California Politics 360 Full Episode | Attorney General Rob Bonta interview, budget roundtable
On California Politics 360, Attorney General Rob Bonta talks about his political future and we also take a deep dive into the state budget and the expected shortfall.
We’re speaking with Attorney General Rob Bonta for the first time after news broke that he paid nearly $50 million to hire his own lawyers amid *** federal bribery investigation. The questions surrounding the use of that much money. California strapped for cash. The state expected to be short $18 billion next year. *** look at the potential solutions we hear from the financial experts who aid California’s top leaders in making the decisions. Thank you for joining us for this week’s California Politics 360. I’m Ashley Zaballa. Questions surrounded the state’s top law enforcement official this week. I was the first to report on Monday that Attorney General Rob Bonta’s campaign spent nearly half *** million dollars this year on private attorneys. Has it. told me it was to help federal authorities in their bribery investigation that resulted in the indictment of Oakland’s ex-mayor Shang Tao. It also ensnared members of the Duang family who have politically donated to Banta. I sat down with the Attorney General for an explanation. Joining us now is California Attorney General Robonta. Mr. Bonta, welcome back to California Politics 360. Yeah, so Mr. Attorney General, the $468,000 total that you paid to Wilson Centini law firm, what exactly was that for in your words? Sure. And first, let me just say I’d rather be talking about all of the important work we’re doing fighting Trump and all of his lawlessness and protecting Californians, but I am very happy to be here with you to talk to you about this and to be open and transparent about it. The legal fees were for representation. That was for me my capacity as *** candidate who has campaigns and, and receives campaign funding and uh receives campaign donations uh when there was *** federal government inquiry um about um as part of an investigation into others and it seemed they thought I might have information that was potentially relevant to their investigation and so I wanted to Make sure I responded to all of their questions and gave them all the information that they needed to assist as quickly as possible to be as helpful as possible uh in their efforts, maybe some of the things that I could provide would be an important puzzle piece in their investigation of others. So I hired attorneys to assist with gathering of the documents, uh, and production of all the documents that the federal government requested and um and they were also there, um. As my attorneys when I went in and spoke to members of the federal government and answered all the questions that they had. So again it was in an effort to help and assist with their investigation of others, and hopefully I gave them *** puzzle piece or two that assisted them. So just to be clear, were you *** witness? Were you *** victim? Were you *** possible subject, *** target? What exactly were you in this case, if you can say? I was 1000% not *** target. I was *** potential victim in their eyes. They, they thought I may be *** victim. Um, and I certainly in, in, in the late uh understanding, *** witness who provided information that may be helpful to their investigation of other people. So, um, I was someone that they thought might have information that could assist with their investigation of other people. I was 1000% not *** target. OK, you told the LA Times that you were *** victim at one point. Was that also the case? Yeah, they thought I was potentially *** victim. That was one of the first reasons that the federal government reached out to me, *** victim of potential extortion or blackmail. And so with that you mentioned that you answered questions, you provided documents, but I mean you spent nearly half *** million dollars of those campaign funds, campaign finance records show that is *** historic amount of money to spend. I mean, all that really cost that much. Yes. uh, uh, the attorneys that I have are working around the clock, uh, to be responsive, to be efficient, to be comprehensive, to be, um, Uh, completely forthcoming in all of our information that we are providing in an effort to assist and help, uh, the federal government. I, I, I will say I may have had an audible gasp when I saw the final, uh, legal bill, um, but these are attorneys that charge at not insignificant rates and they were working. Many hours to make sure that we were providing all the information, all the documents, um, everything that the federal government sought in our effort to be helpful and to assist them. How much did they charge? And, and I mean, when did I guess maybe what could be helpful in understanding this amount of money is when did they start this work for you? Um, this is, it all happened pretty quickly in sort of the, the, the late summer and early fall of 2024, so it was all compressed and the the chart, the the billable rates, you can just look at any um private law firm’s website and see that there’s rates at $1000 an hour, $2000 an hour, $3000 an hour. Is that how much