The Brief

As a Republican in the Democratic-controlled state Assembly, Bill Essayli doesn’t expect his bills to pass.

That isn’t going to stop him from introducing some, though. Most recently, the Corona lawmaker proposed repealing new state funding to provide healthcare to undocumented immigrants.

Whether the bill is going to pass is the wrong question, he said. His goal is to start a discussion, and to provide a clear contrast on policy to voters.

“Ultimately, we use a lot of bills to communicate issues and to get the Democrat Party on record on where they stand on common sense policy positions,” he said.

Essayli isn’t alone. It’s common practice for California legislators on both sides of the aisle to author bills to make a political statement.

In 1971, then-Sen. Leroy Greene was motivated by a “bemusing” headline to introduce a bill legalizing prostitution — a tall order, despite support from his district. In 1994, then-Assemblymember Mickey Conroy’s bill to allow “public paddling of graffiti vandals” made it to the Assembly floor before it was defeated.

Besides bills that are just political statements, dozens of others don’t make it into law because they duplicate existing laws, or are deemed “solutions in search of a problem.”

In the 2024 session, the deadline to introduce new bills is Feb. 16 and the final day to pass them is Aug. 31. Because of this year’s multi-billion dollar budget deficit, lawmakers have been warned by legislative leaders and the governor to be judicious in introducing bills.

That may have its upsides. About 2,000 bills are introduced each year, which some legislators say makes it difficult to study each one — or each version — in depth before voting on them.

The lawmaking process is also not free: Although there are fixed costs, in 2002 the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that each bill cost at least $18,000 to go from introduction to passage: Each bill is given a title and number, goes through analysis by committee staff and is printed out.

An updated dollar figure from the legislative analyst was not available, but adjusting for inflation, each bill today costs in the neighborhood of $30,000. That means the cost of the 1,046 bills sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom last year would total about $31 million.

Still, party leaders and committee chairpersons might be hard-pressed to block bill introductions. That’s because they understand members must answer to outside forces, which include constituents they’re supposed to represent, voters who decide whether to re-elect them and interest groups that help fund their campaigns.

Even Jerry Brown, who famously vetoed a bill with the message, “Not every human problem deserves a law,” signed a majority of those sent to his desk while he was governor.

“A newly introduced bill is a bright, shiny object that gets lots of attention and gets people excited,” said Dan Schnur, a politics professor at UC Berkeley, USC and Pepperdine University.

But he added: “Making sure that bill does what it was supposed to do isn’t nearly as glamorous, but it’s just as important.”

Shooting for the moon

Ideas for bills come from several different sources — from past lawmakers, advocacy or other interest groups, in response to current events and, occasionally, from constituents.

But why might lawmakers introduce bills they know won’t pass?

“I used to always introduce what I call ‘diarrhea bills,’ to give people a heart attack or to just try to get attention on an issue,” said former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg.

One benefit lies in the “political industrial complex”: Introducing a bill on a hot topic can propel a lawmaker into discussions that might benefit them politically.

“There’s a whole architecture of analysts and lawyers that look at every single piece of legislation — so it’s a unique opportunity to participate in the discussion,” said Hertzberg, who served as Assembly speaker from 2000 to 2002 and Senate majority leader from 2019 to 2022.

Then-state Sen. Robert Hertzberg, a Democrat from Van Nuys, presides over a Senate Governance and Finance Committee meeting in 2015 at the state Capitol in Sacramento.

(

CalMatters

)

But once a less-than-stellar bill is introduced, what keeps it moving?

In Hertzberg’s view, one major reason is because lawmakers are faced with too many bills to review, and are spread too thin on committee assignments — both of which he limited while speaker. That’s why he thinks the key is legislative leadership.

“It really boils down to early management, early understanding, early communication with your members — showing them respect, because you can’t tell a member you can’t do something. They have every constitutional right to do it,” he said. “But at the same time, you have to balance that respect with an institution.”

That also includes clearly defining each Legislature’s objectives: What are the big issues facing Californians? What does success look like?

“It’s not just getting rid of bad bills,” he said. “It’s making sure good bills go through, and making sure that good bills get the proper attention necessary.”

Who decides bills’ fate?

There isn’t an in-depth filtering process before bills are introduced.

The Office of Legislative Counsel, which drafts and reviews bill language, has attorney-client privilege with each lawmaker. So, according to the Senate’s rules, the office only notifies other members if a bill is “substantially identical” to another one in the works.

That leads to bills mostly being weeded out after introduction. One of the main filters: The appropriations committees and their suspense file hearings, where dozens of bills are quickly killed without explanation.

That means how far each bill gets often depends on legislative leadership. Anthony Rendon, the Assembly speaker from 2016 until last year, delegated a lot of decision-making power to committee chairpersons.

