Update: Since posting this article on our website, Santa Clara City Clerk Hosam Haggag has responded via a series of comments below. The Weekly has published a new article examining Haggag’s claims below that he reached out to the three people who filed the dark money complaint against Stand Up for Santa Clara. This new article includes comments in regard to Haggag’s claims.
Back in 2020, City Clerk Hosam Haggag asked residents with “information on political unreported activity in Santa Clara” to please call or email his office. But when three of them complained about unreported spending by Stand Up for Santa Clara — a Haggag supporter — the clerk had nothing to say and, apparently, he’s taking no action.
In September, Council Members Anthony Becker, Raj Chahal and Suds Jain filed complaints with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), the IRS and Santa Clara city hall about Stand Up for Santa Clara. The complaints detail $8,000 in unreported spending for online political ads and mailers in the 2022 election and into 2023. In addition to cash, the group also received in-kind donations of web services, printing, postage permits and mailing, as well as donuts for quiz prizes.
The group has claimed to be an IRS 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit, but the IRS shows no records or tax returns. Nor has the group produced an IRS Determination Letter, which is required to claim 501(c)(3) status. (Community benefit organizations are, in any case, strictly prohibited from engaging in political activity and are subject to penalties for doing so.)
The Weekly asked City Clerk Haggag about what action he intended to take on these complaints, twice. His first response was that he would be following up with the city attorney.
“I personally just saw the complaint filed by Council Members Becker, Jain and Park the first time last night in my City email (as I don’t always check my City email daily,” he said. “I have not yet had an opportunity to confer with our City Attorney as Mr. Googins is OOO [Out Of Office], but I’ll be following up with his staff in his absence regarding the merits of the complaint and the City’s response to it.”
After three weeks with no response, The Weekly emailed Haggag again. This time receiving no response.
Against Dark Money Except When He’s For It
Dark money is money spent on political campaigns by organizations that don’t have to report their donors, thereby hiding the source of their money. Often these groups are private LLCs, which are not required to report their income or spending publicly.
Santa Clara’s dark money ordinance (Article X of the city charter) imposes disclosure requirements on “organizations that have historically refused to disclose contributions (‘dark money’).”
These groups are organizations covered by IRS regulations 501(c)(1) through 501 (c)(10), and include trade, religious, educational groups and organizations “operating for purposes other than making contributions or expenditures.” These groups don’t have to report their donors to the IRS if they receive less than $50,000 in donations.
Haggag’s attempts to end dark money in Santa Clara politics began in 2016, when a 501(c)(4) educational nonprofit, BLUPAC, launched a smear campaign against several city council candidates. Former City Clerk Rod Diridon lodged an FPPC complaint against BLUPAC for failing to report expenditures within 24 hours; resulting in a $3,500 fine.
When he became city clerk, Haggag stepped up his efforts — now with city letterhead and digital media.
In February 2020, Haggag accused the 49ers of violating the dark money ordinance and published an 800-word statement on the City’s website, saying:
“As the City’s election official, I recently discovered that San Francisco 49ers’ CEO Jed York and affiliated entities…potentially expended campaign funds, including a sponsored poll in December 2019 designed to influence and affect voters’ decisions to vote against Measure C, but did not report the formation of any political committee to the City until months later. The campaign filing only happened after I, in my official capacity as the elections official, sent these parties a warning letter on Friday, Jan. 31, 2020.”
Haggag also laid out the consequences for the alleged malefactors, which included “prosecution…civil action…recovery of treble damages…cost of litigation…disqualification of an elected official who benefited from the contribution from voting on a matter in which the contributor has a financial interest; and material breach of any contract the violating party may have with the City of Santa Clara or the Santa Clara Stadium Authority and be grounds for termination of said contract.”
He hosted a townhall on dark money in 2020, where he said, “Dark money is when the individuals or organizations that are contributing funds toward influencing a political outcome, do not disclose the origin of those funds.”
“If you want to participate in our local elections…our local campaigns,” he continued, “you have to disclose who you are.”
He also noted that reporting requirements apply to in-kind donations as well.
The current complaints aren’t the first time Haggag has turned a blind eye to dark money when it’s spent by political allies.
