Senate Floor

Secretary will call roll.

[Roll Call]

We do have a quorum present. Would the members and our guests beyond the rail and in the gallery please rise? We will be led in prayer this morning by Senator Reyes, after which please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Senator Reyes, you are recognized.

There is no power greater than a community discovering what it cares about. Ask what's possible, not what's wrong and keep asking. Notice what you care about and assume that others share your dreams. From Margaret Whitley, in turning to one another. Let us pray.

Loving and merciful God, you've given us the courage and determination to engage in conversations that matter, to forge creative solutions that will affect many people in the

future. We continue to trust in the outpouring of your spirit in new and surprising ways as we rely on the generosity and human goodness of each other. We make our prayer in your name. Amen.

Members, please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag. I believe Members, we have a, short agenda today if we can all get on the floor and to our desk ready to vote. We do have, privileges of the floor. I do want to announce Senator Niello's birthday was just recent, a few days ago, and there are donuts in the lounge for members to celebrate, Senator Niello getting a little older.

And so yes, thanks to Senator Grove for the, donuts. And thanks yes. Senator Ochoa Bough, and to all the senators for eating the donuts. Thank you so very much. It'll help you get older inside quicker.

And with that, we also senators, I wish we had more on the floor. But senators, I also wanna recognize another very special birthday. Chief assistant secretary Ashanti, happy birthday to you. And then we also have, some very, very special special guest with us today. We have Mary Ann Richardson, the mother of our dear Senator Richardson, with her at her desk.

And then also in the chamber, Leslie Minor, the sister to, Senator Richardson. We're glad to have her with us as well. Please welcome her. Messages from the governor will be deemed read. Messages from the assembly will be deemed read.

Reports of committees will be deemed read and amendments adopted. Under motions, resolution resolutions, and notices, pursuant to Senate rule twenty nine ten c, the following bills are referred to committee on rules file item 80 AB 686. In addition, without objection, measures withdrawn from committee tomorrow, Friday, 06/12/2026, will be re referred re re referred to the rules committee for re referral. And seeing no objection, Senator Laird, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, mister president. Members, I move that measures reported by the budget and fiscal review committee on Monday, 06/15/2026, be given a second reading upon being reported and ordered to the third reading. Senator Niello, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. I object to that motion and call for a roll call.

Thank you, Senator Niello. Senator Laird is asking for an aye vote. Senator Nilo is asking for a no vote. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Secretary, please call the absent members. Members, if we can keep the conversation down on the floor, take your conversations to the back, if you will, please, as we take our vote. Secretary, please call absent members.

[Roll Call]

Ayes 28. Noes eight. The motion passes. Senator Laird, you are once again recognized.

Thank you very much, mister president. Members, I move the adoption of author's amendments across the desk on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, June twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth as approved by leadership. These amendments will be adopted, published, and the bills returned to the committee.

Senator Niello, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. I object to that motion also and I'm willing to, substitute, the vote of the previous motion.

Thank you, Senator. Senator okay. With that, we will, without objection, apply the previous roll call to this motion. Seeing no objection, ayes 28, noes eight, the motion passes. Under motions, resolutions, and notices, Senator Blakespear, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. I rise to request that AB 28 be taken off the inactive file at the request of the author.

The desk will note.

Thank you.

Senator Rubio, you are recognized.

Thank you. I would like to respectfully request that AB 2539 be pulled from consent calendar and moved to the inactive file at the request of the author. Thank you.

The desk will note. Any other resolutions, notices, or motions? Seeing none. Members, we're moving to consideration of the daily file. Second reading file.

Secretary, please read.

[Second Reading]

File will be deemed read. Governor's appointments, items thirty seven and thirty eight. Senator Grove, you are recognized for item 37.

Thank you. Mister president, colleagues, file item 37 is a confirmation of Maggie Hallahan for the reappointment to the Bodine and Waterways Commission. She's a licensed United States Coast Guard guardian Coast Guard captain and joined the commission in 2024. She's also a volunteer skipper at the San Francisco Sea Scouts and serves as the president of local outrigger Canoe club. She was approved by the rules committee on June 3 on a unanimous vote. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, senators. Seeing no mics raised for discussion or debate, secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Aye. 36. No zero. The governor's appointment is confirmed. Moving to item 38.

Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. File item, 38, colleagues, is the confirmation of Ken Sasaki for reappointment to the Building Standards Commission. He serves as commission's position for structural engineer and first served on the commission from 2003 to 2006 before returning to serve in 2012. He was approved by the rules committee on June 3 on a five o vote respectfully asked for an aye vote and at the pleasure of the president, can we substitute the role?