you were paying though? These are very high rates. Mr. Attorney General, is that how much you were paying $1000 2000 dollars, $3000? There were ranges because there were different attorneys and it’s based on experience and um you know, your role in the firm and every attorney charges at *** different rate, but they were in the thousands of dollars range, yes. And did you have *** lot of documents to provide, again, I’m just, I’m just trying to make sense of this number here. Well, uh, in, in, you know, today’s age, uh, and day and age of, of technology and information, multiple devices, multiple, um, you know, computers and, and, and laptops, um, there is *** lot of places where information is stored and you know, every one of us has *** very significant Um, data, um, uh, um, footprint. And so we wanted to make sure we looked through everything, uh, that we extracted data from every device in every place in every space, so that if we had *** piece of the puzzle that could assist the federal government in their investigation of other people. Then they would have it. And we didn’t know, you know, what, what their investigation entailed in in all of its nuances. They, they knew our job was just to provide as much information as we could to uh to them so that they could, um, if anything was helpful. They could use it in in their investigation, but the large amount of data, uh, the, the, the challenges of um extracting data, getting it in *** way that can be presented, reviewing it to make sure, um, you know, no one’s um Uh, private, uh, information is, is improperly disclosed and making sure that everything is, is, is transparent and forthcoming and handed over. At the time, that took hours and we wanted to do it quickly in our effort to assist and help the federal government. The rest of my conversation with Attorney General Rob Bonta is next. Attorney General Rob Banta is addressing the nearly half *** million dollars his campaign spent on private attorneys. His adviser told me it was to help federal authorities in their bribery investigation that resulted in the indictment of Oakland’s ex-mayor Shang Tao. Members of the *** family who have politically donated to Banta were also charged. Here’s the remainder of my conversation with him. You did mention that you could have been possibly *** victim of extortion, and I do want to get your reaction to earlier this week, East Bay Insiders newsletter reported that one of the informants in that Oakland federal bribery investigation sent you *** letter saying the dongs had surveillance video of you in *** compromising situation. Is that true? That is not true. There is no video and that is false. In the letter, you were also asked to investigate the dogs in your capacity as the state’s top law enforcement official. Why didn’t you, or did you, and what was your reaction to seeing that? Well, the letter read like. *** person in *** mental health crisis. And, and as it turns out, it was *** desperate person in *** desperate moment doing desperate things. you can see it for yourself if, if you read the letter. And so it, it was hard to. To give the letter much credibility, but what I will never gamble with is somebody saying that they are at risk of harm or that their life is at risk. I could not take *** chance with that. And there were other, uh, what, what if true would be potential crimes that were set forth in that letter that the individual who wrote the letter was accusing others of doing. So it was important for me to get that letter over to our local law enforcement partners immediately who were best located to respond to any imminent threat, any imminent harm to protect life, to protect health, and get involved. So we work with our law enforcement partners immediately to help address any potential threat of someone being hurt. So moving forward from this situation, I mean, will your campaign be making any more payments to private attorneys related to this matter? No, and, and this all happened 14 months ago. Uh, that, uh, uh, my involvement is over, has been over. It’s been over for 14 months. I provided all the information that was requested of me. I, I, I, uh, Helped and assisted in any way possible. We we spent *** lot of time reviewing documents and getting them everything that was asked for and my involvement’s over. So since my involvement’s over, there’s no reason to pay any attorneys. And just given that the payments this year were made 2 days before you announced you would not run for California governor, you would seek re-election as attorney general. This was all in February, just confirming this played no role in that decision. No. OK. Are, are you still planning to stay out of the governor’s race? Well, let me first say, uh, this. I had endorsed Kamala Harris to run for governor when she was considering it, and she never entered the race, um, and then I endorsed Alex Padilla before, um, uh, he made *** final decision, and he never entered the race. So I can guarantee you that if there’s any good. Territorial candidate that has my endorsement and is not yet in the race, they’re not getting in the race. Um, I will say this, um, I’ve been very, um, flattered, honored, uh, grateful