In spring of 2018, shortly before the City’s dark money ordinance passed and Haggag was elected as Santa Clara city clerk, he was a leading advocate for a campaign fueled by dark money. Yes on A* received $45,000 from a Texas dark money group, Action Now Initiative LLC, and another $45,000 from ranked choice advocacy group FairVote, which was both funder and advisor to the campaign.
Action Now’s managers are billionaires Laura and John Arnold, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation are among the leading donors to FairVote. (Opponents of the measure raised $7,800.)
*Measure A was a losing 2018 ballot measure that would have created two at-large council districts in the City, with council members elected using a system called “ranked choice single transferrable vote.”
Here is the work of the organizations that Carolyn tries to label as “dark money.” Whether or not they correctly documented their contributions in Santa Clara elections they are just organizations that are interested in promoting ranked choice voting as a form of reforming elections to promote democratic principles.
.
https://actionnowinitiative.org/issues/
.
https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/
.
https://www.arnoldventures.org/work
.
If Stand of for Santa Clara did anything improper in terms of their documentation and reporting then they should bear whatever consequences go their way due to that. Everyone should be compliant with campaign financing laws.
.
And everyone should know that the amount of spending that is at question here is $8,000.
.
Meanwhile the Forty Niners spent millions of dollars to promote the same city councilpeople who have always been voting their way. The same five city councilpeople who had private meetings with the Forty Niners and split up their group of five into two and three to avoid Brown Act obligations to have the meetings on the public record.
.
And of course this article is written by Carolyn Schuk who Anthony Becker leaked the grand jury report to along with the Forty Niners. And Carolyn Schuk had private communications with Forty Niners executives to coordinate the Silicon Valley Voice with the Forty Niners to help the Forty Niners public relations attack against the grand jury report.
.
I do not believe we have ever gotten an explanation from Carolyn on why she was coordinating with a corporate special interest to attack a civil grand jury report and how that is supposed to be consistent with principles of journalistic integrity.
.
But she sure does want us to know that a dinky grassroots community nonprofit may not have documented $8000 in Facebook ads and postal service mailers correctly.
Buchser Alum–
You seem to assume Stand Up for Santa Clara for Santa Clara is a non-profit. While they claim that status on their website–they actually claim to be a 501(c)3 registered non-profit–there is NO record of this on the IRS’s database. Look for yourself.
MOREOVER, 501(c)3 registered non-profits CANNOT engage in political activity of any kind, which Stand Up for Santa Clara CLEARLY does.
IN ADDITION, Stand Up for Santa Clara for Santa Clara has NEVER filed the required FPPC paperwork for organizations that engage in political activity. They’ve been doing this for almost EIGHT years.
You might not like those other groups and the causes they promote, but it is SHOCKING that a group that has existed for EIGHT years has never bothered to follow the LAW.
Buchser Alum thinks it’s a case of “both sides”. And thousands vs millions. If s/he feels so strongly by all means file a complaint with the city clerk and let the chips fall where they may.
The 49ers professional sports team didn’t funnel money into local voting. Most members of the SCPOA labor union don’t live in the City of Santa Clara but shovel money into their PAC to win favor of the candidates who will in return dole out overgenerous salaries and benefits. Nikolai led that PAC that for more than 18 years. Jed York is a local business man and financially supported local measures and candidates through Citizens for Efficient Government and Full Voting Rights. The difference between the two PAC’s is simply the amount of money contributed. None of that money went directly into the pockets of voters and Santa Clara residents made their own independent decisions.
.
Regardless if PAC money is in the millions, hundreds of thousands, or thousands, every PAC should be investigated if they violated the law or rules. Burt Field with Stand Up for Santa Clara is not a smart person and blindly does Nikolai’s bidding, he likely did something wrong.
This article is as absurd as it is a waste of everyone’s time, based entirely on the premise of “the clerk had nothing to say and, apparently, he’s taking no action…. After three weeks of no response, The Weekly emailed Haggag again. This time receiving no response.”
