Gorman issues clarification on campaign payment that could violate California law

A payment issued this summer by Shasta County Office of Education incumbent and board candidate Arthur Gorman could have violated state campaign law. 

According to campaign finance documents, Gorman made a payment of $3,800 to his wife, Katie Gorman, this summer — tagging it as a fundraising expense. 

He’s a current SCOE board member who has held his seat since 2022. Among a pool of 10 candidates for four open seats on the board, he leads the way in campaign earnings with nearly $44,000. He’s spent nearly $30,000. 

The payment to his wife is listed on Gorman’s original 460 statement covering the time period from August to September. It could violate Government Code 84307.5, which bars candidates from using campaign funds to pay their spouse or domestic partner “for services rendered.” 

While Gorman did not respond to a request for comment sent Friday, an update to his filing appeared on the Shasta County campaign portal this afternoon, documenting the payment to his wife as a “reimbursement for items that were purchased for fundraiser.” 

It’s not clear whether Gorman’s clarification of the payment as a reimbursement will satisfy California’s campaign rules, which are administered by the Fair Political Practices Commission, or FPPC. A spokesperson for the commission, Shery Yang, answered a second request for information today by saying she’s working on a response.

Katie Gorman is one of four individuals who are documented as having received direct payments from her husband’s campaign. His campaign treasurer Lynda or “Lyndia” Kent received a $2,000 payment for campaign consulting, while another individual received $750 in exchange for auctioneering. A fourth received $147 for fundraising events. 

The Political Reform Act of 1974 is a landmark California law intended to promote campaign transparency via the publication of campaign contributions and expenditures, according to the FPPC website. The law was the first of its kind in the nation and continues to be updated annually. 

The commission serves as an enforcement body for campaign violations, fielding complaints from the public and conducting formal hearings to determine whether a violation has occurred and whether a penalty will be charged. It must respond to an official complaint with a determination of whether to take action or not within 14 days, although it can take months or years for a final determination to occur.

As described in FPPC Code 83115, once an investigation is opened, the respondent must be given a 21-day notice of the alleged violation, receive a summary of the evidence and be informed that they may attend future hearings in person and be represented by an attorney. Based on the severity of the case, the respondent could receive a warning letter from the FPPC, which could also issue a formal accusation to be heard by an administrative law judge. Violations of FPPC law can result in financial penalties.

The FPPC has previously fined other Shasta County candidates for campaign violations, including former Shasta County Supervisor Patrick Jones, who was fined $10,000 in 2024, along with his campaign treasurer — also Kent — for improperly recording cash campaign contributions. 

In 2025, wealthy Connecticut donor Reverge Anselmo was fined more than $20,000 for six separate violations of campaign finance law that occurred between 2020 to 2022. Anselmo is reportedly the largest political donor in Shasta history. His gifts to Shasta County political action committees between 2020 and 2024 — which were also administered by Kent — totaled almost $2 million.

Have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.