Is there Is there any objection to using the prior role? Seeing no objection, eyes 36, nose zero. The appointment is confirmed. Members, we are moving to Senate third reading file, item 49, SR 112. Secretary, please read.

Senator resolution 112 by Senator Niello relative to familial adenomatous polyposis awareness week.

Thank you, Senator Niello. You are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. I need a few moments if you could move on to the next item. I will be prepared in a few minutes. That's okay.

Thank you, Senator. We will do that.

Turning next to the Senator third that's Senator third reading, file item 52, SCR 181. Senator Grayson, at the majority leader's desk, you're recognized. Secretary, please read.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 181 by Senator Grayson, relative to Family Justice Center Day.

Senator Grayson.

Thank you so much, mister president. I am honored to present SCR 181, which designates June 10 as Family Justice Center Day in California. Family Justice Centers, or FJCs, provide collaborative trauma informed wrap around services for survivors of interpersonal violence, including domestic violence, elder abuse, child abuse, and human trafficking. These centers offer a dedicated space for victims services and recovery, where they can access multiple service providers and agencies all under one roof.

Without an FJC, a survivor may need to visit up to 23 different locations to receive services and legal support, repeatedly sharing their story over and over and over again.

An FJC offers a supportive and safe environment where seamless, continuous, and comprehensive care care can be accessed all in one place. The California Family Justice Center Network represents the 26 family justice centers across the state that serve over, are you ready, 70,000 trauma survivors annually. Through these centers, California leads the nation in a multi sector collaborative approach. FJCs are more crucial than ever, and they have always risen to meet the needs of survivors through their collaborations.

They provide a wide array of services like housing assistance, legal support, mental health counseling, family court assistance, and much, much more.

These centers help break cycles of violence and abuse, saving individuals and families, and they represent a beacon of healing, hope, and safety for those that are in need. SCR 181 acknowledges the life saving and hope restoring work of the California Family Justice Center Network and its 26 member centers, ensuring that survivors can access the necessary supports and services all in one place.

Colleagues, thank you for your attention and recognition of the Family Justice Center day, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SCR 181.

Alright. Members, please, please take your unless you're speaking with Senator Richardson's mother or have the floor, please take your conversations off of the floor. Senator Rubio, you're recognized.

Thank you, mister president. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I also rise in strong support of SCR 181 by the great Senator. I thank him for bringing this forward. So this is such a critical issue in the city of California and across our nation, but we wanna make sure that we put a fine point on on this issue that continues to plague our all of our communities. For many survivors, domestic violence is not just a statistic or policy issue.

It is deeply personal. Many individuals carry stories of trauma, fear, isolation that remains unseen and behind closed doors. And too often, survivors suffer in silence before finding help. This is critically important because the services that they provide is life saving. These centers play a pivotal role in preventing further violence, but also coordinating with the right people.

By improving collaboration among agencies and service providers, family justice centers help communities respond more effectively to violence, hold offenders accountable, and reduce the likelihood of future trauma. Family justice centers serve thousands of individuals and families each year, including women and children fleeing abuse. Seniors facing neglect or exploitation, and vulnerable individuals seeking protections and support.

Today's resolution is also an opportunity to recognize the advocates that do such incredible work, The counselors, law enforcement professionals, nonprofit organizations, and community partners who dedicate their lives to helping survivors rebuild their futures with dignity and hope. As policy makers, we must continue to support victims and assist with these programs and community based partnerships that strengthen our response to violence and abuse because every survivor deserves to be heard, supported, and be safe. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

The majority leader, Senator Ashby, at Senator Grayson Desk.

Yes. Thank you so much. I couldn't resist the opportunity to also rise and thank the Family Justice Centers for all that they do across the great state of California, and I know that this year represents also the first year that they have come together statewide. All of the justice centers here actually in Sacramento, I was honored to meet with them earlier this week. I have no doubt that the heroic work that they each individually provide will be amplified tenfold through their collective action this week.

I appreciate every person who chooses to serve in one of those family justice centers across the state of California and truly appreciate the good Senator from Concord for bringing forward SCR 181 and urge an aye vote.

Senator Grayson, you may close.

Thank you so much, and I'm very appreciative and grateful of the supportive comments from my colleagues. These truly are wonderful, functional, centers that save lives and restore hope. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Members, this item is eligible for our unanimous roll call. Is there any objection to substituting the unanimous roll call on this item? Seeing none, Ayes 36, noes zero. Senator Grayson, at the majority leadership's desk for introduction of guests.

