THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
REVENUE AND TAXATION WILL COME
TO ORDER. SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. SENATOR GLEASON.
SENATOR. GLASER. GLASER.
PRESENT. DOLLY DOLLY. PRESENT.
SHAKESPEARE. SHAKESPEARE
PRESENT. BRADFORD. BRADFORD.
PRESENT DODD. BETHEA. SKINNER.
YOU HAVE A QUORUM. OKAY, A
QUORUM IS PRESENT. WELCOME,
EVERYONE, TO OUR COMMITTEE.
TODAY. WE HAVE ONE BILL ON
CONSENT. IF THERE'S ANY
OBJECTION TO TAKING THAT OFF A
CONSENT. IF NOT, I'D ENTERTAIN A
MOTION TO. SENATOR BRADFORD
MOVES THIS IS ITEM NUMBER ONE.
SB 946, THIS IS, ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. MOTION IS ADOPTED.
CONSENT CALENDAR. SENATORS.
GLASER. GLASER. I DOLLY. A DOLLY
I BLAKE. SPEER. BLAKE SPEER I
BRADFORD. BRADFORD. I DODD
PADILLA. SKINNER. 4 TO 0. ALL
RIGHT. THAT BILL HAS ENOUGH
VOTES TO GET OUT, BUT WE'LL PUT
IT ON CALL FOR OUR ABSENT
MEMBERS. NEXT UP IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER TWO. THIS IS SENATE BILL
952 BY SENATOR DOLLY. HE IS
PREPARED. SENATOR. PLEASE
PROCEED WHEN YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND MEMBERS.
I PRESENTING SB 952. THIS BILL
WOULD PROVIDE A TAX CREDIT TO
HELP OFFSET THE COST OF HOME
HARDENING AND VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT. WITH THE COST OF
LIVING SO HIGH IN CALIFORNIA,
MANY PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN HIGH IN
FIRE HAZARD ZONES ARE UNABLE TO
AFFORD THESE PROTECTIVE
MEASURES. MANY ARE FORCED TO
PRIORITIZE THINGS LIKE GROCERIES
AND UTILITIES BILLS SO THEY CAN.
SO THIS BILL IS PROVIDING SOME
MUCH NEEDED ASSISTANCE TO HELP
PEOPLE PROTECT THEMSELVES AND
THEIR FAMILIES. THE AGGREGATE
AMOUNT OF TOTAL CREDITS
AVAILABLE PER YEAR IS $500
MILLION TO QUALIFY FOR THE
CREDIT, YOU MUST SATISFY BOTH OF
THE FOLLOWING. YOU MUST HAVE AN
ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME OF 140,000
OR LESS FOR JOINT FILERS, OR
ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME OF 70,000
OR LESS FOR SINGLE FILERS. YOU
MUST OWN A DWELLING OR HOUSE.
YOU SIT IN A MODERATE HIGH OR
VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY
ZONE. THE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
CREDIT SHALL COVER 50% OF THE
COST, WITH THE MAXIMUM CREDIT
BEING $1,000. FOR EXAMPLE, IF A
HOMEOWNER SPENDS $2,000 ON
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT, THEY CAN
GET $1,000 IN $1,000 FOR THE
CREDIT. THE HOME HARDING CREDIT
SHALL COVER 50% OF THE COST,
WITH A MAXIMUM CREDIT AVAILABLE
DEPENDING ON THE SEVERITY ZONE
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN FOR
MODERATE SEVERITY ZONES, UP TO
2500 AVAILABLE FOR HIGH SEVERITY
ZONES, UP TO 5000 IS AVAILABLE,
AND FOR VERY HIGH SEVERITY ZONES
10,000 IS AVAILABLE. THOSE
SEEKING A CREDIT MUST CREDIT
MUST REQUEST A CREDIT
RESERVATION FROM THE FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD, AND MUST PROVIDE ALL
NECESSARY TAX AND EXPENDITURE
INFORMATION, AS REQUESTED BY THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD. THIS BILL
IS TRYING TO PROTECT THE MOST
VULNERABLE IN OUR STATE. MY
DISTRICT IS EXPECTED IS
ESPECIALLY IS A HOME TO MANY
PEOPLE LIVING IN A MODERATE,
HIGH AND VERY HIGH SEVERITY
ZONES. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, MANY
OF THOSE CANNOT AFFORD PROPER
HOME HARDENING. THE BILL'S
INCOME THRESHOLD IS NARROWLY
TAILORED TO INCLUDE THOSE WHO
OTHERWISE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
AFFORD THE MEASURE. BECAUSE
CALIFORNIA'S COST OF LIVING IS
SO HIGH. SO, MEMBERS, IN
CLOSING, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I'VE
TRIED THIS BILL. ACTUALLY,
SENATOR MCGUIRE AND I, RAN TWO
TIMES A BILL LIKE THIS, AND WE
GOT IT PARTWAY THROUGH THE
PROCESS. I'VE NARROWED THIS DOWN
AND TRIED TO TAILOR IT DOWN TO,
THOSE WHO REALLY WOULD NEED THE
BILL. SO I KNOW THIS IS A HEAVY
LIFT, ESPECIALLY AT A TIME WHERE
WE HAVE YOU KNOW, REVENUES THAT
ARE NOT EXCEEDING WHERE WE WERE
BEFORE. SAU. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. SENATOR DOLLY,
DO YOU HAVE ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES? NO. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE
HERE IN THE HEARING ROOM WANT TO
COME UP AND INDICATE YOUR
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL? PLEASE
COME ON UP. GOOD MORNING. CHAIR
MEMBERS DENISHA BOATNER, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
THE HEARING ROOM? ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL GO TO OPPOSITION. ANYONE
IN THE HEARING ROOM IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. OKAY. SEEING NONE,
WE'LL BRING THE MATTER BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR COMMENTS OR
DISCUSSIONS. MEMBERS, ANY
COMMENTS OR DISCUSSIONS, WELL,
SENATOR DOLLY, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR WORK. I MEAN, YOU'RE A
PASSIONATE ADVOCATE FOR YOUR
DISTRICT, AND YOU'RE CERTAINLY
YOUR DISTRICT HAS PROBABLY BEEN
ONE OF THE MOST HURT DISTRICTS
WITH THESE DISASTERS AND ANY
OTHERS IN THE SENATE. AND
PROBABLY YOU'D BE COMPETING WITH
SENATOR MCGUIRE, NO DOUBT. AND
SENATOR DODD AND SENATOR
MCGUIRE, I KNOW FEELS THE SAME
WAY YOU DO THAT. THESE ARE A LOT
OF FOLKS THAT ARE LIVING ON THE
EDGE, THAT DON'T HAVE THE
RESOURCES, AND THAT A LITTLE BIT
OF HELP FROM THE STATE COULD
MAKE A MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.
YOU KNOW, I'VE ASKED THE
QUESTION, YOU KNOW, WHEN THESE
DISASTERS STRIKE THAT THE STATE
STEPS IN AND SPENDS, YOU KNOW,
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, IF NOT
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO DEAL WITH
THAT DISASTER. AND ONE OF THE
DIFFICULT QUESTIONS IS, IS IF WE
HAD DONE MORE PREVENTIVE WORK,
BOTH AS A STATE AND INDIVIDUALLY
, YOU KNOW, COULD WE NOT ONLY
HAVE PROTECTED OUR PROPERTY AND
LIVES, BUT IN THE LONG RUN SAVED
MONEY. AND I KNOW IT'S A VERY
DIFFICULT THING TO KIND OF NAIL
DOWN. BUT I GUESS FOR ME AT
LEAST, YOU'VE NARROWED THIS BILL
DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY, IT DOES HAVE
A BIG PRICE TAG. WE'RE NOT THE
FISCAL COMMITTEE HERE, RIGHT? SO
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT SHOULD
DRIVE OUR DECISION THAT GIVEN
THE STATE'S FINANCIAL ISSUES.
BUT I SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
COSTS RANGE FROM 120 TO $290
MILLION. IT'S NOT A SMALL, SMALL
DEAL. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHAT
YOU'RE PROPOSING TO DO IN THE
BILL IS VERY MODEST, EVEN THOUGH
IT CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE. I
MEAN, THAT THOUSAND DOLLARS IN
MITIGATION, THAT $2,000 TO SEAL
UP ATTICS AND, AND MOVE
VEGETATION AWAY COULD REALLY
MAKE THE DIFFERENCE, NOT JUST ON
THAT PROPERTY OWNER, BUT
STOPPING A WILDFIRE FROM FROM
TAKING TAKEN OFF. THAT, YOU
KNOW, ONE OF THE STATISTICS THAT
I JUST TALKED WITH SOME
NEIGHBORS ABOUT, JUST THIS PAST
WEEK WAS THAT, A HOMEOWNER CAN
DO EVERYTHING RIGHT. BUT UNLESS
YOU HAVE. AND HERE'S THE NUMBER,
70% OF THE HOMES IN THE AREA
DOING THOSE SAME THINGS. RIGHT.
YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT MAKING THE
DIFFERENCE THAT YOU THINK YOU
ARE JUST BY TAKING CARE OF YOUR
PROPERTY AND SO THIS IS EVEN A
BIGGER ISSUE THAN JUST
INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS. BUT I
THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE THE
ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON
THIS BILL, IF IT MOVES FORWARD
TODAY, I WANT TO GIVE YOU THAT
OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO MAKE THE
CASE FOR WHY THIS OVERALL MIGHT
BE A SAVINGS TO THE STATE. AND
AGAIN, IT'S A TRICKY PROBLEM TO
TRY TO FIGURE OUT, BUT THAT
THAT'S WHERE I COME DOWN ON IT.
