Pro-business Richmond political action committee is violating campaign finance law, attorney says

This story was updated Thursday to include comments from Jamelia Brown and to reflect new information about James Lee of the Chamber and correct the year of Irma Anderson’s death.

Richmond Business PAC (RichPAC), a political action committee that recently erected billboards supporting three Richmond City Council candidates, appears to have not filed several campaign finance reports over the past two years, a violation of state law.

On Monday, Richmondside sent detailed questions about this to John Ziesenhenne, who’s listed as RichPAC’s treasurer. Ziesenhenne told Richmondside Tuesday that he would check with RichPAC’s’s bookkeeper to provide answers, but had not responded as of Wednesday afternoon.

The billboards, first spotted in mid-September, urge voters to elect Ahmad Anderson (District 5), Jamelia Brown (District 1), and Shawn Dunning (District 6). Each candidate has their own billboard, and all of them are challenging Richmond Progressive Alliance-backed candidates. Anderson is running against Sue Wilson (District 5) while Brown and Dunning are challenging incumbents Melvin Willis (District 1) and Claudia Jimenez (District 6). 

RichPAC hasn’t filed state-required reports showing how much it spent on the billboards and who it bought them from. Political action committees in California are required to report any spending of $500 or more per candidate on a pre-election filing form that was due on Sept. 26. 

Billboard prices in Richmond vary widely, but often cost $1,000 or more for four weeks. If RichPAC spent $1,000 or more per candidate on the billboards, it would have been required to report the expenditure within 24 hours.  

Additionally, RichPAC is missing four semi-annual reports that were due last year and this year, showing how much money it raised and where donations of $100 or more have come from. Such reports are due as long as a committee exists, even if the committee is not active.

According to a 2022 RichPAC filing, Anderson is listed as one of RichPAC’s two principal officers. The other is James Lee, who was also contacted by Richmondside for comment but did not respond. While Lee is still listed as Chamber president/CEO on its website, an Oct. 18 email from Lee shows that he has resigned, saying:  “I will be stepping away from my role as the CEO at the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. This decision wasn’t easy, as my time here has been both fulfilling and memorable.”

As of Nov. 1, 2022, Anderson was active with the committee, having signed an open letter posted on the Chamber’s website identifying himself as chair of RichPAC. 

Anderson told Richmondside this week that he resigned from RichPAC in November of 2022, but he did not provide definitive proof of this.

If Anderson no longer works for the committee, RichPAC should have updated its 2022 principal officers filing, which hasn’t been done.

If Anderson does still work for the committee, RichPAC and Anderson would be in violation of campaign finance law, which prohibits someone who is running for office from overseeing a political fundraising organization. In fact, a statement at the bottom of each of the three RichPAC billboards references this law, stating: “This advertisement was not authorized by a candidate or committee controlled by a candidate.”

Since it’s a political action committee, RichPAC is subject to spending regulations that are different from those for individual campaign donors. In its 2010 Citizens United V Federal Election Commission decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that outside groups, including political action committees, can spend as much money as they like supporting or opposing candidates, as long as they don’t directly donate money to the candidates. Such spending, which classifies as independent expenditures, still has to be reported and cannot be coordinated with a candidate. If the spending is not independent, it’s classified as a political donation. Richmond law limits political donations to no more than $2,500 per candidate per election cycle.

Dan Siegel, a lawyer who has advised candidates in Bay Area elections on campaign finance law, told Richmondside that if RichPAC is supporting Anderson with an advertisement while Anderson is a principal of RichPAC, it’s not operating independently. 

“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” Siegel said. “You could not with a straight face say that the political action committee is independent of the candidate if it’s supporting a candidate that is also running the committee.”

Dunning, when asked to comment on RichPAC’s failure to file its campaign finance forms, told Richmondside that he “has nothing to do with RichPAC, other than being aware that they’re rooting for me.”

“I believe in following all campaign laws,” Dunning said. “If RichPAC is willfully out of compliance, I hereby renounce their support of my candidacy.”

Brown, who responded to Richmondside shortly after this report was published, said she believes all organizations should follow FPPC reporting rules to ensure transparency in local elections. Aside from the billboard purchased independently on her behalf, she said her campaign has not accepted contributions from interests such as housing or realtor groups, corporations or fossil fuel entities such as Chevron.

“I am not affiliated with, nor supported by, any Richmond business interests outside of small, local mom-and-pop businesses based in the city of Richmond,” Brown said in an email.

