The California state legislature just passed the deadline for each house to pass bills by its members. This week, I looked at which bills are moving forward, and which didn’t make the cut.
Here’s what happens next. State Senate and Assembly Committees will continue to meet through Aug. 18, then take a month-long summer recess. They’ll reconvene on Aug. 18, and then it’s crunch time for members to get bills passed in the opposite houses before Sept. 12.
Surveillance Pricing
With troves of digital information at their fingertips, companies ranging from big box retailers to vacation rentals can figure out just how much you’ll pay for a TV or plane ticket, and charge you the max. They monitor your finances, family status and place of residence to set a personalized price at the top of your budget.
Assemblymember Chris Ward’s bill would rein in that practice by banning companies from setting prices based on information that’s personally identifiable, or gathered through AI or other electronic surveillance technology.
“For the same product, every shopper should pay one price — plain and simple,” Ward said at a press conference on the bill in San Diego this week.
The bill distinguished surveillance pricing from dynamic pricing, which adjusts prices in response to market demand: “By contrast, surveillance pricing treats each consumer as their own economy.”
The city of San Diego sued Target and won a $5 million settlement for false advertising and unfair business practices, after investigations found that the company used an algorithm to hike the price of a TV once a customer entered the parking lot.
San Diego Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, who led the effort to ban digital-only grocery coupons in the city, supported Ward’s bill, saying: “Surveillance pricing is high-tech discrimination.”
The bill passed the Assembly on a largely party line vote. The California Chamber of Commerce said it supported the bill’s intention “to ensure California consumers are treated fairly and without discrimination” but opposed the proposal out of concern that it would penalize membership rewards, local discounts, or advertising.
Tijuana River Valley
The state Senate passed two bills by Sen. Steve Padilla aimed at protecting the polluted Tijuana River Valley.
One would authorize using funds from the new East Otay Mesa toll road for the South Bay International Boundary and Water Commission sewage treatment facility, which filters sewage from Mexico and discharges the treated water to the Pacific Ocean.
The other would prohibit a state agency from approving a new landfill, until the local agency that oversees waste facilities has held a public hearing on the project and certified that it won’t harm an environmentally burdened community. It’s aimed at the East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Landfill, which was passed by ballot measure 15 years ago.
This is Padilla’s second stab at this issue. Last year he proposed a related bill that would have prohibited a regional water board from issuing a waste discharge permit for a new landfill in the Tijuana River Valley. That bill failed on the Assembly floor, but Padilla is trying again.
Sexual Predators and Sanctuary Cities
State Sen. Brian Jones scored preliminary wins on bills tightening placement of sexual predators. The Senate passed his bills to make sure the state Department of Hospitals considers public safety when placing sexually violent predators in neighborhoods and study options for transitional housing after offenders are released.
There are seven such offenders placed in San Diego backcountry neighborhoods now, and four more awaiting placement within the county, according to the San Diego County District Attorney.
Jones has been trying to make headway on the issue of sexually violent predators for years and this is his fourth attempt. The legislation he introduced last year also passed the Senate, but then died in committee in the Assembly and these bills still face that hurdle.
Jones’ effort to scale back California’s sanctuary laws fell short. He introduced a bill in February to prevent cities and counties from restricting local-federal cooperation on immigration matters and make it mandatory for cities and counties to cooperate with ICE on immigration cases involving violent crimes. That bill failed in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
What I’m Watching
Could California claw back some of the billions it contributes to the federal government? That’s what Gov. Gavin Newsom suggested recently, amid his feud with President Donald Trump.
“Californians pay the bills for the federal government,” Newsom said on X this month. “We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back. Maybe it’s time to cut that off, @realDonaldTrump.”
California is a donor state, meaning it sends more money to Washington, D.C. than Californians get back. The Rockefeller Institute tracks the balance, and calculates that California paid $83 billion more to the federal government in personal and corporate taxes in 2022 than it received in entitlements, grants and wages to federal workers.
California is also the wealthiest state and would be the fourth largest economy in the world if it were a separate nation. San Diego, with our border economy and biotech industry, plays a key part in that.
After the LA fires, Newsom played nice with Trump, trying to strike a deal for disaster aid. But since then, Trump has suggested he might cancel funding to California.
That’s when Newsom made his own threat to withhold federal taxes. But could he actually do it?
Probably not, since residents file individually with the IRS. But Newsom’s office told CalMatters that they’re considering whether there are some pots of money that the state could withhold from the federal government.
National Guard Authority Goes to Trump, for Now
Last week we looked at Trump’s deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to restrain protests in Los Angeles, against Newsom’s wishes. This is a key test of whether states, or the president, controls the Guard.
In a fast-moving court battle, a U.S. District judge last week ruled that Trump had overstepped, and restored Newsom’s authority over the Guard through a temporary restraining order. Hours later, an appeals court reversed that decision. This Thursday the three-judge panel concluded that Trump’s deployment was justified.
“The fight doesn’t end here,” Newsom declared on X: “The president is not a king and is not above the law.”
The Sacramento Report runs every Friday. Do you have tips, ideas or questions? Send them to me at deborah@voiceofsandiego.org.
44,000 USD online People’s lives are changing rapidly. Every year more and more people are participating in online trading. 73.3 million Americans donated last year, and that number is expected to grow significantly.
For INFO click my user Name<<<<<<<
For all the great things California has done, they still want more of your money. When will your reps actually lower your cost of living?