Dems and ‘dirty money’ + Judge puts pause on protest ban
Good morning and welcome to the A.M. Alert!
FIRST UP: The Sacramento Bee in 2020 launched its community-funded Equity Lab, a new endeavor to elevate coverage of diverse communities and highlight voices from underserved communities. The team includes Capitol Bureau reporters Kim Bojórquez and Jeong Park, who’ve accomplished outstanding work. We’re holding a fall fundraising drive to expand our coverage as the Equity Lab heads into its second year. Find out how you can help here, and thank you for reading The Bee.
SHOULD DEMS DIVEST FROM ‘DIRTY MONEY?’
Via Lara Korte...
California Democrats went to Glasgow last week to show off the trend-setting climate policies they adopted in the last year and a half, including phasing out the sale of gas powered cars and even lawn mowers.
They say those dramatic policies are necessary because of the imminent threat of climate change, which is manifesting in their state as massive wildfires and torrential weather.
But even as they call for the international community end its reliance on oil, some Democrats are not ready to give up fossil fuel contributions to their own campaigns.
The party faces pressure from more its more liberal members to stop accepting contributions from fossil fuel organizations and law enforcement groups. Activists had hoped to hold a vote on the contributions at a meeting last week, but the issue was deferred to a subcommittee for another four months of study.
It was not the outcome many had hoped for.
“We were flabbergasted,” said RL Miller, a former chair of the party’s Environmental Caucus and founder of Climate Hawks Vote. “Steamrollered.”
The decision to delay a vote on what some members have called “dirty money” sparked outrage from Miller and others who say the party shouldn’t accept funds from groups they say harm the environment or represent law enforcement.
Some Democrats, however, argue that the party shouldn’t get picky about money ahead of an important election cycle. Fossil fuel companies are also major employers in some Democrat-held counties, like Kern and Contra Costa.
The dispute not only highlights the rift between Democratic party leadership and its more liberal members, but raises questions about why, in ultra blue California, Democrats are still taking money from groups that, at times, seem at odds with their stated positions.
“People want to win elections, and the way you win elections is, in large part, fundraising,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School. “The calculation is basically, ‘are we going to win more votes by saying no more fossil fuel money? Or will we be win more votes by trying to kind of delay it?’”
FEDERAL JUDGE GRANTS RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ANTI-PROTEST LAW
A federal judge put a temporary hold on a new California law banning anti-vaccine protesters from standing outside of vaccination clinics, pending a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction.
SB 742, authored by Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, makes it unlawful for a person to approach a person or vehicle at a vaccination site “for the purpose of obstructing, injuring, harassing, intimidating, or interfering with, as defined, that person or vehicle occupant,” according to the legislative counsel’s digest writeup of the bill.
The law defines vaccination sites as the physical location where vaccination services are provided; the punishment for breaking the law is a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or six months of jail time.
Challenging the law is the Alliance Defending Freedom, representing Fresno-based Right to Life of Central California, an anti-abortion organization that argues that the new law prevents people from being able to protest outside of Planned Parenthood of California clinics, where vaccines are distributed.
Judge Dale Drozd, of the U.S. District Court Court for the Eastern District of California, writes in his decision that the Alliance Defending Freedom “is likely to show that SB 742 is not narrowly tailored to serve the state’s interest of ensuring access to vaccination sites. Thus, plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment freedom of speech claim.”
Jonathan Keller, president of the California Family Council, which opposed the law as it made its way through the Legislature, issued a statement saying he is encouraged by the judge’s decision.
“The courts correctly recognized SB 742 as a Trojan Horse attempting to block freedom of speech and assembly for pro-life Californians. CFC repeatedly warned both the Legislature and the governor about these unconstitutional provisions. Hopefully, Sacramento will finally get the message that they can’t silence the First Amendment rights of those who disagree with them,” Keller said.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
“Too often in crafting solutions to homelessness, we prioritize the discomfort of the housed rather than the daily suffering of the unhoused. The best solution to solving homelessness? Homes. Not criminalizing it or furthering cycles of poverty.”
- Assemblyman Alex Lee, D-San Jose, discussing a Last Week Tonight segment on homelessness via Twitter.
Best of the Bee:
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it would not hear arguments on a California appeals court decision that let a Sacramento-area transgender man sue Mercy San Juan Medical Center over its cancellation of his hysterectomy, via Cathie Anderson.
CalSTRS is preparing to award a record-breaking $1.1 million bonus to its one of its top executives following the 27.2% investment return the pension funded recorded in 2020-21 financial year, via Andrew Sheeler.
Rep. Ami Bera Bera would be in a tough spot again if California’s once-a-decade political redistricting commission approves a plan for his seat that looks like the early visualization it released this week, via Gillian Brassil.