At his swearing-in, and at a January discussion hosted by the Public Policy Institute of California, current Speaker Robert Rivas emphasized that lawmakers’ job isn’t just to introduce new bills.

“We’re very good … of introducing bills to solve all of the state’s problems,” said the Salinas Democrat. “But we have a responsibility to look in the rearview mirror to ensure that bills we have passed in the past, policies that have been implemented, that they still work.”

Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez, a Ponoma Democrat, tracks bills during session at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Aug. 24, 2023. Photo by Rahul Lal for CalMatters

(

Rahul Lal

/

CalMatters

)

Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, a San Diego Democrat who next week hands over the post she has held since 2018 and is running for governor in 2026, said in a statement to CalMatters that “Legislators are acutely aware of the budget constraints that we face and know to be mindful of that when introducing legislation.”

“We will continue to fight to protect our progress and fight for working Californians as we move through this year’s legislative session,” said Atkins, who also served as Assembly speaker from 2014 to 2016.

And, of course, the governor might intervene. In January, Newsom shut down a bill proposing a wealth tax by Bay Area Democratic Assemblymember Alex Lee, and one banning tackle football for kids under age 12 by Sacramento Democratic Assemblymember Kevin McCarty. Newsom also isn’t convinced about a bill by San Francisco Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener to require cars sold in California on or after 2027 to be equipped with speed limiters, telling Politico he’s wary of measures that could be weaponized by Republicans in an election year and to those with virtue signaling as the main motive.

But other bills go all the way through the Legislature before they’re vetoed by the governor.

According to lobbyist Chris Micheli’s review of the 156 bills Newsom vetoed last year:

• 18% were deemed unnecessary; 
• 10% were difficult or complicated to implement; 
• 6% were duplicative of executive branch actions;
• 64% were due to cost and the remainder for other reasons.

That means at least 50 bills “likely should not have been sent to his Desk and, arguably, should not have made it through the process at all,” Micheli wrote. “In fact, perhaps they should not have been introduced at all?”

But whether a bill is necessary, or practical, depends on who you ask. Some see attempts at a single-payer healthcare system as a longshot, while others see any efforts to divest state pension funds for different causes as posturing.

Former and current lawmakers note that sometimes a bill can seem like grandstanding — until social or political winds shift, or the Legislature becomes more diverse.

On Wednesday, the California Legislative Black Caucus announced a package of 14 measures, based on the recommendations of a first-in-the-nation state reparations task force that was created in the aftermath of the police killing of George Floyd and held more than two years of public hearings.

The package does not include direct cash payments to those harmed by slavery — the most controversial aspect of the reparations discussion in California— but instead takes a more comprehensive approach to dismantling the legacy of systemic racism, the caucus said. The bills cover civil rights, criminal justice, education and health, and one would request a formal apology for slavery from the governor and Legislature.

But some of the bills that include a price tag are meant to set the stage for future requests, said Assemblymember Lori Wilson, a Democrat from Suisun City and chairperson of the 12-member caucus.

“There’s a number of bills that they would love to get across the finish line. But they also recognize in this budget environment, and without laying the foundation for reparations yet with colleagues, it is unlikely,” she said. “However, they’re doing it intentionally, to start the conversation.”

Making a statement

Of course, no one says legislators can never make political statements through bills.

That’s where resolutions also come in: Measures that can express the opinions of either one or both chambers — though they don’t create or change state policy. They also don’t always have to go through policy committees, and don’t require the governor’s signature.

They can be an avenue for California lawmakers to weigh in on issues beyond the state’s direct scope: After Hamas’ attack in Israel on Oct. 7 and the Israeli government’s response, several legislative caucuses sent a letter to President Biden, calling on the administration to try and reduce civilian deaths in the Gaza conflict. Last month, the Senate Republican caucus introduced a resolution condemning Hamas.

But some have criticized resolutions as a way to please donors, to give the “false impression” that legislators are taking action on an issue — or just busywork that allows them to earn their per diems.

Neither the Assembly nor Senate restrict the number of resolutions members can introduce. But they’re limited to 40 bills per two-year session in the Senate, and 50 in the Assembly.

To some — including legislators — that’s still too many to be properly vetted, especially as they change through the process.

The bill limit in the Senate has dropped from 65 in 1995-96 to 50 in 2003-04 and to 40 in 2011-12. In the Assembly, the cap was 50 in 1993-94, dropped to 30 in 1997-98, increased to 40 in 2003-04 and back to the current 50 in 2017-18, according to the California State Library.

Prior to 1993, limits were focused not on the number of bills per lawmaker, but on when they could be introduced.

This session, Assemblymember Kate Sanchez, a Republican from Rancho Santa Margarita, introduced a resolution to decrease the Assembly’s limit to 25 bills per two-year session given the projected budget deficit.

