California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton is pressing for the FBI to re-interview his rival Xavier Becerra over $225,000 in allegedly misappropriated campaign funds, raising new questions about what Becerra knew and when, just months before voters head to the polls.
Hilton’s demand landed in the form of a letter dated August 30 and addressed to top federal law enforcement officials, including FBI Director Kash Patel, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California Eric Grant, and Attorney General Todd Blanche. In it, Hilton insists that Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary and now fellow gubernatorial contender, needs to be “put under oath and asked very direct questions about every aspect of this.”
The call for a new interrogation follows the unraveling of a federal criminal case involving Becerra’s dormant campaign account. Three figures close to Becerra, Sean McCluskie (his longtime aide and former chief of staff), Dana Williamson (a prominent Sacramento consultant and former chief of staff to Governor Gavin Newsom), and lobbyist Greg Campbell, have pleaded guilty in connection with the alleged theft of $225,000 from the campaign fund. Prosecutors say the payments were routed through Williamson’s consulting firm and ultimately to McCluskie’s wife, who allegedly held a no-work position. The Justice Department has so far characterized Becerra as a victim, and he has not been charged with any crime.
But Hilton, joined by attorney general candidate Michael Gates, argues that new evidence warrants a closer look at Becerra’s involvement. “He’s given two separate answers in television interviews. On one occasion, he said he knew about the money transfers, but he didn’t know what they were for. And on another occasion, he said he didn’t even know about them at all,” Hilton charged, suggesting the inconsistencies demand further scrutiny. “I don’t know whether he knew, I don’t know whether he lied, but the public deserves to know the answers.”
Becerra himself has publicly acknowledged that he was aware payments were being made from his campaign account, but denies any knowledge of the underlying criminal scheme. “I knew what was being paid. What I didn’t know was all the underlying activity that was occurring that was against the law,” Becerra stated. After Williamson’s guilty plea, Becerra declared on X: “I did nothing wrong. Case closed.”
The timeline, as reported by The California Post, shows the controversy intensifying as the election draws near. Hilton claims that key evidence, some of it reportedly discovered during legal proceedings, raises doubts about Becerra’s repeated assertions of innocence. In one cited instance, a reporter relayed that discovery included electronic records stating “Becerra okayed this.” Meanwhile, federal filings referenced in Hilton’s letter allege that McCluskie spoke with “Public Official 1”, a designation Becerra has publicly admitted is himself, both when the scheme was established and when the payment method changed.
Becerra’s defense has been blunt. His spokesman Jonathan Underland dismissed Hilton’s efforts as political gamesmanship, saying, “Reading comprehension is an important skill for the next governor, and Steve is clearly struggling.” Underland insisted the Justice Department’s filings “are clear: Xavier Becerra was the victim. The people who stole from him pled guilty and now owe him $225,000 in restitution.”
But critics argue that Becerra’s shifting statements, and the proximity of the indicted figures to his inner circle, demand more than a dismissal. Danni Wang, a spokesperson for another Democratic campaign, put it starkly: “Voters deserve to know about his role: Is he incompetent, or is he corrupt?”
The case touches a nerve for voters already wary of political insiders and backroom deals. Hilton’s letter to the FBI underscores the main point: “He was not pressed on the central question: What did he know about the scheme involving his own campaign account and his own chief of staff?” The letter points to the indictment’s claims that Becerra was told about the $10,000-a-month payments and that false campaign disclosures were reviewed by “McCluskie and/or Public Official 1.”
The Department of Justice has rules that typically keep prosecutors from taking overt steps, like new interviews, close to an election if such actions might sway the outcome. But with the November contest approaching, the pressure is mounting for authorities to show that no one is above questioning, especially when public trust in accountability is at stake. Recent federal enforcement actions, such as the massive FBI sweep in Chicago and high-profile indictments like the Puerto Rico drug ring case, only heighten the expectation that political figures will face the same scrutiny as anyone else.
The pattern of federal investigations into political and campaign-related misconduct is not new, as seen in the charges against Massachusetts state Rep. Francisco Paulino and other recent probes into elected officials. Calls for transparency and accountability cut across party lines, as demonstrated by the House Ethics Committee’s recent probe into Rep. Jimmy Gomez and the House’s weighing of a criminal referral of Jack Smith over alleged false testimony.
Becerra and his team maintain he was deceived by those around him and that the record clears him of wrongdoing. Prosecutors have not charged him, and official statements have consistently called him the victim. Yet Hilton and others say the public deserves a full accounting of what Becerra actually knew, especially in light of his own shifting public comments and the close ties between Becerra and the now-convicted members of his staff.
Hilton summed up the stakes: “That’s in the interests of full information for the voters.” As the campaign heats up, the pressure is unlikely to fade, and the unanswered questions about oversight, honesty, and responsibility will be on voters’ minds long after the headlines move on.
When politicians dodge direct answers and institutions close ranks, it’s always the public left holding the bag, voters deserve real accountability, not another brush-off.