Over 60 percent of Supervisor candidate Gomez’ fundraising goes to husband

Greg Larkin Greg Larkin 8 Comments


According to her most recent campaign reports, Fifth District County Board of Supervisors candidate Michelle Gomez has paid 61 percent of the money she’s raised for the General Election to her husband.

Not counting $13,000 in personal loans to the campaign, Gomez raised $24,285 since the primary election, while paying her husband, Don Gomez, $15,000 in the same period to be her campaign manager.

This is precisely one of the issues the San Diego Union-Tribune and several others noted when criticizing Congressman Duncan Hunter — paying his wife as campaign manager.

Below are the relevant numbers for the post-primary period:

6/30: $4,539 in contributions — No payments to husband

9/22: $13,054 in contributions — Paid Don Gomez $10,000

10/20: $6,692 in contributions — Paid Don Gomez $5,000

According to his Facebook page, Don Gomez is the campaign manager for his wife.

Michelle Gomez, vying against San Marcos Mayor Jim Desmond in the race for Supervisor, is endorsed by the San Diego County Democratic Party and many area labor unions.

The referenced reports are linked below:

Gomez 460 6-30-2018

Gomez-460 9-22-2018 Amended

Gomez 460 10-20-2018


Comments 8

  1. $15K for a campaign manager is dirt cheap. If I remember right, Hunter paid his wife well over $100K.

    By the way, has much has Jim Desmond paid his campaign manager? I am sure that you could have fiound that out if you wanted to add perspective to your post.

  2. HQ, this was not posted by Brian. We’ve edited out your salutation.

    It doesn’t appear this post is about the salaries of campaign managers. If Desmond is paying his wife as manager, we’ll encourage Greg Larkin to cover that as well.

  3. T.A.,

    Thanks for the correction. I guess it seemed like something Brian would post.

    Many candidates use family members on their campaigns and there is nothing illegal about that. My point was that Gomez is clearly not overpaying for her campaign manager, a fact which would be supported by a comparison to what her opponent is paying his campaign manager.

  4. Brian’s point connects back to the Duncan Hunter indictment story. As a libertarian, Brian argues that a candidate should be able to do whatever they want with donated money, and that donors should be able to donate money to a candidate for personal use if they want.

    Here’s the problem with Brian’s argument in the context of the Duncan Hunter story: I’m pretty sure under the current laws and rules, you can donate money to a candidate personally, as long as it’s reported, and as long as you are not receiving anything in in exchange for the gift. But that’s not what happened according to the Duncan Hunter indictment. What actually happened was donors gave money to Hunter’s campaign. Under the laws in effect at the time, those donations were made with legal assurances that the money had to be used exclusively for the campaign, not to fly a family pet around, for vacations, or for mistress trysts. The donations were made conditioned on how the funds were to be used. It appears that Hunter violated those conditions, the trust of his donors, and the law. If it was legal to do so, and Hunter had made it clear how he would actually use the money in advance, I suspect many of those donors would not have given him the money in the first place. They were misled.

    Brian, you can argue that what Hunter stands accused of should not be a crime under a hypothetical legal framework that doesn’t exist and never has existed. But you can not argue that what he allegedly did was fine and dandy under the laws as they exist today. And you can’t argue that donors should have known that Hunter would break the laws, or otherwise be okay that the conditions of their donation were violated.

  5. “Brian, you can argue that what Hunter stands accused of should not be a crime under a hypothetical legal framework that doesn’t exist and never has existed.”

    I don’t think I understand this. Prior to 1867, there was no regulation of campaign finance. I STILL would have opposed the 1867 naval appropriations bill which prohibited government officials to solicit naval workers for money.

    I. Still. Don’t. Care. That. Gomez. Is Feathering. Her. Nest. With Campaign. Contributions.

    Heck, the Clintons made quid pro quo an art form and they got their just due. Americans are smarter than you think, ED.

    Believe it or not, it’s not always about politics with me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.