Rather than
resign as he should, Mark Peterson, the Contra Costa district attorney who illegally used his campaign account as a $66,000 personal slush fund, plans to seek re-election next year.
Prosecutors working for him are understandably angry, exasperated and embarrassed. Many fear speaking up after witnessing the retribution Peterson inflicted on political opponents in the office after first winning election in 2010. Others have decided they cannot remain silent.
“His crimes have had a negative impact on the entire office,” says prosecutor Scott Cunnane. “A true leader would put the interests of the office above his own self-interest.”
The transgressions by the county’s top law-enforcement official were not minor bookkeeping errors. They were major violations of the state’s Political Reform Act, which aims to curtail government corruption by prohibiting candidates’ personal use of funds from campaign contributors.
Because of his behavior, “We lose credibility,” says prosecutor Chris Walpole. “If he remains DA, it sends the wrong message to the public. We’re supposed to wear the white hat. We’re supposed to be upholding the law and holding people accountable.”
An investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission found that from 2011-15 Peterson routinely dipped into his campaign account for approximately 600 personal expenditures totaling $66,372.
He used the campaign debit card for meals at restaurants, gasoline, clothing, movie tickets, hotel rooms, cellular telephone bills and other personal expenses. He also used cash withdrawals from the campaign bank account for his own purposes and — perhaps most brazenly — transferred money from the campaign fund to his personal bank account.
Peterson said he considered the money a loan and repaid it. That, of course, ignores that the borrowing itself was illegal, as he should have known and as almost every candidate or elected official does know.
Moreover, more than half the repayment was made only after Peterson learned his campaign was randomly selected for a state audit — after he realized he was about to get caught. That’s when he ended the scheme and turned himself in to the FPPC.
In December, Peterson admitted his crime, apologized and agreed to pay a $45,000 fine to the state commission. Thus far, he still has his license to practice law and has faced no criminal charges.
Peterson told his staff last month about his re-election plans. He acknowledged that complaints have been levied with the state bar. As for criminal charges, his own prosecutors cannot pursue the case and the state Attorney General’s Office isn’t commenting.
“It’s well and good to apologize,” says prosecutor Kabu Adodoadji. “But it kind of misses the point …, the inherent contradiction of the chief law enforcement officer of this county suffering no consequences for criminal behavior.”
Peterson’s behavior undermines his own prosecutors, who worry that the case raises legitimate issues about a double-standard. Peterson has escaped criminal charges while his deputies pursue convictions of poor people for cases of welfare fraud or theft that involve far less money.
“If someone is convicted of welfare fraud, they don’t get to just pay a fine,” says prosecutor Nichelle Holmes. “Restitution is part of the punishment, but it’s usually tied to a misdemeanor conviction.”
None of this seems to faze Peterson, who ignored requests to answer questions. He instead sent a canned email statement of candidacy, saying he was proud of the work his office has done. “I want to continue this work and plan to run a vigorous re-election campaign,” he said.
Attorneys in his office say he has been frequently absent from the office since his campaign finance abuses were revealed in December. Behind the scenes, he has been working the phones seeking endorsements.
He won’t find much support in his office. As for other politicos, county Supervisor Karen Mitchoff says she told him she won’t make an endorsement now. Supervisor John Gioia said he won’t endorse Peterson now or later.
And Supervisor Candace Andersen, who says she believes in redemption, says she’ll back him. But then she adds, “I think it’s a rough road ahead for him. If it were me, I’d much rather leave on my own terms.”
