(Cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)
At the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV), we often know early on what bills will be contentious in the legislature. We plan ahead and work on securing votes of legislators who are on the fence. But at other times, good bills seem to be sailing through. This was the case with SB 582, which would establish a commuter benefit pilot program. Unfortunately though, the key word here is "was".
The pilot program would allow metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) and local air districts to jointly adopt a regional commute benefit requirement. Employers in these regions would have the following options:
Give employees the option to pay for their transit, vanpooling or bicycling expenses with pre-tax dollars, as currently allowed by federal law;
Offer employees a transit or vanpool subsidy up to $75 per month;
Provide employees with a free shuttle or vanpool operated by or for the employer.
What's great about commuter benefits is that they benefit both employees and employers, especially if employers choose the first option. As someone who has participated in commuter benefit programs as an employee and administered a program for a non-profit I used to work for, I can attest that allowing employees to pay for transit expenses with pre-tax dollars saves money for employers and employees.
Sounds pretty non-controversial, right?
Well, it was at first. Republican Senator Bill Emmerson introduced the bill early this year and it quickly earned bi-partisan support. The Senate passed the bill in May with a 36-2 vote.
SB 582 continued to sail along in the Assembly. As late as June 20th, there was no registered opposition to the bill, which made sense to us since the bill doesn't cost the state or employers any funds and helps reduce traffic congestion, air pollution and greenhouse gasses related to transportation.
But at the last moment, as the bill was headed to the Assembly floor, the California Chamber of Commerce and California Taxpayers Association came out against the bill. Yes, the Chamber, which is supposed to support business interests, and the Taxpayers Association, which is supposed to support taxpayer interests, came out against a bill that would save businesses money and cost nothing to taxpayers!
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors.
In a ruling closely watched by other states and the entertainment industry, the court in what amounts to a 7-2 ruling determined that California's 2005 violent video game restrictions violated free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.
"Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. (SacBee)
While I do admit to being a nerd, I'm not all that much of a gamer. Yet, I was never a huge fan of this legislation. Penalties were rather harsh, but a strong argument could be made on both sides. Sen. Yee and Gov. Brown, however, did support the measure quite strongly. Brown, as Attorney General, pressed the case to the Supreme Court. And now, well, we lost. That's not necessarily a bad thing on this particular issue, but it raises other questions.
So what have we learned from this episode? Well, it certainly confirmed that the Supreme Court believes that the First Amendment is really First. It has become monumental in its authority. It now controls political funding to medical data, "speech" that the founders would never have envisioned at their time of the drafting of the Constitution. I do not really care to psycho-analyze Madison and Hamilton, the Court already has that covered far too well, but how are we really to address the issues of the nation if we have a view of the Constitution that is so inflexible for modern times.
Perhaps you like this decision, or perhaps you don't. But when speech related issues come before the Legislature again, you can bet they will be chastened by this decision.
The Netroots community has been allover of the story of California state Senator Leland Yee, who began receiving death threats after he demanded an apology from Rush Limbaugh, who delivered a rant on his show ridiculing individuals of Chinese descent.
Media Matters and diarists at Daily Kos deserve thanks for their coverage; our own recap of those events is available here.
Sadly, this story is growing uglier by the day - but now there's a new way you can help.
Senator Yee's office has reported receiving a new set of threatening letters, some of which bear crosshair graphics. Meanwhile, Limbaugh's supporters are flooding Senator Yee's office with hundreds of phone calls actually supporting Limbaugh's hateful remarks!
That means it's more important than ever to show Senator Yee and his staff that they're not alone - that we stand with Senator Yee as he stands against hate.
State Sen. Leland Yee (D-SF) is set to announce his candidacy for mayor in just a few minutes at San Francisco City Hall:
State Sen. Leland Yee plans to take out papers today for his likely run for San Francisco mayor.
Forming an "exploratory committee" will allow Yee to start campaigning and raising money for next year's race. He just got through spending $1.2 million on his all-but-uncontested re-election campaign.
"We needed to keep people informed on what the senator had been doing," said campaign manager Jim Stearn. (SF Chronicle)
With Gavin Newsom winning election to Lt. Governor, the big question now is who will become Mayor in January when Newsom moves up to Sacramento. Apparently the process will be starting sooner than expected, with the Board of Supervisors already looking around for a replacement.
Going beyond the interim question, there is likely to be a fair bit of identity politics. There will be a few groups looking to make history, first Chinese-American mayor in SF, first gay mayor, etc. Oh, and there's that lingering progressive - vs - moderate debate. The interim mayor selection is just the beginning.
