Four Years After Measure V, the FPPC Finally Delivered Its Decision
John Young
Nearly four years ago, during Nevada County’s 2022 Measure V campaign, I filed sworn complaints with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission.
On Thursday, August 20, 2026, one of those cases finally reached its conclusion.
The FPPC approved a stipulated settlement imposing a $31,500 penalty against Nevada County for seven violations of California’s Political Reform Act arising from the County’s taxpayer-funded activities surrounding Measure V.
But something else happened at Thursday’s hearing that may prove equally consequential.
As commissioners considered the Nevada County case, they openly questioned whether California’s existing penalties are enough to deter government agencies from campaigning with taxpayer money. Commissioner Brandt warned that fines could become simply a “cost of business” when a government agency potentially stands to gain millions of dollars if the tax measure it promotes succeeds. Another commissioner made the calculation even more explicit: if an agency risks a $25,000 penalty but potentially receives $20 million, why wouldn’t it take the risk?
That discussion went directly to the principle that led me to file these complaints in the first place:
Government should not use taxpayers’ own money to campaign for their votes.
What Happened During Measure V
Measure V appeared on the November 8, 2022 ballot as the “Wildfire Prevention, Emergency Services and Disaster Readiness Measure.” It proposed increasing Nevada County’s sales tax by one-half percent for ten years.
Voters rejected it. Measure V received 24,144 “yes” votes, or 48.41 percent.
Before voters rendered that verdict, however, Nevada County distributed two taxpayer-funded mailers concerning the measure.
The first went to 33,351 residents at a cost of $17,708. The second went to 33,101 residents at a cost of $16,906.
Altogether, the County distributed 66,402 pieces of mail and spent $34,614 in public funds campaigning for Measure V.
The County presented the communications as informational.
The FPPC ultimately concluded otherwise.
Investigators found that the first mailer crossed the line from neutral information into advocacy through its language, presentation and timing. It told residents that “Measure V is responsive to community priorities” and associated the measure with preventing wildfires, improving evacuation routes, enhancing emergency communications, enforcing fire-safety laws and helping seniors and people with disabilities.
At the same time, according to the FPPC, the proposed half-percent sales-tax increase was buried in the smallest font within the largest block of text.
The Commission concluded that emphasizing the benefits while obscuring the tax increase transformed the communication from objective information into advocacy that was “unfair and fundamentally promotional.”
Even the County’s disclaimer stating that it did not advocate a yes or no vote could not cure the problem. The FPPC found that the mailer, considered as a whole, unambiguously urged a particular result in the election.
The second mailing presented similar problems.
It prominently warned that 92 percent of Nevada County residents lived in high or very high fire-hazard severity zones, then presented Measure V as responding to community priorities by improving evacuation routes and allowing residents to “get out safely” while first responders could get in quickly.
Again, investigators found that the County emphasized favorable arguments while minimizing the tax increase, costs, tradeoffs and counterarguments.
The FPPC concluded that the communication was persuasive and value-laden rather than neutral information.
Seven Violations — and a $31,500 Penalty
Once Nevada County spent more than $1,000 advocating for Measure V, it incurred campaign-finance reporting obligations under the Political Reform Act.
The County did not timely fulfill them.
The FPPC enforcement action ultimately contained seven counts: two prohibited campaign-related mass mailings at public expense; two failures to include required advertising disclosures; one failure to timely file a semiannual campaign statement reporting $34,614 in independent expenditures; and two failures to timely file 24-hour Independent Expenditure Reports covering the $17,708 and $16,906 expenditures.
Those disclosure violations were not merely paperwork errors.
The FPPC specifically found that the County’s failure to timely file the required reports left the public with limited knowledge of the County’s campaign activity surrounding Measure V, including how much public money had been spent.
Each violation carried a maximum administrative penalty of $5,000. The maximum possible penalty was therefore $35,000.
The settlement approved Thursday imposed $31,500 — 90 percent of the maximum.
That percentage was not accidental.
The FPPC noted that commissioners had previously directed the Enforcement Division to pursue penalties at or above 90 percent of the maximum when governmental agencies campaign at public expense. The Commission’s stipulation described the use of public funds for a prohibited purpose as carrying a “high degree of public harm.”
The Commission cited the California Supreme Court’s landmark Stanson v. Mott decision, which recognized the serious threat to electoral integrity created when government uses the public treasury to influence questions that are supposed to be decided through the free election of the people.
That is what makes this case significant.
It was never simply about the wording of a disclaimer or whether a government employee filed the correct form by the correct deadline.
It was about the fundamental line separating government information from government campaigning.
The FPPC determined that Nevada County crossed it.
Who Pays When Government Breaks the Rules?
Thursday’s discussion then moved beyond Nevada County.
Commissioners confronted an uncomfortable problem with the current enforcement system: when government is penalized for improperly spending taxpayer money, the taxpayers themselves may ultimately bear the cost of the penalty.
