California Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Oakland)—the wife of state Attorney General Rob Bonta—insinuated racism and sexism may be behind conflict-of-interest allegations over her appointment to chair a budget subcommittee which oversees Department of Justice and public safety spending.
“Almost within my lifetime there would have been the ‘appearance of impropriety’ for me to marry my husband of a different racial background. I’m certain a woman voting ‘appeared improper’ as well in our recent history,” Bonta told The Epoch Times in an email on Feb. 14.
‘Ethical Conflict’
Bob Stern, former general counsel for the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission and co-author of the Political Reform Act, a 1974 anti-corruption law, told The Epoch Times that it’s not a violation of the law for Mia Bonta to chair or sit as a member of the budget subcommittee, but she should recuse herself from any matters dealing with her husband’s department.“She shouldn’t be acting on his budget request,” Stern said. “Clearly, there is a conflict there. It’s not a legal conflict, but it’s an ethical conflict.”
He dismissed Bonta’s suggestion that race or gender might have something do with the criticism the Bontas have received in recent days after the controversy erupted.
“That’s ridiculous,” he said, adding that for the Bontas’ sake, “I hope they have a better defense than that.”
“I accepted the appointment ... because my Speaker asked me to and because I care deeply about public safety and justice,” Mia Bonta said in the email. “The budget process is open and transparent. There is ample opportunity for public participation and it’s developed among three bodies, and ultimately I, along with every other member of the legislature, vote on the budget.”
But Stern cast doubt on Mia Bonta’s claim that similar situations have arisen in the state legislature.
“I can’t think of a situation where a spouse has been ruling on another spouse’s budget. I can’t think of any examples like that in Sacramento, because it just has never happened,” Stern said.
Tony Quinn, a political expert who sat on the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for five years, told the Epoch Times he agrees with Stern’s assessment.
“This shows a lack of concern for ethics and for appearances,” Quinn said in an email. “I have never heard of the spouse of a statewide official serving in the legislature, and certainly not overseeing the budget of the spouse’s agency. The job of the budget subcommittee is to oversee and approve the agency’s spending requests. There is no way that the wife should be overseeing the husband’s budget.”
Jay Wierenga, an FPPC spokesman, told The Epoch Times on Feb. 14 that the agency can’t comment on the specific allegations of conflict of interest and is limited to its jurisdiction of the Political Reform Act.
“The Act covers the law and regulations regarding campaign finance disclosure/reporting, political advertising disclosure/reporting, State (not local) lobbying disclosure/reporting, and conflicts of interest among public officials,” Wierenga said in an email.
Statutes and regulations covering conflicts of interest generally refer to public officials’ involvement in discussions, decisions, and votes that would affect their own personal, material financial interests, he said.
Eric Early, a Republican who ran for attorney general in the California’s primaries told the Epoch Times the appointment raises serious questions about conflicts of interest, ethics, and appearances of impropriety.
“It’s putting the fox in charge of the hen house,” Early said. “It is a complete conflict of interest. Ms. Bonta should not be within a hundred miles of the budget of her husband’s Department of Justice, much less overseeing that budget.”
Past Controversy
In 2020, CalMatters reported that Rob Bonta—then a state Assemblyman—had in 2017 created the Bonta California Progress Foundation, which contributed thousands of dollars to a nonprofit where Mia was CEO.Stern told CalMatters in 2020 that it shouldn’t have been allowed and that the law “should be amended to prohibit it.”
“He was raising money, and she was benefiting by getting salaries from the money he was raising,” Stern told The Epoch Times on Feb. 14. “I think they have a tin ear when it comes to ethics.”
In a statement emailed to The Epoch Times on Feb. 14, Rendon shrugged off the conflict-of-interest claims, reissuing a statement made last week:
“I believe Ms. Bonta will continue to be independent and unbiased in her legislative judgment, as she has been since starting her service in the Assembly,” Rendon said in the statement. “The Legislature has a robust and transparent budget process, designed with checks and balances to ensure the best possible budget is passed.”
Rendon said the final Assembly budget proposal must be identical to the state Senate’s and has to be approved or vetoed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
“Additionally, we can’t set salaries or benefits for state constitutional officers, so no elected official can ever personally or financially benefit from our budget process,” Rendon said.
But, the California Republican Party disagrees.
CAGOP Chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson, said in a statement emailed to The Epoch Times that Mia Bonta chairing the subcommittee is a “massive conflict of interest.”
“The Bontas, Speaker Rendon and California Democrats can try all they want to downplay the valid concerns that have been raised, but Californians can see for themselves what an inappropriate appointment this is,” Patterson said.
Newsom appointed Rob Bonta as attorney general in 2021, and he was elected to the position in 2022. Meanwhile, Mia was elected to fill her husband’s vacant Oakland-area Assembly seat in a special election in 2021 and was reelected in 2022.
The Attorney General’s office redirected inquiries about the conflict-of-interest allegations to the Assembly, “as these decisions are at the discretion of the Assembly.”
Newsom’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
The budget subcommittee will hold its first hearing of the year on Feb. 27 and is scheduled to discuss the Department of Justice on March 27.
