[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

PG&E Earned This

by: Brian Leubitz

Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 13:22:55 PM PDT


If ever any corporation earned regulatory legislation, PG&E did so when they spent nearly $50 million of ratepayer funds to try to pass a constitutional amendment to guarantee the monopoly.  And Mark Leno is making it happen.

Senator Mark Leno today announced legislation that would prevent Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) from using ratepayer funds to finance future political campaigns. The bill allows the corporation to continue participating in political campaigns, but stipulates that money derived from ratepayers cannot be used for political or public affairs expenditures.

Senator Leno's bill requires PG&E to report its annual political and public affairs spending to the California Public Utilities Commission. The PUC will ensure that all political and public affairs spending identified in this report did not derive from ratepayer funds.

This is already the rule for municipal utitilies.  And, frankly, if PG&E wants to guarantee its monopoly so much, they should be totally fine with competing on a level playing field.

What do you think the odds of that are?

Brian Leubitz :: PG&E Earned This
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

PG&E Earned This | 7 comments
The real question is... (0.00 / 0)
What do you think the odds are of Ahnie vetoing it?  

better question (6.50 / 2)
If it is vetoed, will Democrats be wise enough to force a veto-override vote? Because this would be a great election issue against any Republican dumb enough to stand with PG&E.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
About 100% (0.00 / 0)
Of course, the real meat is if this is introduced after Dems retake the governorship.

[ Parent ]
I don't understand how this can work (0.00 / 0)
Couldn't PG&E's accountants just find a way to say that the $50 million they spent isn't ratepayer funds, by claiming it came from some other source?  Interest on their cash-on-hand, or something like that?

Money is fungible, after all.


Curbing PG&E Speech (0.00 / 0)
Leno's proposal is interesting, but also raises difficult questions.

If ALL of PG&E's income derives from rate payers, this proposal would effectively silence the company, and that would almost certainly infringe the company's 1st Amdt rights.

On the other hand, if PG&E has substantial income that is not derived from rate payers, this bill would do nothing. As another commenter said, money is fungible.

Also: If we allowed this proposal to become law, how is it distinguishable in principle from a rule that forbids unions from spending members' dues payments on political expression---lobbying, issue advocacy, ads, etc.  


Corporations aren't people (0.00 / 0)
Why should they have First Amendment rights that were intended for human beings? They are legal fictions.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
corporations aren't people (0.00 / 0)
well, like it or not, corporations, from BP to Mother Jones magazine, do have 1st Amdt rights. R U suggesting we take those rights away?

[ Parent ]
PG&E Earned This | 7 comments
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox