A huge money gap in CA mental health measure

Gov. Gavin Newsom strong-armed the Legislature into making sure his signature mental health initiative stood alone on the March 5 statewide ballot. And now, he and his allies are raising orders of magnitude more money for the Proposition 1 campaign than the measure’s opponents to make sure voters approve it.

As CalMatters’ health reporter Kristen Hwang and data reporter Jeremia Kimelman explain, the governor has raised more than $14.2 million for Prop. 1. It’s a dual measure to reroute roughly $1 billion annually from mental health funding to rent support, construction and related housing services for people with behavioral health needs, and includes a $6.4 billion bond to pay for creating housing and treatment facilities.

These donations far exceed the Californians Against Proposition 1 campaign, which has raised just $1,000 so far, according to campaign finance records.

In a statement to CalMatters, the Yes on 1 campaign said the measure “will finally fix our mental health care system” and has a “broad and diverse coalition” backing it.

Some of the top donors of this coalition include health care companies Sutter Health and Kaiser Permanente, and labor groups representing construction workers and correctional officers — all of which have donated at least $1 million each to the ballot measure. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria contributed the single largest donation at $1.5 million.

Opponents of the measure are small mental health providers and current users of the mental health system that fear Prop. 1 will diminish the health services counties currently provide and increase involuntary treatment. 

But despite the small war chest, Prop. 1 opponents have garnered some notable endorsements, such as the League of Women Voters of California. In a statement to CalMatters, Executive Director Stephanie Doute said “Prop. 1 does not provide adequate funding for California’s needed mental health care system.”

Besides money, there’s also the matter of public opinion. In a December Public Policy Institute of California poll, two-thirds of likely voters said they would vote yes on Prop. 1, though the Californians Against Proposition 1 has called the survey “flawed.”

For more on the money behind Prop. 1 in Kristen and Jeremia’s story.

Speaking of money in politics: CalMatters Capitol reporter Alexei Koseff digs into Assembly Bill 1170, which would allow more redactions on the publicly available version of a form that California elected officials must complete each year. 

Filers of Form 700 are required to list the property they own and other personal information. Citing the rise in political violence and harassment in recent years, such as the attack against then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband in San Francisco, legislators who support the bill say blocking more information from appearing on the form would help protect their privacy and safety.

But good governance advocates oppose the withholding of information that could highlight conflicts of interest. California Common Cause’s legislative director said that while it does “understand the concerns of the privacy of the filer,” having transparency is also “really important for accountability.” (For what it’s worth, CalMatters used Form 700 records in 2019 to analyze legislators’ property interests as they were considering a measure to cap rent increases.)

To learn more on AB 1170, which must pass out of the Assembly Wednesday to stay alive, read Alexei’s story.

On that deadline: As the Assembly and Senate return for floor sessions today, a total of 67 bills must also pass by Wednesday, according to veteran lobbyist and Capitol watcher Chris Micheli.

A first-in-the-nation council on fast food businesses is set to begin meeting by March 15 and could influence industry policy in California for years to come — but not everybody is happy about it, writes CalMatters political reporter Jeanne Kuang.

Included in the new law that grants fast food workers a minimum wage hike in April is a provision that establishes the nine-person council, which is expected to set industry working condition standards. Workers and labor advocates, along with franchise owners and representatives of global restaurant chains, will meet to iron out these rules together. 

Legislative leaders will appoint two councilmembers while Gov. Newsom is responsible for tapping seven others — one of which will be a neutral member of the public, and perhaps serve as the tie-breaking vote. 

The president of SEIU California, a large union, said the council puts “power in the hands of workers to improve conditions across their entire industry” when Newsom signed the law last year. Business groups, on the other hand, are likely to cite costs to push back on any new proposed regulations. The law creating the council also drew ire from many restaurant owners who are beginning to learn they’ll be included under any new rules, said a senior vice president of government affairs and public policy for the California Restaurant Association. 

The council is reminiscent of the now-disbanded Industrial Welfare Commission, which was established during the Progressive Era more than a century ago to support marginalized workers and set industry standards regarding things including breaks, uniforms and wages. But the council won’t be as powerful as the commission: Some workplace issues are off limits to the council, and state labor agencies can revise the council’s decisions before making them law.

No appointees have been announced yet from either the labor or business group side. A spokesperson for the governor said the office is interviewing applicants now.

For more about the fast food council, read Jeanne’s story.

Earlier this month, Capitol watchers saw two Republicans go after each other: GOP Assemblymembers Devon Mathis and Bill Essayli clashed over state health benefits for undocumented immigrants.

Now, it’s two Democrats fighting as they seek to replace Rep. Katie Porter in Congress as she runs for U.S. Senate.

State Sen. Dave Min has the backing of Porter and the California Democratic Party. But he also has a DUI on his record: He pleaded no contest and was sentenced to probation for an arrest near the state Capitol last May.

Joanna Weiss, a progressive organizer supported by EMILYs List, is airing an ad that brings up the DUI to convince voters that Min can’t be trusted — but she can. The spot shows Min weaving as he tries to walk the line in a sobriety test and accuses him of “endangering innocent lives.”

As you might imagine, Min is not pleased. “It’s so disappointing to see Joanna Weiss run such a negative campaign,” he responded on social media, asserting that he is trusted by those who have endorsed him.

Min and Weiss may be competing for one spot coming out of the March 5 top-two primary. It’s a swing district and Republican Scott Baugh, who narrowly lost to Porter in 2022, is running again.

Speaking of the two parties: New voter registration numbers show a continued, if slight, move toward Democrats and Republicans and away from no party preference. As of Jan. 5, of California’s nearly 21 million voters, 46.8% were signed up as Democrats, 24.2% as Republicans and 21.9% as unaffiliated. One possible factor: Only registered Republicans can take part in the March 5 GOP presidential primary.

But the longer term trend seems clear: Four years ago, no party preference voters outnumbered Republicans.

In more election news: The Secretary of State’s office issued a late correction, saying that the ballot designation for Christina Pascucci, a Democrat running for U.S. Senate, should be “Local Television Journalist.”

A California appeals court in January issued a ruling that could lower monthly pension payments by several hundred dollars for retired state workers in Ventura County. The decision may have implications for the whole state. 

The outcome is tied to a 2020 California Supreme Court ruling that was supposed to ban a perk that enabled government workers to artificially boost their pensions with a kind of vacation cash-out — a practice known as “pension spiking.” The 2020 case was based on a 2013 state law. The state appeals court ruling this month reaffirmed that ban, reports CalMatters’ Adam Ashton.

The original law changed pension formulas by reducing the potential retirement income of employees hired after 2013. It also restricted a number of financial incentives that had previously counted toward a worker’s pension, including large amounts of accrued vacation.

Since the state’s Supreme Court ruling that directed California’s 20 county-run pension funds to comply with the 2013 law, county funds have been recalculating the pensions that included the incentives that the 2013 law capped. The process is complex — Sacramento and Los Angeles counties, for instance, reported this month that they’re still making adjustments.

In the appeals court case, retirees urged Ventura’s pension board to apply the new rules only to people who retired after 2020 (when the state Supreme Court upheld the law), and not when the law took effect.

For more on this case, read Adam’s story.