The rapid transition of senior advisors from Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’s inner circle to leadership roles in independent campaign committees has drawn scrutiny from ethics experts, who are questioning whether these outside groups are operating with the independence required by law. At the center of the dispute are two committees that have collectively spent nearly $2 million to support the mayor’s reelection, often utilizing former high-ranking city and campaign officials to direct their efforts.
Solomon Rivera, who until recently served as the mayor’s deputy chief of staff with a $272,000-a-year salary, is now the principal officer of Unidos Con Karen Bass. This committee is an independent expenditure (IE) group, a designation that allows it to raise unlimited funds from donors, provided it does not coordinate its activities with the candidate or her official campaign. However, because Rivera was a high-level aide to Bass so recently, city and state laws create a “rebuttable presumption” that he is coordinating with the mayor’s campaign.
Neama Rahmani, a former director of enforcement for the city’s Ethics Commission, noted that this legal presumption is designed to prevent political insiders from bypassing contribution limits. While individual donations to the mayor’s official campaign are capped at $1,800, Unidos has accepted much larger sums, including a $150,000 contribution from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 721. The union represents thousands of city employees and recently negotiated a contract with the city administration led by Bass.
Rivera’s tenure with the mayor’s office officially ended on August 31, according to city records, though his attorney, Stephen J. Kaufman, stated that Rivera actually stopped working in April and was using unused sick pay for the final four months. Just ten days after his official exit, Rivera was listed on state filings as the head of Unidos. Kaufman has maintained that there has been no improper coordination, stating that Rivera has not spoken with the mayor or her campaign team regarding any communications made by the committee.
Concerns regarding Unidos extend beyond staffing to administrative compliance. The committee reportedly ran Spanish-language radio and video advertisements in May during the primary election cycle. Under city ethics rules, documentation for those ads should have been filed within 24 hours. However, those records were not submitted to the Ethics Commission until October 2, following inquiries into the lack of paperwork.
A second committee, Building LA, has also faced questions about its independence. The group is currently utilizing Kurt Gonska as a consultant. Gonska served as the campaign manager for Bass’s reelection committee during the primary but left that post in June. Building LA, sponsored by the LA/OC Building and Construction Trades Council, has spent approximately $850,000 on billboards and mailers promoting the mayor.
Sergio Perez, who served as the Ethics Commission’s director of enforcement from 2014 to 2018, argued that the move from campaign manager to IE consultant makes true independence difficult to imagine. Perez suggested that it is unlikely a former manager could separate their knowledge of the official campaign’s strategy from their work for an outside group. Gonska, however, rejected this assertion, arguing that the political landscape has shifted significantly since the primary. He noted that the primary involved multiple candidates and different strategic priorities, whereas the current runoff is a direct contest against Councilmember Nithya Raman. Gonska stated he has had no communication with the mayor’s official team since joining Building LA.
Under California law, the burden of proof in these cases lies with the individuals running the committees. If an investigation is launched, Rivera and Gonska would be required to actively rebut the presumption of coordination. Caleb P. Burns, a Washington, D.C.-based election law specialist, explained that while the U.S. Supreme Court protects independent expenditures as free speech, that protection is predicated on the groups remaining entirely separate from the candidates they support.
In the current mayoral race, these independent expenditure committees have played a dominant financial role, raising far more than the candidates themselves are permitted to collect under strict individual donor limits. As the November 3 election approaches, the activities of these groups—and the movement of personnel between City Hall and the campaign trail—continue to test the boundaries of local and state ethics regulations.