As indicated to Ms. Schuk, City Attorney Googins was on travel and OOO when the original complaint was filed. I did actively meet with some members of his staff in his absence, and although his staff had been involved in prior investigations I felt it was best suited to wait until he was back, particularly as he is still relatively new to the position of City Attorney. In his short time here I’ve valued his professional expertise and objectiveness, particularly as someone who does not carry any prior political baggage in Santa Clara’s messy political mudslinging. Upon his return I came to learn that he was ill for a period of time, which contributed further to the delay in our investigation and plan of action.
What Ms. Schuk fails to know, however, is that I already spoke DIRECTLY to the complainants Mr. Becker, Mr. Park and Mr. Jain in person when I met them at the Santa Clara Parade of Champions and also conferred with our City Attorney. My obligations for communication fall between the complainants and the accused, not to a reporter with an axe to grind.
The City is taking appropriate steps to act upon and investigate the claims of the complaint, without the need of having to publicize our step-by-step playbook. Especially not with any news organization or local blog with a clear and obvious bias.
In my past communications with the head of the FPPC’s Enforcement Division we both shared experiences where local media agencies weaponize the mere existence of an investigation into an alleged violation. This is precisely what Ms. Schuk is doing in this joke of an article. What makes this extremely hypocritical is this newspaper’s past articles and op-eds demanding an adherence to the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” with a current ongoing indictment as well as their decry of a prior investigation by myself and the City in an alleged violation of the lobbyist ordinance. In that instance, another local news blog obtained – not through myself or through a PRA, but by unknown-to-me means of their own – a copy of an inquiry letter to SiliconSage’s lack of registration as a lobbyist. After their cooperation with the investigation they were found to be fully in compliance, yet the mere existence of an inquiry was weaponized publicly as a determination of guilt. Ms. Schuk and The Weekly decried this tactic, yet here they are doing exactly what they denounced.
Ms. Schuk has also incorrectly stated that I am a supporter of Stand Up For Santa Clara, which is untrue and I’d love to see her proof of that. She also alleged that I was a leading advocate of the Yes on A campaign, implying that I had any involvement in the campaign committee which received the dark money funds. She knows full well that I was not involved in the Yes on A campaign committee, and that my “leading advocacy” was solely due to my involvement in the Charter Review Committee which proposed the ballot measure, a measure that was endorsed by a multi-partisan coalition of community leaders including Lisa Gillmor, Teresa O’Neill, Raj Chahal and Harbir Bhatia to name a few. But of course she already knew all that, and simply wanted to paint me with broad strokes of guilt-by-association.
Finally, I am personally disgusted by Ms. Schuk’s reference to my actions as a crusade. As the first Muslim, Arab elected official in the South Bay’s history, her comments are at best insensitive, and at worst downright racist and Islamophobic. The level of vitriol in her article is extremely alarming in light of the rising levels of Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism in the country and abroad. The Weekly should be ashamed of publishing such a hollow hit-piece.
Your Santa Clara City Clerk,
Hosam Haggag
“Mr. Haggag,
Thank you for your response. This is the first and most detailed comment The Weekly has received on the matter despite multiple efforts to reach out to you. We cannot know what happens behind the scenes unless it is communicated with us. As a public official, you are well aware that there is certain scrutiny if there is a failure to communicate with the public, specifically if the person asked to communicate is unresponsive for several weeks at a time.
Moreover, you have stated frequently that you are biased in favor of “transparency.” The Weekly is simply asking questions that other members of the community are asking. Mr. Becker, Mr. Park and Mr. Jain have made their stances clear. As a representative of the City of Santa Clara, specifically one on election related issues such as dark money complaints, we had yet to hear an official comment from you as the City official tasked with overseeing these issues.
Furthermore, Ms. Schuk did not claim that you were a supporter of Stand Up for Santa Clara but rather that Stand Up for Santa Clara was a supporter of you.
As for the reference to Yes on A, you are correct in saying that you did not work for the Yes on A campaign. We will change the line to read: “In spring of 2018, shortly before the City’s dark money ordinance passed and Haggag was elected as Santa Clara city clerk, he was one of the more vocal supporters of the Yes on A campaign, an effort that was later discovered to be fueled by dark money. Yes on A* received $45,000 from a Texas dark money group, Action Now Initiative LLC, and another $45,000 from ranked choice advocacy group FairVote, which was both funder and advisor to the campaign.”