Ó. SENATOR DODD, DO YOU WANT
TO. I'M SORRY TO HORN IN. AFTER
YOU. YOU'RE THE LAST WORD
GENERALLY HERE, BUT, I AGREE
WITH YOU ON THIS. AND MAYBE AS
THIS MOVES FORWARD TO THE
ASSEMBLY, IT COULD BE AMENDED IN
A WAY THAT WOULD TALK ABOUT AS
PART OF A FIREWISE NEIGHBORHOOD
COALITION OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT. IF IT QUALIFIES THAT YOU
COULD BRING THE COST DOWN, YOU
KNOW, SIGNIFICANTLY AND, AND
HELP, COMMUNITIES THAT OTHERWISE
MIGHT NOT HAVE THE 70%
PARTICIPATION RAISE THEIR
PARTICIPATION RATES AS A RESULT
OF THIS, THEREBY SAVING LOTS OF
PROPERTY AND PERHAPS LIVES. ANY
FURTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS? SENATOR DOLLY, DO YOU
WANT TO CLOSE? I DO, I WANT TO
SAY, FIRST OFF, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR COMMENTS, BOTH OF YOU, WHEN
I FIRST CAME TO THE ASSEMBLY 12
YEARS AGO, I TALKED ABOUT FIRE
BECAUSE I KNEW FIRE WAS A BIG
ISSUE, AND I RAN MORE FORESTRY
BILLS THAN I THINK ANY OTHER
MEMBER IN, YOU KNOW, THE PAST 20
YEARS HAS AND PASSED THOSE BILLS
WITH A LOT OF OPPOSITION FROM A
LOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, BUT
YOU REMEMBER, WE ONLY IMPACT
PRIVATE LANDS IN CALIFORNIA, SO
THERE IS NOTHING REALLY MUCH
LEFT TO DO. WE'VE DONE
STREAMLINED EXEMPTIONS FOR
PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DO WHO HAVE
FORESTED LANDS OR COMMUNITIES.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ONE OF
OUR CHALLENGES BECAUSE THEY HAVE
A THEY THEY MANAGE 65% OF
CALIFORNIA'S FOREST LANDS. BUT
THIS BILL ALSO WILL HELP FOLKS
THAT AREN'T IN THE FORESTED
AREAS THAT ARE IN BRUSHLANDS AND
AREAS ALONG THE COAST, ORANGE
COUNTY, EVEN FOLKS WOULD, COULD,
COULD USE THIS BILL IN SOME
AREAS WHERE WE SEE, SO IT'S NOT
JUST FOCUSED TO MY DISTRICT,
IT'S FOCUSED TO AREAS OF THE
STATE WHERE WE'VE SEEN, WILDFIRE
IN BRUSH AREAS WHERE WE JUST
NEED TO DO MANAGE THAT. SO SO I
THINK, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I WANT
TO JUST LET YOU KNOW THAT WE
THERE'S NOT THERE'S NOT MUCH
LEFT TO DO IN THE ABILITY TO BE
ABLE TO ACCEPT OR FIGURE OUT HOW
TO PAY FOR IT AND AT THE END OF
THE DAY, OR INCENTIVIZE SOMEBODY
TO DO IT. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS
BILL DOES, IS TRY TO INCENTIVIZE
THEM WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS TO DO
THE RIGHT THING. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. SENATOR DALI'S
CLOSED LOOKING FOR A MOTION HERE
IN THE COMMITTEE, OKAY. SENATOR
BRADFORD MOVES THE BILL. THIS
WOULD BE A Dð PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. SECRETARY PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. SENATOR GLASER.
GLASER AYE. DOLLY. DOLLY. AYE.
BLAKE. SPEER BLAKE. SPEER. AYE.
BRADFORD. BRADFORD. AYE. DODD
DODD. AYE. PADILLA. SKINNER.
FIGHTERS ZERO. ALL RIGHT. THAT
HAS ENOUGH VOTES TO GET OUT.
WE'LL HOLD THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. WE'RE GOING TO
TAKE JUST A ONE MINUTE, PAUSE
HERE IN OUR HEARING. WE'LL BEGIN
IN JUST A MOMENT
.
WE HAVE, SB 1327 BY GLASER. HE
IS HERE PREPARED AND READY. SO.
IS THAT OKAY? OKAY. RIGHT. RIGHT
HERE. RIGHT. YEAH. JUST LET'S
JUST PUT ONE UP. JUST PUT ONE UP
AND I'LL REPLACE IT. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, ALL SET TO GO. OKAY,
THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING
ME TO PRESENT THIS BILL TO YOU
TODAY. YOU KNOW, CALIFORNIA HAS
ACTUALLY HAD TWO GOLD RUSHES
HERE IN OUR STATE. THE FIRST ONE
IS FAIRLY WELL KNOWN, 1849 GOLD
WAS DISCOVERED. PEOPLE CAME OUT
TO MINE GOLD, AND THAT'S
CERTAINLY WHAT THE STATE IS
KNOWN FOR, THEY MADE A LOT OF
MONEY. THEY ALSO LEFT A LOT OF
DAMAGE. ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, OR
CREEKS OR RIVERS OR HILLS. BUT
IT IT PUT CALIFORNIA ON THE MAP.
AND IT'S WHAT CALIFORNIA IS
KNOWN FOR. THE FIRST GOLD RUSH.
WE'VE HAD A SECOND GOLD RUSH
HERE IN OUR STATE THAT PEOPLE
AREN'T SO FAMILIAR WITH, AND I
CALL IT THE DATA MINING THAT
OCCURRED IN OUR STATE ABOUT 25
YEARS AGO. GREAT HONOR
ENTREPRENEURS LEARNED THAT IF
THEY COULD GET PEOPLE TO PAY
ATTENTION TO THEIR SERVICES ON
THE INTERNET, THAT THEY COULD,
ACQUIRE THE DATA OF ALL THOSE
INDIVIDUALS. SO, YOU KNOW THAT
WHEN YOU GO ONLINE AND LOOK FOR
A VACATION PLACE IN HAWAII AND
ALL OF A SUDDEN IN YOUR FEED,
YOU'RE GETTING ALL THESE NOTICES
ABOUT VACATION PLACES AND HOTELS
ON THE ISLAND. AND THAT'S
BECAUSE THESE PLATFORMS HAVE
LEARNED THAT THE DATA THEY'VE
LEARNED ALL ABOUT YOU, THEY KNOW
EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU. AND THEY
HAVE CREATED A MODEL WHERE
BECAUSE OF THAT ADVANTAGE, THAT
DATA EXTRACTION FROM EACH OF US,
IT HAS ENABLED THEM TO MAKE
THEIR ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITY ON
THEIR PLATFORM SO MUCH MORE
ATTRACTIVE TO FOLKS WHO ARE
SELLING THINGS. AND SO THIS
CHART ON MY LEFT GIVES YOU A
SAMPLE OF WHAT THAT REALLY HAS
MEANT FOR THOSE TRADITIONAL
ADVERTISERS, NEWSPAPERS, OTHER
MEDIA OUTLETS, THAT YOU CAN SEE
ON HERE, THE DRAMATIC CHANGE
THAT OCCURRED ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO
WHERE ADVERTISING REVENUE FOR
NEWSPAPERS, THAT'S THIS LINE
HERE IS GOING UP. AND THEN YOU
SEE THE COLLAPSE AND THEN YOU
SEE THE LINE ON THE BOTTOM.
DIGITAL ADVERTISING HERE, AND
YOU SEE IT GOING UP ON A, I
DON'T HAVE MY DEGREES. SO BUT I
ALMOST A 90 DEGREE ANGLE GOING
UP. YEAR BY YEAR. AND THAT'S
BECAUSE IT'S BECOME THE FAVORED
VEHICLE FOR ADVERTISING, BECAUSE
THEY KNOW ABOUT EACH OF US, AND
THE RESULT OF THAT HAS BEEN THE
HOLLOWING OUT OF OUR, OF OUR
NEWSROOMS, IN CALIFORNIA. NHÀ I
REFER TO THAT DATA AS A DATA
EXTRACTION, JUST LIKE THEY
EXTRACTED GOLD FROM OUR HILLS
AND JUST LIKE THE GOLD MINERS
FROM DAYS LONG GONE, THEY DIDN'T
MITIGATE THAT DAMAGE. AND SO. SO
WHAT I'M PROPOSING IN THIS BILL
IS TO MITIGATE THAT DAMAGE OF
THAT DATA EXTRACTION. AND WHAT
IT'S DONE TO OUR NEWSROOMS
THROUGH DATA EXTRACTION,
MITIGATION FEE. AND THAT'S THE
THAT'S ONE MAJOR PART OF THE
BILL. THAT'S BEFORE YOU IS THAT
I'M PROPOSING THAT THE PLATFORMS
THAT HAVE UTILIZED THAT DATA
HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THAT
DATA, THAT THEY PAY A MITIGATION
FEE, WE HAVE A SALES AND USE TAX
RATE IN CALIFORNIA TODAY. THAT'S
7.25. AND I'M PROPOSING THAT IF
ANY ENTITY, NOT JUST A PLATFORM,
IF ANY ENTITY HAS THOSE TWO
COMBINATIONS OF DATA EXTRACTION
AND ADVERTISING, AND IF IT
EXCEEDS $2.5 BILLION IN
ADVERTISING REVENUE IN
CALIFORNIA, THAT THEY WOULD PAY
THE SALES AND USE TAX, THIS NEW
MITIGATION FEE ON, ON ANYTHING
ABOVE THAT LEVEL. AND THAT'S THE
REVENUE SOURCE THAT'S PROPOSED,
IN THIS BILL TO TRY TO MITIGATE
THE DAMAGE THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO
OUR NEWSROOMS. NOW, THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE EQUATION IS THAT HOW
DO YOU GET MONEY INTO THE
NEWSROOMS BUT KEEPS GOVERNMENT
HANDS OFF OF THE BUSINESS OF
JOURNALISM? BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT
PART OF THE SUCCESS WE HAVE AS A
DEMOCRACY IS TO HAVE A FOURTH
ESTATE. WE CALL IT THE FOURTH
ESTATE, THE NEWS MEDIA TO KEEP
US ACCOUNTABLE, THAT YOU CAN'T
HAVE THE HAND OF GOVERNMENT IN
THAT SPACE. WE HELD A HEARING
JUST WEEKS AGO HERE IN THIS
COMMITTEE WHERE WE HEARD FROM
EXPERTS ABOUT BOTH THE ISSUE OF
REVENUE, WHETHER THE OPTIONS FOR
REVENUE AND WHAT ARE THE WAYS TO
GET IT INTO THE NEWSROOM IN A
WAY THAT THOSE IN THE JOURNAL
JOURNALISM COMMUNITY FEEL IS A
IS A IS A HANDS OFF PROCESS.
IT'S NOT AN EASY THING TO CREATE
. AND SO OUT OF THAT HEARING THE
CONSENSUS WAS THE BEST WAY TO DO
THAT IS TO PROVIDE A TAX CREDIT
FOR A LEGITIMATE JOURNALIST
DOING THEIR WORK IN ANY
NEWSROOM, SMALL AND LARGE. IN
CALIFORNIA. VÀ SO OUT OF THAT,
WE'VE CREATED A FORMULA IN THIS
BILL EXACTLY. TO DO EXACTLY THAT
. AND HERE YOU SEE THAT FORMULA
FOR THAT, FOR A ENTITY, A
JOURNALISM JOURNALIST
JOURNALISTIC ENTITY THAT HAS
MORE THAN TEN EMPLOYEES, WE'RE
PROPOSING A 25% WAGE CREDIT. IF
THEY PROVIDE BENEFITS TO THAT
EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS,
RETIREMENT BENEFITS. WE'RE
PROPOSING THEY GET A 5% BUMP IN
THAT CREDIT. AND YOU CAN SEE IT
GOES UP TO 30% IF THEY'RE AN
ENTITY THAT HAS FEWER THAN TEN
EMPLOYEES. WE PROVIDE AN
ADVANTAGE FOR THESE SMALL
COMMUNITY PAPERS AND ETHNIC
PAPERS. THEY WOULD START WITH A
35% TAX CREDIT IF THEY PROVIDE
BENEFITS, WOULD GO UP TO 40, AND
THEN WE DID A COUPLE OTHER
THINGS IN THIS BILL THAT YOU'LL
SEE. NUMBER ONE IS A LOT OF
SMALL, NEWS OUTLETS CAN'T HIRE A
LOT OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES. SO
WE'VE CREATED A BENEFIT FOR
FREELANCERS, NUMBER NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO IS WE HAVE SOME
NEWSROOMS IN CALIFORNIA THAT ARE
NONPROFIT. THEY DON'T PAY TAXES
ON THEIR EMPLOYEES. SO WE PUT A
PROVISION IN THE BILL TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY'D BE COMPENSATED
THE EXACT SAME WAY AS A FOR
PROFIT ENTITY WOULD BE. AND THEN
LET ME ADD THIS LAST POINT,
WHICH IS THAT A PART OF
RESUSCITATING THE NEWS COMMUNITY
IN OUR STATE IS A STABILIZATION.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALL SEEN
THE STORIES OF THAT NEWSROOM
LAYOFF AFTER NEWSROOM LAYOFF.