for the incredible outpouring of encouragement I’ve received to uh reconsider running for governor. Um, and that has meant *** lot to me to hear from those folks. So just to be clear, are you considering running for governor with that? I have nothing to announce today about um um about this issue. All right. All right. Mr. Attorney General Rob Banta, thank you so much for your time. Thanks for having me. Good to see you, Ashley. Appreciate it. If you missed any of my conversation with Attorney General Rob Bonta, you can watch it right now on Calpolitics 360.com. Next, the state is facing financial problems. I spoke with the top two state experts when it comes to the use of taxpayer dollars earlier this week. They break down the challenge ahead for the governor and state lawmakers. The state is likely facing *** major financial shortfall for the 4th straight year. California lawmakers and the governor will need to prepare for an $18 billion budget deficit next year, according to the state’s legislative analyst. For Governor Newsom and the state legislature, one of their biggest responsibilities is to figure out how to spend your taxpayer dollars. Earlier this week, I spoke with the top two leaders advising the governor and legislature on that very subject. Here’s part of our conversation. Joining us now is California legislative analyst Gabe Pettig, who whose office advises the state legislature, as well as HD Palmer, the deputy director of external affairs for the California Department of Finance, Governor Newsom’s Department of Finance. Thank you both so much for being here. Thanks for having us. Yeah, Gabe, I, I want to start with you. This week, uh, your office released its budget outlook which is sitting here on the desk. Uh, you’re projecting an $18 billion budget shortfall for the upcoming year, and you also raised. Some red flags about the state’s structural budget, but for the everyday Californian who is relying on their state lawmakers to figure this out, essentially, what is your message to them? Well, the message to the everyday Californians is that currently tax collections are coming in quite strongly, and that’s reflected in our outlook in the sense that over the budget period that we’re looking at, revenues would be up $11 billion relative to what was assumed before. However, on Expenditure side, the costs are running at *** higher rate than the growth in expenditures, and so in our estimates they’re about $16 billion higher. And so $16 billion higher in revenues, but only 11 billion higher excuse me, $16 billion in higher expenditures and only $11 billion higher in revenues is $5 billion in additional expenditures and when you add it to the deficit we were looking at back in June of $13 billion you get to $18 billion. And then I think maybe the bigger issue is that we have some concern about the sustainability of the recent tax collections. They seem to be fueled very much by what’s going on in the stock market, all the enthusiasm around AI, and we are concerned that that’s not likely to be sustainable. And so our revenue forecast is lower than it would be if we were just assuming those trends continued. The way they have been throughout the year. So the state is essentially at this moment spending more money than it is bringing in potentially in the scenario that you’ve laid out. That’s that’s the trajectory that they’re on at this point. OK, does the Department of Finance agree with this assessment so far? We would agree in *** couple of different areas. One, that the pressures that Gabe and his team have outlined are ones that we’ve underscored and the governor has underscored throughout the year, things like Record levels of uncertainty from the federal government in terms of policy. Extreme volatility in the stock market, *** perennial issue for us, and growing costs and caseloads for *** number of our key state programs such as Medi, the state’s version of Medicaid that provides healthcare to about 15 million Californians, 1 out of every 3. So those pressures we think are going to continue. We will likely have some slightly different numbers in the governor’s budget when that comes out in January, but we too have projected that we have long term shortfalls that we do need to address, and the governor will have his proposal for how to deal with these challenges come the first week of January. And I just want to stay with you because I mean, Mr. Paddock, the LAO’s outlook. Basically says this is *** critical moment we’ve reached *** critical point where lawmakers and the governor will essentially may have to either cut spending or potentially find other ways to raise revenue, raise taxes essentially. We spoke earlier this week you noted that you know the governor may go in this direction of trying to control spending. He has been clear in years past that he does not want to raise taxes, but I mean, are there any specific programs that the Department of Finance might recommend to him? There are *** range of options that we will have for him. Um, I’m not going to get ahead of what kinds of decisions the governor is going to make after Thanksgiving that would fall under the category of