In race for chief election official, campaign finance records show Francescut has received more than double the donations of her opponent Curtis
The majority of donations made to the two candidates running for county clerk and registrar of voters in Shasta this June have gone to Joanna Francescut, a former long-term election staffer.
In the lead up to the June primary, Joanna Francescut has received more than double the donations of her competitor, current Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis. Those numbers reflect a review of public campaign finance records as of mid-April.
The primary election is set to take place in less than a month — on June 2 — where Shasta voters will decide who will be the county’s next elections official. It’s a race that’s being watched closely by locals and is also being monitored at the state and national level. Since being appointed last spring, Curtis has made headlines for issues ranging from using his role to discredit former election officials to dismissing a poll worker when they pushed back on his political commentary during training. Late last month, the county also substantiated findings of abuse against his staff, something Curtis firmly denies.
Francescut, who was Shasta’s long-term assistant ROV before Curtis fired her just days after being appointed last year, was passed over for appointment to the role of ROV by county supervisors last spring. She has received more than $113,000 in donations to her campaign since last March, an analysis of campaign finance records shows. Curtis has received about $51,000.
The records show that both candidates received most of their donations from inside the county. Some of Curtis’ donations have come from current and former election commissioners, as well as individuals associated with two local media groups, Shasta Unfiltered and Mountain Top Media.
Francescut received several donations from ROVs in other counties as well as from several state assembly members, including Gail Pellerin, who was the author of AB 969, a bill that prohibited hand-counting on the state level after a local push to do so in Shasta.
Who were the major and standout donors to Curtis’ campaign?
Two dozen individuals and organizations donated more than $500 to Curtis out of approximately 160 total donors to his campaign so far.
His biggest donor to date is former Shasta Elections Commissioner Bev Gray, who donated $3,790. Richard Wilkinson was the second largest donor at $3,310.
Another Day In Paradise, a massage therapy business in Redding, donated $3,260. Shasta Election Commissioner Margaret Hansen designates herself as the business’ owner and operator on her Facebook page, but the business has no listing on the state’s business registry site.
The next highest donors, in order of donation size, include:
- Shasta County Republican Central Committee: $2,000
- Multiple members on the committee also donated individually to Curtis, including Garrett Hall, Deidre Holliday, Michele Tyson and Brenda Haynes.
- Mark Kent: $1,995
- Kent is the president of Northstate Consultants and the owner of Mountain Top Media. Over recent years, he’s helped funnel significant amounts of funding from outside the county to support campaigns helping shift the board majority over recent years by supporting the campaigns of former Supervisor Patrick Jones, and Supervisors Chris Kelstrom and Kevin Crye.
- Kari Chilson: $1,305
- Chilson is one of the five original proponents of Measure B and a founding member of Shasta Unfiltered, a newly launched local media organization. Several other members of Shasta Unfiltered also donated to Curtis’ campaign, including Elisa Ballard, Margaret Cantrell, Jerry Sanchez and Rex Ballard.
- Ronnean Lund: $1,265
- Lund is a member of both the Shasta County Elections Commission and the Anderson Cottonwood Irrigation District — or ACID — board.
- Andy Oilar: $1,150
- Oilar is listed as the contact for A.G. Oilar Ag. Development, an agricultural development company based in Fall River Mills.
- Jon Knight: $1,075
- Knight is the vice president of the Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control board of trustees and affiliated with Mountain Top Media.
- Ruth Weiss: $1,000
- Weiss is listed as the VP and director of the Election Integrity Project California. She has spoken on multiple TV news interviews about voter fraud in California.
- Cherill Clifford: $1,000
- Clifford is the vice president of the Shasta County Republican Assembly and former president of the Gateway Unified School District board of trustees.
All of the five original petitioners behind Measure B are Curtis donors, including Chilson, Holiday, James Burnett, Richard Gallardo and Laura Hobbs.
The majority of Curtis’ donors reside in Shasta County, though a few thousand dollars came from San Diego County. His campaign was also funded by several out-of-state donors from Texas, Florida, Illinois, Oregon, South Carolina and Virginia. Out-of-state donors contributed about $2,000 to his campaign.
Who were the major and standout donors to Francescut’s campaign?
Thirty-five individuals donated more than $500 to Francescut, who has over 300 donors in all.
Her three largest donors so far have given $2,500 each. The donors were Lyle Tullis, who’s the president and CEO of asphalt production and construction material company Tullis, Inc., Wendy Johnston, the vice president of Vestra Resources, Inc., a GIS solutions company, and Sierra Pacific Industries.
