Oakland’s biggest business lobbying group is facing a big fine due to its activities during the 2018 election.
The Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce funneled money from over a dozen big companies and wealthy individuals into an independent expenditure committee called “Oaklanders for Responsible Leadership,” which was used to campaign against then-Councilmember Desley Brooks during the 2018 election, according to investigators with the Public Ethics Commission.
Investigators allege that the Chamber, through its “OakPAC” political action committee, never disclosed it was acting as an intermediary for campaign money, which is required by law. As a result, 16 contributors who put up nearly $90,000 to run attack ads against Brooks were able to keep their names secret until months after the election, when the Chamber filed more paperwork with regulators.
The ethics commission has investigated the case since 2022. The commission’s enforcement unit is now recommending a settlement that will require the Chamber’s political committee, the Chamber’s CEO, Barbara Leslie, and the group’s board chair emeritus, Zack Wasserman, to pay a penalty of $42,000. The respondents have agreed to settle the case on a “no contest” basis, meaning they aren’t admitting to the allegations, but they will accept the penalty.
The commission will meet next week to decide whether to approve it.
Part of a cluster of ethics violations
This Chamber case was part of a larger investigation of former Mayor Libby Schaaf, who was accused of secretly controlling three different political committees over two election cycles, which were used to attack political rivals and support a ballot measure.
The commission resolved the bulk of its investigation in October 2024 after Schaaf agreed to pay $21,000. The commission assigned $325,000 in penalties to two political committees: Committee for an Affordable East Bay and Oaklanders for Responsible Leadership. At the time, the ethics commission’s enforcement chief, Simon Russell, acknowledged that neither committee was active or had money, which would make it difficult for the city to enforce payment.
In its proposed settlement for the Chamber case, Oakland’s ethics investigators noted that using OakPAC as a pass-through for contributions constituted “serious violations” of Oakland’s Campaign Reform Act.
“While the individual respondents have stated that they did not believe that the actions they took violated the law, the people involved in this arrangement were all sophisticated individuals who should have been familiar with campaign finance law,” investigators wrote. “[They] engaged in activity which deprived voters of donor information required by law.”
Investigators wrote that the existence of an internal accounting and tracking document of contributions planned for the anti-Brooks committee “suggests an intentional pattern of conduct to conceal the names of individuals whose contributions ended up going to [the committee], regardless of whether there was knowledge that these activities were illegal.”
Leslie declined an interview request.
Wasserman, a lawyer who was chair of the Chamber’s board in 2018, told The Oaklandside, “Eight years ago, we inadvertently misunderstood the requirements of a newly amended state law and have since strengthened our compliance practices.”
Wasserman and Leslie told investigators that they were unaware of a state law that went into effect in 2018 that expanded California’s rules around earmarked contributions, and that they were unaware the contributions would be treated as intermediary payments. They told investigators if they had known about these requirements, they would not have solicited the contributions in this manner.
“We appreciate the Commission’s work to resolve this matter and remain committed to the highest standards of transparency, accountability, and compliance in serving Oakland’s business community,” Wasserman said in a statement.
Brooks, who lost her reelection campaign in 2018, did not respond to an interview request.
Oakland’s Chamber promised to hide the identities of campaign funders
According to ethics investigators, the Chamber’s plan to raise money and shield the identities of contributors began in 2018 when then-Mayor Schaaf contacted Ace Smith, a political consultant whom she used for her 2014 mayoral campaign. Schaaf wanted advice on setting up a possible independent expenditure committee targeting Brooks.
The mayor and District 6 councilmember had frequently clashed over city legislation and policy.
A veteran councilmember since 2002, Brooks had championed the city’s cannabis equity program that carved out space and resources for entrepreneurs from communities that were harmed by overpolicing and previous drug policies. She was also accused of assaulting ex-Black Panther leader Elaine Brown in 2017, and a jury awarded Brown $3.75 million in damages over the incident, although that amount was later reduced. Some members of the city council tried to censure Brooks for allegedly intervening with construction projects at two recreation centers in her district. In early 2018, Schaaf accused Brooks of engaging in “unethical” behavior and creating a “toxic environment” in the council chamber.
Doug Linney, a campaign consultant, proposed using an independent expenditures committee to amplify allegations that Brooks was corrupt and a bully. According to ethics investigators, Schaaf discussed the plan with Linney and Smith, and suggested raising the budget for the committee to over $200,000 because she thought she could secure a lot of money.
Schaaf later met with Leslie and Wasserman, from the Chamber of Commerce, to go over the campaign plan. At subsequent meetings, they discussed things like fundraising, polling, messaging, endorsements, and recruiting “public-facing members” to represent the committee and appear on campaign forms.
Linney allegedly advised the group that Schaaf, an elected official, could assist the committee as long as she did not hold “decision-making” authority. Investigators said that was a bad interpretation of the law, which actually says that officials cannot have “significant participation” in a campaign, which is legally different.
After some discussion, the group selected Jose Dorado, then a member of the Police Commission, to be the principal officer of the committee. Dorado later told investigators that his role was largely “ministerial.”
Under state and local law, political committees set up to attack or defend a candidate running for office have to periodically report who has given them money before the election.
Some of the people who raised money for the anti-Brooks committee told contributors that one option was to give money to OakPAC, according to ethics investigators. Because OakPAC wasn’t primarily formed to support or oppose a candidate, it didn’t need to report large contributions on a daily basis in the weeks leading up to the 2018 election.
“Donors who wished to keep their names out of the public record until after the election were given the option of holding off on donating until after October 20, and then giving their money to OakPAC,” investigators wrote in the proposed settlement. “OakPAC then contributed that money to [the anti-Brooks committee] under its own name.”
Another election rule that requires campaigns to print the names of major donors on ads it mails or airs was circumvented in a similar fashion.
Sixteen donors gave money to OakPAC with the intention of funding the anti-Brooks independent expenditure. The biggest donors, who each gave $10,000, all work in real estate: Lane Partners, Best Bay Apartments, TMG Partners, and Wilson Meany LP. Several other contributors who gave $5,000 included Comcast, a cannabis company called CCSAC, the billboard firm Foster Interstate, and Argent Materials.
In total, the number of pass-through contributions was $89,800, which was nearly half of the money raised by the anti-Brooks committee between 2019 and 2019.
Oakland’s chief investigator received a warning letter from the state over this case
James Sutton, an attorney who represented the respondents, filed a complaint with the State Bar of California in 2025 that accused Simon Russell, the PEC’s chief investigator, of violating rules of professional conduct in connection with a partial transcript of a privileged conversation that was included in the commission’s proposed settlement.
In September 2026, the State Bar notified Sutton about some of its findings. According to a letter obtained by The Oaklandside, the State Bar found that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove that Russell violated rules around honesty.
The State Bar did find evidence that Russell violated rules of professional conduct by “reviewing and utilizing privileged information” that was communicated between Sutton and a client. “Our investigation determined that Mr. Russell should have known from the transcript of your conversation that you and your client intended to have an attorney-client privileged conversation.”
Noting that Russell had practiced as an attorney for 14 years without any disciplinary action, the State Bar stated that it would let him off with a warning letter, which did not constitute an act of professional discipline.
Russell referred us to Steven Simas, an attorney who represents him in this matter. Simas told The Oaklandside in an email that Russell didn’t face any discipline, and the case is closed.
“*” indicates required fields