THIS BILL CREATES AN INCENTIVE
TO GROW NEWSROOMS. NOW BACK
AGAIN. SO IT CREATES A
STABILIZATION ON A TAX CREDIT
LEVEL. BUT IF THEY GROW WITH A
NET NEW EMPLOYEE IN THE STATE,
THEY'RE GOING TO GET ANYWHERE
FROM 10 TO 15% INCREASE IN THAT
TAX CREDIT OPPORTUNITY. AND SO
YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT
HERE. THAT IF YOU'RE A IF YOU'RE
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES AND YOU
GROW, YOU GET A 35% TAX CREDIT.
IF YOU PROVIDE BENEFITS, WHICH
THEY DO, THEY'D GET A 40% TAX
CREDIT. IF YOU'RE A SMALLER
PUBLICATION AND YOU GROW A
SINGLE EMPLOYEE, YOU COULD GET
UP TO 50% COVERAGE ON THIS
PROPOSAL. THAT'S BEFORE YOU IN
THIS BILL. OKAY. NOW YOU'RE
GOING TO HEAR FROM OPPONENTS IN
A FEW MINUTES. BUT SOMEHOW THIS
THIS ADDED COST TO THEM IS GOING
TO GOING TO CREATE ALL KINDS OF
ISSUES WITH, WITH ADVERTISERS.
YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS ISSUE OF A
SOME, SOME PEOPLE CALL THIS AN
AD TAX. I CALL IT A MITIGATION
FEE FROM THIS PROPOSAL. BUT
THERE ARE AD TAXES THAT OTHER
PLACES IN THE WORLD. ENGLAND IS
ONE EXAMPLE. AND WE'VE NEVER
WE'VE NOT SEEN ANY IMPACT ON
SMALL EMPLOYERS, THROUGH THAT,
THAT REVENUE SOURCE THAT'S BEEN
USED. SO WE'RE GOING TO HEAR
ABOUT THAT. BUT IF YOU AND ONE
LAST THING ON THIS, IF YOU LOOK
AT THE PROFITS THAT THESE
PLATFORMS ARE MAKING AND BY THE
WAY, THE WAY THE BILL IS WRITTEN
TODAY AND THE THRESHOLD
REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN THE
BILL, IT WOULD LIKELY ONLY
AFFECT THREE ENTITIES, META,
GOOGLE AND AMAZON. BUT IF YOU
LOOK AT META AS ONE EXAMPLE,
THEIR AD SALES ARE GROWING ABOUT
25% YEAR OVER YEAR. IT'S AN
UNBELIEVABLE BILLION DOLLAR
PROFIT CENTER FOR THEM. GOOD FOR
THEM, BUT THE IDEA THAT THIS
BILL IS GOING TO AFFECT THOSE AD
RATES IS FOR ME, NOT NOT REALLY
LOGICAL. IF THAT WAS THE CASE,
THEY'D BE REDUCING AD RATES OVER
THE LAST FEW YEARS, NOT RAISING
THEM. SO I ASK ALL OF YOU
ADVERTISERS OUT THERE, SMALL OR
LARGE EMPLOYERS, HAVE YOUR AD
RATES GONE DOWN? AND I THINK THE
ANSWER IS LIKELY NO. THEY
HAVEN'T GONE DOWN DESPITE THESE
MASSIVE PROFITS. SO THE
ACCUSATION THAT THIS BILL IS
GOING TO CREATE THIS BIG IMPACT
ON, ON ADVERTISERS IS SOMETHING
THAT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD FOR ME
TO GET MY HEAD AROUND. LET ME
SAY A FEW THINGS THAT I THINK,
YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO STEP AWAY
FROM THIS PROPOSAL SPECIFICALLY
AND SAY THINGS THAT I THINK YOU
INTUITIVELY KNOW. SENATORS ARE
DEMOCRACY IS DEPENDENT UPON AN
INFORMED PUBLIC. THEY KNOW WHAT
WE ARE DOING. AND THE THING THAT
WORRIES ME A GREAT DEAL IS THAT,
YOU KNOW, WE'RE SEEING THE
FOURTH ESTATE HOLLOWED OUT AND
THAT ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE AND
HAVE OUR CITIZENS RE KNOW WHAT
WE'RE DOING IS GETTING NARROWER
AND NARROWER. AND YOU SEE THAT
THE POTENTIAL IN OUR FUTURE
WHERE YOU COULD HAVE THESE
PLATFORMS THAT HAVE THEIR A
CHOKE HOLD OVER THAT INFORMATION
SOURCE, NOT ONLY HOLLOWING OUT
THE NEWS INDEPENDENT NEWS
SOURCES, BUT A CHOKE HOLD OVER
THAT INFORMATION SOURCE. AND IT
CAN BE A VERY, VERY WORRISOME
THING. NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WE INVEST MORE IN THAN
ANYTHING ELSE IN OUR WORK IN
STATE GOVERNMENT IS EDUCATION.
YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS ALL KNOW THE
BUDGET. WE HAVE A FORMER BUDGET
CHAIR HERE. SHE KNOWS THE BUDGET
AND WE PUT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT
OF MONEY IN EDUCATION. BUT WE DO
THAT FOR A REASON. IT'S NOT JUST
TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY CAN BE
THE BEST THEY CAN BE IN THEIR
LIVES. IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE WE
WANT AN ECONOMY THAT THRIVES,
IT'S BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT AN
INFORMED POPULATION IS WHAT
KEEPS OUR OUR DEMOCRACY
TOGETHER. IT'S WHAT IT'S THE
GLUE THAT WE HAVE. SO WE PUT A
LOT OF MONEY IN EDUCATION FOR
THAT REASON. AND IT'S EASY TO
THINK ABOUT A DEMOCRACY AND SAY,
IT'S BEEN HERE FOREVER IN ALL OF
OUR LIFETIMES. AND IT'S GOING TO
BE HERE FOREVER IN OUR, OUR KIDS
AND THEIR KIDS LIFETIME. BUT IF
YOU LOOK AT DEMOCRACY AND THE
WHOLE IN THE WHOLE ARC OF THE
WORLD, IT'S A VERY RARE THING.
IT'S A VERY RARE THING, YOU LOOK
AROUND ALL THE DANGER POINTS IN
THE WORLD TODAY, WHETHER IT'S
NORTH KOREA, NO DEMOCRACY,
RUSSIA, NO DEMOCRACY, EVEN THE
CONFLICT IN THE MIDDLE EAST. HOW
MANY DEMOCRACIES ARE IN THAT
SPACE? YOU LOOK AT HUNGARY, A
DEMOCRACY, BUT NOW YOU HAVE
SOMEBODY WHO WHO DOESN'T WANT IT
TO BE A DEMOCRACY. WHAT IS HE
DOING? HE'S KILLING THE NEWS
MEDIA. HE'S STRANGLING ALL THE
INDEPENDENT PRESS. AND SO WE'VE
SEEN THIS STORY OVER AND OVER
AGAIN. SOME OF US WERE JUST DOWN
IN ARGENTINA. IT'S NOW VIEWED AS
IT USED TO BE, ONE OF THE
BIGGEST ECONOMIC DEMOCRACIES IN
THE WORLD. AND ON OUR VISIT,
IT'S NOW A 30 YEAR YOUNG
DEMOCRACY BECAUSE IT ALL GOT
WIPED OUT, IT ALL GOT WIPED OUT.
IT'S MORE FRAGILE THAN ANY OF US
CAN EVER IMAGINE. ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WE KNOW VERY WELL AS
SENATORS IS THAT WE HAVE AN
INCREDIBLE LOBBYING CORPS HERE
THAT TALKS TO US ABOUT ALL KINDS
OF ISSUES. THERE'S OVER 2000
REGISTERED LOBBYISTS IN
SACRAMENTO, BUT I'D SUGGEST TO
YOU ON THEIR CLIENT LIST, NONE
OF THEM HAVE DEMOCRACY. THAT'S
NOT WHAT THEY ARE THERE TO TAKE
CARE OF. DEMOCRACY. IT'S REALLY
UP TO US. IT'S UP TO US IN THIS
WEB OF ALL THESE INTERESTS THAT
WE HAVE TO WEAVE IN AND AROUND,
IT'S REALLY UP TO US, YOU KNOW,
WHEN THAT WHEN WE FOUGHT THE
KING AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR
NATION. OUR FOUNDERS KNEW HOW
IMPORTANT THE INDEPENDENT MEDIA
WAS TO A DEMOCRACY, AND THAT
THAT TORCH WAS LIT. AND,
FRIENDS, THAT TORCH IS NOW IN
OUR HANDS. IT'S IN YOUR HANDS.
WHETHER IT STAYS LIT CAN WE
PROTECT THAT DEMOCRACY? SO WE'RE
GOING TO HEAR A DEBATE
POTENTIALLY TODAY ABOUT WINNERS
AND LOSERS AND ALL THE REST. BUT
REALLY, IT'S IN OUR HANDS NOW TO
KIND OF GET ABOVE ALL THAT STUFF
AND REALIZE THAT THE DECISIONS
THAT WE MAKE TODAY AND ON THIS
BILL ARE THAT IMPACTFUL IN THE
IN THE WORK OF SUSTAINING THAT
DEMOCRACY IN OUR STATE. I'LL SAY
ONE FINAL THING. I'M ENTERING MY
10TH YEAR IN THE SENATE, VOTED
ON MORE THAN 10,000. I THINK
BILLS CARRIED MANY MYSELF. I
CAN'T THINK OF A MORE IMPORTANT
LEGISLATIVE MEASURE THAT I'M
WORKING ON THAN THAN THIS
MEASURE TODAY, NOT FOR ONE THING
OR ANOTHER. IT'S REALLY ABOUT A
CONCEPT AND A BELIEF IN HOW WE
DO OUR WORK HERE IN CALIFORNIA
AND IN THE UNITED STATES,
PRESERVING AND PROTECTING A
DEMOCRACY. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT TODAY. I HAVE TWO
WITNESSES THAT I'D LIKE TO
INVITE UP TO THE TABLE, IF
THAT'S OKAY. STEVE WALDMAN IS
THE HEAD OF REBUILD LOCAL NEWS.
HE JUST FLEW OUT HERE FROM NEW
YORK TO BE A PART OF THIS
HEARING TODAY. STEVE, I'M SO
GRATEFUL THAT YOU TOOK THE TIME
HE WORKS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY ON
THIS ISSUE OF SAVING DEMOCRACY
AND REBUILDING LOCAL NEWS. AND I
APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. AND I
ALSO WANT TO INVITE UP LANCE
NOBLE, LANCE IS ONE OF THOSE
ENTREPRENEURS THAT HAS TRIED TO
MANEUVER THROUGH THIS, THIS,
THIS LANDSCAPE, THIS LANDSCAPE
OF, OF NEWS COLLAPSES AND THE
REST AND HE'S ACTUALLY STARTED
HIS OWN NEWS OPERATION, CITY
SIDE, OAKLAND SIDE, BERKELEY
SIDE. HE CAN EXPLAIN IT A LITTLE
BIT MORE. AND WITH THAT, I'LL
TURN IT OVER TO THE CHAIR. THANK
YOU. WITNESSES. GO AHEAD, THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING US, OUR
COALITION REBUILD LOCAL NEWS
COALITION REPRESENTS A VERY
BROAD RANGE OF GROUPS.