Anderson said he resigned from RichPAC

Anderson told Richmondside Monday that RichPAC’s paperwork is not up to date, and he is no longer involved with the committee.

“I resigned from RichPAC in November 2022,” Anderson said. “The same week I left the Richmond Economic Development Commission.”

Anderson said he left “all things Richmond” around that time to help his ill mother, former Richmond Mayor Irma Anderson, who died in January 2024.

“They just need to check their records and get it straight,” Anderson said. “That’s all this is.”

Anderson shared emails with Richmondside that show he quit the economic development commission on Nov. 6 and the Chamber of Commerce board on Nov. 8, 2022, but the emails do not mention RichPAC. RichPAC’s website is hosted on the Chamber’s website, but it states that it operates independently and has its own board of directors. 

According to Anderson, connections between the Chamber and RichPAC run deep.

“I don’t know anyone who’s been a member of RichPAC that has not also been on the board of the Chamber,” Anderson said.

Wilson, Anderson’s opponent, told Richmondside she thinks it’s “hard to understand” what’s going on with RichPAC, and said she’s worried that voters might not have the correct information about who is running the committee.

“The proof that he no longer works for RichPAC being tied to him quitting the Chamber is confusing because I was always told this PAC is being run separately from the Chamber,” Wilson said.

Wilson said she’s “willing to give [Anderson] the benefit of the doubt that he quit” RichPAC but emphasized that “from a legal standpoint he’s still part of the PAC because that’s on the most recent filing.”

“If I were someone who was working with that committee in 2022 I would ask them to make it clear it was not my committee before I started running,” she said. “He clearly has a relationship with the people at RichPAC, so this is not something he should be given a pass on.”

Anderson said it’s not his responsibility to fix RichPAC’s filings.

“It’s not incumbent upon me as a person who has resigned to update the filing,” said Anderson. “It’s incumbent upon the organization.”

Chamber has supported PACs opposing RPA candidates, business taxes

Richmond’s Chamber of Commerce is closely associated with RichPAC. RichPAC’s treasurer, Ziesenhenne, serves on the Chamber’s board. The Chamber is a 501(c)6, a type of nonprofit that is legally allowed to engage in political and lobbying activities. 

RichPAC organized a fundraiser for the committee on Sept. 12 and its Instagram account has recently advertised RichPAC events. Wilson, Willis and Jimenez told Richmondside that the Chamber’s involvement with RichPAC was the main reason why they did not attend a candidates forum the Chamber hosted earlier this month.

Former mayor, RPA founder, and current councilmember Gayle McLaughlin told Richmondside she first became aware of RichPAC in 2004, when she was elected as mayor. Over the years, McLaughlin said, RichPAC has “always supported candidates opposing me and other progressives.”

RichPAC appears to have existed since at least 2001. That year, Tom Butt thanked the Chamber for its help in his then-unsuccessful run for mayor through RichPAC. Technically this RichPAC was a different committee from the current one as the two don’t share the same committee ID number. It appears, however, that it operated similarly to the present-day RichPAC, with Chamber members leading it. It organized much of its communication though the Chamber, opposed business tax measures, and endorsed candidates challenging the RPA.

In 2006, Butt criticized the Chamber for using the committee to lobby against a measure that would have raised taxes for big businesses. He accused the Chamber of being “dominated by big business, especially Chevron.” 

In 2008, RichPAC supported three candidates and opposed Measure T, a measure backed by the Richmond Progressive Alliance that would have significantly raised taxes on big businesses, most notably Chevron, whose taxes would have gone from about $60,000 to about $26.5 million a year had it taken effect. Measure T did narrowly pass, but Chevron challenged it, and in 2009, a Contra Costa Superior Court judge deemed the tax unconstitutional. The city appealed the decision but dropped the appeal when Chevron agreed to pay the city millions per year starting in 2010.

That same year, RichPAC took in about $20,000 in donations, with the San Rafael Airport, Richmond Development Corporation, Black American PAC of Contra Costa County, and an individual named D.B. Murray donating $5,000 each. The city of Richmond has no filings that show how RichPAC spent this money. 

After 2010, RichPAC didn’t appear to be as active. But in 2011 and 2014, Chamber-backed committees with similar names turned in two financial filings.  