In regards to the use of the word “crusade.” While historically, the word has had religious connotations, more recent and modern uses of the word include: “a vigorous campaign for political, social, or religious change” and “a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm.” The more modern definition was what Ms. Schuk was referring to when using the term. However, we completely understand that the use of this word has upset you and have changed the article accordingly. We apologize for any undue harm that the term has caused to you or any of our readers. It was not our intent in any way, shape or form.
We will reach out to you through your official City email address and your personal one as you have indicated you check more frequently to confirm that the comment on this website came from you.”
Ms. Tolliver and Ms. Schuk,
So now that you know that an investigation is underway, and that I had actively worked with City staff in Mr. Googins’ absence, and even with Mr. Googins himself, and that I had communicated to the 3 complainants regarding the status of their complaint, then the entire premise of this article is debunked. Will you be retracting the insidious claims in your article and issuing an apology? Simply removing the word “crusade” while still using terms like “waging a war” really makes no difference. There’s a real war going on right now with real innocent people dying, and being the first Muslim and Arab elected to the City still has dark and racist undertones – you use the word crusade, but others may read a Muslim waging war as a “jihad” or associate me as a violent person. Words matter. Your cards have been shown for the biased, racist and Islamophobic news agency that you are.
I pride myself in how I have pioneered transparency in the City, from trailblazing the livestreaming of all major city meetings on social media platforms, which you yourself have greatly benefited from by being able to report on meetings from the comfort of your homes. Transparency of information is not the same as sharing information that a news agency will willingly weaponize against the community as you have so blatantly done.
As to the “Yes on A” campaign and your deceptive guilt by association, will you also apply the same insinuations against Lisa Gillmor? Kathy Watanabe? Raj Chahal? Harbir Bhatia? EACH one of them was a strong vocal supporter of Yes on A and their pictures were featured on campaign flyers. Or how about Suds Jain who was not just an endorser and vocal supporter, but was responsible for printing lawn signs and distributing them to members of the community? Will you vilify them all as associated to the “Yes on A” campaign and guilty of association to dark money? They were all honorable in their grassroots support for the “Yes on A” initiative and to vilify any of them including myself is preposterous. Your argument falls flat.
This is such a non-story and the edits you make to hide the racism are simply not sufficient. A full retraction and public apology in the print edition is the minimum that I’d expect, since the print newspapers readers will not see this comment thread nor will they get the updates to brush under the rug your news agency’s racist undertones. But I’m not certainly not holding my breath for that apology.
Your Santa Clara City Clerk,
Hosam Haggag
Mr. Haggag,
We will be happy to write a follow up article and include your comments as they are the first substantial response that we have received from the City and the City Clerk’s office about this matter after frequent attempts behind the scenes to gain comment about the dark money complaint along official channels.
Whether you like the terminology used or not, it is a fact that you have made it your mission to stand up to the use of dark money in Santa Clara politics. We are happy to change the terminology used within the article to be more sensitive to you as a person and your beliefs but the premise that you have made a concerted effort against dark money stands.
Finally, you are absolutely right that words matter. Calling The Weekly a “biased, racist and Islamophobic news agency” shows how little you know about the people who run this news organization and what they stand for. You look at the name on the masthead and make your judgements accordingly without knowing the personal background of any of us.
The fact of the matter is the publication of this article was the only way to garner an official comment from you as a public official in your role as the City Clerk of Santa Clara. Again, several attempts were made through the formal channels of communication between this news organizations and City officials. You chose not to comment. Attempting to change the narrative of this story away from that dereliction of duty will not brush your inaction under the rug.
Santa Clarans are extremely intelligent and will be able to judge for themselves the merits (or demerits) of your defense. I appreciate your willingness not censor my comments but that does not absolve you or your news agency for behavior that lacks any semblance of journalistic integrity.
My comments regarding the racist and bigoted terminology used against me were towards the specific author of the article and the news agency that allowed it to publish (with you as the Editor in Chief having the final say). There are other respectable journalists that work for the Weekly and you know full well my comments were not directed towards them. Once again you are insinuating that which you know to be false.
What do you constitute as “several attempts were made”? You know full well that my role as City Clerk is a part time role and as I’ve clearly expressed in my email response to you that I do not check City emails on a daily basis. Have you attempted to call the City Clerk’s office? Call my City cell phone? Not being able to reach me via passive communications attempts is NOT the same as me “choosing not to comment”. And the entire premise of this article was written based on that foundationless claim.
Finally, I don’t need to know the personal background of the entire Weekly staff to hold the stance I hold. What I do know is how Ms. Schuk and yourself Ms. Tolliver feel about me. Ms. Schuk accidentally sent me an email she thought was addressed to you containing an EXPLICIT statement from Ms. Schuk telling you “I’m tempted to reply to him that I look forward to seeing the New Hosam. But I won’t. That wouldn’t be charitable and I’m trying to cultivate charity to my enemies;)”. What a nice touch to include that winky face emoji. Anybody is free to PRA this email, but Ms. Schuk wont need to since she’ll find it in her “Sent” folder on 11/3/2020 at 12:45pm. Woops. This is very much in line with the vitriolic and derogatory emails between Ms. Schuk and others that were acquired as part of the District Attorney’s discovery into the alleged case against a Civil Grand Jury leak to none other than Ms. Schuk herself by a sitting Councilmember. (In those emails Ms. Schuk allegedly said that “Mayor Gillmor can take her October surprise and shove it up her [rear]”).
Act tough all you want in your response to my comments, but your news agency’s true colors have shown and your and Ms. Schuk’s actions proves you are a news agency that is morally bankrupt and devoid of any journalistic integrity. This is my final comment in this matter and you’re free to have the last word if you so choose. You have wasted enough of my time.
Your Santa Clara City Clerk,
Hosam Haggag
Quit yer whining, and address the facts.
Ms. Tolliver,
You would do well to respect the parameters of civilized discourse. Expectng Mr. Haggag to defend or explain himself or his position is unfair considering the situation. Afterall, he said the words “racist” and “islamophobic.” He clearly wins the argument. That is how it works. I would expect you to know as much. Anything short of a complete retraction and a heartfelt plea to the Ministry of Truth is an affront to decent well-manner folks. Mr. Haggag has to stand up for Santa Clara, which is all he is doing.
How simple this would have all been if Mr. Haggag had simply replied back to any one of the inquiries and stated that he is still in contact with Mr. Googins (City Attorney) but that Mr. Googins has not been available. If he had stated he is not able to provide an update until Mr. Googins has completed his investigation, then this would have been stopped in its tracks. By ignoring the multiple inquiries from The Weekly, Mr. Haggag simply set himself up for criticism. Silence is not an answer.
W.S. you are absolutely right. Except that Ms. Schuk only messaged me twice, not “multiple times”. The first time I responded, and in my response, as was shared in the article, I let Ms. Schuk know that I don’t check my city email on a regular basis.
The second email came just about a week before this article. I hadn’t seen it when it came in. And it was already after I had spoken to the complainants.
There were not “multiple inquiries”, and writing an entire article because I missed an email as an insinuation that I was turning a blind eye is a biased journalist looking for a reason to rake me over the coals. The most generous interpretation I could offer is that Ms. Schuk was a lazy journalist and didn’t take any effort other than a passive email without follow-up, especially when she didnt even call the Clerk’s office for comment nor my cell phone which she has. The more likely interpretation, given Ms. Schuk’s “enmity” towards me (as she made clear in her accidental email to me), is that she jumped on the opportunity for my unintentional delay in responding to insinuate the worst.
The proof of this is that the Edutor in Chief and Ms. Schuk have kept this article above as written without an “Update” correcting their factual errors despite my comments above confirming that action is being taken. But of course if they issue that update, the entirety of the article falls flat on its face.
You’re absolutely right that had I responded in a timely manner it would have nipped it in the bud… but they’d just have looked for another reason to bring out the torches and pitchforks.
Your Santa Clara City Clerk,
Hosam Haggag
Sorry Hosam–a more accurate interpretation is that you are a LAZY city clerk who does not bother to regularly check his work email for the elected position he claims to want.
I hope Santa Clarans are paying attention to just how little involvement you seem to have in the work of the city clerk’s office. Not checking your work email for weeks? In the private sector, you’d no longer have that job.
We pay you to be the City Clerk and you don’t check your email? Should we be sending messages by carrier pigeon?
EXACTLY W.S.
Through this comment thread, Hosam is providing all the evidence Santa Clarans need about WHY we need a APPOINTED City Clerk. One who will be focused full -time on serving the public.
A simple “Thank you for your message. We are investigating the complaint and will update you as soon as we have more information to share” would have been all that was required.
Hosam – I’m confused (I bet Freud or Cokley would have a field day over my admission).
You’re supposed to be a high tech person. You “pioneered transparency” in the city. The whole “I don’t always check my City email daily,” seems kind of lame and hardly transparent.
But what’s really messing with my head is when you said, “This is my final comment in this matter and you’re free to have the last word if you so choose.”
Yet when I looked at the comments, you replied to WS. So your final comment wasn’t really final?
It was my last comment in the seemingly pointless back-and-forth with Weekly staff. It’s also why I didn’t respond to David Alexander’s comment. I notice they still haven’t updated their article. Journalistic integrity? Of course not.
How does being in high tech mean I check my City email daily? I don’t even check my personal email daily. Also, my role as City Clerk is a part time role. I don’t see how my frequency of checking City email is considered as non-transparent.
Your Santa Clara City Clerk,
Hosam Haggag
Super funny that you seem to be checking this comment thread more often then you check your city email.
Priorities.
Mr. Haggag,
Check your emails. I reached out to you yesterday via your personal email and the City Clerk email to confirm that the above statements and comments were in fact made by you, as we have previously had people trying to impersonating City officials on our website.
At the time of the publication of this article, you had not responded to any of our emails sent to both your City and personal email accounts. Had it not been for article, it’s doubtful you would have responded. After all, it had been over 4 weeks since we first reached out to you. With that being the case, the statements we have made are accurate and will not be changed or redacted.
We will do a follow-up story that will include your statements and comments above once we receive that confirmation email that these statements have truly been made by you.
I had really hoped to stick to my word and not respond to you, but I will let you (and the readers here) know that I have no emails from you or anyone else from The Weekly/SVVoice. Not in my City or personal email inboxes, nor in the Spam, Junk or Promotions folders. Are you sure you’re sending to hhaggag@santaclaraca.gov ?
I do appreciate you attempting to confirm it’s me since someone has already impersonated me in these comment threads before, but in this case you know full well that this is me and not an impersonation. Nobody else knows about the accidental email that Ms. Schuk had sent me (instead of you) literally saying that she considered me her enemy. I’m certain by now she’s confirmed this with you privately. I had not brought this up ever to anyone in the past because I thought maybe she’d have a change of heart, but her and your blatant attacks against me in this article need to be shown for what it is – an attack on my integrity and an attempt to discredit me before a vote on the future of the role of City Clerk.
Your Santa Clara City Clerk,
Hosam Haggag
Between this mess of a response Haggag offers and his admission to the charter review committee that he has never sought training or certification for the role he was eletected to the voters in Santa Clara should have no problem changing the position from elected to appointed.
My thoughts EXACTLY, RJ!!
Very glad to read this article and in particular the responses of Mr Haggag. His responses solidify the need for a professional City Clerk;
The city needs;
A Clerk with Qualification / a degree that compliments the title.
A Clerk that doesn’t meet their city council at “Street Fairs” to discuss ‘issues’ of any kind.
A Clerk that does not “politicize” the position.
A clerk that reads their work email and reviews other communication on a regular basis and in a business setting
A clerk that does not bring up their religion/culture/heritage
A Clerk that has an “At Will” position vs Elected and no real recourse except a recall which are harder to achieve.
A clerk that does not respond to articles on line, or write op-eds, video interviews, video meetings
In other words a professional City Clerk.
Yes I too RJ will be voting in favor of a change in the charter.
ABSOLUTELY, JaN. I was supportive of the change before, and now I am even more convinced it needs to happen.
RJ, JaN:
I agree with both of you. I knew nothing of Mr. Hagggag, before this article and all the following comments. But I too, now, will be voting strongly in favor of a change in our City’s charter.