Embattled San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus is under investigation for potential campaign finance violations during her successful 2022 bid to become the county’s first Latina sheriff.
State elections regulators are looking into a complaint lodged during the election that alleges the Corpus campaign reported accepting donations that exceeded local contribution limits and failed to disclose its spending on social media ads and campaign banners, among other reporting infractions.
News of the investigation comes as Corpus faces a March 4 special election to give county supervisors the authority to remove her from office. Supervisors decided to send the ballot measure to voters after an explosive independent auditor’s report last month found Corpus and department leadership responsible for widespread abuses of power and possible corruption.
Corpus, who unseated her former boss in an insurgent victory to become sheriff, has vehemently denied the accusations and resisted loud calls for her resignation. She’s described the report and efforts to oust her as a politically motivated “coup” orchestrated by a “good ol’ boys network” threatened by her plans to overhaul a department she says is in desperate need of reform.
Corpus, her attorney and the Sheriff’s Office did not respond to questions about the campaign finance case.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission opened its investigation less than two weeks after receiving the complaint in February 2022, before the June primary election in which she defeated incumbent Sheriff Carlos Bolanos. The complaint appears to have been filed by John Boessenecker, a local trust and estate attorney and author of history books about the American West.
The FPPC declined to discuss any details about the open case, and attempts to reach Boessenecker were unsuccessful. It’s unclear why he may have filed the complaint.
David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University, said it’s not uncommon for political opponents to submit such complaints during a campaign. That causes a backlog for the commission to investigate, meaning open cases frequently take years to complete.
For that reason, McCuan said he was hardly surprised that regulators had yet to resolve the case against Corpus more than two years after opening it. He expects the commission likely is still seeking a settlement, though he said fines levied against local officials often amount to just a few thousand dollars.
Of the claims in the complaint, McCuan said they appear to describe the missteps of a first-time campaign lacking the “gatekeepers and political professionals” now involved in most election efforts across the Bay Area.
“It smacks more of ignorance and carelessness than arrogance and malfeasance, but under the law, such things can be a clear violation,” he said.
Election filings appear to show the campaign reported that at least two donors exceeded the county’s $1,000 individual contribution limit by significant margins — both by a thousand dollars or more.
In at least a dozen other instances, the filings suggest donors surpassed the limit by a few hundred dollars each during the June 2022 primary election. However, it’s unclear whether all of those contributions would have violated contribution limits to local candidates due to conflicting reporting indicating the donations may have been made over both the primary and general elections.
In one instance, the filings show a local chapter of the Service Employees International Union made two $1,000 donations in April 2022. A representative with SEIU Local 521 said the campaign inaccurately recorded a second contribution.
“We have no idea why they did that,” said spokesperson Valerie Prigent. “Probably sloppy work by the treasurer. We gave her $1,000 and no more.”
Sal Censoprano, a local accountant and tax specialist listed as treasurer on some of the Corpus campaign’s election filings, said he only briefly worked for the campaign before “all the treasure duties were taken” from him.
“I just didn’t have the time to do the work, nor did her campaign manager send me the information that was needed,” he said.
Censoprano said a campaign manager ended up filing the required financial disclosure forms. He said he never met the campaign manager and did not know who the person was.
However, Victor Aenlle, a key figure in the scandal now engulfing the Sheriff’s Office, has been described by former allies as her de facto campaign manager during the election.
The independent auditor’s report alleged that while serving as Corpus’ civilian chief of staff once she took office, Aenlle had an inappropriate romantic relationship with the sheriff, which led her to “relinquish control” of the agency to him. Last month, minutes before county supervisors voted to strip him of his administrative position, Corpus stormed the public meeting to announce she had promoted Anelle, a real estate broker, to assistant sheriff.
Anelle did not respond to a request to discuss the campaign finance case.
With the March special election to oust Corpus fast approaching, the union representing rank-and-file sheriff’s deputies — which has been in a protracted labor dispute with Corpus — has formed a campaign committee to raise money in support of the ballot measure. It’s unclear whether Corpus or others plan to create their own committee to oppose it.
McCuan, the political science professor, said that while it’s unclear what impact the campaign finance investigation may have on the special election, the FPPC has likely taken a keen interest in the case.
He added he wouldn’t be shocked if other agencies and officials haven’t also turned their focus to their broader scandal.
“This particular case has the stature and salience that doesn’t go unnoticed by legal and regulatory actors,” he said.