Hundreds of Thousands From Developers? Show the Evidence

Transparency is a word that gets used frequently during election season.

But transparency has to mean more than asking other people questions. It also means being willing to show the evidence behind the claims you make yourself.

That is why I challenged a recent statement by District 3 candidate Michael Rios.

In a campaign video, Rios grouped his opponents together while claiming they had “literally raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from developers.”

I was one of the candidates he presented to residents.

There was a significant problem with that claim as it related to me: at the time, my campaign had not even raised $2,000 in contributions.

Not $200,000. Not $100,000. Not even $2,000.

So I responded with a very simple request: show your work.

Name the developers. Identify the contributions. Show the campaign-finance filings that substantiate what you told Ontario residents.

California requires political candidates and committees to disclose campaign financial activity according to established reporting thresholds. Candidates who raise or spend $2,000 or more generally become recipient committees subject to Form 410 and Form 460 reporting requirements.

The FPPC also makes clear that campaign statements are public records intended to help voters understand political financing.

That makes this allegation particularly easy to test.

If developers gave my campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars, there should be a record. If there is a record, show it.

Instead of asking residents to accept a blanket accusation, transparency requires identifying which candidate received what money, from whom, and when.

This is especially relevant because Rios has made Citizens4Ontario a central part of his claim to transparency and accountability. His own campaign website describes it more precisely as the “Citizens4Ontario account” that he started to provide what he calls “fact-based updates” about Ontario government.

That distinction matters. Creating and managing a civic-information website or social-media account can certainly be a form of community engagement. But it should not automatically be presented as equivalent to founding and operating a formally constituted organization that carries ongoing legal, financial, regulatory, governance, employment, insurance, licensing, tax, and operational responsibilities.

Those are very different kinds of accomplishments.

My own leadership record should be evaluated on what I have actually built, managed, and been accountable for—and Michael’s should be evaluated the same way. Voters do not need either candidate’s résumé exaggerated. They need an accurate comparison of demonstrated responsibility and results.

Starting a social-media platform demonstrates an interest in civic affairs. Running organizations that employ people, manage resources, comply with regulatory obligations, build partnerships, and deliver services demonstrates a different level of executive responsibility. Voters should be able to distinguish between the two.

I actually agree with the standard of transparency and accountability. Where we apparently differ is in how that standard should be applied.

If I make an accusation about another candidate, residents should expect me to substantiate it. If someone makes an accusation about me, I will ask them to do the same.

That's not being defensive. That's accountability.

My campaign has been visible because I have relied heavily on skills, relationships, hard work and ingenuity developed over many years—not because hundreds of thousands of dollars from developers were financing it.

I welcome scrutiny of my campaign finances. I welcome residents examining the public record.

And if Michael Rios has documentation showing that developers gave my campaign the hundreds of thousands of dollars he suggested, he should publish it. If he cannot, correcting the record would demonstrate the transparency he says he wants to bring to City Hall.