California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara's travel expenses have sparked controversy, with thousands of public records detailing over 100 trips the commissioner has taken within the US and internationally. Since January 2025, 7 On Your Side investigated these expenses, following up on previous reports.
According to the California Department of Insurance (CDI), funding for Lara's travel comes from a special-revenue-fund agency primarily supported by fees and assessments on the insurance industry, rather than proceeds from taxes. This money is deposited into the state insurance fund, which is subject to an annual appropriation by the legislature. The CDI pays for travel organized by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), with the department paying a $150,000 annual assessment.
However, Commissioner Lara has taken "personal days" on certain trips and pays for those expenses himself, as per the department's records. Additionally, security services during his travels are covered under an annual contract between the California Highway Patrol and the state.
The investigation also found that there were over a dozen trips by Commissioner Lara not reported on state disclosure forms, required by law. The CDI has since updated these filings for Lara's participation in NAIC-funded events.
It is worth noting that while security protection from two 2019 trips was initially considered "in addition" to the annual contract that covered expenses up to $260,000, Commissioner Lara's office later clarified that all security during travel is "included within" that contract every year. The department acknowledged poor record-keeping for certain trips dating back to before Lara's tenure and added that some older records are no longer accessible.
The investigation into the California insurance commissioner's travel expenses continues, with ongoing questions regarding transparency and accountability in state government.
According to the California Department of Insurance (CDI), funding for Lara's travel comes from a special-revenue-fund agency primarily supported by fees and assessments on the insurance industry, rather than proceeds from taxes. This money is deposited into the state insurance fund, which is subject to an annual appropriation by the legislature. The CDI pays for travel organized by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), with the department paying a $150,000 annual assessment.
However, Commissioner Lara has taken "personal days" on certain trips and pays for those expenses himself, as per the department's records. Additionally, security services during his travels are covered under an annual contract between the California Highway Patrol and the state.
The investigation also found that there were over a dozen trips by Commissioner Lara not reported on state disclosure forms, required by law. The CDI has since updated these filings for Lara's participation in NAIC-funded events.
It is worth noting that while security protection from two 2019 trips was initially considered "in addition" to the annual contract that covered expenses up to $260,000, Commissioner Lara's office later clarified that all security during travel is "included within" that contract every year. The department acknowledged poor record-keeping for certain trips dating back to before Lara's tenure and added that some older records are no longer accessible.
The investigation into the California insurance commissioner's travel expenses continues, with ongoing questions regarding transparency and accountability in state government.
. The fact that there were a bunch of unreported trips is just plain sloppy. Can't we expect more from our public officials? Transparency and accountability are key, period 
.
. I mean, sure, Commissioner Lara took some trips that cost a bit more than expected, but come on, it's not like he was flying first class or sipping champagne on those personal days 
. And yeah, there were some unreported trips, but let's be real, we've all been there with the paperwork and whatnot 
. The fact that his office clarified that security costs are already covered under an annual contract is pretty standard practice, in my opinion 
. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think we need to take a deep breath and focus on the bigger picture here 
. Is this really worth all the drama?
And what's up with the fact that some of these records aren't even accessible anymore? It feels like there's a lot of wiggle room for the state to fudge the numbers. I mean, I get that they're trying to keep things organized and all, but come on, it should be easy to find out how much taxpayer cash is being spent on some fancy-schmancy travel 
. It's not just about the money, it's about transparency and accountability. The fact that some trips weren't even reported on state disclosure forms is super suspicious 
It's like they think they're above the law or something 
. The fact that Commissioner Lara pays for his own "personal days" and security services is just icing on the cake 
. We need to hold our leaders accountable for their actions! 
... I mean, thousands of public records detailing all these trips by Commissioner Lara just seems like a huge waste of taxpayer money 
. Like, what's the point of taking personal days on official business trips? Can't he just put it on his actual expense report or something? 
And that security contract is just getting more and more complicated - is it included in the $260k limit or not? 
. I'm all for accountability, but this just seems like a lot of unnecessary expense 
. Like, he's trying to do his job, right? And yeah, the funding from the insurance industry doesn't exactly make him accountable to the general public... but on the other hand, what if the state can't afford him a private jet or whatever 
? The fact that some of these trips weren't reported on time is just basic negligence, though 
Maybe it's just a case of poor record-keeping or miscommunication?
They're just trying to clarify some points and update the records, which is what anyone in a public office would want to do, right? 
Can't we all just try to find that middle ground where transparency and accountability are the goals, not partisan battles? 