PUBLISHERS, LABOR UNIONS,
CONSERVATIVE RURAL WEEKLY
NEWSPAPERS, URBAN WEBSITES, FOR
PROFIT NONPROFITS, AND THERE IS
ACTUALLY, OF ALL THE IDEAS THAT
WE HAVE SEEN AROUND THE COUNTRY,
THE IDEA THAT UNITES ALL THOSE
DIFFERENT PLAYERS IN OUR
COALITION IS THE IDEA OF THE
EMPLOYMENT CREDIT. THE PROPOSAL
THAT SENATOR GLASER IS, IS
PUTTING FORWARD. AND THE REASON
THAT WE CARE ABOUT THIS, OF
COURSE, IS THIS NATIONAL
COLLAPSE OF LOCAL NEWS. AND IT
IS REALLY HARD TO GET ONE'S HEAD
AROUND THE SCALE OF THIS
COLLAPSE. THOUSANDS OF
NEWSPAPERS HAVE SHUT, ON
AVERAGE, TWO AND A HALF
NEWSPAPERS ARE CLOSING EVERY
WEEK IN AMERICA. THE STUDIES
HAVE SHOWN OVER AND OVER AGAIN
THAT WHEN YOU'RE IN A COMMUNITY
THAT HAS LESS LOCAL NEWS, YOU
HAVE MORE CORRUPTION, MORE
POLLUTION, LESS CIVIC
ENGAGEMENT, HIGHER BORROWING
COSTS FOR CITY GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER TAXES, AND HIGHER
POLARIZATION. SO THERE'S ALL
SORTS OF NEGATIVE EFFECTS THAT
ARE SHOWN OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN
COMMUNITIES. CALIFORNIA HAS LOST
68% OF ITS JOURNALISTS IN LESS
THAN TWO DECADES. THAT'S
ACTUALLY ONE OF THE WORST STATES
IN THE COUNTRY IN TERMS OF THE
COLLAPSE OF LOCAL NEWS, WE
REALLY LIKE THIS IDEA OF THE
EMPLOYMENT CREDIT AS THE WAY AT
THIS BECAUSE, AS SENATOR GLASER
SAID, THE INCENTIVES ARE SMART.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU IF YOU SLASH
YOUR REPORTING, YOU GET LESS. IF
YOU ADD REPORTERS, YOU GET MORE.
IT'S FUTURE FRIENDLY. IT HELPS
BOTH ESTABLISHED PLAYERS AND
STARTUPS, COMMERCIAL AND
NONPROFITS, LARGE AND SMALL. IT
IS IT PROPERLY CONSTRAINS THE
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS A
KEY ISSUE. THERE'S NO PANEL OF
STATE OFFICIALS. THERE'S NO
PANEL OF STATE OFFICIALS PICKING
WINNERS AND LOSERS AND DECIDING
WHO TO GET GRANTS. IN SEVERAL
WAYS, THE BILL IS ACTUALLY
BETTER THAN THE FEDERAL VERSION
AND SOME OF THE OTHER ONES OUT
THERE FIRST, BECAUSE IT GIVES A
HIGHER BENEFIT TO SMALLER AND
MEDIUM SIZED NEWSROOMS, UNDER
TEN. THIS IS ESPECIALLY
IMPORTANT FOR ETHNIC MEDIA AND
RURAL NEWSPAPERS, WHICH TEND TO
BE SMALLER AND ARE INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT IN THEIR COMMUNITIES
AND HAVE BEEN DISPROPORTIONATELY
HURT BY THIS WAVE OF, CLOSURES
AROUND THE COUNTRY. AND IT ALSO
ALLOWS FOR SUPPORT OF
FREELANCERS. THAT WAS A SPECIFIC
REQUEST ON THE PART OF THE THAT
WE WERE HEARING ON THE PART OF
ETHNIC MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS,
BECAUSE A LOT OF THEIR
PUBLICATIONS DON'T HAVE FULL
TIME EMPLOYEES. WE'RE GRATEFUL
THAT THOSE CONCERNS WERE, WERE
HEARD. WE TEND TO THINK THAT
EFFORTS TO HELP LOCAL NEWS IN A
IN A GLOBAL WAY ACTUALLY PAY FOR
THEMSELVES BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY THAT LOCAL REPORTERS END
UP SAVING FOR GOVERNMENTS AND
BUSINESSES THROUGH THEIR
REPORTING, IF I MAY JUST, WE
TYPICALLY GIVE TWO MINUTES FOR
EACH WITNESS. I DON'T LIKE THAT.
SINCE I'M CHAIRING, I'M GOING TO
GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT LONGER,
OKAY? I'M ALREADY I'M GOING TO
GIVE. YES. YOU SUCCEEDED THAT.
BUT, I WILL GIVE THE OPPOSITION
A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME, SO I
JUST WANT YOU. OKAY, GOOD. KEEP
THAT IN MIND. WRAP IT UP, SO
YOUR OTHER WITNESSES. YEAH.
GOOD. THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU FOR
THE HEADS UP. SO LET ME JUST
CLOSE ON THE LAST POINT ABOUT.
WELL, WHY ARE WE ASKING, TECH
COMPANIES TO HELP PAY FOR THIS,
FIRST, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE BIG
WINNERS IN THE DIGITAL
REVOLUTION. ALPHABET, WHICH
RECALL, OWNS NOT JUST GOOGLE,
BUT YOUTUBE. META, WHICH IS
FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM. AMAZON
TOGETHER BROUGHT IN ABOUT 1
TRILLION IN REVENUE. THAT'S MORE
THAN PROCTER AND GAMBLE. ELI
LILLY, MCDONALD'S, AT&T,
COCA-COLA, CITICORP, LOCKHEED
MARTIN, MORGAN STANLEY, NIKE AND
NETFLIX COMBINED TIMES TWO. SO
THE $240 BILLION IN PROFIT THAT
THE THREE BRING IN WOULD GO DOWN
TO 239 BILLION IN PROFIT, UNDER
THIS BILL. SO WE THINK IT'S A
VERY YOU KNOW, MODEST PROPOSAL
IN THAT SENSE. AND WE'D HAVE A
DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT IN THE
COVERAGE OF COMMUNITIES IN
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS. CHAIRMAN. SENATORS.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS LANCE
NOBLE. I'M THE CEO AND
CO-FOUNDER OF CITYSIDE
JOURNALISM INITIATIVE, A
NONPROFIT LOCAL NEWS
ORGANIZATION SERVING CITIES IN
THE BAY AREA, IT'S MY PLEASURE
TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY ABOUT THE
GRAVE ISSUES FACING LOCAL
JOURNALISM AND HOW I BELIEVE
THIS BILL WILL HELP. CITYSIDE
WAS FOUNDED 15 YEARS AGO WITH A
LAUNCH OF BERKELEY SIDE, WHICH
IS RECOGNIZED NATIONALLY AS A
PIONEER OF INDEPENDENT, DIGITAL
ONLY LOCAL NEWS. WE NOW HAVE
THREE NEWSROOMS IN THE EAST BAY
OAKLAND SIDE, BERKELEY SIDE AND
LAUNCHING NEXT MONTH. RICHMOND
SIDE. WE HOPE AND PLAN TO WORK
IN MORE COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA IN THE COMING YEARS.
WE COVER THE STAPLES OF DAILY
JOURNALISM CITY HALL, SCHOOLS,
ARTS, HOUSING, LOCAL BUSINESS,
AS WELL AS DEEPER DIVES INTO KEY
ISSUES. WE ALSO PUBLISH A LOT OF
COMMUNITY STORIES THAT BUILD
COHESION IN OUR CITIES AND SHARE
THE MIC WITH UNDERREPRESENTED
VOICES. THIS IS PRECISELY THE
KIND OF COVERAGE THAT HAS BEEN
LOST IN MANY PLACES OVER THE
LAST TWO DECADES. IN PARTICULAR,
OUR WORK IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF
THE DEMOCRATIC INFRASTRUCTURE OF
OUR COMMUNITIES. AS STEVE JUST
MENTIONED, SOCIAL SCIENCE
RESEARCH SHOWS NUMEROUS PROBLEMS
THAT ARISE WHEN YOU LOSE LOCAL
NEWS. WE'RE PART OF A GROWING
MOVEMENT TO BRING BACK LOCAL
JOURNALISM AND TO DO IT BETTER
THAN IN THE PAST, WHEN LOCAL
NEWS OFTEN IGNORED OR
STIGMATIZED COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR. I'M DELIGHTED TO TELL YOU
THAT THIS NEW WAVE OF LOCAL
JOURNALISM, PRODUCED BY SMALL
BUT MIGHTY NEWSROOMS, CAN DO
GREAT THINGS. JUST THIS WEEK,
ONE OF OUR PEERS LOOK OUT! SANTA
CRUZ WON THIS YEAR'S PULITZER
PRIZE FOR BREAKING NEWS FOR ITS
COVERAGE OF THE DEVASTATING
FLOODS AND MUDSLIDES. MUDSLIDES
IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY LAST YEAR.
BUT FOR ALL OF OUR SUCCESS, OUR
ORGANIZATION AND OTHERS LIKE US
LIVE A PRECARIOUS EXISTENCE.
WE'RE SMALL BUSINESSES WITH ALL
THE PRESSURES THAT ENTAILS. WE
GET GREAT SUPPORT FROM OUR
DONORS, FROM ADVERTISERS AND
FROM FOUNDATIONS. BUT WE'RE
OPERATING ON THE EDGE. SB 1327
ADDRESSES THE CRITICAL ISSUE FOR
CITY SIDE AND OTHER LOCAL NEWS
ORGANIZATIONS. HOW CAN WE
SUPPORT THE TALENTED REPORTERS
AND EDITORS THAT WORK FOR US,
AND HOW CAN WE FIND WAYS OVER
TIME TO GROW THEIR NUMBERS SO WE
CAN DO MORE FOR THE COMMUNITIES
WHERE WE WORK? IT ANSWERS THE
QUESTION IN AN INNOVATIVE WAY
THAT COULD SET A MODEL FOR OTHER
STATES. THE TAX CREDIT PROVIDED
BY THE BILL WOULD MAKE A
SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE FOR CITY
SIDE. IT WOULD ADD SIGNIFICANT
STABILITY FOR OUR UNIONIZED
NEWSROOM AND GREATLY INCREASE
THE LIKELIHOOD THAT WE COULD
JUDICIOUSLY EXPAND REPORTING
NUMBERS. IT WOULD PROVIDE SOME
FINANCIAL CERTAINTY IN A
BUSINESS THAT IS RULED BY
UNCERTAINTY AND CHANGE. I URGE
THE COMMITTEE TO PASS THE BILL
AND HELP ENSURE THE SURVIVAL OF
MUCH NEEDED LOCAL NEWS IN
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. THOSE
HERE IN THE ROOM THAT WISH TO
ADD ON AS, SUPPORT, NAME AND
ORGANIZATION ONLY. THANK YOU.