what one of my former bosses called *** career move, and that wasn’t meant for positive professional development. So I’m not going to get ahead of what he’s going to decide other than we will present *** range of options for him to consider and then given where we think. The budget outlook is going to be, again, it will be slightly different, we believe, as it always is from where the LAO’s estimates are for *** number of reasons. He’ll make his decisions, but I’m not going to get ahead of what he may or may not do just because we’re still in the process of finalizing and fine tuning our forecasts and our estimates. Gabe, I know the LAO stopped short of making specific recommendations to the legislature, but can you provide maybe any broad programs, broad areas that the LAO may recommend in the months to come? Yeah, well, what I think I could offer are some thoughts on the approach that we think the legislature should take, and it reflects the fact that in recent years that this will be the 4th year in *** row where the states faced *** deficit. And in the past 3 years, *** lot of the solutions to the deficit have involved some. What we call one-time solutions, shifting funds around, borrowing money internally from other funds of state government and that sort of thing, drawing down on the state’s budget reserves, and at this point those options have become attenuated. The range of them is narrower and so. You know, when we look at that, coupled with the fact that in the future years, in the subsequent years after this budget year, we see *** pretty sizable structural deficit facing the state, we really would encourage the legislature to consider more of an ongoing approach, making ongoing reductions to programs. Or ongoing increases to revenues. Some combination of that to bridge the gap between revenues and expenditures is what we think is called for. All right, well, we’ll keep an eye on it. We know you both will. This is the first time we’ve brought you two together on air to talk about this, so we really appreciate you. Thank you. Thank you very much. My full conversation with HD Palmer and Gabe Pettig is on Calpolitics 360.com right now. Next we take *** look at the impact food banks have made through the decades. In this week’s archive, we take *** look back at the decades-long impact food banks have made on communities across the state through the holidays. This video is from Thanksgiving of 1990. Families were picking up *** box full of Thanksgiving staples from the Salvation Army. That means that my family’s bread in some food on the table. There’s, it’s *** blessing. Boat brand it means *** happy Thanksgiving. We want to thank the men and women who serve at food banks to ensure families across the state have the food they need for their holiday meal and year round. Thank you for joining us for this week’s California Politics 360. We’ll see you next Sunday.
California Politics 360 Full Episode | Attorney General Rob Bonta interview, budget roundtable
On California Politics 360, Attorney General Rob Bonta talks about his political future and we also take a deep dive into the state budget and the expected shortfall.
Updated: 8:25 AM PST Nov 23, 2025
California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta addresses allegations on why he spent nearly $500,000 of campaign funds on a private law firm in an exclusive TV interview with California Politics 360. Political Director Ashley Zavala first reported the expense on Monday. The attorney general says the fees were for legal counsel as authorities asked him for information during a federal bribery investigation. On California Politics 360, we also take a deep dive into the state budget and the expected shortfall. Ashley Zavala is joined by the top two state experts, Legislative Analyst Gabe Petek and Finance Department External Affairs Deputy Director H.D. Palmer. They break down the challenge ahead for Gov. Newsom and the Legislature.KCRA 3 Political Director Ashley Zavala reports in-depth coverage of top California politics and policy issues. She is also the host of “California Politics 360.” Get informed each Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on KCRA 3.
California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta addresses allegations on why he spent nearly $500,000 of campaign funds on a private law firm in an exclusive TV interview with California Politics 360.
Political Director Ashley Zavala first reported the expense on Monday. The attorney general says the fees were for legal counsel as authorities asked him for information during a federal bribery investigation.
On California Politics 360, we also take a deep dive into the state budget and the expected shortfall. Ashley Zavala is joined by the top two state experts, Legislative Analyst Gabe Petek and Finance Department External Affairs Deputy Director H.D. Palmer. They break down the challenge ahead for Gov. Newsom and the Legislature.
KCRA 3 Political Director Ashley Zavala reports in-depth coverage of top California politics and policy issues. She is also the host of “California Politics 360.” Get informed each Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on KCRA 3.