The next highest donors include:
- Judy Salter: $2,000
- Salter is the former president and CEO of Turtle Bay.
- Charles Menoher: $1,595
- Menoher is the former superintendent of Shasta County Schools.
- Allen Kost: $1,514.80
- Kost is on the Redding Bikeway Action Plan Advisory Committee.
- Gail Pellerin: $1,500
- Pellerin is the California state assemblymember for District 28 and was the author of AB 969. She is also a former ROV. A couple other assembly members also donated to Francescut’s campaign, including Patrick Ahrens of District 26 and Chris Ward of District 78.
- John Langum: $1,500
- Tammy Cole: $1,500
- Theodore Palfini: $1,500
- Palfini is a wealth advisor at Cavalot Capital.
Most of Francescut’s donors reside in Shasta, though she had a couple dozen donors from other counties, including Contra Costa, Humboldt, Alameda, Solano and Sonoma Counties. She received only a few hundred dollars from out-of-state donors, from states including Missouri, Montana and South Dakota.
Multiple individuals holding the position of registrar of voters in other counties donated to Francescut’s campaign, including Humboldt ROV Juan Pedro Cervantes, Del Norte ROV Alissia Northrup and Santa Clara ROV Matt Moreles.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Comments (19)
Leave a comment
Related Articles
With deadlines looming, ballot filming process is doubling the time needed to count Shasta’s votes
The Shasta County Elections Office has until June 11 to certify the special election for deceased congressman Doug LaMalfa’s vacancy. A new ballot filming process implemented by Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis has complicated the timeline. Curtis remains confident.
New vote totals show leads holding for chief election role, both supervisor seats and Measure B
While candidates Joanna Francescut and Erin Resner have both reached the critical more than 50% totals needed to win a primary, Gallagher remains just shy.
Redding Rancheria makes last-minute investment into District 1 race, donating to Crye
The Redding Rancheria made the maximum-allowed payment of $5,900. It was received by Supervisor Kevin Crye on Election Day. He’s one of only two local candidates the Rancheria supported in this election. A donation to Supervisor Chris Kelstrom for the county’s District 5 race was made two months ago.
Ditto!
It’s not surprising that ROVs of other counties are taking an interest in defending their profession here in Shastanistan by opposing the carpetbagging grifter, employee abuser, and scofflaw, Clint Curtis.
.
It goes without saying that Curtis is supported by the same MAGA cultists who forgive every vile declaration and every disastrous deed done by their savoir, Orange Jesus, M.D.
The most interesting thing here is the dog that didn’t bark. No Anselmo money. Did he give to Crye Baby and Sleepy Kelstrom? Or has the nepo baby money well run dry?
Selah
I believe Anselmo money—almost $2 million total—is still being doled out as baksheesh by intermediaries like Mark Kent. MAGA being MAGA, and following the example set by the grifter Orange Mussolini, no doubt much of that $2M has found its way into the personal bank accounts of those intermediaries. Administrative costs, don’t you know.
Integrity, honesty and experience should be the deciding factors here.
Clint Curtis wins hands down
One of the funnier comments I’ve heard all day! 🤣
Clint Curtis and honesty don’t belong in the same sentence.
Bahahahaha! Good joke lol
Yoiu need to open up your wallet wide and help Clint get elected. Perhaps you can double what Bev Gray has given?
Those saying Joanna’s donations are “out of the area” money clearly aren’t using critical thinking skills and only parroting what their shirtless dear leader is telling them. Smiling while he lies isn’t transparency, it’s just a lie.
Similar to the reports of his inappropriate behavior in the office, they defend him and cry ‘fraud!’ because it’s easier than admitting they backed an abuser.
Registrars in other counties are backing and supporting Joanna. They know how CC behaves professionally, the judgment he displays, and the ethics he uses as a Registrar, and that should tell you a LOT.
I’m republican and I voted for Joanna …and I donated to her campaign
I am a strong believer in supporting highly qualified, loyal Shasta County employees who have demonstrated competence, knowledge, and commitment to service to this county. I could care less about her personal politics.
Let’s vote the Curtis carpetbagger out and send him back to New York and let him ply his snake oil elsewhere. And for his side kick, send him too.
That will be a good day for our county.
The BS and personal attacks Joanna has had to put up with is reason enough to vote for her. Joanna is a nice person, she is wed to Shasta County. We need to support her and get her elected. There is a sickness in this county pushed upon all of us by extremists that want to take over our government and disenfranchise the majority. Do not let this happen. Let’s clean house.
“WHO OWNS JOANNA FRANCESCUT?” — THE DANGEROUS POLITICAL PRICE OF CAMPAIGN MONEY IN SHASTA COUNTY
The latest campaign finance disclosures showing that Joanna Francescut has significantly outraised Clint Curtis should certainly be interpreted as a sign of growing political momentum. But momentum in politics is rarely free. In fact, large fundraising advantages can become a dangerous double-edged sword, particularly in a race already overshadowed by accusations of institutional dysfunction, political favoritism, and public distrust. If Francescut is not extraordinarily careful, today’s financial advantage could become tomorrow’s narrative of influence, obligation, and perceived capture by competing interests.
Campaign contributions are lawful and essential components of democratic participation. California’s Political Reform Act expressly permits individuals and organizations to financially support candidates aligned with their views. Yet the law also recognizes a central danger inherent in campaign finance: the public perception that donors may expect preferential access, policy influence, or administrative accommodation in return for financial support. That perception alone—whether fair or unfair—can severely undermine public trust in offices charged with neutrality and fiduciary responsibility.
This danger is especially acute in the context of the County Clerk/Registrar position. Unlike overtly ideological offices, the elections office is fundamentally administrative and quasi-ministerial in nature. Its legitimacy depends upon demonstrable impartiality, procedural fairness, and resistance to political pressure from all factions. If Francescut wishes to present herself as the candidate of institutional reform, she must recognize immediately that every donation she accepts creates not only political capital, but also potential reputational exposure.
The central issue is not corruption; it is perceived indebtedness. Large donors, politically connected actors, activist networks, and partisan organizations often carry their own agendas—some explicit, others implied. Once elected, Francescut will almost certainly face pressure from individuals who believe financial support entitles them to influence over staffing decisions, investigations, departmental restructuring, policy priorities, or access to internal operations. Such expectations can quickly erode the very reform narrative upon which her candidacy is currently gaining strength.
For this reason, Francescut must publicly and categorically establish political independence before the election concludes. She should issue a formal statement affirming that no donor, organization, activist faction, or political bloc will dictate the administration of the Shasta County elections office under her leadership. She should explicitly commit to adherence to conflict-of-interest rules, transparent procurement and hiring practices, and strict compliance with California Government Code provisions governing ethical conduct and misuse of public office.
More importantly, Francescut must understand that institutional credibility requires not only actual independence, but visible independence. In administrative law and public governance, the “appearance of impropriety” can be nearly as damaging as impropriety itself. If she enters office perceived as aligned too closely with political benefactors eager to “settle scores” or exert influence over departmental operations, she risks replacing one legitimacy crisis with another. Public trust cannot be restored through factional substitution.
This is where political discipline becomes indispensable. Francescut’s campaign should avoid triumphalism and resist framing financial dominance as a mandate for ideological cleansing. Instead, she must consistently reinforce a message of procedural neutrality, lawful governance, and institutional stabilization. The public must be persuaded that her objective is not partisan conquest, but administrative restoration. That distinction will determine whether her campaign is remembered as a corrective movement—or merely a transfer of political control from one faction to another.
The irony of this election is striking. Joanna Francescut’s growing financial support may indeed reflect the county’s desire for reform and professional leadership. But if she fails to draw bright ethical boundaries between herself and the agendas of those financing her rise, that same support could become a source of future vulnerability. The path to restoring trust in Shasta County’s elections office does not lie in replacing one political orbit with another. It lies in proving, unequivocally, that the office belongs to the public alone.
In the same way that Mark Kent and a massage parlor madame own Clint Curtis.
Bologna! Stop with the AI already.
AI?
Giordano is giving a VALUABLE advice to Ms. Francescut on how to address her campaign donations.
FYI, politicians represent the interests of people (including institutions) financing their campaigns, NOT the interests of gullible and ignorant constituencies.
Mathias, go ahead and post under as many different names as fulfill you need to, but no one is buying what you are selling.
.
And yes, it’s AI junk.
Good thing a lot of the public donated to her.
Patrick Jones stated on Poke the Hornets Nest with NG that most of Joanna’s campaign contributions came from outside the area and that there were no Republican or conservative donors supporting her campaign. Respectfully, that is simply not accurate. I personally know several Republican and conservative individuals here in Shasta County who support change and want you and your associates removed from leadership positions.
Many residents feel that your group has done little to move this county forward and instead has created division, instability, and unnecessary turmoil within the community.
Respectfully? “PHGWMF Jones is a lying rectal orifice” is perfectly acceptable here.