Victor Preciado Opted Into Pomona’s Spending Limit 66 Days After the Primary. City Hall Still Can’t Explain What Happened.
Updated 10/08/2026 12:11 pm PST
The District 2 incumbent accepted Pomona’s $27,460 general election ceiling more than two months after the primary. City records show no tracking records, written guidance or legal analysis explaining what happened next.
October 8, 2026
Pomona’s campaign finance rules offer candidates a deal. Accept a voluntary spending ceiling and the candidate may place a statement in the voter information guide. Decline the ceiling and the statement is off the table.
District 2 Councilmember Victor Preciado first declined that deal. Then, more than two months after the June primary, he changed his mind and changed his answer.
On August 7, Preciado filed an amended Candidate Intention Statement saying he was “amending to accept the voluntary expenditure ceiling.” He checked the box stating that he accepted the ceiling for the 2026 primary and general election.
By then, the primary was over. His own campaign reports showed that he had already spent more than Pomona’s primary ceiling.
Pomona created a campaign spending rule tied to access to the voter guide. Preciado changed his filing 66 days after the primary, although the state law incorporated into Pomona’s City Charter contains a 14-day window. The City received and posted the amendment but has produced no records showing whether anyone reviewed it or determined that it was effective.
Pomona lists a voluntary expenditure ceiling of$15,680 for a City Council primary and $27,460 for a general election.
Preciado’s filing history shows two changes in position. On December 17, 2025, he filed an amendment stating that he would “no longer accept” the ceiling. Then, on August 7, 2026, hefiled another amendment saying he would accept it.
The August filing came 66 days after the June 2 primary.
The amendment had a real consequence. Los Angeles County’s official candidate statement portal lists Preciado and provides access to his statement for the November 3 general election. The County describes its online candidate statement as an additional option to the printed statement in the Sample Ballot book.
Pomona’s City Charter says its voluntary expenditure ceiling is governed by California Government Code section 85400 and the sections that follow.One of those provisions, section 85401, says a candidate who declined the ceiling may accept it for a general election within 14 days after the primary, provided the candidate did not exceed the primary ceiling.
That state law is written for candidates for state office. Pomona chose to incorporate those provisions into its City Charter. How the City applies its timing and eligibility rules to City Council candidates is therefore not a minor technicality. It is the question.
Preciado’sMay 21 campaign statement reported $22,918.69 in cumulative expenditures through May 16. That was already $7,238.69 above Pomona’s $15,680 primary ceiling, more than two weeks before election day. A later statement placed his cumulative expenditures through June 30 at $29,476.02.
Preciado was allowed to spend past the primary ceiling because he opted out. Then he opted back in. That is where things get a wee bit messy. The state rules Pomona adopted appear to allow that switch only if the candidate stayed below the primary limit. Preciado had already spent $7,238.69 more.
His August form creates another question. It checked the general box accepting the ceiling, but it did not mark the separate amendment line declaring that the candidate had not exceeded the primary ceiling and was accepting the ceiling for the general election.
Maybe the City has an interpretation that makes the amendment proper. If so, it should be able to state it and identify the rule. So far, it has done neither.
What his latest filing shows
The numbers must be separated by election period. Preciado’sfirst general election preelection statement, filed September 24 and covering July 1 through September 19, reported:
$4,190 in monetary contributions received during the period;
$4,709.41 in payments made;
no accrued expenses or unpaid bills; and
an ending cash balance of $5,560.03.
Even if every dollar in payments reported for that period counted toward the general election ceiling, the total remained $22,750.59 below it.
The same filing lists $34,185.43 in total expenditures for the calendar year. That figure includes spending reported before July 1, including the primary campaign, so comparing the entire amount with the general election ceiling would be misleading.
The City says it keeps no tracking records
The Pomonan asked the City for the records that should settle the issue.
In response to a September 10 Public Records Act request, the City pointed to its public filing portal and municipal code. But when it came to the files that would actually blow this open, the official response was straight blunt: “No responsive documents.”
The City said it had no spreadsheet, worksheet, database entry, calculation, audit record or review notes tracking Preciado’s expenditures against the ceiling. It said it had no written policy or staff guidance explaining how compliance is monitored, which expenses count, what happens if a candidate reaches the ceiling or whether exceeding it affects a candidate statement. It also reported no internal communications, warning, determination, referral, complaint, enforcement record or legal analysis concerning whether Preciado reached or exceeded the limit. That response was marked complete on September 23.
What the response does show is that City Hall could not produce a paper trail explaining how it administers a rule that determines what voters see in their election guide.
A narrower follow up request was submitted on September 24 seeking records showing any City analysis of the August amendment, its timing and Preciado’s eligibility to accept the general election ceiling after the primary. Under the California Public Records Act, an agency generally must make a determination within 10 days or provide written notice of an extension based on unusual circumstances.
As of October 8, the City had provided no determination, no records and no extension notice in response to that request.
Preciado also did not respond to detailed questions sent by The Pomonan about the amendment, his campaign spending and the City’s administration of the ceiling.
A ceiling is not much use if nobody can explain it
The unresolved issue is whether the August amendment was timely and effective, and why City Hall has produced no records showing that anyone made that determination.
Pomona made the deal simple. Agree to the spending ceiling, get space in the voter guide. Preciado declined the ceiling for the primary, spent above the primary limit, then opted into the general election ceiling 66 days later. His statement now appears on Los Angeles County’s official candidate statement portal. The City received and posted his amendment but has produced no record explaining why he was allowed to opt into the ceiling 66 days after the primary or who reviewed that decision.
Pomona has no shortage of rules. Keeping track of whether City Hall actually follows them is another story. If Preciado’s amendment complied, the City should explain why. If the 14 day condition works differently for local candidates, the City should point to the rule that says so. And if nobody reviewed the amendment at all, voters deserve to know that too.
The ceiling may be voluntary. Explaining how City Hall administers it is not.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS
Julian Lucas is the founder and publisher of The Pomonan, as well as a photographer and writer. His work examines art, culture, local government, race, displacement and the social consequences of public policy. And don’t trip out and shit. He knows he needs to update his website.