Thank you so much, mister president. I'm honored to have members and advocates of the California Family Justice Center Network with me today. The network is a powerful alliance that strengthens and supports family justice centers across our state. And I'm thrilled to welcome Aaron Saveri, with, CFJN to the floor as well as the following members of the Sacramento Regional FJC.

That would be CEO Joyce Beaulieu, operations manager Amy Duvall, client services supervisor David Dave Krop, program coordinators is Zela Murrieta and Odalys Placencia, case managers Edith Gonzalez, Yahaira Placencia, Michelle Vasquez, and social work interns, Carlisa Cook, Alisa Herr, Kayla Simmons, Tina River, and Amber Vang. Welcome to the chamber.

Welcome to the chamber.

Welcome to Senator Grayson's guest.

Welcome to Senator Grathen's guest.

Continuing on Senate third reading, we're going the House will return to file item 49, SR 112 by Senator Niello. Secretary will read.

Senate resolution 112 by Senator Niello, relative to Familia adenomatis polyposis awareness week.

Thank you, mister president. Sorry for the, delay. I rise today to present SR 112, which declares June 14 through June 20 as familial adenomatosis, polyposis awareness week. Now, I challenge every member of this, body to try to say that three times fast.

That would be funny, but, frankly, this isn't. It is a very serious disease. It's also known a bit more simply as FAP for short. It's a hereditary condition that results in a high number of polyps developing within the colon and rectum. Attenuated familial adenomatosis, polyposis, or AFP, is a variant of the condition which also causes polyps to develop.

Undiagnosed FAP and AFAP can increase the risk of cancer to develop in the small intestine, liver, brain, thyroid, pancreas, and cause other serious health conditions such as osteoemas and desmoid tumors. Understanding the risk for a FAP or AFAP can help health care providers determine appropriate treatment and screening protocol for prevention and early detection.

By declaring this week as FAP awareness week, we acknowledge a commitment to encouraging Californians to gather their family health history and share this information with their health care provider for early screening and prevention of cancers associated with these conditions. I respectfully ask an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Seeing no mics raised for discussion or debate, this item is eligible for unanimous roll call without objection. Seeing and hearing no objection, ayes 36, no zero, and the resolution passes. Moving to item 58, SJR 18, secretary please read.

Senate resolution 18 by Senator McNerney relative to campaign finance reform.

Senator McNerney, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president and distinguished members. I'm standing up here today to talk about SJR 18 citizens united resolution.

Senator McNearney, I am so sorry. I deeply apologize. I missed a very important honor to Senator Niello to introduce his guest.

Thank you. Also, I wanna recognize joining us today in the gallery is Dan Shockley and Joyce Moss. Dan Shockley is not only my constituent, but he's also a retired navy veteran and, has, and a hereditary colon cancer, syndrome warrior survivor and has been very active, in advocating for these sorts of conditions. So I recognize both of them in the gallery over there.

Thank you President.

Thank you for coming to the gallery. And Senator Niello, my apologies. We now will move officially to item 58, SJR 18. Secretary, please read.

Senator Resolution 18 by Senator McNerney, registered to camping finance reform.

Senator McNerney, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president, distinguished members. I'm here today standing up to talk about SJR 18 Citizens United. The Citizens, Resolution sends a message to the Federal Government that the California legislature disagree strongly with the Supreme Court's infamous Citizens United decision. Additionally, the resolution encourages states, other states in California, to find ways to limit the power of corporations to contribute to political campaigns. The Citizens United decision in 2010 ruled that corporations have the same rights as people.

So do we want corporations to have the same rights to spend money on on campaigns as individuals as you and me do? Together, these two decisions allowed corporations and other, organizations, such as five zero one c sixes or five zero one c fives and super packs to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns through independent expenditures. This is really called dark money because it's so difficult to trace where this money comes from. And that means that foreign entities are able to play in our elections.

Foreign entities are able to contribute money to your opponents, to help them defeat you in the elections.

Open Secrets found that nationwide, outside spending grew from $574,000,000 in 2008 before Citizens United to $4,500,000,000 in 2024. That's a nine times increase in spending. Outside money, including corporate money in politics, has eroded the public's trust in government. Today, nine in 10 Americans believe there's too much corporate money in politics. Getting corporate money out of politics can help rebuild the trust in our institutions and help citizens feel they have a more stake, in our political system.

