Supervisor Lawson-Remer Paid Child Care Bills with Campaign Money

Two years ago, County Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer used $7,545 in campaign funds to cover some of her child care bills. 

That represents 30 percent of the total amount that Lawson-Remer says she spent on child care in 2022. It also marks one of the first tests of a state law that empowered politicians to use campaign cash for child care expenses that would not have come up except for campaign activities.  

Lawson-Remer’s opponents say it crossed the line meant to keep campaign donations from directly benefiting a candidate financially.  

She and her attorneys, however, say campaign funds only covered campaign-related child care expenses as she, a single mother, fought a recall effort and got to know new constituents in a realigned district.  

Campaign finance reports show the supervisor used the equivalent of 14 percent of the cash her re-election committee raised in 2022 to help pay for her then-toddler to attend Aspen Leaf Preschool and Kids By the Sea, which offer programs that start by 7:30 a.m. and end by 6 p.m. Lawson-Remer, who took office in 2021, doesn’t appear to have relied on campaign funds to pay similar bills in the years since.  

A state law empowers politicians across the state to use campaign cash to cover child care costs when they are campaigning – and a legal opinion Lawson-Remer’s team provided after questions from Voice of San Diego maintains she followed that law.  

Experts say regulators have yet to provide clarity or formal advice to candidates about when such spending may cross the line.  

Then-state Assembly Democrats Rob Bonta, Lorena Gonzalez and Buffy Wicks pushed the legislation in 2019 to make it easier for parents – especially mothers – to run for office.  

A key caveat in the law enacted in 2020: Candidates can only use campaign funds to pay “reasonable and necessary” child care bills that wouldn’t have come up if they weren’t engaged in campaign activities.  

The law also states that officeholders can use campaign funds for child care when they are “engaging in a campaign activity with both political and legislative or governmental purposes” – and doesn’t clarify which activities apply. It doesn’t cap how much candidates can spend and allows them to pay for child care options including babysitters, daycare and preschool. 

In Lawson-Remer’s case, local Republican activist Amy Reichert posted on X late last month about campaign finance reports showing the supervisor spent more than $7,500 on child care in 2022.  

Lawson-Remer’s campaign finance reports simply list payments to two preschools as office expenses during two six-month campaign reporting periods. 

An Oct. 1 memo from Santa Monica-based law firm Strumwasser & Woocher that Lawson-Remer sought after inquiries from Voice about Lawson-Remer’s use of campaign funds for past expenses states that the supervisor relied on campaign cash to pay her daughter’s preschool bills when she was performing “campaign-related activities as an officeholder that have both a political and governmental purpose.” 

The unsigned memo notes that 2022 was a “particularly active and busy time” for Lawson-Remer. The firm wrote that she was preparing for the potential recall, meeting new constituents and community groups following a 2021 redistricting process and ramping up fundraising for her 2024 re-election campaign. It also notes that she prepared for and attended Board of Supervisors meetings to pursue “officeholder and political objectives.” 

“We have no difficulty in concluding that the child care expenses you incurred and paid for while engaging in campaign-related activities during certain months in 2022 constituted lawful expenditures of campaign funds under both the general and specific standards set forth in the Political Reform Act,” the firm wrote. “Each of the activities you engaged in during that time period had both political and governmental purposes, and the childcare expenses would not have been incurred if you had not been engaged in those political activities.” 

The memo and Lawson-Remer’s campaign finance reports didn’t clarify whether campaign funds paid for child care while she was attending board meetings, how she tracked child care costs tied to campaigning or which specific events she decided merited child care coverage.  

In response to questions from Voice, Lawson-Remer’s campaign consultant Parke Skelton wrote that she spent more than $25,000 on child care in 2022.  

Skelton said she used the $7,545 in campaign funds to pay for child care while performing “solely campaign activities” and “dual purpose” ones such as media appearances, researching and developing policy platforms on topics that were both campaign and legislative issues and office meetings with board members of local organizations. The list of dual-purpose activities did not include Board of Supervisors meetings. 

Voice asked other attorneys to weigh in. 

Ann Ravel, a Bay Area attorney who once chaired the state Fair Political Practices Commission and the Federal Election Commission, said the $7,545 that Lawson-Remer reported spending seemed excessive but noted the law doesn’t provide standards. 

“It does seem like a lot of money to spend for child care but definitely if it’s related as a candidate to those factors then it’s appropriate,” Ravel said. 

The state agency that enforces state campaign finance laws has yet to clarify via enforcement or formal advice when child care expenses and circumstances fall outside the bounds of the still-relatively new law, said Steve Churchwell, a Sacramento attorney who once served as general counsel at the FPPC. 

“There’s so much gray area in this law right now,” Churchwell said. 

Tracey Wigglesworth, a Sacramento campaign finance attorney who spent five and a half years with the state FPPC’s enforcement division, argued that the current lack of detailed disclosure requirements for child care payments make it easy for outsiders and opponents to assume violations – and thus that more disclosure is needed. 

“I think being able to use campaign funds for child care is such an important step in the right direction (toward gender parity in politics),” Wigglesworth wrote in an email. “And to stave off even the appearance of impropriety — to protect this specific use of campaign funds — additional disclosure is warranted.” 

In a statement, Lawson-Remer said the law was crucial for her as a single parent to a young daughter. 

“I am grateful to our governor and legislators for passing the law that helped make it possible for me and other working parents of young children to run for office, face down a recall, and get to know an entirely new set of nearly 350,000 constituents within my newly re-districted district, all while ensuring my toddler was able to be properly cared for during those long hours,” Lawson-Remer wrote. “Child care costs are crushing for working parents, and as a single parent I empathize with what all parents are experiencing when it comes to child care costs.” 

Lawson-Remer said her own experiences with child care helped fuel her push last year to invest American Rescue Plan funds in addressing local child care needs.