“We need quality, not quantity,” she said.

While many lawmakers tout how many bills they passed at the end of each year to their constituents, that measure isn’t necessarily the best way to be a “good” lawmaker.

“My district did not elect me and send me here to pass more laws,” said Essayli. “No one said, ‘I need more laws and rules and regulations in my life.’ In fact, they want less.”

Micheli also supports further reducing the bill limit. He talks to clients about considering options outside the legislative process, such as working on regulations with state agencies, or by suing in the courts.

Often, he said, legislators look at the bill that’s in front of them and debate the language or provisions rather than looking at the underlying problem and determining whether legislation is the right approach. “Having that discussion could potentially reduce the need for bills, because again, does every problem require a bill?” he asked.

Micheli also agrees with Rivas that lawmakers should focus on implementation of the laws that already exist.

“One of your jobs is to make sure that public dollars are being spent wisely and efficiently,” he said. “They just don’t seem to get into it very much. And I think that’s unfortunate, because I think that is an appropriate role and responsibility of the legislative branch of government.”

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Campaign donations are both a measure of popular support and a sign of which candidates special interests believe they can influence. CalMatters analyzed campaign finance data in the California governor’s race. Here are five takeaways on where the money is coming from and where it’s going.

Outside money is shattering records

It’s a record-breaking election when it comes to spending by corporations and special interest groups trying to influence who becomes the next governor.

Outside groups, which unlike candidates can receive unlimited donations, reported spending $79 million so far — more than double the amount spent through the November 2018 general election when Gavin Newsom won his first term.

Billionaire Tom Steyer is the biggest target: A political spending committee called California Is Not For Sale, funded by the state Realtors association, the California Chamber of Commerce, Pacific Gas & Electric and the state’s electrical workers’ union poured $32 million into ads opposing him.

Steyer has vowed to lower electricity bills by challenging PG&E’s monopoly in much of Northern California. He’s also promised to pursue a ballot measure that would raise revenue for public services by requiring more accurate property tax assessments on business properties, a move that could upend the commercial real estate market.

Some of the same groups spending against Steyer are running ads for Xavier Becerra. Those groups — along with organizations representing doctors, contractors and several labor unions — have spent $13 million through PACs to boost Becerra.

Chevron, McDonald’s, dialysis giant DaVita and one of the state’s largest oil drillers, California Resources Corp., are funding one of the largest pro-Becerra groups, with each of them contributing $500,000. Meta and AirBnB chipped in about $1 million each and health insurance corporation Centene, which runs California-based HealthNet, put in $100,000.

Steyer is reveling in the spending against him, pointing to it as proof he’d stand up to utilities and big business. A climate activist, Steyer has highlighted Becerra’s support from Chevron.

The progressive unions California Nurses Association and United Domestic Workers have spent a comparatively modest $1.4 million on mailers and digital media boosting Steyer. Outside groups have also spent $1.8 million opposing Republican frontrunner Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host and British political strategist.

Mahan fizzles out

The second-highest outside spending went to boost Mahan, the San Jose mayor and moderate Democrat who entered the race late to much fanfare from Silicon Valley.

California’s tech billionaires urged Mahan to run and backed him with millions in donations and two independent spending committees. They were enamored with his platform of government efficiency and opposition to new taxes — positions that would shield them from the Legislature’s push to regulate tech and raise taxes on the wealthy.

Donors included venture capitalists Michael Moritz and Brian Singerman, DoorDash CEO Tony Xu, Intuit founder Scott Cook, Google co-founder Sergey Brin and Los Angeles developer and former mayoral candidate Rick Caruso.

The committees spent nearly $22 million on ads supporting Mahan, significantly more than the $9 million his campaign has spent. But the money wasn’t enough to overcome his significant disadvantage in name recognition as the first-term mayor of a city that doesn’t get much attention. Strategists told the committees’ backers they needed at least $45 million to make a difference.

One of the PACs, California Back to Basics, last week returned $1 million from Netflix CEO Reed Hastings; Hastings cryptically posted on X that he hadn’t asked for the money back. The refund was an acknowledgement that the committee hadn’t succeeded in raking in a final $10 to $15 million the billionaire backers hoped to raise in the last weeks of the campaign, committee spokesperson Matt Rodriguez said.

Steyer spending breaking its own records

Yet despite his opponents’ deep-pocketed donors, no one has matched the $213 million Steyer has spent on his own campaign, allowing him to blanket the airwaves with ads, pay influencers to post videos with him and send billboard trucks to drive around gas stations highlighting Becerra’s Chevron support.

That makes his the most expensive primary campaign in California gubernatorial history, exceeding that of former eBay executive Meg Whitman, a Republican who spent about $94 million in the June 2010 primary — about $142 million in today’s dollars — spending tens of millions more before losing to Jerry Brown in the general election.

