Women make up more than half of California’s population, but only about one-fourth of the Legislature. 

And in November, that’s unlikely to change too much, according to a CalWatchdog analysis.

While an October surprise, outside factor or just particularly good or bad campaigning could change the course of race that appears to be a sure thing, primary results, incumbency advantages, voting trends and partisan makeup of a district can be useful in making educated guesses.

Currently, out of 120 legislative seats, there are 30 held by women — an additional seat is vacant now, having been held by the late Republican Senator Sharon Runner, who died unexpectedly earlier this month.   

There could be as many as 49 women in the Legislature next year, but it is likely that they’ll hover around the same amount as this year.  

In the Senate, women could have as few as five seats and as many as 13 — realistically, the number will likely be around eight to 10 seats. In the Assembly, women will occupy at least six seats and as many as 36, but that number will likely be somewhere between 15 and 24 seats. 

What we know for sure

Republican Senators Jean Fuller, Janet Nguyen, Pat Bates and Democratic Senators Connie Leyva and Holly Mitchell are not up for re-election and will definitely be returning next year, as the Senate is on staggered four-year terms.

In the Assembly, every seat is up for re-election every two years, although five seats will definitely stay occupied by women — either because the incumbent is running unopposed (or facing a write-in challenge) or because the incumbents are facing another woman in the general election. Those five seats are held by: Democrats Cheryl Brown, Cristina Garcia and Autumn Burke and Republicans Catharine Baker and Young Kim. 

Because of either term limits or the seat being vacated by an incumbent running for another position, eight seats held by women will be replaced by men as no women advanced from the primary in these races. Those are the seats currently held by Republican Assemblywomen Beth Gaines, Kristin Olsen, Shannon Grove and Ling Ling Chang and one Democrat, Toni Atkins, as well as two Democratic senators, Carol Liu and Fran Pavley.

Runner’s Senate seat will also be filled by a man.

There is only one definite pickup: An Assembly seat held by termed-out Democrat Luis Alejo.  

Seats where we likely know the outcome

Again, nothing is guaranteed until the final votes are tallied, but these nine seats are safe bets.

While the Assembly seat of Speaker Emeritus Toni Atkins will be filled with a man as mentioned above, the San Diego Democrat is expected to offset that loss by filling a seat being vacated by a man in the Senate. 

Because of the advantages of incumbency, district voting trends and favorable lopsided primary results, these eight female legislators will likely keep their seats: In the Senate, it’s Democrats Hannah-Beth Jackson (the current chair of the Women’s Caucus) and Cathleen Galgiani, and in the Assembly, it’s Democrats Jacqui Irwin, Susan Talamantes Eggman, Shirley Weber and Lorena Gonzalez with Republicans Melissa Melendez and Marie Waldron.

One female incumbent in trouble 

The only incumbent woman who is on very shaky ground is Democrat Patty Lopez. Lopez finished second in the primary, down 17.2 percentage points to the man she surprisingly knocked out of office in 2014, fellow Democrat Raul Bocanegra.

Best pickup chances

In the race to replace Sen. Mark Leno, who is termed out, Jane Kim led the primary against fellow Democrat Scott Wiener 45.3 percent to 45.1 percent. It’s obviously a close race, but it is a good chance for a woman to pick up a seat.

In a less competitive race, Democrat Cecilia Aguiar-Curry finished first in the primary against Republican Charlie Schaupp in a heavily Democratic district to replace Assemblyman Bill Dodd, D-Napa, who is running for Senate.

Democrat S. Monique Limón finished the primary with a formidable lead against Edward Fuller, who claims no party preference, 65.9 percent t0 34.1 percent. If elected, Limón would replace Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams. 

In the race to replace termed-out, Democratic Assemblyman Roger Hernandez — who is currently under a three-year restraining order for alleged domestic violence — Blanca Rubio appears likely to win. Rubio, a Democrat, will face Republican Cory Ellenson in a heavily-Democratic district.

Two wildcards 

Two seats where women have decent chances to pickup seats, although the odds are slightly tipped against them, are the Senate races to replace termed-out Republican Bob Huff and incumbent Democrat Jim Beall.

Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang saw an opening in the Huff race and decided to vacate her Assembly seat after only one term. However, she finished the primary with only 44 percent, with two Democrats splitting the 56 percent majority. 

Beall is being challenged by Assemblywoman Nora Campos, a fellow Democrat. Beall narrowly missed a majority in the primary, topping Campos by 22.5 percentage points. Campos is considered the business-friendly candidate, so she’ll have to use that to draw upon Republican support to top Beall.

Toss ups

There are approximately 11 races that look as though they could go either way, with four being vacated by termed-out women. Another four are against male incumbents: Republicans Marc Steinorth, Eric Linder and Travis Allen and Democrat Miguel Santiago.  

Looking for October surprises

And there are 11 other races where women are challenging male incumbents, although these races do not appear as though they’ll be too competitive. 

