The Money Behind the BHUSD School Board Race

Before Beverly Hills voters decide who should oversee their public schools, they should look at who is financing the candidates asking for that responsibility.

The latest campaign finance filings offer a useful starting point. They show five candidates with substantially different financial positions: a leader in donations, a campaign heavily financed by family loans, two candidates with overlapping donor lists and a candidate whose unpaid bills far exceed available cash.

These are different measures of campaign strength, and they deserve to be reported that way. A donation, a loan and an unpaid expense should not be treated as interchangeable evidence of public support.

The five Form 460 statements reviewed through the Beverly Hills Standard Election Center cover activity through September 19, 2026. That common cutoff allows a fair comparison, while leaving subsequent fundraising and spending outside this analysis.

Judith Manouchehri leads in monetary contributions, with $22,981. Jackie Kruger follows with $13,815, then Kimberly Lifschitz with $6,865. Jared Gonzales and David Cienfuegos trail substantially, reporting $2,147 and $2,007 respectively. Those figures exclude loans and donated goods or services.

On that measure, Manouchehri has the clearest fundraising lead. Her report also shows no outstanding debt. She made a $1,500 startup loan to her campaign, then fully repaid it during the reporting period. After $19,213.47 in payments, the campaign reported $3,767.53 in cash.

Her donor list includes former BHUSD board presidents Lisa Korbatov, Steven Fenton and Nooshin Meshkaty, who gave $1,000, $200 and $250 respectively. Former Rent Stabilization Commission chair Donna Tryfman gave $500. The filing also lists $2,000 from HYP Law Group and separate $500 contributions from Jacob Emrani and his law firm. These names give voters a concrete record of financial support, though contributions alone cannot measure support across the electorate.

Lifschitz presents a different financial story. Her overall contribution total of $36,150.59 is the largest in the field, but it includes $26,500 in interest-free loans from her husband, Daniel Lifschitz, and $2,785.59 in donated catering.

Her husband's loans account for approximately 79 percent of the campaign's cash contributions, including loans. All remained outstanding at the cutoff. Lifschitz also had the largest cash balance, $18,785.96, alongside $1,829.04 in unpaid office expenses owed to Daniel Lifschitz.

That cash balance matters: it represents money available to the campaign at the reporting date. But voters should understand how it was obtained. Describing Lifschitz simply as the fundraising leader would obscure the difference between her $6,865 in monetary donations and the much larger amount her husband lent the campaign.

Kruger occupies the middle position in this comparison. Her monetary contributions were roughly twice Lifschitz's, and she supplied a $5,000 self-loan that remained outstanding. Her campaign had $2,445.86 in cash and no unpaid bills. Her donation total includes a separate $10 contribution from herself.

The political connections become more visible in Kruger's and Lifschitz's donor lists. They share 14 itemized contributor names, including BHUSD board member Amanda "Mandy" Stern, who gave $245 to each. Former Mayor Robert Wunderlich gave $250 to each, former City Treasurer Eliot Finkel gave $500 to each, and former Recreation and Parks commissioner Alissa Roston gave $500 to each. Past Traffic and Parking Commission chair Sharon Ignarro contributed $250 to both.

Entertainment and media-related names appear as well. Talent agency founder Harry Abrams gave $500 to each campaign. Charlie Sapadin, whose employer is listed as Netflix, gave $600 to each. Producer Nicole Ehrlich gave Kruger $100, while Writers Bloc founder Andrea Grossman gave Lifschitz $450. For voters interested in which community figures are putting money behind particular candidates, these entries are more useful than a general claim of prominent support.

Gonzales and Cienfuegos had much smaller donation totals at this cutoff. Gonzales loaned himself $2,465, more than his campaign received in monetary contributions, and reported just $819.82 in cash. His donors included a $500 contribution from Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur's campaign committee and $200 from housing developer Thomas Safran.

Cienfuegos' statement deserves close attention for a different reason. Alongside $2,007 in donations and a $1,500 self-loan, he reported $13,558 in unpaid bills against $1,919.59 in cash.

Most of those bills, $12,958, were owed to Deldar Injury Attorneys for yard signs, door hangers, a banner, postcards and slate mailers. Cienfuegos' lender entry identifies his employer as Deldar Legal. The campaign reported only $1,587.41 in payments, while total expenditures reached $15,145.41 after unpaid expenses were included.

The distinction is substantial. Much of the campaign's reported activity had generated bills that remained unpaid by the committee. The filing does not establish that those bills were overdue, but voters should be able to see both the activity and the obligations behind it.

The spending records also show where candidates are directing their resources. Kruger and Lifschitz each paid exactly $8,853.65 to Mitchell Publishing & Mailers and $2,500 to Highlander Solutions for consulting. Matching vendor payments are worth noting, although they do not establish coordinated campaigning.

Manouchehri reported $10,408.28 in campaign literature payments to Joey Lugassy and $3,500 to five slate mailer organizations. Cienfuegos reported the same five slate mailer organizations, with the same individual amounts, within his unpaid expenses. Gonzales reported a $550 newspaper print advertisement and $1,500 in professional services payments to his treasurer's firm.

No itemized incoming contribution explicitly identifying a union or a separately named PAC appeared in these five statements. Zbur's candidate campaign committee is a distinct category. Payments to slate mailer organizations are expenses, and should not be mistaken for money donated to the candidates. Outside committees' independent spending is also beyond the scope of these reports.

None of these figures tells voters which candidate has the best ideas for their schools. Candidates' financial claims deserve the same scrutiny as their campaign promises. Money can buy campaign visibility. It cannot substitute for sound judgment or a credible plan for the district.

At this reporting cutoff, Manouchehri leads in monetary donations, Lifschitz leads in cash with substantial family financing, Kruger ranks second in donations, and Gonzales and Cienfuegos trail in that measure.

Beverly Hills voters should read beyond the largest total. Who contributed, who lent, who was paid and what remains owed are all part of the record. In an election for responsibility over public schools, that is a reasonable place to start.

Readers can review the financial records behind all of these figures by visiting the Beverly Hills Standard's new Election Center. Each BHUSD candidate profile includes access to the latest Form 460 filing, showing reported contributions, loans, spending and unpaid bills.