In practical terms, taxpayers can end up paying twice — first for the prohibited campaign activity and then for the government’s penalty.
One commissioner observed that elected officials, government lawyers and other decision-makers might “think twice” if they could be held personally liable for approving unlawful taxpayer-funded campaign communications. Current law generally does not automatically impose that personal responsibility in these circumstances.
Commissioners and staff discussed potential legislative remedies, including disgorgement and expanded personal liability.
FPPC staff also acknowledged a significant limitation in existing law: the Commission can prosecute the campaign-finance reporting and transparency violations associated with taxpayer-funded campaigning, but it does not itself have jurisdiction over the underlying unauthorized expenditure of public money.
Staff agreed to explore possible legislative changes, potentially through the FPPC’s Law and Policy Committee.
If Thursday’s Nevada County case contributes to stronger statewide safeguards against taxpayer-funded campaigning, its significance could extend well beyond Measure V.
One Case Closed. One Remains Open.
Thursday’s action resolved one of two related Measure V enforcement matters arising from my original complaints.
FPPC Case No. 2023-00162, involving Nevada County, has now been adjudicated.
But FPPC Case No. 2023-00161 remains open and pending.
The Commission’s public case information identifies Cheryl Dell, Douglas Moon, Shirley Moon, Terry McAteer and Yes on V as respondents in that companion matter.
It is important to state clearly what that means — and what it does not mean.
The FPPC has adjudicated Nevada County’s conduct.
It has not determined that McAteer or any other respondent in the companion case violated the Political Reform Act.
They are entitled to due process and a determination based on the evidence.
But the timing of that determination has become particularly important because McAteer is currently running for Nevada Irrigation District Division 1 in the November 3 election.
McAteer previously served as Nevada County Superintendent of Schools and currently serves on the Nevada County Planning Commission. In announcing his NID campaign, he emphasized transparency and accountability, stating that NID needs to be a “transparent utility.”
I agree with that principle.
It is precisely why I traveled to Sacramento on Thursday.
My Request to the Commission
Following the commissioners’ discussion, I addressed the FPPC during public comment.
I identified myself as the sworn complainant in both Measure V matters, thanked the Commission and Enforcement Division for their work resolving the Nevada County case, and asked them to expedite the remaining investigation.
I was explicit about what I was — and was not — requesting.
I did not ask the Commission to presume McAteer or any other respondent violated the law.
I did not ask commissioners to prejudge the investigation.
And I did not ask for a predetermined outcome.
I asked for something much simpler:
“Resolve this case while its resolution can still meaningfully inform the electorate.”
If the investigation establishes violations, voters should have that information before Election Day.
If the evidence does not support enforcement, McAteer and the other respondents should receive the benefit of that determination before Election Day as well.
Either result serves fairness, transparency and due process.
The Commission thanked me for bringing the matter to its attention.
I also submitted a formal written request to the Enforcement Division asking it to take all appropriate steps within its authority to expedite Case No. 2023-00161 and, if reasonably possible, reach a determination sufficiently in advance of November 3.
Four Years Later
There is satisfaction in seeing a sworn complaint filed nearly four years ago finally result in a formal determination.
But the importance of Thursday’s decision extends beyond whether Measure V supporters or opponents were right in 2022.
Elections depend upon rules that must apply regardless of political party, candidate or cause.
Government possesses enormous institutional advantages: taxpayer resources, professional staff, communications infrastructure and the credibility that accompanies an official government seal.
That makes the boundary between informing citizens and campaigning to citizens extraordinarily important.
Nevada County crossed that boundary.
That is no longer merely an accusation made by opponents of Measure V.
It is the conclusion of California’s Fair Political Practices Commission.
The County spent $34,614 in public funds. It distributed 66,402 pieces of campaign-related mail. It failed to provide required advertising disclosures and failed to timely report campaign expenditures.
The result was seven violations of California’s Political Reform Act and a $31,500 penalty.
And Thursday’s discussion demonstrated that the commissioners themselves recognize a larger question: whether California needs stronger consequences so that campaigning with taxpayer money can never become merely a “cost of business.”
That conversation should continue.
So should the Enforcement Division’s work on the remaining Measure V case.
No candidate should be presumed guilty because an investigation remains pending. Nor should voters be unnecessarily deprived of an enforcement determination until after they have cast their ballots.
The FPPC’s job is to determine the facts and apply the law.
The voters can decide what those facts mean.
After nearly four years, Thursday finally brought accountability in one Measure V case.
Now the remaining case deserves a timely conclusion.
The voters deserve the facts before they vote.
Editor’s note: The FPPC’s August 20 agenda lists Item 4 as FPPC No. 21/292, while the Commission’s linked Stipulation, Decision, and Order identifies the Nevada County Measure V matter as FPPC No. 2023-00162.