MEMBERS TRISTAN BROWN WITH CFT
UNION OF EDUCATORS AND
CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS. I'VE
ALSO BEEN ASKED TO MEET YOU FOR
THE MEDIA GUILD OF THE WEST. THE
PACIFIC MEDIA WORKERS GUILD, AND
THE NEWS GUILD OF THE
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA
. ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SEEING NO OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT, WE HAVE
OPPOSITION PETER BLOCKER
CALTECHS I BELIEVE. YOU CAN COME
UP TO THE TABLE IF YOU'D LIKE.
THERE MAY BE SOME QUESTIONS AND
WE'D LIKE TO HAVE YOU GUYS UP
THERE FOR THAT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS PETER
BLOCKER WITH THE CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION. AND ON
BEHALF OF A BROAD COALITION OF
INDIVIDUAL AND BUSINESS
TAXPAYERS, BOTH LARGE AND SMALL,
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1327, WE
OPPOSE THIS BILL BECAUSE IT WILL
RAISE OPERATING COSTS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES IN THE STATE,
INCREASE PRICES FOR CALIFORNIA
CONSUMERS, AND IF PASSED, WILL
BE MET WITH NUMEROUS LEGAL
CHALLENGES BECAUSE THE TAX IT
WOULD IMPOSE IS ILLEGAL UNDER
FEDERAL LAW AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
. I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT ALL
THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BILL SO
FAR IS FOCUSED ON THESE LARGE
COMPANIES TARGETED BY THE TAX.
THE ECONOMIC BURDEN WILL FALL ON
SMALL BUSINESSES AND CONSUMERS.
LIKE OTHER FUNCTIONING TAXES ON
BUSINESS INPUTS, THIS TAX WILL
INCREASE OPERATING COSTS FOR
CALIFORNIA SMALL BUSINESSES,
MAKING THEM LESS COMPETITIVE AND
MANIFEST MANIFEST ITSELF IN
HIGHER PRICES THAT ARE
ULTIMATELY PAID BY CONSUMERS.
NOW, WHILE WE RESPECT SENATOR
GLASER'S PASSION AND COMMITMENT
TO THE GOALS OF THIS BILL, THE
REVENUE RAISED BY THIS TAX WILL
BE UNAVAILABLE FOR YEARS. WHEN
IT IS MET WITH THE INEVITABLE
LEGAL CHALLENGES IT WILL FACE.
THE BILL IS SIMILAR TO DIGITAL
ADVERTISING, TAXES AND DIGITAL
ADVERTISING TAX PASSED IN
MARYLAND IN 2020, WHICH IS STILL
MIRED IN LITIGATION, WHICH HAS
GONE ON FOR YEARS. AND AD, AS A
RESULT OF THE NUMEROUS LAWSUITS,
THE SAME FATE OF THIS BILL, THIS
THIS BILL WILL FACE THE SAME
FATE AS THAT ONE THAT HAS HAD
NUMEROUS LAWSUITS. SIMILARLY
THIS TAX, WOULD BE SUSCEPTIBLE
TO LEGAL CHALLENGES, MOST
NOTABLY UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION,
WHICH PROHIBITS TAXES THAT
CREATE UNDUE BURDENS ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND FOR
RUNNING AFOUL OF THE INTERNET
TAX FREEDOM ACT, WHICH BARS
STATES FROM PASSING TAXES THAT
UNFAIRLY TARGET ONLINE COMMERCE
AS I STATED, WE OPPOSE THIS BILL
FOR A MYRIAD OF REASONS. WE
THINK THIS WILL HARM THE STATE'S
BUSINESS CLIMATE, MAKE IT MORE
EXPENSIVE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
TO OPERATE, AND VIOLATES FEDERAL
LAW. HOWEVER, EVEN IF YOU
DISAGREE WITH US ON THOSE POINTS
AND SUPPORT THIS TAX INCREASE
BECAUSE SB 1327 SHARES MUCH OF
THE SAME LEGAL UNCERTAINTY AS
THE MARYLAND TAX, WE BELIEVE THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD STRONGLY
CONSIDER WAITING UNTIL THE
LITIGATION THERE IS RESOLVED
BEFORE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE
PROPOSAL. IN CALIFORNIA,
ESPECIALLY AS CALIFORNIA IS
EXPERIENCING A BUDGET DEFICIT TO
AVOID THE TIME CONSUMING PROCESS
OF IMPLEMENTATION COST
LITIGATION AND POTENTIAL
REFUNDS, WHICH WOULD BE OWED
WITH INTEREST IF THE LAW IS
RULED UNENFORCEABLE. AND FOR
THESE REASONS, WE URGE A NO
VOTE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. OTHERS HERE THAT
WOULD LIKE TO, SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION NAME AND ORGANIZATION
ONLY. PLEASE. GOOD MORNING, TIM
TAYLOR, ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. EMMA GONZALEZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HISPANIC CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE,
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. NAOMI PATRONA, ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPUTER
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. CAROLYN BEALL HUNTER,
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA BLACK
MEDIA, WE ARE ACTUALLY MORE OF A
TWEENER, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING
WITH THE SENATOR ON CONCERNS,
ADDRESSING THE ISSUES HERE.
ADDRESSING LOCAL MEDIA ADDRESS,
BLACK AND ETHNIC MEDIA EVEN AT
GREATER PROPORTIONS. SO THERE'S
SOME CHANGES WE'D LIKE TO SEE.
AND WE'RE WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR ON THOSE. SO WE'RE
OPPOSED BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THOSE AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. CHRIS ROSE, ON
BEHALF OF THE SILICON VALLEY
LEADERSHIP GROUP IN OPPOSITION.
T I DYLAN HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF OF
TECHNET, IN OPPOSITION. THANKS
VANESSA CHÁVEZ WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS. IN OPPOSITION. ANDREA
DEVAULT, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASIAN CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. PRESTON YOUNG FROM THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
HERE TODAY IN OPPOSITION,
JONATHAN ARAMBULA, ON BEHALF OF
ANA, THE ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL
ADVERTISERS AND CTIA, THE TRADE
ASSOCIATION FOR THE WIRELESS
INDUSTRY IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING, SABRINA LOCKHART, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTRACTIONS AND PARK
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, ANNALEE
AUGUSTINE, ON BEHALF OF THE
FAMILY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA. OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, STEVE CRUZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE MOTION MOTION
PICTURE ASSOCIATION. IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING, JOE
THOMPSON, AS A SMALL BUSINESS
OWNER FOR GOLD RUSH GRILL IN
OPPOSITION. OKAY. THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHER WITNESSES, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO, SENATORS FOR
QUESTIONS. SENATOR DODD. THERE
CERTAINLY IS A LOT TO UNPACK
HERE. YOU KNOW, HEARING BOTH
THE, THE SUPPORTERS AND, YOU
KNOW, AND THE OPPOSITION, YOU
KNOW, TO BE SURE, THIS IS A
SUBSTANTIAL TAX, BIGGER PROBABLY
THAN ANY TAX THAT I'VE SEEN,
DURING MY, YOU KNOW, MY TIME
HERE, AND FRANKLY, I'M NOT
REALLY SURE THAT IF WE'RE GOING
TO PASS A TAX, IS THIS THE BEST
THING FOR US TO DO, PARTICULARLY
AT A TIME WHERE WE'RE ARGUABLY
ANYWHERE BETWEEN 30 AND $70
BILLION IN, DEFICITS? YOU KNOW,
GOING FORWARD? AND THEN WHO
ACTUALLY KNOWS WHAT THE RIGHT
AMOUNT IS TO DO? I MEAN, USE
SENATOR, YOU TALK ABOUT THE
DAMAGE THAT'S BEEN DONE ALL THE
MINING OF DATA AND EVERYTHING
THAT THESE COMPANIES HAVE DONE.
AND I DO SEE THAT I AM MOVED BY,
YOU KNOW, THE POINTS YOU MAKE
HERE. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY,
SHOULD WE BE DOING MORE WORK IN
TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE
RIGHT AMOUNT THAT THESE
COMPANIES? I MEAN, WHEN YOU WHEN
YOU PAINT IT, IT'S, $1 TRILLION
AND $240 MILLION IN PROFITS.
IT'S KIND OF LIKE, WOW, HOW MUCH
MONEY ARE WE REALLY LEAVING, ON
THE TABLE? AND BELIEVE ME, I CAN
ARGUE BOTH SIDES OF THIS, YOU
KNOW, THIS THIS BILL. VERY. I'M
NOT SURE I WOULD SAY ELOQUENTLY
ON MY PART, BUT NEVERTHELESS,
EFFECTIVELY. AND, SO THOSE ARE
THOSE ARE SOME QUESTIONS,
CERTAINLY AS SOME OF THE
OPPOSITION SAID, THAT, THEY WILL
PASS THIS ON, YOU KNOW, TO, TO
SMALL BUSINESSES, YOU SEE THAT
THAT'S WHAT THESE COMPANIES DO.
WE RAISE THEIR TAXES, THEY'RE
GOING TO PASS IT ON. I THINK
THERE'S ANOTHER GOOD POINT. THE
LITIGATION IN MARYLAND, SHOULD
WE BE PROCEEDING WITH THIS
UNTIL, YOU KNOW, UNTIL THAT'S
DONE? HAVING SAID ALL THAT,
THAT'S ALL THE NEGATIVES AND
EVERYTHING ON IT, I AM MOVED BY,
YOU KNOW, THE POSTER BEHIND YOU
AND HOW MUCH A LOT OF THESE
COUNTRIES PAY FOR, YOU KNOW,
FUNDING DEMOCRACY IS, AS YOU PUT
IT, I SUPPOSE. I'VE BEEN IN THIS
SITUATION BEFORE WHERE I VOTED
ON A LOT OF BILLS I REALLY
DIDN'T LIKE. I DON'T LIKE A LOT
ABOUT THIS, BUT THE VERY BASIC
PREMISE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
HIT HERE, I DO LIKE I DO
APPRECIATE AND, I THINK YOU NEED
SOME TIME, YOU KNOW, TO WORK
THROUGH THIS. AND FOR THOSE
REASONS AND THE COMMITMENT THAT
I MADE TO THE AUTHOR EARLIER
WHEN HE FIRST CALLED ME ON THIS,
I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT TODAY.
BUT I DO RESERVE, YOU KNOW, THE
RIGHT THIS IS GOING TO BE A TWO
THIRDS VOTE ON THE FLOOR. IT'S
GOING TO BE, IT'S GOING TO BE A
TOUGH VOTE THERE. AND I DO
RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SEE HOW
THIS PROCESS HAS PLAYED OUT, AND
WE'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. I
DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, THOUGH,
MR. CHAIR. I'M WAITING FOR IT.
YOU TALKED ABOUT THE NONPROFITS.
