The final gubernatorial debate before California’s June 2 primary is set for Thursday night in San Francisco — and the federal corruption case that’s been hovering over the race is almost certain to take center stage.

The scandal has ensnared former top aides to both Xavier Beccera and Gov. Gavin Newsom. The aides allegedly siphoned campaign funds for personal use, alongside other instances of fraud. With the case likely to be a major line of attack on Becerra, the race’s new front-runner, here’s what you need to know.

In November 2025, federal prosecutors indicted (opens in new tab) Dana Williamson — a Sacramento power player who served as Newsom’s chief of staff from 2022 to 2024 — on 23 counts of fraud and related charges. The indictment alleges that Williamson and co-conspirators took about $225,000 from a dormant campaign account belonging to Xavier Becerra between April 2022 and September 2024, when Becerra served as President Joe Biden’s secretary of health and human services. Williamson has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Prosecutors allege the money was funneled through consulting invoices for work that was not performed, with payments directed to the wife of Sean McCluskie, who was Becerra’s chief of staff in his Cabinet role. They also say Williamson filed years of fraudulent tax returns, claiming deductions for handbags, jewelry, a luxury resort stay, and private jet flights.

McCluskie has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and is cooperating with prosecutors as part of a plea agreement. Lobbyist Greg Campbell has also pleaded guilty. According to McCluskie’s plea agreement, the scheme began after he took the chief of staff job under Becerra, which resulted in a major pay cut. 

Yes. In timing that is entirely coincidental but will not go unnoticed by Becerra’s rivals, Williamson has a federal court hearing scheduled for Thursday in Sacramento — the same day as the final debate.

The court appearance is a status conference, a routine procedural hearing, but the proximity to the primary is bound to invite increased scrutiny from the other candidates.

Williamson’s court appearances have been delayed by a significant health issue — a liver transplant in early 2026 postponed several hearings.

The federal indictment identifies Becerra only as “Public Official 1" — the owner of the account from which the money was allegedly taken, rather than a participant in the scheme.

Following the indictment’s release, Becerra confirmed that he was Public Official 1 — and said the news was “a gut punch, (opens in new tab)” adding that he has voluntarily cooperated with the Justice Department’s investigation from the beginning.

“If I had been involved, the U.S. attorney would have had me in that indictment. I was not involved,” Becerra said at the May 5 gubernatorial debate (opens in new tab) hosted by CNN.

The indictment does not allege that Becerra knew about or participated in the scheme.

That hasn’t stopped political opponents from casting the case more broadly and, often, blurring the line between Becerra being named in an indictment and being accused of wrongdoing.

The indictment was filed in November, and early attention focused largely on Williamson’s ties to Newsom, whose office issued a statement distancing the governor from the case. 

As the 2026 primary has tightened — and Becerra has emerged as a surprise Democratic front-runner following Rep. Eric Swalwell’s resignation — his rivals have had more incentive and more airtime to try and make the scandal stick.

The May 5 debate marked a turning point: Steve Hilton was noticeably aggressive, claiming that Becerra was “mired, personally, in a corruption scandal,” while Antonio Villaraigosa questioned Becerra’s judgment. At the final debate on Thursday, the issue is likely to surface earlier and more forcefully.

The attacks have come from across the field. Hilton, the leading Republican candidate, who is endorsed by President Donald Trump, has gone furthest, suggesting he would push for an investigation into Becerra — an action unsupported by the claims in the indictment.

Villaraigosa hasn’t alleged criminal conduct but said Becerra’s association with the scheme demonstrates a lack of oversight. Former Rep. Katie Porter, in a nationally televised CNN interview Monday, went further. “I do not have the facts here,” she acknowledged — which didn’t stop her from declaring, “It was his campaign account. He signed off on it. It was his 25-year chief of staff who was receiving the money via this scheme. If they implicate him, I have zero doubt that he will be indicted.” Facts? Who needs facts?

CNN’s Dana Bash closed the interview by noting that the network had no evidence to support several of Porter’s claims.

The argument taking shape is less about direct involvement and more about accountability: If a campaign account tied to Becerra was, according to prosecutors, part of a fraud scheme by people in his orbit, what does that say about his management?

Becerra’s go-to answer has been to point to the indictment and emphasize that he is not accused of wrongdoing. 

That is true, but his rivals have chosen not to stick to the bounds of the indictment — this is cutthroat politics, after all. The problem for Becerra is that each mention of the case reinforces an association between him and a federal prosecution, even if he isn’t directly implicated in misconduct.

He is likely to face further questions on the debate stage. After two debates at which he was on the defensive, it would be no surprise to see him take a more aggressive approach in rebuttal.

Meanwhile, his opponents have an incentive to keep the spotlight on the scandal as their last, best shot before the primary.