If you feel that large campaign expenditures are good for democracy, I strongly disagree with you. In campaign events everywhere, people respond most strongly when I tell when I talk about campaign finance reform. People are sick of saying politicians bash each other and think all of us are corporate corrupt bums. Now, I know this bill passed in a strictly bar a partisan way in the committee, and that's a shame because this money in politics hurts all of us. It hurts all of us. So with that, I'm gonna ask for an aye vote.

So with that, I'm gonna ask for an aye vote.

Senator Arreguin, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president. I also rise in support of SJR 18 as a co author. This resolution reaffirms our commitment to protecting our democratic values and ensure that our elections and our government cannot be bought. The fact that our nation's government is veering towards a plutocracy with the ultra rich get to play to play at the expense of We The People is no coincidence.

Since the Supreme Court Citizens United decision in 2010, we have witnessed a surge in dark money influencing elections, including nearly 2 billion dollars in the twenty twenty four election cycle.

SGR 18 aligns the state legislature with the opinions of the American people, in which eight in 10 American people agree that the flow of corporate money is a detriment to democracy and drowns at the voices and the needs of average citizens. This resolution sends a message that in California, we will fight to preserve our democracy and limit the influence of corporate entities and swaying the outcomes of our elections and our government.

I wanna thank the Senator from Pleasanton for introducing this resolution and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Niello, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister chair. I have a a question of the author.

Will the author accept a question?

Is there any fundamental, we're talking about institutions participating in the political process and denying the right of an institution because your resolution says that an institution is not a person. So what about unions?

The res this first of all, I wanna say this is a resolution. There's no teeth in it. It just sends a message to Washington that we disagree with the infamous and I wanna correct the gentleman from Berkeley. This is an infamous Citizens United decision, not just a Citizens United decision.

But, yes, the, the ruling does include, 501.C5s, also known as unions, and, it would, allow them but the infamous decision does allow them five zero one c fives to unlimited spending as well. Yes.

Yes.

So so you would agree that if corporations were denied access to support of the political process through financial contributions, then unions should be denied that also?

Mister speaker, does or mister president, does the the gentleman require additional approval for another question?

Well, first of all, will the author take another question? Second of all, you have the right to address all that in your close.

K. Certainly, I will take another question. So would you repeat your question?

If we were to deny the right of corporations to participate in advocating in the political process through financial contributions, would we deny the same, to organized unions?

And the answer to that is affirmative.

And other nonprofits that are organizations that deal in the advocacy world also?

I think we would include super PACs, 501c5s, corporations, and other nonprofits. Yes.

Now you've hit on the issue that I really wanna make. The and thank you, Senator, for the question. On my, own time, the the problem we have with campaign finance has virtually nothing whatsoever to do with institutional participation. It has to do with the many efforts of campaign finance reform, each one of which incrementally reduces accountability and transparency. And in my opinion, that is the most serious challenge we have relative to campaign finance.

We have repeated mandates to limit the amount of contributions to candidates, but there is no limitation to contributions to political action campaigns, Super PACs, which you, rightfully pointed out. And what happens is well, I'll use an example. The city of Folsom has had a candidate contribution limit of $150 They're in the process of trying to change that because their campaigns have been entirely dominated, controlled, messaging wise, by PACs.

Now the problem with packs is there are many contributors to these packs, but only the top two, typically maybe three contributors are disclosed. There are huge contributions made to these PACs. They can be organizations, businesses, unions, nonprofit organizations, or individuals, and they are not disclosed. Total lack of transparency.

They can be organizations, businesses, unions, nonprofit organizations, or individuals, and they are not disclosed. Total lack of transparency.

Senator McNerney, you are expressing point of order. What's

I'd like to know if this is in form of a question or a statement.

No. I said I I appreciate you answering my question, and then I said on my own time. So I had gone on to my my own comments. And if if you interpret it as a question, obviously, you can deal with that and get closed. But I just wanna emphasize

Senator, if if you'll allow me, I will address the point of order.

Okay.

Thank you. Give me one second. Uh-huh. Senator McNerney, would you clarify your point of order?

Was was the Or restated. Was the statement of an informal question or some other form of oratory?

It appears like the Senator was not asking a question, that he was simply making comments on his own time. And if the Senator would continue and, make your point and wrap it up. Thank you.

copy and

wrap it up. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate that. So, again, in our controlling of campaign finance, the problem is not denying the right of a corporation to participate in the political process because corporations are heavily affected by the political process, as are unions, as are nonprofit organizations that advocate. And I do not espouse having the Citizen United restriction on corporations be, as is presented here, be transferred to corporation or to unions or other nonprofits. Everybody is affected.

