THE BOTTOM LINE - Los Angeles limits campaign contributions, restricts gifts to public officials and requires financial disclosures. It even maintains an Ethics Commission designed to keep money and political power from becoming too closely intertwined. Yet California law leaves open a remarkable door: elected officials can ask corporations, unions, wealthy donors, and other powerful interests to give substantial sums to outside organizations favored or recommended by those officials.
These contributions are known as Behested payments. The money does not go into the politician’s campaign account, and the politician does not personally receive it. The recipient may be a nonprofit doing genuinely valuable work. But there is an extraordinary distinction that deserves far more public attention: there is no dollar limit on Behested payments.
The same political system that carefully regulates campaign contributions therefore permits elected officials to help direct millions of dollars from powerful interests to outside organizations. The question isn’t whether charity is good. It is whether political power should operate alongside unlimited fundraising without substantially stronger safeguards.
A $2 Million Payment Raises a Bigger Question
The Lineage warehouse fire in Boyle Heights provides a striking example. After the fire sent smoke into the surrounding community and generated widespread concern, Lineage executives communicated with Mayor Karen Bass. According to a Lineage executive’s public account, the mayor suggested a way the company could help.
Lineage subsequently donated $2 million to the California Community Foundation, which worked with local organizations assisting Boyle Heights residents. There is nothing inherently improper about a corporation helping people affected by a disaster connected to its operations. Those residents deserved assistance.
But the transaction demonstrates why Behested payments deserve greater scrutiny. When the mayor of Los Angeles suggests that a corporation contribute millions of dollars to an outside organization, an unavoidable question arises: Where does charitable fundraising end and political influence begin?
That question does not require accusing Bass, Lineage, or the recipient organization of wrongdoing. It requires acknowledging the enormous imbalance of power involved whenever a government official is in a position to ask a company for a multimillion-dollar contribution.
$38 Million Shows This Is Not a Small Issue
Since taking office, Bass has reportedly disclosed more than $38 million in Behested payments benefiting outside organizations. Millions have reportedly gone to organizations including the Mayor’s Fund for Los Angeles, California Community Foundation, LA4LA and the Getty House Foundation.
Many of these organizations support legitimate civic purposes, including homelessness prevention, affordable housing, and disaster assistance. But worthy causes do not eliminate the potential ethical problem created by the fundraising mechanism.
Imagine being an executive whose company operates in Los Angeles. Perhaps your company holds or seeks city contracts, needs permits, has a development project awaiting approval or employs representatives who lobby City Hall. Then the mayor, a councilmember or someone associated with that official suggests supporting a particular nonprofit.
Can the company comfortably say no? Perhaps. But public ethics should not depend on whether corporate executives feel comfortable refusing elected officials who exercise governmental authority over matters affecting their businesses. The better question is why government should create that situation in the first place.
When Transparency Arrives Late
California’s principal safeguard against abuse is disclosure. Once Behested payments from a source reach the applicable reporting threshold, state law generally requires disclosure within 30 days. But transparency works only when disclosure is timely.
According to the underlying reporting, Bass took an average of 51 days to disclose the more than 560 Behested payments reviewed through late August. Some reportedly took considerably longer. One $10,000 contribution to the Getty House Foundation reportedly wasn’t disclosed for 372 days.
The $2 million Lineage contribution was also reportedly disclosed after the deadline and following an anonymous complaint submitted to the California Fair Political Practices Commission. That sequence deserves scrutiny regardless of one’s opinion of Bass. Transparency delayed is transparency weakened.
Bass is not alone. Councilmember Nithya Raman has also had delayed Behested-payment disclosures. One donation reportedly wasn’t disclosed until roughly two years later. Raman’s office has said it initially received conflicting guidance about the requirements and has since strengthened its internal procedures.
Those explanations may address individual circumstances. They do not fix the underlying system.
This Is Bigger Than Bass or Raman
That distinction is critical because this should not become another personality-driven political battle. This isn’t fundamentally about Karen Bass or Nithya Raman, nor should the answer depend on whether the politician involved is a Democrat, Republican or independent.
California elected officials have used Behested payments for decades. The problem is structural: government officials exercise enormous authority over corporations, unions, developers and institutions while those same officials can solicit substantial donations from those interests for organizations and initiatives they support.
That combination creates an unavoidable appearance problem even when everyone involved is acting legally. No explicit quid pro quo is necessary. Nobody has to say, “Give this organization money and I’ll help you later.”
The concern is more subtle. A donor may gain goodwill. An organization favored by an elected official receives money. The politician demonstrates an ability to deliver resources. Meanwhile, the public is left wondering whether today’s charitable contribution could become tomorrow’s political access.
That perception alone can erode confidence in government.
Charity Cannot Become Political Currency
Supporters of Behested payments have a legitimate argument. A mayor who persuades private donors to contribute millions toward homelessness prevention, disaster recovery, affordable housing, or youth programs may accomplish something valuable without spending taxpayer dollars.
That is a real benefit, but charitable intent cannot become an exemption from serious ethics safeguards. If anything, the enormous amounts involved justify stronger transparency.
Los Angeles should therefore go beyond California’s minimum requirements. Major Behested payments should be disclosed rapidly through a searchable public database identifying the elected official, donor, recipient, amount, and stated purpose.
But disclosure of the payment alone is not enough. The public should also know whether the donor has significant business before the city. Does the donor hold a city contract? Is it lobbying City Hall? Does it have a development application pending? Is it seeking permits, subsidies, regulatory decisions, or other governmental action?
Those relationships provide essential context for residents, journalists and watchdog organizations evaluating whether a donation creates an actual or apparent conflict.
Repeated late disclosures should also result in meaningful consequences. Los Angeles should seriously consider restrictions on elected officials soliciting large donations from entities with significant matters pending before the city.
None of these reforms would prohibit philanthropy. Corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals could continue donating millions to charitable organizations. What would change is the relationship between those donors and politicians who regulate, contract with, or otherwise exercise governmental power affecting them.
When Political Power Asks for Money
Los Angeles residents have endured enough scandals and heard enough promises about ethics reform to understand one basic truth: transparency cannot be optional.
A political system that allows elected officials to solicit unlimited amounts of outside money cannot depend primarily on disclosure forms filed after the money has already moved particularly when those disclosures sometimes arrive late.
This isn’t an argument against charity. It is an argument for boundaries. There is a meaningful difference between a corporation independently deciding to donate $2 million to a nonprofit and a corporation making a multimillion dollar contribution after communicating with an elected official about where assistance should go.
That distinction deserves public scrutiny.
Los Angeles has spent years promising greater accountability and stronger ethics. Here is a straightforward place to start: When political power asks for money, the public should know immediately who was asked, how much was given, where the money went and what business that donor has before City Hall.
Charity should serve the public. It should never become a parallel currency of political influence.
(Mihran Kalaydjian is a seasoned public affairs and government relations professional with more than twenty years of experience in legislative affairs, public policy, community relations, and strategic communications. A respected civic leader and education advocate, he has spearheaded numerous academic and community initiatives, shaping dialogue and driving reform in local and regional political forums. His career reflects a steadfast commitment to transparency, accountability, and public service across Los Angeles and beyond.)