HOW DO THEY GET COMPENSATED IF
THEY'RE NOT NON PROFITS. AND
THESE ARE TAX CREDITS AND
EVERYTHING. YOU KIND OF
INDICATED THERE WOULD BE. AND TO
ME THERE'S A LOT OF GREAT
NONPROFITS IN IN THE MEDIA. AND
WE IF WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN
THIS ROAD WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE
THEY'RE COVERED AS WELL. IF I
MAY, THERE'S GUIDANCE IN THE
BILL, SENATOR, THAT, TAKES THE
SAME FORMULA THAT THAT YOU HEARD
FOR PROFITS. AND IT PROVIDES THE
FTB WITH THE REQUIREMENT TO
PROVIDE, MONEY, DIRECT GRANTS IN
COMPENSATION. OKAY RATHER THAN A
TAX CREDIT. SO IT'S WRITTEN IN,
AGAIN, THE SAME STRATEGY, WHICH
IS TO HAVE NO JUDGMENT ABOUT ONE
NONPROFIT OVER ANOTHER, SAYS
THAT IF THEY MEET THE CRITERIA
IN THE IN THE BILL FOR A
JOURNALIST AND A JOURNALISM
PUBLICATION, THAT THEY WOULD
RECEIVE A GRANT EQUAL TO THAT
TAX CREDIT. THANK YOU. YEAH.
SENATOR BREAKSPEARE, AND THEN
WE'LL GO TO SENATOR. YES. THANK
YOU, I WANT TO COMMEND THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD. I VERY MUCH SUPPORT
THIS BILL AND I WANT TO SHARE
THAT SOME OF THE REASONS WHY ARE
I SEE THIS AS CALIFORNIA
CONTINUING ITS LEADERSHIP IN
TRYING TO TACKLE THE BIGGEST
PROBLEMS THAT WE FACE IN OUR
NATION AND SOME OF THE
STATISTICS THAT THAT HAVE BEEN
SHARED BY THE AUTHOR, BUT ALSO
BY THE LEAD WITNESSES, I THINK
ARE REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER
THE CONTEXT OF THIS. SO ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT WAS SHARED WAS
THAT CALIFORNIA HAS LOST 68% OF
JOURNALISTS IN THE LAST TWO
DECADES, AND THAT IS A
SUBSTANTIAL HOLLOWING OUT OF OUR
NEWS MEDIA AND, AND, AND THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO, WHO ARE
THAT WATCHDOG ON GOVERNMENT, WE
ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT LOCAL NEWS
HAS A VERY POSITIVE EFFECT ON
ALL PARTS OF OUR CIVIC SOCIETY.
SO THE EXAMPLES THAT WERE GIVEN
WERE THAT IT REDUCES CORRUPTION,
IT REDUCES POLLUTION, IT REDUCES
BORROWING COSTS FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND THERE'S LESS
POLARIZATION. AND I THINK THAT
ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE TRUE.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHY AND
THAT'S BECAUSE WHEN, WHEN
THERE'S WHEN THERE ARE DECISIONS
THAT ARE BEING MADE THAT ARE NOT
IN THE LIGHT OF DAY AND THAT ARE
NOT RECEIVING ANY TYPE OF
COVERAGE, THEN IT'S EASIER TO
CUT CORNERS. AND I COME FROM
HAVING SERVED IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, BUT ALSO HAVING
WORKED AS A JOURNALIST AND, I
HAVE A BACHELOR'S AND MASTER'S
DEGREE IN JOURNALISM AND THE
EXPERIENCE OF COVERING
GOVERNMENT AND THEN HAVING THAT
BE IN THE NEWSPAPER AND HAVING
PEOPLE REACH OUT WITH FEEDBACK
AND HAVING THE DECISION MAKERS
SEE WHAT THAT IS, SEE WHAT THAT
FEEDBACK IS. THERE'S A WHOLE
LOOP THAT IS HAPPENING THERE
THAT'S HEALTHY. AND SO THE VALUE
OF HAVING JOURNALISTS BE HIRED
IS REALLY CLEAR. AND I THINK
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE
THAT THIS CONVERSATION IS TAKING
PLACE RIGHT NOW AT A TIME IN OUR
NATION WHERE THERE ARE CERTAIN
FORCES THAT ARE REALLY TRYING TO
UNDERMINE ALL OF OUR VERY
IMPORTANT INSTITUTIONS. SO WE
SEE THAT WE SEE ATTACKS ON OUR
JUDICIARY, WE SEE ATTACKS ON
ELECTIONS, WE SEE ATTACKS ON OUR
CIVIL SERVANTS AT ALL LEVELS.
AND SO THESE ATTACKS ON THE
MEDIA, I THINK ALSO IN SOME WAYS
CAN LEAD TO A LACK OF SUPPORT OR
AN AMBIVALENCE ABOUT SUPPORT FOR
JOURNALISTS AND MEDIA COMPANIES
AND, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO
ME, AND THIS IS WHY I SO MUCH
SUPPORT THIS BILL, THAT WE ARE A
BULWARK AGAINST THAT, THAT WE
ARE WE ARE SAYING THAT IN
CALIFORNIA, WE VALUE
JOURNALISTS. WE RECOGNIZE THE
GOOD THEY DO AND WE WANT TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO SUPPORT THEM.
AND SO WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT HOW
TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, WHICH IS
SOMETHING THAT I'VE THOUGHT
ABOUT CONCEPTUALLY FOR MANY
YEARS, BUT HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO
COME UP WITH WORKABLE SOLUTIONS.
AND I THINK WHAT THE AUTHOR HAS
DONE HERE IS RECOGNIZE THAT IN
SOME OF THESE COUNTRIES THAT ARE
SPENDING A LOT MORE MONEY, LIKE
THE UNITED KINGDOM, SPENDING $81
PER CAPITA, WHEREAS WE'RE
SPENDING $3 PER CAPITA, THAT
THERE INVESTING IN THE BBC AND A
AND OTHER TYPES OF INVESTMENTS
THAT ARE LINKING MORE CLOSELY
THE JOURNALISM BUSINESS TO
GOVERNMENT. AND SO BUT IN
AMERICA WE DON'T HAVE THAT
TRADITION. AND WE ALSO ARE VERY
SKEPTICAL OF THAT. SO FIGURING
OUT A WAY TO FINANCE JOURNALISM
AND JOURNALISTS, WITHOUT HAVING
THE GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY
SUBSIDIZING IT AND SOMEHOW
HAVING A FINGER ON THE COVERAGE
THAT COMES OUT OF THE MEDIA,
THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT
COMPONENT. AND SO TO ME, THIS
BILL REALLY IS DOING THAT IN A
GREAT WAY BECAUSE IT'S
RECOGNIZING, AS WAS STATED, THAT
THE TECH COMPANIES ARE THE BIG
WINNERS IN THE DIGITAL
REVOLUTION. AND SO RECOGNIZING
THAT THAT THAT FIRST GRAPH THAT
HE SHOWED WHERE THE ADVERTISING
REVENUE IS GOING DOWN, AT THE
SAME TIME THAT ADVERTISING
REVENUE IS GOING UP DRAMATICALLY
TÊ FOR TECH COMPANIES VERSUS
NEWSPAPERS, YOU REALLY CAN SEE
THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE TWO
THAT ARE HAPPENING AND SO THIS
THIS TO ME IS A REALLY IMPORTANT
THING. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL
BE THE ULTIMATE THING WE VOTE ON
ON THE FLOOR, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT
TO SUPPORT IT IN COMMITTEE. IT'S
IMPORTANT TO SAY THIS IS A VALUE
THAT WE HAVE IN CALIFORNIA. THIS
SUPPORTS THE VALUES THAT OUR
NATION IS, IS BUILT ON AND
RELIES UPON TO SUSTAIN OUR
DEMOCRACY. AND WE WANT THIS TO
BE CONSIDERED AMONG THE THERE'S
AN ASSEMBLY BILL THAT'S ALSO
WRESTLING WITH THE SAME PROBLEM
AND FIGURING OUT HOW WE CAN
HARMONIZE THOSE TWO AND DO
SOMETHING MEANINGFUL IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ABOUT THIS
VERY SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM. SO I
THANK AGAIN THE AUTHOR, AND I
LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONTINUED
WORK ON IT. BUT I THINK THAT
IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT THING
THAT WE WORK ON. THANK YOU. AND
AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I'LL
MOVE THE BILL. SENATOR SKINNER.
THANK YOU. CHAIR. SENATOR
GLAZER, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. YOUR, MY QUESTIONS
ARE THE ANALYSIS DOES A GREAT
JOB EXPLAINING, AS YOU ALSO DID,
HOW THE TAX CREDIT WOULD WORK ON
BASIS OF A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
ON THE BASIS OF WHAT, PROVIDING
BENEFITS IF THEY EXPAND THE
EMPLOYEES, THINGS LIKE THAT.
WHAT, WHAT? I'D LIKE YOU TO TALK
A LITTLE MORE ABOUT IS HOW WE
DEFINE AN ELIGIBLE NEWS SOURCE
OR AN ELIGIBLE ME, BECAUSE I
THINK THAT IS A AREA THAT COULD,
WELL, COULD BE RIFE WITH.
ANYWAY, SO IF YOU COULD TALK
ABOUT THAT SOME, THEN I HAVE A
COUPLE OTHER COMMENTS TO MAKE.
GREAT. THANK YOU, SENATOR
SKINNER. IT IS SOMETHING THAT
WE'VE WORKED ON AND IS A PART OF
THE BILL. WE DO DEFINE IN THE
BILL WHAT A JOURNALIST IS. AND I
CAN GET YOU THAT. IT'S I THINK
IT'S IN THE ANALYSIS, CERTAINLY
IN THE ANALYSIS I CERTAINLY I
CAN, I CAN I IT INCLUDES
EDITING. IT INCLUDES
PHOTOGRAPHY. IT INCLUDES
WRITING. RIGHT. OKAY. SO THERE'S
A YES. SO IT DEFINES THAT.