Everything is affected by what we do here. And to not to deny, individuals or organizations the right to petition their government in their self interest is anti democratic. And what we need to do is reform our method of political finance to eliminate that lack of accountability and lack of transparency that exists currently. I urge a no vote.

Senator McGuire, you are recognized.

Thank you so much, mister president, and, grateful to the good Senator for bringing SJR 18 forward, and I stand in support of SJR 18. Right now, Citizens United means that big corporations, big oil, big tobacco, individuals like the Koch brothers can pour unlimited amounts of money into our elections. Essentially, no existing oversight. Nearly $5,000,000,000 in dark money has been spent in the American election cycle since Citizens United was passed by the Supreme Court. Close to a billion dollars will be spent just this year alone.

In the 2024 election cycle, $1,900,000,000. It's obscene, and this shouldn't be a political issue. This is an issue that should bring us together. We have to get money out of politics. The way big corporations win isn't just being loud themselves taking over the airwaves, our social media channels, and our mailbox.

They win when leaders are silent, when we're silent, when people fail to call them out. Being silent at this time with the amount of money that's being poured into elections across this country, the dark money forces at the gates means that we are complicit. And that's exactly what the good Senator and I think the majority of this Senate body will be doing today, is speaking up and standing strong.

We need to change corporate law to take away corporations' ability to act as artificial people and spend unchecked sums in our elections. It has to stop.

It's just common sense. And it's also the bare minimum that we could do. I was honored to be an author with the assembly member, Chris Rogers, this year on AB 1984 that aimed to combat this issue here in California, stopping corporations from undue influence in the California election system. And by the way, this isn't a red or blue issue. The state of Montana will have this exact issue in front of voters in November, one of the reddest states in the union.

This is an issue that should bring Republicans and Democrats together. We need to take action together with every tool we have to end this corporate and dark money spending our elections and put the power back in the hands of the people and American voters. I urge an aye vote.

Senator Weiner, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, mister chairman. I I think at the very basic level, we need to be clear that corporations are not human beings. And, you know, when when this when when this doctrine came into existence a long time ago saying saying that corporations are people are are people for purposes of constitutional rights like the First Amendment, it was a different world.

And what we have seen is that concept being just exploded to the point where we have Citizens United and other just radical, Supreme Court rulings taking that doctrine and just expanding it and distorting it so much that you can have the the largest corporations just purchase elections. And we also need to be clear that today, the corporations that exist today, the biggest, are the largest corporations in the history of planet Earth.

These are the wealthiest corporations in the history of planet Earth. They make previous generations of mega corporations look tiny. And so if we don't change this dynamic and be clear that, no, we cannot have unlimited corporate spending in elections, and that corporations are not human beings, if we don't put a stop to this, this is going to go in a very toxic direction. It already is.

We know that in any race, anyone running for office knows if I piss off, excuse my language, that if I anger, I'll be more appropriate.

If I anger x corporation that's worth a trillion dollars or whatever, they can just write a $50,000,000 check and dump it on the candidate. And so it is so toxic. It's one of the reasons why we have contribution limits, for, for donors to elect to candidates. And we those rules should apply to corporations as well. In terms of the labor union issue, when you look at the money that corporations have versus the money that labor unions have, they're not even in the same universe.

And we see that play out in ballot measures in California where you have an industry that decides it wants to write its own regulations, and they can dump $100,000,000 in drop of a hat. Not it doesn't even register, for them. It's such a tiny percentage of the money they have. So the issue is corporate spending. Citizens United is an abomination, and is at the heart of the rot that we see in portions of our political system, and it needs to be overturned.

Senator Wahab, you are recognized.

Thank you. I rise in strong support of SJR 18, and I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. You know, oftentimes, when you talk to voters, they are very much apathetic to our democratic process. They view both parties the same, and they see nothing being done for them. And the reason behind that largely is Citizens United.

That is the honest truth. Democracy should belong to the people, not corporations, not shell companies, not dark money networks, not the highest bidder. Since Citizens United, unlimited outside spending has flooded our elections. In 2024 alone, dark money groups, nonprofits, and shell companies spent more than 1,900,000,000 in federal races, the highest amount since that decision. That is not democracy.

That is power hiding in the shadows. The people we represent do not have corporate bank accounts. They are renters trying to stay housed, parents choosing between groceries and gas, seniors worried about health care, students drowning in debt, small business owners trying to keep their doors open, and workers asking for a fair wage, safe conditions, and dignity. That is who democracy is supposed to serve.