California gubernatorial candidates during a debate hosted by CBS Bay Area and the San Francisco Examiner in San Francisco on May 14, 2026.

(

Godofredo A. Vásquez

/

AP Photo/Pool

)

Swalwell donors flocked to Becerra

DaVita, the California Medical Association and the California Professional Firefighters Association all supported former Rep. Eric Swalwell’s gubernatorial bid before he dropped out over sexual assault allegations.

They were among the biggest Swalwell backers to quickly switch to Becerra, who has enjoyed surging support from social media and the Democratic establishment.

Small donors made a similar leap. The CalMatters analysis found that after Swalwell dropped out, more than 500 of his campaign donors went on to contribute to Becerra’s campaign. No other candidate received that much support from former Swalwell donors.

Swalwell, who has also since resigned from Congress, continues to use his gubernatorial campaign to pay more than $313,000 to attorney Sara Azari, who is defending him against the allegations. He has also refunded about $250,000 to nearly 50 donors.

Republican Steve Hilton had the most donors

The Republican frontrunner amassed the highest number of campaign donors in the race: more than 20,000. Nearly a quarter of them live outside California.

The former Fox News host seeks to slash state environmental regulations, build housing on undeveloped suburban land and cut income taxes for the middle class. He received a slight uptick in donations after President Donald Trump endorsed him on April 6.

Katie Porter, the Democratic former congressmember from Orange County and consumer protection attorney, had the second-highest number of donors, with more than 15,000.

She also has the highest share of donors outside California, reflecting her relative national fame from her headline-grabbing time grilling corporate CEOs in Congress.

But fundraising stalled for the onetime progressive darling, who touts her reliance on grassroots donors and refusal to take corporate contributions. From April 18 through May 19 she brought in less money than Mahan.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

County leaders this summer may take up a vote to add a seat exclusively for Long Beach on the Los Angeles County Metro’s Board of Directors, the agency that oversees the nation’s second-largest transit system.

In a letter to a board committee on Tuesday, County Supervisor Janice Hahn, whose district includes Long Beach, argued that many of the county’s 88 cities are underrepresented on the agency’s board, leading to planning and funding decisions that favor the city of Los Angeles at the expense of farther-flung municipalities.

“We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape a Metro Board that better represents the diversity of our vast county as well as the needs of people who regularly rely on Metro,” Hahn said. “Long Beach is the second-biggest city in L.A. County and a regional powerhouse. It’s time that its almost half a million residents had a dedicated, permanent voice on this Board, and I’m hoping that my colleagues on the Ad Hoc Board Composition Committee agree.”

Hahn also recommended adding a board seat for someone who rides the train regularly, as well as allowing board members to designate alternate members who can vote in their absence.

The board currently has 13 members who vote on contracts worth billions of dollars for construction, trains, computers and all the other hardware needed for a transit system to send riders from the coast to the Inland Empire.

Members include all five county supervisors, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and three seats she appoints. The remaining four seats are shared by 87 cities divided into four geographic areas: North County and San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, Southeast County and Long Beach, and Southwest Corridor.

Long Beach shares the Southeast sector with 26 other cities, even though it accounts for a quarter of the sector’s weighted voting power — given its population of more than 462,000 — which gives it an incredible sway in who is elected to the seat.

The sector selects its leadership through an L.A. County City Selection Committee, which consists of 26 city representatives, who cast votes based on their population. Long Beach has 46 of the 164 total votes.

Breaking off Long Beach into its own seat would serve a dual purpose, Hahn said, of giving not only Long Beach better representation but also a better chance for the smaller cities to vie for the seat.

Several organizations expressed support for the new seat, including representatives from the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce, the city of Long Beach, the Downtown Long Beach Alliance, Congressman Robert Garcia and Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson.

This comes as Richardson was appointed to the seat on Tuesday, filling a vacancy left behind by outgoing Whittier City Councilman Fernando Dutra. Richardson is expected to join the MTA board officially in July.

Talks to overhaul Metro’s leadership run parallel to other governance changes seen across Los Angeles County, which began with the voter-approved Measure G in 2024 to create an elected County CEO in 2028 and grow to a nine-member Board of Supervisors in 2032.

Given their schedule, the Metro Board could take the matter to a vote as early as July, though Hahn’s office says it may take time to iron out the details of the seat and how to handle its appointment process.

It reinvigorates a 2016 effort by then state Sen. Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia, who tried to shake up leadership by lowering the board to two supervisor seats while adding eight members to the 14-member board, including representatives from Long Beach and other cities across the Southland.

The bill was ultimately shelved by state legislators and even opposed by members of the County Board of Supervisors at the time.