Floor — 2026-06-11 (stale)

Thank you. Secretary will call roll. Allen, Abraudio Gil, Archuleta, Araguin, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Daly, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limon, McGuire, McNerney, Mandjavar, Nilo, Ochoa Bog, Padilla, Perez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Cillarto, Smallwood Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Baladares, Wahab, Weber Pearson, Weiner. We do have a quorum present. Would the members and our guests be on 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.

Members, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with the allegiance of ourselves for all. 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 Nilo birthday was just recent a few days ago and there are donuts in the lounge for members to celebrate Senator Nilo getting a little older And so, yes. Thanks to Senator Groh for the donuts. and thanks yes senator achobog 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 uh senators i wish we had more on the floor but senators i also want to recognize another very special birthday chief assistant secretary hashani happy birthday to you and then we also have some very very special special guests 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 2910 C the following bills are referred to committee on rules file item 80 AB 686 in addition without objection measures withdrawn from committee tomorrow Friday June 12 2026 will be re referred re re re referred to

Thank you, Mr. President. I object to that motion and call for a roll call. Thank you, Senator Nilo. Senator Laird is asking for an aye vote. Senator Nilo is asking for a no vote.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Members, I move the adoption of author's amendments across the desk on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, June 12th, 13th, and 14th, as approved by leadership. These amendments will be adopted, published, and the bills returned to the committee.

Thank you, Senator. Okay. With that, we will, without objection, apply the previous roll call to this motion. Seeing no objection, ayes 28, nos 8, the motion passes.

The desk will note. Thank you.

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 assembly bill 2323 2789 1597 1817 2155 file will be deemed red Governor's appointments, items 37 and 38.

Seeing no mics raised for discussion or debate, Secretary, please call roll. Allen. I'll Ronald Gill. Archuleta. Aye. Aragon. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blake Spear. Aye. Cobaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choi. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Dally. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Gonzales. Grayson Aye Grove Aye Hurtado Aye Jones aye Laird aye Limon aye McGuire aye McNerney aye Menjabar aye Nilo Ochoa Boat aye Padilla aye Perez Reyes aye Richardson aye Rubio aye Ciarto? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Stern? Aye. Strickland? Umberg? Aye. Valadares? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Wiener? Aye. Secretary, please call absent members. Allen? Aye. Alvarado Gil, Gonzalez, Nilo? Aye. Aye. Perez, Strickland? Ayes 36, noes 0. The governor's appointment is confirmed. Moving to item 38, Senator Grove, you are recognized.

Can we substitute the roll? Is there any objection to using the prior roll? Seeing no objection, ayes 36, noes 0. The appointment is confirmed. Members, we are moving to Senate third reading file, item 49, SR 112. Secretary, please read. Senate Resolution 112 by Senator Nilo, Relative to Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Awareness Week. Thank you. Senator Nilo, you are recognized.

Thank you, Senator. We will do that. Senator 3rd 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, Senator Day. Senator Grayson. Thank you so much, Mr. President. I am honored to present SCR 181, which designates June 10th as Family Justice Center Day in California. Family Justice Centers, or FJCs, provide collaborative, trauma-informed wraparound 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. And FJC offers a supportive and safe environment where seamless, continuous, and comprehensive 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. All right. Members, 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.

The Majority Leader, Senator Ashby, at Senator Grayson's 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 0. Senator Grayson at the Majority Leader's desk for introduction of guests. Thank you so much, Mr. 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 Saberi with CFJN to the floor, as well as the following members of the Sacramento Regional FJC. That would be CEO Joyce Ballou, Operations Manager Amy DeVall, Client Services Supervisor Dave Kropp, Program Coordinators Zella Murrieta and Odalis Plasencia. Case Managers Edith Gonzalez, Yahaira Plasencia, Michelle Vasquez, and Social Work Interns Carlisa Cook, Elisa Herr, Kayla Simmons, Tina River, and Amber Vang. Welcome to the Chamber. Welcome to Senator Grayson's guests. Thank you. Continuing on Senator third reading, the House will return to file item 49, SR 112, by Senator Nilo. Secretary will read. Senate resolution 112 by Senator Nilo, related to familial adenomatous polyposis awareness week.

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 eyes 36 no zero and the resolution passes moving to item 58 second SJR 18 secretary please read Senate resolution 18 by Senator McNerney relative to campaign finance reform senator McNerney you are recognized thank you mr. president and distinguished members I'm standing up here today to talk about SJR 18 it's citizens united resolutions Senator McNerney, I am so sorry, I deeply apologize. I missed a very important honor to- Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Nilo to introduce his guest.