So when we talk about political spending, we must remember the difference between people joining together to be heard in a union and corporations spending unlimited money to protect their power and their interest.

People organize because one voice alone is too often ignored. Corporations spend because they can. That distinction matters when we are talking about workers and everyday people versus corporations that have literally more money than entire countries. A nurse, a teacher, a firefighter, a caregiver, a grocery worker, a construction worker, a public servant standing with others for a better life is not the same, and we need to just understand that. Corporate money asks what protects the bottom line.

People ask what protects our families, our rights, our homes, and our future. So SJR 18 says California knows the difference. For years, Citizens United decision has amplified the interest of of the wealthy and undermining the principle that every citizen has an equal voice in our union. When the influence of money outweighs the voices of people, the idea of proper representation corrodes, accountability fails, and trust in government weakens, which is what we are seeing today.

Democracy works best when elected officials are accountable to the people, not corporations. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Senator Jones, you are recognized.

Thank you, mister president and members. I think in this, debate, as happens with a lot of things and important issues that come to this floor, the the issue is half baked. We're we're half baking a cake here. And I agree with the speakers that said that this, should be a nonpartisan issue, and it should be a red and blue issue. And really, it it actually is.

But unfortunately, this resolution only deals with half the problem, not all of the problem. I think it's important to draw a distinction when we're talking when when folks that are, drawing a distinction between corporations and unions, it's very important, especially in California, to draw a line between, trades unions, Labor union unions that, build and produce something, and government employee unions. Now look, I and, you know, you can retort back that AFSCME versus, Janus versus AFSCME fix some of that problem.

But when it comes to government union workers being compelled to be in a government union, and then that government union extracts contributions from those government employees that are paid by the taxpayers, And then those government union dues are used against us, and I'm gonna say all of us, in this in in this esteemed body, and they use them against the the majority party to exert influence on how you're gonna vote. They use them against the minority party to influence whether we get to come back or not and get elected.

They use them against the minority party to influence whether we get to come back or not and get elected.

So let's be honest in the debate here and talk about that. Let's eliminate the conflict of interest of government employees being paid by taxpayers and that taxpayer money being extracted by the government unions and then the government unions using that money to influence the outcomes in this building. Let's talk about that too.

And I think if you had added that into this resolution, most of us would probably support it and vote for it because we think that would create balance and eliminate some of the corporate problems that we have with with corporations contributing. And let and and let's knock off the talk about dark money, especially in California.

A lot of this is disclosed. Now I just saw an article this morning that, one of the governor, candidates spent $200,000,000 of reportable money on his campaign to not win, and then several $100,000,000 more through NGOs and nonprofits that's not traceable. So maybe that is the dark money that that we are talking about here today. I think on the corporation conversation, it's also important to make a couple of distinctions. And I agree with you that, you know, some of these, billionaires, are exerting their influence.

But, a lot of that conversation are billionaires that have left their corporations, the founders, the CEOs that have retired from the corporation and now using their own personal wealth to influence, elections. Well, that's a different type of first amendment debate, I believe. But regarding corporations themselves, let's let's keep in mind basic economics in America. Corporations have one bottom line purpose, and that's to make a profit.

And I think if you get can get one on one with any corporate CEO or go into their boardroom and have the conversation, would you like to spend less money on politics?

I would be very surprised if it was not nearly unanimous that every CEO and every board member would say, yes. We would love to spend less on politics, especially in California. But it's so expensive in California for these corporations to exist because the legislature and the governor keeps trying to tax them out of existence and overregulate them into extinction or encourage them blatantly to move to another state that they look at political giving as a balanced statement item.

They have to be invested in politics in California to stay in business in California. So I would say, let's do a fair resolution.

Let's do a resolution that answers red and blue. Let's do a resolution that answers left and right. Let's do a resolution that does cut the political spending and brings accountability and and exposure on where the money is coming from and where it's going. And let's do a real resolution. I ask for a no vote on SJR 18.

Seeing discussion and debate ceased, Senator McNerney, would you like to close?

Well, good. I I thank all, colleagues who stood up and and spoke on this issue. I think it's a it's an important debate. I wanna make a few points, counterpoints. The minority leader mentioned the corporations have a bottom line interest.

Human beings have a more moral bearing and, need to answer to other authorities than the bottom line. And I think that's an important distinction, and should help guide us as to whether, corporations should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money. And, dark money is called dark money because it's hard to trace. It's hard to know where the money came from. And that's why I mentioned earlier that a lot of this money could and is coming from foreign entities that are getting involved in our elections.

