Otherwise, he's pretty much been a guy in California State Government who's done the jobs he's been elected to pretty well within the constraints of legislature and regulations.
He's not loud or flashy, rather like Padilla.
(Not making a stereotype here, just pointing out both are rather low-key and present well as "family guys" )
I'm not sure which of the myriad of California interest group players he's aligned with, so if I were looking at potential future downsides, I would pay attention to who endorses him during the primary.

I like his background with government and competent administration. I think the endorsements may come since he moved up in the polls.

I’m appalled that CTA endorsed Swalwell before his long history of sexual assault leaked to press.

mate for Hillary in 2016.

how "his closest aides (were) siphoning money from one of his campaign accounts" while Becerra was apparently "blind to the years-long deception" ... (from Politico)

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/18/why-dont-you-know-scandal-singes-becerra-in-california-governors-race-00655837

Concerning but that is a longtime Democratic operative that wasn’t caught in other positions from what I understand. Could be wrong—I’ll check it out

that Becerra was not involved. The last part clearly states all his attempts to maintain compliance with campaign finance laws.

3 from Becerra’s, and the Steyer flyer was terribly lightweight. Half of it was about his father’s accomplishments. There was no comparison to Becerra’s background.

It's a question mark any thoughtful voter should recognize as one.

was not involved. Thoughtful voters would see that his staff members are quoted about his efforts to maintain campaign finance compliance.

Personally, I think he comes across as a good guy. If he's the choice then he has my vote. But I won't pretend this scandal didn't happen under him and that I don't hope he genuinely learned from it.

This is a very serious matter and it will not be dismissed.

I'm sorry for anyone whose standards are lower, but I can't help that.

Holding him responsible for the concern is as meritless as dismissing it completely. Degrees in-between those do not imply measure.

Hope that helps. Have a good day, fellow DUer.

some pertinent chronology and doesn’t tell the whole story. . Thoughtful readers and thoughtful voters know this about Politco.

The case summary I just saw shows that the two individuals, one of them being Gov Newsom’s resource, started the wrongful account activity when Becerra left for a Washington position. So he was relying on staff and the account in question was dormant but in need of monthly maintenance, which Becerra asked to be researched.

So what was the “scandal’ that involved Becerra that he needs to learn from? Don’t trust your staff? The “years long” incidents were really a couple years, maybe three, all of which Becerra had been very responsible in trying to properly administer the account in question.

You should read the case summary and not just Politico.

Becerra also handled the questions about this incident very well.

and the case summary both don’t match your admonishments about a scandal that involves Becerra. Becerra was not a part of the “scandal,”. So what is the lesson he needs to learn according to you? Not to trust your staff when you take a position in Washington ?

how to administer the dormant account, and it does not match the level of angst you are trying to trump up here. It appears you do not even know what Becerra was asking them to do, so your question(s) are not really about the facts of the case, just your punitive evaluations. I also listened to Becerra discuss this issue, and he's several steps ahead of you.

It's unfortunate that two high-level Democratic personnel decided to ruin their lives over a few thousand a month, but I'll take the word of authorities who looked into this and said Becerra was not involved.

He would have very good reason not to examine his account. He would realize there is an unusually large amount of money being removed each month versus what he'd intended.

Again, if you have an honest interest in this candidate then you should already know that.

But he looks to have taken the lead and I'm not going to slam him. I hope he wins. Good luck to Becerra.

amount was for a fee to maintain the account that he wanted his staff to research. Do you know why he wanted that researched? Did you read that part? The fee was not decided yet, but it states why the few thousand a month was being researched and it states the reasoning. It's all in the publicly available information. I'm not going to spoon-feed you facts of the case that you obviously don't read.

It's obvious you refuse to learn the facts of the case and you refuse to discuss the facts of the case. Your responses are just your own extrapolations. I'm sure glad you are not the one who decides what a "thoughtful" voter is.

Becerra knew this. He also knew the identity of his aide's wife, despite their use of different last names for the scam.

There's no evidence to say Becerra took any money himself, though, and he's still okay with me. I do hope he learned from it. Good luck to him, and good luck to you.

What was the reason Becerra wanted to administer the account monthly. What did he ask his staff to research? And why?

the balance apparently going to a fake/no-show position for McCluskie's wife. In reality, all $10K ended up with the McCluskies.

Anyway, I'll take Becerra at his word about this and truly wish him the best.

trusted, long-time aide to commit fraud don't match any of the case documents. Having ideations that you know more than the investigators only serves you for your own personal reasons. It's not something verifiable. Since you posted the Politico article in this thread, it was assumed you knew more about the actual case, but your posts prove otherwise.

I was able to find out enough information from just a couple quick Google searches days ago where this was all going, and it was not as you described. You still haven't bothered with providing any facts about why Becerra asked his staff to look into administering the account. The initial amount was $7,500, but that's where the actual fraud started taking place, only partially described by you.

You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. Here's what actual case documents say, and there is plenty more out there so I won't link -- easily findable:

"McCluskie told Becerra his wife would work for a company connected to Campbell, but did not disclose that she would be paid with campaign funds or that she would not perform any work, the plea agreement stated."
"McCluskie did not tell Public Official 1 (Becerra) that his spouse's pay was and would be paid using campaign funds," the plea said. ""He likewise did not tell Public Official 1 (Becerra) that his spouse was not actually doing work."

Unless there's an agenda, it seems most thoughtful voters would see that Becerra was betrayed by long-time personnel, as was Newsom whose Chief of Staff was involved.

Two days of this dredging is enough. The info is out there to show why Xavier Becerra wasn't charged with anything and did not know of the fraud.

it's not by much, but it drives me crazy that we might split the vote enough that they can weasel their wat into the governor's mansion.

I like Steyer, he's got out of the box ideas... what we've been doing doesn't work as well as it should.

I’m concerned that he is spending so much of his own money to buy the Governorship. I know he has always been great on environmental issues. I’ll look into him more