Thank you for coming to the gallery, and Senator Nilo, my apologies. We now will move officially to item 58, SJR 18. Secretary, please read. Senator Resolution 18 by Senator McNerney relative to camping finance reform. Senator McNerney, you are recognized. I thank you, Mr. 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 disagrees 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 that have the same rights to spend money on campaigns as individuals as you and me do? Together these two decisions allowed corporations and other organizations such as 501c6s or 501c5s and super PACs 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 million in 2008, before Citizens United, to $4.5 billion 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 ten 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 talk about campaign finance reform. People are sick of seeing politicians bash each other and think all of us are corporate, corrupt bums. Now, I know this bill passed in a strictly 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 going to ask for an aye vote. Senator Adagin, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. I also rise in support of SGR 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 where the ultra-rich gets a 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 in the 2024 election cycle. SJR 18 aligns the state legislature with the opinions of the American people, in which 8 in 10 American people agree that the flow of corporate money is a detriment to democracy and drowns out 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 sway the outcomes of our elections and our government. I want to thank the senator from Pleasanton for introducing this resolution. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Senator Nilo, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question of the author. Will the author accept a question? Yes. I will. Please. 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? First of all, I want to 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 want to 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 501c5s also known as unions and it would allow them that the infamous decision does allow them 501c5s to unlimited spending as well 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. Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, does 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. Okay. 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 want to make. And thank you for the question. On my own time, 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 PACs is there are many contributors to these PACs, 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, non-profit organizations, or individuals, and they are not disclosed. Total lack of transparency. Senator McNerney, you are expressing point of order. I'd like to know if this is in form of a question or a statement? No, I said I appreciated you answering my question, and then I said on my own time, so I had gone on to my own comments. And if you interpret it as a question, obviously you can deal with that in your close, but I just want to emphasize. Senator, 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 the statement an informative 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. if the senator would continue and make your point and wrap it up. 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 unions or other nonprofits. everybody is affected everything is affected by what we do here and 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, Mr. President, and grateful to the good Senator for bringing SDR 18 forward, and I stand in support of SDR 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 existent oversight. Nearly $5 billion 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, $1.9 billion. 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 just being loud themselves taking over the airwaves our social media channels and our mailboxes 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 the 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 Assemblymember 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 in our elections and put the power back in the hands of the people and American voters. I urge an aye vote. Senator Wiener, you are recognized. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I think at the very basic level, we need to be clear that corporations are not human beings. And, you know, when this doctrine came into existence a long time ago, saying that corporations are people, 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 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 megacorporations 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 be more appropriate if I anger X corporation that worth a trillion dollars or whatever they can just write a million 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 donors to candidates. And 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 $200, $300 million, drop of a hat. 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 want to 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 non-profits and shell companies spent more than 1.9 billion 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 interests. 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 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. Senator Jones, you are recognized.

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

Secretary, please call the roll. Alan. Aye. Alvarado Gil. Archuleta. Aye. Aye. Adeguin. Aye. Aye. Aye. Blakespeare. Aye. Cobaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choy. Cortese. Aye. Daly. No. Durazo. Aye. Gonzales. Aye. Grayson. Aye. Grove. No. Hurtado. Aye. Jones. No. Laird. Aye. No, Ochoa Bog. No, Padilla. Aye, Perez. Reyes. Aye, Richardson. Aye, Rubio. Aye, Ciarto. No, Smallwood Cuevas. Aye, Stern. Aye, Strickland. Humbert. Aye, Valadares. No, Wahab. Aye, Weber Pearson. Wiener. Aye. Secretary, please call absent members. Abrago Gil. Choi. No. Gonzales, McGuire, aye. Perez, Strickland, Weber Pearson, aye. Ayes 28, noes 8. 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. Assembly Bill 2726, Assembly Concurrent Resolution 194, 143, 158, 178, 119, 179, 181, 183, 123, 163, 174, 180, 182, 184, 188, 189, 124, 167, 186, 190, 195, 196, 198, 200, 203. Secretary, please call roll on item 93. Allen. Aye. Alvarado Gil. Archuleta. Aye. Arrigin. Aye. Ashby. Aye. Becker. Aye. Blakespeare. Aye. Cobaldon. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Cervantes. Aye. Choi. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Dally. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grove. Aye. Hurtado. I Jones I Laird I LeMond McGuire I McInerney I'm an Javar I Nilo I Chauva I Padilla I Perez Reyes I Richardson I Rubio Aye Cillarto Aye Smallwood Cuervas Aye. Stern. Aye. Strickland. Umber. Aye. Valadares. Aye. Wahab. Aye. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weiner. Aye. Secretary, please call absent members. Colorado Gill, Gonzalez, Limon, Perez, Strickland. Ayes 35, noes 0 on item 93. Ayes 35, noes 0 on the remaining items on both consent calendars. 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.

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 in memory.