And I wanna address some of the comments from my friend from Fair Oaks, the Senator from Fair Oaks. I do have SB 900, which increases transparency in election spending. I think that's important. But, permit me to disagree, about whether or not unlimited spending in elections, is okay even if people know where it's coming from. Because if you allow transparency, it will be unwieldy.

If you allow complete transparency and require it, you mentioned there's a lot of loyal donors. It would be unwieldy and unable people to follow what that is. And again, I have SB 900, which does increase transparency modestly. So I think we have a situation here where unlimited money, and this is where the disagreement is, unlimited money coming into elections is harmful. It makes people have less trust in our democracy.

They think our democracy is being paid for, bought and paid for, and it's to a certain degree it is. So, I think we need to think about whether putting unlimited amount of money in campaign contributions, and it happens on both sides, is something that we want to encourage. And again, this resolution just sends a message that the legislature of California is not happy with Citizens United decision. And I thank the again, I thank my colleagues, and I ask for an aye vote.

Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]

Arreguin. Hi. Ashby. Becker, Blake Spear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choy, Cortesi, Tali, no Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, No, Hurtado. Aye, Jones.

No, Laird. Aye, Limon. Aye, McGuire. McNerney. Aye.

Aye, Menjubar. Aye, Nilo. No. Ochoa Bog. No.

Padilla. Aye, Perez. Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio.

Aye, Ciardo. No. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Stern.

Aye. Strickland. Humbert. Aye. Volodares.

No. Wahab. Aye. Webber Pearson.

Weiner. Aye. Secretary, please call absent members.

Alvarado-Gil. Choi. No. Gonzales Maguire. Aye.

Perez Strickland. Webber Pearson. Aye.

Ayes 28, noes eight. The resolution passes. Members, we are moving to the consent calendar and special consent calendar for the day. Secretary, please read all items on both are there any members that wish to remove an item from the consent calendar? Seeing no members wishing to move items from the consent calendar, secretary, please read all items on both consent calendars.

[Consent Calendar]

Secretary, please call roll on item 93.

[Roll Call]

Arreguin. Alright. Ashby. Alright. Becker.

Alright. Alright. Caballero. Cervantes, Joy, Cortezi, Dali, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limon, Maguire. Aye, McNerney.

Aye, Menjivar. Aye, Nilo. Aye, Ochoa Bog. Aye, Padilla. Aye, Perez.

Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio. Aye, Ciardo. Aye, Smallwood Guaidoas.

Aye, Stern. Aye. Aye, Strickland. Aye, Albert. Aye, Baladares.

Aye, Wahab. Aye, Weber Pearson. Aye, Weiner. Aye.

Secretary, please collapse the members.

Alvarado Gil, Gonzalez, Limon, Perez, Strickland.

The consent calendar is adopted. Members, we are moving back to returning, to motions and resolutions for adjournment in memories at this time. We will begin with Senator Wiener, your adjournment in memory, when you are ready.

Thank you, mister president. It is with great sadness that I rise today to ask that the Senate adjourn in memory of one of our great labor leaders, Larry Mazzola senior. Born and raised in San Francisco, Larry spent nearly fifty years playing a major role in the labor movement in San Francisco and in California, serving as business manager of, our plumbers union, local thirty eight, for twenty four years. He served on the, California, Federation of Labor, executive board, for years.

He was vice president of the San Francisco Labor Council, and he was president of the San Francisco Building Trades Council for thirty years.

Larry was known, to put it mildly, as a fierce fighter. He never backed down in a fight for working people and for his members, and he was committed to working people's health, dignity, and security. Through his leadership, he secured critical project labor agreements and benefits, for workers in his union and beyond, and he always fought for his members. Larry was also deeply involved in San Francisco and the Bay Area.

Specifically, he served for many years on the Golden Gate Bridge Board of Directors, on the Rec and Park Commission, and as a San Francisco Airport Commissioner, for twenty six years, eighteen of which he served as president.

Larry is survived by his wife, Stephanie, his sister, Joanne, his three children, Steven, Lori, Degrande, and Larry Junior who currently is the president of the San Francisco Building Trades Council, and his four grandchildren, Joey, Nick, Sophia, and Stella. Colleagues, please join me in adjourning the Senate in memory of Larry Mazzola senior.

Senator, our condolences. Please bring the name of your adjournment memory to the desk to be properly memorialized. Senator Laird, you are recognized for your adjournment memory.

