It’s also opening a window into yet another way powerful individuals and groups can wield influence in the state, often without public scrutiny and far outside the Capitol.

Critics of Weinstein’s latest approach say it is pure “astroturf activism,” designed to look like he has a groundswell of support for his corresponding ballot initiative in an attempt to pressure Newsom to back it. And ethics experts contend Weinstein and AHF should be transparent about paying people to get signatures for the draft letter, which references by name the proposed new ballot initiative. California law on campaign advertising requires general or public communication that’s authorized and paid for by a committee to support a ballot measure to contain a “paid for by” disclaimer.

Ann Ravel, former head of the state’s political and campaign ethics watchdog and chair of the Federal Election Commission, told POLITICO she believes the draft letter for Newsom must require a disclosure that states who is paying for it.

“It is definitely a form of advertising and clearly for a political purpose,” Ravel said.

Weinstein, himself a former candidate for Los Angeles City Council, has tried for years to cap rents in California. He has argued that affordable housing policy aligns with the foundation’s objectives and has spent tens of millions of dollars in recent years on failed statewide and local bids to limit rents and curb development.

Newsom opposed two of those statewide efforts. One of them was Proposition 21 in 2020, which the governor suggested was unnecessary since California had already passed sweeping rent control — enacting the nation’s strongest rent caps and protections. Newsom also said it risked discouraging the availability of affordable housing. Before that, Newsom opposed Weinstein’s Proposition 10 in 2018, saying it may have unintended consequences on housing production that could be deeply problematic.

Proposition 21 and Proposition 10 each were defeated by about 20 percentage points.

Weinstein’s latest initiative — to repeal a 1995 state law known as Costa-Hawkins that prevents localities from limiting rental costs on certain properties — was submitted to the state late last year. He has until late August to gather nearly 550,000 signatures from registered voters to qualify the measure for the ballot. A fiscal analysis by the state found that AHF’s proposed repeal would lead to a possible drop in state and local revenues “in the high tens of millions of dollars per year over time,” depending on how localities responded to it.

Weinstein’s corresponding draft letter hasn’t been publicized until now. But his pay-per-signature campaign represents a novel wrinkle in a system designed to promote direct democracy by ordinary citizens yet is often used by moneyed interests to circumvent the legislative process.

In the documents obtained by POLITICO, the draft letter calls on Newsom’s support for “real rent control.” It charges that prior legislation the governor signed to impose “rent caps” on certain residential rentals still allows 10 percent yearly increases, “which Californians can’t afford.”

The draft letter goes on to argue that even if Newsom doesn’t come out in favor of AHF’s repeal proposal, called the Justice for Renters Act, he should not use his political capital to oppose it.

“Keep your promise,” the draft states. “Don’t stand with corporate landlords against renters.”

Ged Kenslea, a longtime spokesperson for AHF, defended its use of the paid letter. In a statement, he said voters have a right to place a petition on the ballot and also have a right to sign a letter to the governor. “Critics of our efforts are simply trying to silence the voice of voters before they would even have a chance to consider the issue,” he said.

The foundation also doesn’t believe a disclosure is warranted in this case, arguing that the letter is not meant for the public but for Newsom, an elected official.

“It’s democracy at work,” Kenslea said, before again turning attention to AHF’s critics. “It is unconscionable that opponents to rent control and who seek unbridled profits for corporate developers are making a concerted effort to undermine the voices of community members concerned about skyrocketing rents and homelessness.”

The fresh political ire directed at AHF comes as the organization sustains a barrage of attacks for failing to disclose financial payments to influencers and consultants. The group is also enduring criticism over its past scorched-earth campaigns and legal showdowns that have made Weinstein a pariah to many in the capital and around Los Angeles where he’s based. Last month, a Los Angeles Times investigation found potential conflicts-of-interest and disclosure failures involving AHF. California officials said last year they would refuse contracts with AHF to provide medicine and advocacy for hundreds of HIV-positive patients after accusing the nonprofit of improper tactics during health care plan rate negotiations. Weinstein countered the state was retaliating against him for pushing for higher rates.

Democrats who have faced off against Weinstein predicted that the backlash over the paid-for letter would make the effort pointless.

“The guy has such sub-zero credibility that it won’t be worth a grain of salt,” said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic strategist in Sacramento. “If his fingerprints are on it, it’s irrelevant to policymakers in California.”

POLITICO spoke with a person approached by a signature gatherer in Sacramento who said they were asked to sign both the proposed ballot measure and the draft letter to Newsom separately. (It is standard practice for organizations and individuals to pay for signatures on ballot measures themselves and, indeed, on the documents related to the current ballot measure, AHF’s role is disclosed).

Another person familiar with the operation confirmed that the draft letter did not contain a disclosure and provided a photograph of it taken at the site.

POLITICO also reviewed voicemail recordings from a signature-gathering firm verifying that the campaign was paying $5 total for both signatures (one on the letter, the other on the ballot measure) as recently as April 6, including $3 for a signature for the rent control measure and another $2 for a signature for the letter.

Ravel, who believes the law requires AHF to disclose its role on the letter, added that it might be different if the draft letter advocated the issue more generally versus being part of a paid campaign that clearly states the name of the measure.

Others aren’t so sure, however. AHF may have some legal wiggle room on the disclosure piece, said Jessica Levinson, former president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.

“Any good lawyer would make the argument that it’s not an ad but could later show up as a datapoint in an advertisement,” Levinson said.

But, she concluded the emerging letter campaign does strike her as a workaround.

“It’s one more example of what we always say: ‘We create a law and then people change their behavior or embark on new behavior in ways that push the boundaries of that law,’” she said.