Becerra rival demands FBI grill him again over $225K campaign cash scandal

California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton wants the FBI to re-interview rival Xavier Becerra in a federal corruption case linked to the alleged theft of $225,000 from Becerra’s campaign account.

In a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California Eric Grant dated Aug. 30, Hilton demanded that Becerra be questioned again after three figures close to him were federally indicted in November 2025 and have since pleaded guilty.

The case centers on money allegedly funneled from Becerra’s dormant campaign account through a consulting firm run by Dana Williamson, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s former chief of staff, and ultimately to the wife of Sean McCluskie, Becerra’s longtime aide and former chief of staff.

McCluskie, Williamson and Sacramento lobbyist Greg Campbell have all pleaded guilty.

Hilton and California attorney general candidate Michael Gates argue that evidence developed since Becerra’s initial interview raises questions about what he knew.

Hilton told the California Post that Becerra needs to be pressed about his knowledge of the payments.

“He needs to be put under oath and asked very direct questions about every aspect of this,” Hilton said, adding that Becerra should not be allowed to “get away with vague answers.”

Hilton said he believes Becerra was not the focus when federal investigators previously interviewed him because the investigation had centered on other people.

“But since that, he is now a candidate for governor, and when you look at the things that he’s been saying, it’s completely inconsistent with the evidence,” Hilton said.

“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 and Gates argue that Becerra was interviewed before Williamson and McCluskie pleaded guilty and before investigators had developed all of the evidence now available to prosecutors.

“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?” they wrote in the letter.

The candidates pointed to allegations in the federal indictment involving “Public Official 1,” whom Becerra has publicly identified as himself.

According to the letter, the indictment alleges that McCluskie spoke with Public Official 1 when the payments were established and again when the method used to route the money changed. It also alleges that McCluskie told Public Official 1 that $10,000 a month was a reasonable payment and that false campaign disclosures were reviewed by “McCluskie and/or Public Official 1.”

Hilton told the California Post that communications between McCluskie and Williamson are among the evidence he believes investigators should confront Becerra with.

“That suggests that he did know,” Hilton said. “I don’t know whether he knew, I don’t know whether he lied, but the public deserves to know the answers.”

Hilton claimed there’s a possibility Becerra knew about the alleged scheme because its purpose was to provide additional money that would allow McCluskie to accompany Becerra to Washington when Becerra became U.S. Health and Human Services secretary under the Biden administration.

“The whole point of it was for Becerra to have his guy with him,” Hilton said. “So the idea that he didn’t know about it, to me, is hard to believe.”

Becerra has consistently denied knowing that the payments were part of a criminal scheme, although his descriptions of what he knew have varied.

After McCluskie and Williamson were charged, Becerra acknowledged knowing that payments were coming out of his campaign account.

“I knew what was being paid,” Becerra told FOX40, while adding, “What I didn’t know was all the underlying activity that was occurring that was against the law.”

Becerra has said he believed the payments were legitimate fees for managing his dormant campaign account and that he relied on McCluskie to handle the matter.

“I was told that’s the rate I would have to pay to get someone who could manage that and make sure that I don’t have to worry about [violating any federal rules],” Becerra told the Los Angeles Times.

The federal indictment says Becerra was told Williamson would receive $10,000 a month to manage the campaign account and that McCluskie’s wife would work for Williamson’s company. But prosecutors alleged that Becerra was not told that campaign money would ultimately be routed to McCluskie or that McCluskie’s wife would allegedly hold a no-work job.

Becerra has also disputed remembering some of the conversations described in court records. After McCluskie’s plea agreement stated that he told Becerra about his wife working for the consultants, Becerra told the Los Angeles Times that he did not recall McCluskie telling him that.

Following Williamson’s guilty plea, Becerra was more categorical.

“I did nothing wrong. Case closed,” he wrote on X.

Becerra spokesman, Jonathan Underland, has previously said he “had no idea what was going on” and that the scheme was designed to deceive him.

Federal prosecutors have characterized Becerra as a victim, and he has not been charged with a crime.

Hilton and Gates aren’t the only ones questioning Becerra’s statements about the case.

Billionaire Tom Steyer’s campaign pointed to an ABC10 report about comments from McGregor Scott, an attorney for Williamson, concerning evidence obtained during discovery.

ABC10 reporter Becca Haiger said Scott told her that McCluskie had represented to Williamson that he had cleared the arrangement with Becerra.

“I asked if there’s documentation of that reassurance, if McCluskie had texted it or something to Williamson, and he said in discovery, it’s not public record, but in discovery there are electronic records of McCluskie telling Williamson ‘Becerra okayed this,’” Haiger reported, according to Steyer’s campaign.

“Becerra can’t tweet his way out of tough questions,” Steyer campaign spokesperson Danni Wang said. “Voters deserve to know about his role: Is he incompetent, or is he corrupt?”

Asked how he responds to criticism that his demand for another FBI interview could itself be politically motivated, Hilton argued that voters should know the facts before deciding who should become governor.

“That’s in the interests of full information for the voters,” Hilton told the California Post.

The demand comes as the November election approaches, potentially complicating any federal investigation involving a candidate.

The U.S. Department of Justice, however, has longstanding policies often referred to as the “60-day rule”, which generally discourage federal prosecutors from taking overt investigative or prosecutorial steps close to an election if those actions could affect the outcome.

The California Post reached out to Becerra’s office and the FBI for comment, but neither gave a response.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters