This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

California’s legislative leaders don’t think the public should know whether federal agents are investigating state lawmakers for public corruption, nor do they believe taxpayers should know how much of their money the Legislature is spending on criminal defense lawyers.

By Ryan Sabalow

CalMatters

Following recent reports that Southern California Sen. Susan Rubio has been questioned in a federal public corruption investigation, CalMatters filed requests with the state Assembly and Senate seeking copies of federal law enforcement subpoenas and search warrants dating to 2020.

CalMatters also sought under the California Legislative Open Records Act invoices or other records showing how much money the Legislature has spent since 2020 on legal bills related to federal criminal investigations.

Identical letters from the Rules Committees for the Assembly and Senate cited four reasons for denying the record requests including “the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”

The offices of Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire didn’t respond to CalMatters’ interview requests.

But the secrecy alarms open-government advocates.

“The public absolutely has a right to know whether … one of their representatives or public officials is under criminal investigation,” said Sean McMorris of California Common Cause, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that advocates for government transparency and accountability.

Related Story: What Sacramento Still Doesn’t Get About UC Merced

David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, another government transparency advocacy group, said the citation about the disclosure not serving the public interest “is the last refuge of the scoundrel and is invoked whenever somebody wants to withhold something inconvenient.”

The Legislative Open Records Act, first signed in 1975, gives lawmakers and their staff members more discretion to withhold records than most other public agencies have under the similar California Public Records Act.

But Loy said that even if they have a legal right to withhold records, public agencies usually have broad discretion to release them. In other words, they could release these records in the interest of transparency if they wanted to.

“Even if (secrecy) might be allowed under the letter of law in some circumstances, that is not a position that I think serves the public well,” he said. “We should err on the side of disclosure. The public has a right to know.”

In addition to the public interest citation, the Senate and Assembly letters cited three other reasons for denying the records. It said the Legislative Open Records Act allows documents to be “exempt from mandatory disclosure” if the records:

• “Are in the custody of the Legislative Counsel.”
• Are prohibited or not required for release by state or federal law.
• Involve issues of attorney-client privilege.

“Records responsive to your request, to the extent they exist, fall within the scope of the foregoing exemptions and will not be produced,” the letters said.

Rubio’s office didn’t answer questions Tuesday about whether she or her office has received any search warrants or subpoenas, who her attorney is, and whether taxpayer funds were spent on her legal defense.

Federal officials have not identified Rubio by name in the corruption probe, which has ensnared a handful of other officials in San Bernardino County, and the cities of Compton, Commerce and Baldwin Park.

However, no one else matches the description of “Person 20,” who was accused in recently released federal court documents of asking for $240,000 in bribes from a cannabis company and accepting $30,000 in illegal campaign contributions.

The allegations stem from when Rubio was a member of the Baldwin Park City Council.

The Senate Rules Committee this week rejected CalMatters’ request for records that might detail which officials have been linked to federal public corruption investigations as well as how much taxpayers have been paying for criminal defense attorneys.

Rubio emphatically denied accepting bribes in an interview with CalMatters’ reporting partner, CBS News, that aired in January. But when asked if she denied that she was “Person 20” she responded, “I’m not saying that.”

“I’m just saying that you read the report,” she continued. “And whatever is happening there is happening there, but I think that (investigators) would have to reach out to me in order for me to be part of any of this.”

Rubio’s office previously told the Los Angeles Times in a statement that she “volunteered hours of her time” aiding the authorities in their investigation and that she “has no reason to believe that she would be included in any criminal allegations.”

Legislative Republicans called for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation, but the committee declined, saying long-standing Senate rules prohibit investigation of allegations that are more than three years old.

“Since the alleged activities occurred many years ago, the committee does not have jurisdiction to review this matter,” the committee’s chief counsel, Erin V. Peth, told CalMatters last month.

Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher, a lawyer who represents the Chico area, said that everyone, including lawmakers, has a right to be presumed innocent in criminal investigations.

But taxpayers also have a right to know, he said, “what kind of taxpayer money has been spent defending people in federal investigations.”