SECONDLY IT REQUIRES THAT YOU
HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF
PUBLICATIONS A YEAR TO BE
QUALIFY. OKAY. SO I UNDERSTOOD
WHAT WAS THE JOURNALIST. BUT THE
TAX CREDIT IS TO THE ENTITY THAT
EMPLOYS THE JOURNALISTS. SO
THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING AT IS
WHAT IS WHAT DEFINES THE
ELIGIBLE ENTITY. AND I KNOW IT'S
IN THE BILL, BUT I JUST WANTED
YOU TO TALK ABOUT IT. RIGHT. SO
IT, IT SETS STANDARDS THAT THEY
MUST MEET IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY
DO, HOW THEY DO IT, WHO THEY
EMPLOY, WHETHER THEY'RE, THEY'RE
CERTIFIED, HAVE LIABILITY
INSURANCE IS ONE EXAMPLE OR
LICENSE, IF THEY'RE A BROADCAST
OWNER. SO IT SETS OUT ALL THE A
MINIMUM FLOOR THAT THEY HAVE TO
MEET. AND BY THE WAY, IF THERE'S
SUGGESTIONS ON HOW WE COULD
IMPROVE IT OR STRENGTHEN IT, I'M
VERY OPEN TO CONTINUING THAT
THAT CONVERSATION. WHAT WE HAVE
TRIED TO AVOID IS HAVING A BIAS
AND OPINION ABOUT ONE OR THE
OTHER. AND THE WHOLE IDEA HERE
IS TO NOT HAVE GOVERNMENT DO
THAT IN ANY WAY. BUT SIMPLY
SUPPORT THE ECOSYSTEM IN A WAY
THAT IS OBJECTIVE AND FAIR. BUT
DOES SET US SOME SORT OF A
JOURNALISTIC STANDARD FOR
SOMEBODY THAT'S LEGITIMATE. BUT,
IT PUTS IF YOU'RE A NEW, FOR
EXAMPLE, IF THIS BILL WAS TO
BECOME A LAW AND A YEAR LATER
SOMEONE WAS TO FORM A, WHAT THEY
WOULD CALL A MEDIA COMPANY, IT
DOES REQUIRE A PAUSE TO LET THEM
PROVE THAT THERE'S A TIME
REQUIREMENT THAT'S IN THE BILL,
SHOW THAT THERE ARE LEGITIMATE,
NOT JUST TRYING TO FEED ON THE
TAXPAYER CREDIT THAT MIGHT
BECOME AVAILABLE. SO WE HAVE
BUILT INTO THE BILL THOSE TYPES
OF THINGS IN ANTICIPATION OF
YOUR FAIR QUESTION. AND IF
THERE'S MORE THINGS WE SHOULD DO
IN THAT SPACE. I'M VERY OPEN TO
CONSIDERING THEM, AND I'M NOT
SURE WHAT THEY ARE. AND
CERTAINLY WE WANT TO RESPECT AND
ABIDE BY FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
AND WE AND I APPRECIATE THE
CONSTRUCTION THAT, YOU KNOW, WE
DON'T WANT WELL, DON'T WANT I
MEAN, I ACTUALLY THINK THE
CANADIAN BROADCAST COMPANY CBC
AND BBC ARE, YOU KNOW, PRETTY
BALANCED, ALL THINGS
CONSIDERING. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE
DON'T HAVE THAT MODEL OTHER
THAN, THE NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO.
RADIO RIGHT, WHICH, OF COURSE,
AS IS SHOWN THERE IS VERY
MINIMALLY SUPPORTED. BUT I ALSO
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO COUNT
FOR IT, BUT JUST BY THE
CREATION, WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS
ANYTHING WE CREATE THAT PROVIDES
A GUARANTEED SOURCE OF FUNDING
FROM THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE
MANIPULATED. AND IN MANY TIMES
HAS BEEN. AND, I DON'T KNOW HOW
TO CORRECT FOR THAT, BUT I
CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE
THAT OR THE RISE OF WHAT SOME
PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER NOT
LEGITIMATE, MEDIA TYPE OF
ENTITIES CREATE BEING FORMED AND
CREATING JUST TO BE ABLE TO,
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS
GUARANTEED FUNDING, BUT AS I
SAID, I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW
HOW TO CORRECT FOR IT, I WOULD
SAY THAT I DO I MEAN, IT IS A
REQUIREMENT UNDER PROP 98, BUT I
DO APPRECIATE THAT WE ARE
FUNDING THAT THE REVENUE
GENERATED FROM THIS WOULD FUND
OUR SCHOOLS, BECAUSE
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, AND YOU
ALL MAY HAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF
THIS IN YOUR DISTRICTS, BUT FOR
EXAMPLE, IN MY DISTRICT, SOME OF
OUR HIGH SCHOOL NEWSPAPERS ARE
HIGH SCHOOL JOURNALISTS HAVE
BROKEN VERY IMPORTANT STORIES,
HAVE DONE INVESTIGATIVE
REPORTING, AND UNCOVERED THINGS
THAT ARE OTHER JOURNALISTS DID
NOT FIGURE OUT AND THERE WAS A
VERY, WELL KNOWN CASE, WELL
DOCUMENTED CASE WHERE A AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO OWNED A MOTEL IN
BERKELEY HAD BASICALLY BROUGHT
OVER, IMMIGRANT WOMEN FROM
INDIA, YOUNG GIRLS, AND WAS
USING THEM IN EFFECT IN A, SEX
TRADE CIRCUMSTANCE. AND THE
MOTEL HAPPENED TO BE SITUATED
NEAR BERKELEY HIGH. SO THE
STUDENTS KEPT NOTICING THAT
THESE GIRLS WERE ALWAYS AROUND
IN THE DAYTIME AND NOT IN
SCHOOL. SO THEY STARTED TO, TALK
TO THEM ABOUT IT AND ASKING THEM
QUESTIONS AND ASKING THEM, YOU
KNOW, WHAT ARE THEY DOING THERE?
AND THEY UNCOVERED THIS ENTIRE
THING WHICH ENDED UP HAVING THE
DA BRING CHARGES AGAINST THE
MOTEL OWNER, AND HE WAS
PROSECUTED. AND, AND SERVED
TIME. SO I, I BRING THAT UP
BECAUSE IT'S A WHY WE NEED GOOD
INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM.
REGARDS OF WHETHER IT IS FROM
THESE OFFICIAL WHAT WE MIGHT
CALL THE OFFICIAL MEDIA SOURCES.
BUT EVEN THERE IS A ROLE FOR OUR
HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE
JOURNALISTIC SOURCES. AND WHILE
THE PROP 98 MONEY WOULD NOT GO
WITH COMMUNITY COLLEGES, BUT NOT
TO OUR OTHER COLLEGE SOURCES, I
THINK IT'S A GOOD, A GOOD
SUPPORT NOT ONLY FOR THE FACT
THAT WE HAVE TO, BUT BECAUSE IT
CAN GENERATE SOME GOOD RESULTS.
BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT ABOUT
HOW WE BUILD IN SOME SAFEGUARDS.
BUT AS I SAID, I DO NOT HAVE AN
ANSWER FOR YOU RIGHT NOW. SO
SENATOR. WHAT RADFORD. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. I TOO HAVE
CONCERNS AS IT RELATES TO THIS
MEASURE, BUT I COMMEND THE
AUTHOR BECAUSE I CLEARLY GET
WHERE HE'S TRYING TO GO AND WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE.
BUT THERE'S STILL A LOT OF
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE, REMAIN
UNANSWERED. AND MY BIGGEST
CONCERN, AGAIN, AS I SHARE WITH
YOU, IS THE ETHNIC MEDIA. AND
EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS THEY WILL BE
CONSIDERED HERE AT THE END OF
THE DAY, THEY'RE ALWAYS USUALLY
LEFT OUT. AND, AND STILL NEEDING
MORE ASSISTANCE THAN SOME OF THE
OTHER, PUBLICATIONS. AND I VALUE
THE FREE PRESS. I THINK IT'S
NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT IN THIS
COUNTRY THAN HAVING A FREE,
INDEPENDENT PRESS. AND I'M
SEEING IT DIE. IT'S DYING ON THE
VINE ON A DAILY BASIS. I HAD
THREE LOCAL PAPERS AND MY
DISTRICT AND NOW ONLY ONE
SURVIVES RIGHT NOW. AND THE
DAILY BREEZE IS, YOU KNOW,
STRUGGLING TO STAY ALIVE RIGHT
NOW AS WELL. SO THERE NEEDS TO
BE A BALANCE HERE. I JUST DON'T
KNOW IF WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THIS
GETS WHERE WE NEED TO GO BECAUSE
AGAIN, AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM
BERKELEY STATED, FOLKS COMING IN
AND MASQUERADE, AS YOU KNOW, A
PUBLICATION OF JOURNALISTS JUST
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE TAX
OPPORTUNITIES AND THIS REVENUE
STREAM, LEAVES SOME QUESTIONS
AND I, I FORGOT WHERE THE
LAWSUIT IS CURRENTLY GOING ON.
MARILYN AND MARILYN, I WOULD,
MAYBE LIKE TO SEE THE RESULTS OF
THAT, TO SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT,
TOO, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S STILL A
LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. I
THINK THE INTENTIONS OF THIS
BILL ARE, THE GOALS, I SHOULD
SAY, ARE WELL INTENDED AND LIKE
I SAID, I COMMEND YOU, BUT I
STILL HAVE SOME CONCERNS. AND AS
WE GO FORWARD, MAY I SPEAK TO
THAT? YOU MAY. WELL, JUST THANK
YOU, SENATOR BRADFORD. I
CONTINUE TO HAVE VERY PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE WHOLE
ECOSYSTEM OF THE JOURNALISM
COMMUNITY, MOST PARTICULARLY
WITH ETHNIC MEDIA. AND I, I WANT
TO SOLVE FOR THE ISSUES THAT
YOU'VE RAISED. I'M COMMITTED TO
DOING THAT. IF THE BILL MOVES
FORWARD TODAY, AND IN REGARD TO
THE LAWSUIT ISSUE, YOU KNOW, THE
THIS BILL IS SIGNIFICANTLY
DIFFERENT THAN THE MARYLAND
ADVERTISING TAX. AND I COULD GO
THROUGH ALL THE PARTICULARS.
WE'VE HAD LAWYERS LOOK AT THIS,
BUT I'M NOT GOING TO IF YOU WANT
TO HEAR THEM, I'M WILLING TO
GIVE YOU THE SPECIFICS OF HOW
THIS IS DIFFERENT, BUT THAT
LITIGATION THREAT WILL BE HERE
NO MATTER WHAT, AND YET WE SEE
AND YOU HAVE OUR, ARTFULLY
ARTICULATED THIS, THIS HALLOWEEN
OUT IN YOUR EVEN IN YOUR
DISTRICT AND HOW IT'S WE KNOW
IT'S CONTINUING. THE LOS ANGELES
TIMES JUST LAID OFF ALMOST 100
NEWSROOM JOURNALISTS IN LOS
ANGELES. JUST, A FEW MONTHS AGO.
BUT I'M VERY COMMITTED TO,
AGAIN, WORKING WITH YOU ALL. IF
THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD ON ALL
THESE ISSUES, YOU KNOW WHAT?
WHERE MY HEART IS AND WHAT I'M
TRYING TO GET TO, TO COMPLICATED
AND CHALLENGING AND FRANKLY,
HUMBLING TO BE HONEST ABOUT IT
AND ALL THAT WE DO. THIS IS A
VERY HUMBLING EXPERIENCE TO TRY
TO FIND A SOLUTION TO SOMETHING
SO DEEP AND MEANINGFUL. SENATOR
DODD HAD A FOLLOW UP QUESTION. I
GUESS THE OTHER THING THAT I
WANTED TO BRING UP JUST IT'S
PART OF THE RECORD AND, AND JUST
A COMMITMENT TO LOOK INTO THIS A
LITTLE BIT MORE AND GET EDUCATED
ON THIS. AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD
A LOT OF HEDGE FUNDS THAT HAVE
BOUGHT OUT, NEWSPAPERS AND HAVE
JUST THE VERY CORE OF THEIR,
PHILOSOPHY ON ON BUYING THEM OUT
WAS REALLY NOT TO FURTHER
DEMOCRACY OR FURTHER OUR NEWS
CYCLES, BUT TO, TO PULL OUT, YOU
KNOW, MONEY TO, TO EXTRACT MONEY
FROM THESE OPERATIONS, TO BE
ABLE TO MAKE MORE MONEY. AND I
GUESS IT IS A LITTLE UNSETTLING
THAT WE WOULD HAVE TAX CREDITS
FOR THOSE TYPE OF OPERATIONS. SO
I'D JUST LIKE SOMETHING SOME
DISCUSSION IN THAT AREA A LITTLE
BIT IN MORE DEPTH TO, SO WE
DON'T MAKE THEM A MISTAKE BY
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. FAIR
ENOUGH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
SO, I HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO I REALLY
RESPECT YOU AND YOU TAKE ON
THINGS THAT ARE VERY CHALLENGING
AND ALSO THINGS THAT WE NEED TO
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT. I THINK
THESE ARE DEFINITELY THINGS. I
HAVE 15 COUNTIES AND I HAVE A
LITTLE COMMUNITIES, ALL SPREAD
OUT THROUGH THOSE 15 COUNTIES.
