 6, Kevin Jenkins emerged as the most active councilmember regarding expenditures in 2024, where he both raised $9,600 and spent a total of $16,060, concluding the year with $6,606 cash and $1,860 unpaid.
Among his spending, Jenkins made various payments to local organizations, covering lodging during conference attendance. Notably, he communicated that raising the contribution cap could curb corruption, reducing dependence on meals and gifts from developers and lobbyists.
In District 7, Treva Reid, serving her final year on the council in 2024, spent $2,769 in her officeholder account, with expenses including professional services and a notable airplane fare for a presentation in Amsterdam.
At-large councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, who served until January, experienced minimal activity in her officeholder account during 2024. Her earlier accounts had shown support for local initiatives in previous years, with contributions disseminated to community organizations.
Rowena Brown, who succeeded Kaplan, had not recorded any activities in her officeholder account as of 2025.
Municipal Mayor Sheng Thao, who faced recall in November, raised a mere $1,200 in her officeholder account in 2024 before expending all of that total on professional services.
Lastly, City Attorney Barbara Parker, who retired last year, had not raised any funds in 2024 but spent $1,877, demonstrating minimal activity in her account this past term.
Michael Houston, the newly elected city auditor, reported no activity through his officeholder account in 2025.
The landscape of officeholder accounts among Oakland’s councilmembers reveals a complex interplay between fundraising capabilities, expenditure accountability, and transparency. As the council debates the potential increases in contribution limits, the divergent viewpoints among councilmembers underscore the intricate balance between meeting community needs and maintaining ethical oversight in political financing.
image source from：https://oaklandside.org/2025/06/02/oakland-city-council-increase-officeholder-expenses-2025/