Assembly Bill 52: Public accommodations: construction-related accessibility claims. It’s by Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, and would:

• Protect small businesses from financial exploitation and encourage compliance with construction-related requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
• Reduce statutory damages in claims against small businesses if the business corrected any violations within 180 days.

Assembly Bill 54: Public accommodations: construction-related accessibility standards: tax credit. It’s by Assembly Republican Leader Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto, and would:

• Aim to deter costly and unnecessary lawsuits against businesses by providing small businesses a 60 day opportunity to cure, if construction-related accessibility standards related to an alleged Americans with Disabilities Act violation had changed within three years.

Assembly Bill 1486: Civil rights: disability access. It’s by Assembly member Catharine Baker, R-San Ramon, and would:

• Provide that a State Architect certification of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act would serve as presumptive evidence that public building and facilities are in compliance with the Act.

Senate Bill 67: Disability Access: statutory damages. It’s by state Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Stockton, and would:

• Exempt small businesses from statutory damages for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
• Extend the opportunity to cure technical violations from 60 to 120 days.

By John Hrabe and Katy Grimes

After Friday’s report on CalWatchdog.com that at least two state legislators traveled to Cuba with a powerful Sacramento lobbyist, you’d think the state’s political watchdog might be launching a formal investigation. After all, the trip was hosted by the same lobbyist that reached a $500,000 settlement in 2010 with then-New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo over allegations of pay-to-play practices in that state.

Lawmakers haven’t answered any questions, and won’t face any scrutiny from the state’s ethics watchdog, because they claim to have paid for their own expenses.

“We are not investigating the Cuba trip,” confirmed Gary Winuk, chief of the Enforcement Division at the Fair Political Practices Commission. “If someone violated the current laws and regulations, then we will pursue it.”

The FPPC’s failure to investigate the matter rests on legislators’ claim to have paid their own trip expenses. It’s perfectly legal for lobbyists to escort legislators on foreign junkets, away from any public scrutiny, or the ability to independently verify legislators’ claims.

New details

To date, it still isn’t clear which legislators were in Cuba, their purpose of traveling to a foreign country with a lobbyist, or why they’ve refused to release any information about the trip itinerary, which they claim wasn’t a secret. Only State Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Livingston, and Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, R-San Luis Obispo, have been willing to confirm to CalWatchdog.com that they spent the spring holiday in Cuba with lobbyist Darius Anderson, the president and founder of Platinum Advisors.

The state’s ethics commission might not be asking any questions, but new details are slowly emerging about the trip thanks to local media reports. The San Luis Obispo Tribune, in a follow up to CalWatchdog.com’s piece, confirmed that there were eight state lawmakers on the Cuba trip.

“It is also important to note that the delegation included seven other members of the Legislature, nonprofit staff, as well as other business leaders,” Achadjian told his hometown paper in defense of his trip to a foreign country with a registered lobbyist. “It was not a personal trip with a lobbyist as it was described in other news outlets, nor was it done in secret.”

That raises the question: if the trip wasn’t a secret, why do the identities of six legislators remain a mystery?

Not talking to CalWatchdog.com

A spokesman for Galgiani said the government office doesn’t have any information on the Cuba trip and that the senator isn’t willing to comment.

Achadjian’s office was even less forthcoming with us, only telling CalWatchdog.com to read other media reports. “Earlier today the assemblyman was happy to answer a series of questions regarding his participation in the delegation trip to Cuba,” said Craig Swaim, chief of staff to Achadjian. “You are free to use that as a reference for your reporting.”

He added: “As for [who] else participated in the delegation trip, you may wish to contact Californians Building Bridges or member offices directly, as I only speak on behalf of Assemblyman Achadjian and not for other members of the Legislature.”

Achadjian’s staff was referring to the Tribune’s report, which included Achadjian’s declaration that the trip wasn’t a secret.

It isn’t clear whether the legislators used campaign or personal funds to pay for trip expenses. Under state law, it wouldn’t make a difference.

Influence

One campaign watchdog group believes that lobbyists and legislators shouldn’t be traveling together, regardless of who pays the bill because it gives lobbyists more influence than average citizens.

“We are in an era where powerful lobbyists have more access to public officials than constituents. Look no further than these trips as proof,” said Phillip Ung, a policy advocate for California Common Cause, a non-profit, non-partisan citizens’ lobby organization. “These junkets must either end or voters should know who is on the trip and what is being discussed regardless of who pays for it.”

Ung said that California’s weak ethics regulations don’t meet the federal government’s disclosure requirements for members of Congress that engage in foreign travel.

“Congress banned travel junkets with lobbyists years ago and now requires strict disclosure before a privately funded trip can even take place,” Ung said.

Campaign funds

“From trips across the ocean, gifts to staff, and even cars, many elected officials feel there is no real restriction for what they can spend their campaign funds on,” said Ung. “Under current law this is legal because of the vague definitions that allow campaign funds to be spent on almost anything under the sun.”

Not everyone in Sacramento is critical of the lobbyist-legislator foreign travel issue. Dan Pellissier, the president of California Pension Reform, defended the trip to Cuba based on his own experiences on a similar trip organized by Anderson’s nonprofit, Californians Building Bridges.