AND THERE USED TO BE, 11 YEARS
AGO WHEN I WAS CAMPAIGNING,
THERE WAS A PAPER AND EVERY ONE
OF THOSE COMMUNITIES, AND THERE
ARE A FEW LEFT, VERY FEW, BUT
THERE ARE A FEW LEFT AND THEY
JUST CAN'T COMPETE. SO THAT'S
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT, BUT BUT I
WANT TO JUST FOCUS IN ON MAYBE
THE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WITH THIS
BILL. NUMBER ONE, YOU KNOW, IN
CALIFORNIA, WE TAX WHEN THERE'S
A PROBLEM, WE JUST PASS A TAX
AND WE'RE GOING TO FIX
EVERYTHING WITH TAXING SOME RICH
PERSON. AND I WILL JUST SAY, I
HAVE NO LOVE FOR THE GIANT
CORPORATIONS IN OUR STATE THAT
IN MY MIND, I THINK MAYBE
MANIPULATE AND USE ALL MY DATA
TAKING FROM ME AND MARKET IT TO
ME. AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT,
BUT TAXING THEM AND
REDISTRIBUTING THAT IS, QUITE
FRANKLY, ONE OF THE HUGE
PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE WITH OUR
DEFICIT AT THE STATE LEVEL IS
BECAUSE THOSE COMPANIES ARE
LEAVING AND THEIR AND THEIR
PEOPLE ARE LEAVING BECAUSE IT'S
THE TAX STRUCTURE IN CALIFORNIA
IS HORRIBLE. $29 BILLION IN THE
LAST TWO YEARS HAS LEFT THE
CALIFORNIA IN A TAX BASE. AND I
DON'T THINK THEY'RE COMING BACK
ANYTIME SOON. UNTIL WE GET INTO
A STRUCTURE WHERE WE CAN BE
COMPETITIVE WITH OTHER STATES,
TO ATTRACT THOSE BUSINESSES THAT
WE DESPERATELY NEED TO RUN OUR
GOVERNMENT AND TO RUN THE THINGS
THAT WE ALL, NEED FOR OUR
COMMUNITIES, AND QUITE FRANKLY,
THAT'S FELL ON DEAF EARS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. AND THIS
LEGISLATURE CONTINUES TO MOVE IN
A DIRECTION THAT IS NOT BUSINESS
FRIENDLY. AND YOU CANNOT HAVE A
PUBLIC SECTOR IF YOU DON'T HAVE
A STRONG PRIVATE SECTOR. AND
WE'RE TOTALLY UPSIDE DOWN IN
CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW. SO AND THE
PART THAT THIS BILL THAT THAT IS
ATTRACTIVE IS THAT WE NEED TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE THE FREE AND
UNBIASED AND UNMANIPULATED PRESS
IN MY MIND, THAT'S WHAT THAT'S
WHAT AMERICA IS ABOUT. THAT'S
WHAT CALIFORNIA IS ABOUT, SO
THERE'S A DILEMMA HERE. WE'RE
GOING TO TAX. WE'RE GOING TO TRY
TO REDISTRIBUTE IT IN A WAY THAT
IS FAIR. THAT'S THE GOAL OF THIS
BILL, IS TO MAKE IT FAIR AND
ACTUALLY HOPEFULLY MAKE IT
UNBIASED AND, AND FREE. RIGHT,
BUT I DON'T THINK THIS BILL WILL
DO THAT. AND I HAVE I WANT TO
JUST COMMENT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
THE NONPROFITS AND THE NGOS. AND
GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES OF WHERE
I THINK THIS, THIS THERE'S SOME
HUGE PROBLEMS IN THIS BILL.
NUMBER ONE, WE DO LOTS OF STUFF
THROUGH THE CEC AND THROUGH NGOS
WHERE WE HAVE NO WE CAN'T AUDIT
THEM AND FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING
ON BECAUSE THEY'RE A NONPROFIT
AND WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO
GO IN AND FIND OUT WHERE OUR TAX
MONEY OR THE REVENUE THAT WE'VE
GIVEN THESE NGOS AND NONPROFITS
GO. AND WE'RE USING THEM ALL
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. AND I
THINK THAT'S A HUGE PROBLEM FOR
CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE THERE'S NO
ACCOUNTABILITY. AND I THINK THIS
BILL AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
ADDRESS THAT, SOME, I WOULD LIKE
TO GET MORE UNDERSTANDING ON
HOW, THE NONPROFITS AND, AND HOW
THAT'S GOING TO WORK AND HOW WE
CAN ACTUALLY DO OVERSIGHT WITH
THESE TAX DOLLARS. SO THAT'S A
QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU, BECAUSE
I THINK IT'S A HUGE PROBLEM WITH
YOUR BILL. I DON'T HAVE A
THOROUGH ANSWER, SENATOR, TO
THAT. YOU KNOW, THE NONPROFIT,
COMMUNITY IS A VERY SMALL PART
OF THE NEWS MEDIA ECOSYSTEM
TODAY, IN IT'S GROWN OUT OF THE
OUT OF DESPERATION, THAT
ADVERTISING DOLLARS AREN'T THERE
ANYMORE. AND THEY NEED
PHILANTHROPY. BUT THE BROADER
QUESTION THAT YOU'RE ASKING, YOU
KNOW, GOES WAY BEYOND THIS ISSUE
TO, TO A WHOLE SET OF OTHERS
THAT I'M NOT PREPARED TO REALLY
PROVIDE MUCH INSIGHT TO YOU
ABOUT, IF THERE ARE TRANS, IF
THERE ARE WAYS TO BUILD IN A
PROPER, APPROPRIATE
TRANSPARENCIES, I'M OPEN TO
THAT, IN TERMS OF HOW THE MONEY
IS, HOW IT'S FUNDED, IF THERE'S
SOME ELEMENTS THAT YOU THINK
SHOULD BE DISCLOSED AS
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, I'M NOW
JUST TALKING OFF THE TOP. I'M
OPEN TO HEARING WHAT THOSE MIGHT
BE. TRY TO HELP GET TO WHAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT I KNOW
YOU'RE RAISING A MUCH BROADER
PHILOSOPHICAL CONCERN THAN
WHAT'S JUST IN THIS BILL. ALL
RIGHT. WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT.
WE DO, HAVE A MOTION BY SENATOR
BLAKE SPEAR, AND I WOULD ONLY
GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CLOSE. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THIS
HEARING. I APPRECIATE YOU
INDULGING ME IN THIS LONGER
CONVERSATION. AND DISCUSSION
THAN NORMAL. I WOULD SAY THAT I
APPRECIATE SENATOR SKINNER'S
POINT THAT I DIDN'T MAKE ABOUT
PROP 98. THIS BILL DOES FULLY
FUND PROP 98. AND OUR RAINY DAY
FUND, AND ALSO SETS ASIDE MONEY
SO THAT THE PLATFORMS THAT MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THIS BILL COULD
DEDUCT THOSE EXPENSES AS A
BUSINESS EXPENSE. SO THEY'RE NOT
TAXED TWICE. SO THAT IS ALL
BUILT INTO THE BILL, MANY OF YOU
HAVE KNOWN MY LIFE HERE IN THE
SENATE OVER THESE LAST TEN
YEARS. YOU KNOW THAT I'M NOT A
BIG FAN OF TAXES, OF HIGHER
COSTS ON BUSINESS. I'VE GOT LOTS
OF SCARS IN THAT SPACE,
CERTAINLY THE CAST TAX VOTE WAS
ONE ONE FINE EXAMPLE OF THAT. SO
I DON'T DO THIS LIGHTLY. I WILL
NOTE THAT IN THE TECHNOLOGY
SPACE, A 99% OF THE COMPANIES
AREN'T AFFECTED BY THIS. THIS IS
A FEW. THEY'VE DONE REALLY WELL.
AND I HOPE THAT THAT IF THIS
BILL MOVES FORWARD, THAT WE'LL
CONTINUE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THEM. AND I HOPE THAT THEIR
EXECUTIVES, IF THEY'RE WATCHING
OR LISTENING, WILL HAVE SOME
INKLING OF APPRECIATION FOR,
PROTECTING OUR DEMOCRACY,
BECAUSE AT THE HEART OF IT, IT'S
REALLY WHAT'S DRIVING THIS BILL
IS TO FIND A WAY TO ENSURE THAT
OUR DEMOCRACY, TEMPORARY AS IT
WILL BE, CAN EXTEND IT OUT A
LITTLE BIT LONGER FOR THE
LIBERTY AND FREEDOMS THAT WE
ALSO ENJOY. WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
. SO THE MOTION IS Dð PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL SENATORS GLAZER
AYE. GLAZER. AYE. DOLLY. NO.
DOLLY NO. BLAKE. SPEAR. BLAKE.
SPEAR. AYE. BRADFORD DODD. AYE.
DODD. AYE PADILLA. SKINNER.
SKINNER AYE. 4 TO 1. WE'LL LEAVE
THAT BILL ON CALL FOR MEMBERS TO
ADD ON. WE CAN CLOSE THE ROLL
CALL VOTES. NO 44 TO 1. IT'S OUT
.
OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO, CLOSE
THE ROLL ON THE REMAINING BILLS
THAT WE HAVE ON OUR DOCKET
TODAY. I UNDERSTAND, SENATOR
PADILLA IS NOT GOING TO BE
RETURNING TO COMMITTEE. SOMEBODY
KNOWS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. SO WE
WILL BEGIN WITH THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. THIS IS FILE ITEM
NUMBER ONE, SB 946 BY SENATOR
MCGUIRE. THE SECRETARY. PLEASE
OPEN THE ROLL. A MOTION IS ADOPT
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. CURRENT
VOTE IS 4 TO 0. SENATOR DODD.
AYE DODD AYE. PADILLA. SKINNER.
AYE SKINNER. AYE. 6 TO 0. THAT
BILL IS OUT, 6 TO 0. VOTE. NEXT
UP, FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO. THIS
IS SB 952 BY SENATOR DOLLY.
PLEASE OPEN THE ROLL. THE MOTION
IS TO PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. CURRENT VOTE IS 5 TO
0 WITH THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. SENATORS PADILLA,
SKINNER 5 TO 0. ALL RIGHT. THAT
BILL IS OUT 5 TO 0. AND WE CLOSE
THE ROLL ON FILE ITEM THREE. YES
OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES OUR
BUSINESS HERE TODAY. THANK YOU
TO OUR WONDERFUL STAFF AND TO
ALL THOSE WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED,
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON REVENUE
AND TAXATION IS ADJOURNED