A campaign finance filing shows that in 2011, a committee called Richmond Business PAC made a $1,000 independent expenditure supporting Donna Powers for city council. This committee listed the same address as the Chamber but has a different committee ID number than the current RichPAC. There was no election in 2011, and Powers didn’t run in 2012. 

In 2014, another committee with the same address as the Chamber, this time called Richmond Business Political Action Committee, made a filing showing that the Chamber donated $4,150 to it, but there are no filings showing this committee made any expenditures.

RichPAC fined for tardy finance filings in 2022

From 2015 to 2021, RichPAC wasn’t apparently active. But in February of 2022, a campaign finance filing shows that RichPAC launched again, this time in its current form with Lee and Anderson heading it. The Richmond Standard, a publication funded and run by Chevron, reported the story but made no reference to previous Chamber committees with the same or similar names. Lee’s comments in the article are critical of the RPA and the Measure U tax, which was backed by the RPA and passed in 2020, eventually raising taxes for many big businesses in Richmond. 

The article said RichPAC would seek to elect pro-business leaders to the city council. The committee ended up supporting city council candidates Soheila Bana, Andrew Butt and Oscar Garcia and mayoral candidate Nat Bates.

Money started coming into RichPAC again in April of 2022. That month, the committee received a $10,000 donation from Lee, and another $10,000 from SIMS Metal, a multi-billion dollar international metal recycler with a location in Richmond that has received citations for air quality violations. In June of 2022, San Francisco resident Shihong Lin donated $7,000. These combined $27,000 in donations were due to be reported on July 31, 2022. 

In September of 2022, RichPAC received $2,300 more in donations from Chamber members and businesses, which were due to be reported on Sept. 29, 2022. 

In violation of campaign finance laws, the combined $30,300 in donations were not reported until Oct. 14, 2022, which was 25 days before the election. 

Richmond resident Norman La Force noticed the late reporting and filed a complaint to the Fair Political Practices Commission.

“It was a big issue,” La Force told Richmondside. “People didn’t know who had contributed until after they saw RichPAC’s ads.”

In September of 2022, Wilson, then an organizer with RPA but not a candidate, noticed RichPAC was sending out mailers and putting up billboards supporting candidates, but not filing its finance reports. She sent a complaint to the city clerk’s office on Sept. 30 and attached a photo of a RichPAC billboard supporting Bana, Butt, Garcia, and Bates. In response, City Clerk Pamela Christian told Wilson the city was “looking into this issue.” 

The city did not end up citing or issuing any fines to the committee, but in 2023, the Fair Political Practices Commission fined RichPAC $693 for violating campaign finance laws.

RichPAC reported taking in an additional $32,000 after Oct. 14, 2022, bringing its total donations to around $59,000. The largest contributors were two businesses, JIA Investments, LLC, which donated $10,000, and JJ Design Build, which donated $10,100. 

In that election cycle, only one RichPAC candidate won while the three others lost. Bana defeated an RPA-backed candidate, Jamin Pursell, while Garcia and Bates lost to current city councilmember Doria Robinson and Mayor Eduardo Martinez, who were both backed by the RPA. Butt got the same amount of votes as his opponent Cesar Zepeda, but lost a chance drawing of sealed envelopes that ended up deciding the election. Neither Butt nor Zepeda were backed by the RPA.

As RichPAC is again opposing RPA candidates in this election cycle, it’s not clear how it’s taking in or spending money. In addition to its missing semi-annual and pre-election filings, the committee has not reported any election cycle filings which it would be required to release within 24 hours any time it receives $1,000 or more from a single source after Aug. 6 of this year, although it’s unknown whether RichPAC has received any such contributions.

After checking with the Secretary of State’s office, the Contra Costa County clerk’s office, the city of Richmond’s clerk’s office, and the online portal where Richmond uploads its campaign filings, Richmondside determined that RichPAC has only turned in one filing this year. The filing was posted in July and lists RichPAC both as the receiver and donor of $10,000. This has lawyer Siegel baffled.

“It seems like they’re reporting contributions from themselves to themselves which doesn’t make any sense,” Siegel said. “I don’t understand why they would do it except maybe it allows them to brag that they raised $10,000 — which I suppose is technically true.”

McLaughlin told Richmondside she thinks RichPAC’s actions are creating an “unlevel playing field.”

“They’re so focused on making attacks on progressives that they disregard their own obligations,” McLaughlin said. “They don’t take it seriously because they know they can afford to pay a fine. I think it’s really unfair.”