Gavin Newsom steered millions of dollars in donations to charities and non-profits connected to his wife, election donation data shows. 

Huge donations from business leaders and corporations were allegedly used to curry favor with the California Governor, in so-called 'behest payments' that can avert limits on campaign contributions or gifts. 

Across California, over $555 million in charitably contributions were made at the request of all California lawmakers over the past 15 years, much of it under Newsom's watch, per the East Bay Times. 

Per reported data from the Fair Political Practices Commission, the total 'behest payments' made at Newsom's request reached over $347 million. 

Money funneled toward charities tied to Newsom's wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, reportedly included $4.3 million to her own California Partners Project. 

While the contributions did not overstep state laws, critics argue that the payments are 'not a good look' for the Democrat. 

'There’s no question that Newsom has used this privilege far more frequently than other elected officials,' political strategist and academic Dan Schnur told the East Bay Times. 

'As long as he files the required disclosure forms and there is no evidence of an explicit quid pro quo, he is entirely within the law. But many people believe that an official should not be able to make requests such as these on behalf of organizations in which their own family members are involved.'

This week, it was reported that California's political watchdog commission fined Newsom $31,500 for allegedly failing to report 36 'behest donations' totaling $5.5 million. 

The California Fair Political Practices Commission said 34 of the violations were for failing to report in time, with Newsom's office saying the issue was due to late paperwork and that the donations were disclosed before regulators inquired, per the LA Times. 

Many of the donations were directed to charities helping victims of the LA wildfires. 

Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Newsom’s office, said late reporting was primarily due to the governor's office focusing on emergency response during the crisis, and all were later reported. 

The latest reports on Newsom's behest payments to his wife comes after the Daily Mail revealed in March that Jennifer paid herself and her own company, Girls Club LLC, over $3.7 million from 2012 to 2023 using her non-profits income.  

It comes after Newsom announced last week that he and his wife are under investigation by Donald Trump's Department of Justice, saying they joined the president's 'hit list.'

Newsom insisted at the time that 'they have not found a crime, they are simply trying to find one', and said he was being targeted because he is considering running for president in 2028. 

The focus of the investigation remains murky, and the Daily Mail has contacted Newsom for comment. Gallegos added that the fines for late behest payment reported are unrelated to the DOJ investigation. 

There is no reported implication that behest contributions funneled by Newsom have anything to do with the DOJ investigation - which has not resulted in any charges - but critics said reports could damage Newsom's status ahead of a presidential run.

'Behests often go to good causes, but they are ripe for abuse,' said Sean McMorris, Transparency, Ethics and Accountability program manager for California Common Cause.

'Politicians in positions of power can direct money in a way that they otherwise would not be allowed to do under campaign finance or conflict-of-interest laws. 

'They really exploded during the pandemic and afterward, a lot of politicians realized, ‘This is a kind of an avenue I can use.''

The charities that Newsom's behest payments went towards included wildfire recovery, housing ,education and public health. 

But critics said the nexus of the payments to the high-profile politician can give a 'perception of pay-to-play', McMorris said.

'The public is not stupid. There’s a reason why these politicians primarily reach out only to people, entities and special interests who typically have interests before them or need votes from them,' he said. 

'And it’s legal,' McMorris added. 

'They don’t have to try and defend themselves. A lot of the justification is, ‘The ends justify the means,’ because the money is usually going to a good cause. 

'But the means do matter. If the ends have to justify the means, then the means are probably questionable.'