Thank you very much, mister president. I sadly rise to adjourn in the memory of a true public servant, Steve Zaley, who passed in April. Steve's commitment to and passion for service made our state a better place. Mister Zaley had over forty years of experience working in chief administrative level positions in counties, including Sacramento, Alameda, Tuolumne, and Kings.

In addition, he was executive director with the California State Sheriffs Association, assistant city manager for the city of Hanford, CAO for Alameda County, and interim county executive in Sacramento County, where he managed a budget of $2,000,000,000.

In addition to these roles, Steve worked for the State Department of Finance where he oversaw redevelopment, a dissolution for the Brown administration, and later was a special advisor for State Parks, where I worked with him in our effort to reform that department, almost fifteen years ago. I got to see not only his vast knowledge and contacts put to work, but his boundless creativity and enthusiasm.

In all of his spare time, Steve also served as a docent for California Railroad Museum where he worked for over fifteen hundred hours and as a mediator and facilitator for the Center for Collaborative Policy at CSU Sacramento. He was also an avid athlete, a long time baseball player who not only enjoyed the game as a player, and spectator, but threw a strike when he asked to throw out the first pitch at the River Cats game. He always left the place better than he found it.

Perhaps the professional role that he is best known for, and I think people on this floor knew him for, was his lost long time tenure as the executive director for the California Association of Counties, which he held for ten years. Among his many accomplishments, he led the development and promotion of a statewide ballot initiative measure, Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act that was approved with, an 88% yes vote on the November 2004, state general election ballot.

It protected local government revenue and strengthened the state mandate provision of the constitution. As CSAC recently wrote in response to his passing, Steve turned CSAC into a force at the capitol while developing and enhancing a menu of programs and services that to this day help counties better serve their communities. He was a passionate about service, which he saw as an honor, but also passionate about life.

When given the chance to dance, he always did, and he encouraged others to do the same. He is survived by his wife Diane Cummins, who many of us know as a longtime top budget adviser in this house and a longtime public servant in her own right, having served under protems Burton and Perata, and governors Wilson, Brown and Newsom. Our hearts and prayers are with Diane and the family. Steve leaves a legacy of leaving the state better than he found it. I asked that we adjourn in his memory today.

I asked that we adjourn in his memory today.

Thank you, Senator. Our sincere condolences to family, friends, and colleagues. Please bring the name of your adjournment memory to the desk for to be properly memorialized.

On his.

Senator Ashby, you are recognized on Senator Laird's, adjournment in memory.

Thank you. I rise as chair of the capital caucus to acknowledge the extraordinary Steve Zaley who was a treasure to this region on behalf of all of us who had the opportunity to serve with him in West Sac, Sacramento, YOLO, and Sacramento County. We thank, the Senator from Santa Cruz for giving such an eloquent speech on his behalf. Our condolences are with his family.

Thank you, Senator, for that. And Senator Ashby, you are recognized for your adjournment in memory.

Thank you, mister president. I rise today to adjourn in memory of James J. McClain senior, who passed away on February 17 at the age of 76. His family joins us today. James was born in Niagara Falls, New York and in 1970 married his wife Teresa, whom he met in the sixth grade.

James proudly served in the United States Air Force for twenty four years and retired as a master sergeant. During his military career, he served as a non commissioned officer and received numerous honors and commendations for his extraordinary service. After retirement, and I love this part, he continued his service as a United States postman. He delivered here at the Royal Oaks post office in Sacramento. James was known for his sense of humor, his love of gardening, his craftsmanship, and his love of that family right up there.

He enjoyed celebrating holidays with loved ones, cheering on the Dallas cowboys, we forgive him for that, and supporting his children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren throughout all of their moments in life. Today, we are joined by James' family and friends, his wife Teresa, his daughter Melina, his son James, and a face you all recognize, his good friend Willie Pilote. On behalf of the California State Senate, I extend condolences to his family, to his friends, to his coworkers, and loved ones. Members, please help me in adjourning in his name and honor.

Members, please help me in adjourning in his name and honor.

Senate, the Senate sends its condolences to the family and friends. Thank you for being here today. And to Senator Ashby, please bring the name of your adjournment memory to the desk to be properly memorialized. If there is no other business, Pro Tem Limon, the desk is clear.

Thank you, members. As we head out into the weekend, there will be a lot of eyes from around the world on California and other places. We are welcoming the start of the World Cup, and many of the members in this house have been part of the legislation and the work to allow for California to have all eyes on us as we kick off this weekend. So thank you to the members. With that, our next session is on Monday, June 15 at 2PM.

The Senate will be in recess until all legislative business has been received. We will reconvene Monday, 06/15/2026 at 2PM.