“I do not know what happened on other CBB trips, but ours was an outstanding experience without a hint of secrecy or impropriety,” Pellissier told CalWatchdog.com.  “It was a wonderful personal experience for both of us and I cannot imagine a more meaningful cultural exchange. I tipped well, in U.S. dollars.” Pellissier also wrote similar comments after the first CalWatchdog.com article on the trip.

All of this means that entertainers Beyonce and Jay-Z, who also recently traveled to Cuba, have faced more scrutiny than state lawmakers traveling to the same place with the state’s “best-connected” lobbyist. Two members of the U.S. Congress from Florida, Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, have demanded answers from the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control Department of Treasury about the superstars’ trip. No word yet on whether the Florida members of Congress will demand a similar investigation into Achadjian and Galgiani.

CalWatchdog.com is currently contacting every member of the State Assembly to confirm their whereabouts over the spring holiday.

By John Hrabe and Katy Grimes

At least two California state legislators secretly traveled with Sacramento’s “best connected” lobbyist to Cuba during the legislature’s spring break, an exclusive CalWatchdog.com investigation has revealed.

State Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Livingston, and Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, R-San Luis Obispo, confirmed through their offices that they spent the spring holiday in Cuba with lobbyist Darius Anderson.

The founder and president of the influential lobbying firm Platinum Advisors, Anderson and his firm agreed in 2010 to pay out half a million dollars to settle pay-to-play allegations.

Both legislators’ offices said the elected officials paid their own way on what one Capitol source described as a “super-secret trip.” The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that participants “shredded their itineraries when they landed.”

“He went on the annual trip to learn and study about Cuba,” said Craig Swaim, Achadjian’s chief of staff.

“Sen. Galgiani did travel to Cuba on the Darius organized trip,” said Trent Hager, the senator’s chief of staff. “As opposed to other trips, the costs for this one are fully borne by the participants.”

Anderson did not respond to requests for comment regarding the trip.

Nonprofit: “Wholly-owned subsidiary of lobbying firm”

One ethics expert said that the trip raised multiple ethical questions, including why legislators were traveling with lobbyists, the true purpose of the nonprofit and why officials felt compelled to hide the trip from the public.  “It absolutely raises ethical questions when lobbyists travel with elected officials,” said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law school professor who specializes in campaign finance issues. “We want elected officials to hear from all of us, not just those who are taking trips.”

In order to comply with the State Department’s ban on travel to Cuba, the trip was arranged by Californians Building Bridges, a shadowy non-profit organization controlled by Anderson.

In addition to Anderson, the nonprofit’s board of directors includes Holly Fraumeni and Melinda McClain, both of whom are registered lobbyists with Platinum Advisors. Only two other individuals serve on the board of directors, Kevin Murray, a former state senator and lobbyist, and James Bruner, the director of Orrick’s Governmental Affairs Practice Group in Sacramento.  The foundation shares the same phone number with Platinum Advisors.

The organization’s website was registered by Fraumeni in August 2010 and the provided contact information was for Platinum Advisors.

That information, Levinson believes, raises the question of whether “the nonprofit is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the lobbying firm.”

CA Building Bridges: “Renowned artists, fine arts museums & fabulous home restaurants”

In June 2012, the Sonoma News described a trip organized by the California Building Bridges Foundation, which served as a raffle prize for the Sonoma Valley Museum of Art:

 “’This really opens it up to the community,’ says Kate Eilertsen, museum director. ‘Imagine, a chance for two people to spend a week in Cuba, seeing renowned artists in their studios, visiting the Rum and Fine Arts Museum, and dining in the fabulous home restaurants – all for a $100 ticket.

“Travel plans also include a two-day side trip to 16th-century tiny Trinidad with its Valley of Seventy Sugar Mills and French-inspired Cienfuegos.”

A 2011 San Francisco Chronicle column by former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown described a similarly lavish trip. “Having spent a few days in Havana as a part of a Californians Building Bridges junket,” Brown wrote, “the trip was put together by Darius Anderson, who turns out to be very big in Cuban investments. So big, in fact, that the night he was missing from the group, he was dining with the president.”

However, federal charitable tax documents and the group’s website present a very different mission for the 501(c)3 organization. “The organization’s primary purpose is to assist other charitable organizations in expediting projects, setting priorities and achieving goals,” the group stated as its charitable mission on tax forms. “Californians Building Bridges will develop humanitarian programs that help volunteers and corporate partners alike make a useful connection to a world in need.”

In 2011, the only year for which the organization filed a tax return, it spent $94,586 on travel-related expenses of $136,476 in overall expenses. The organization’s mission also listed as a priority, making “one-time financial grants and donations of supplies and materials to charitable organizations that lack their own resources or do not qualify for assistance through existing agencies and organizations in their region.”

Yet, in 2011, it paid out $0 in domestic and foreign grants, according to the group’s tax return.  The organization’s tax return raises questions about whether the group is meeting its tax-exempt mission statement. Contributions to Anderson’s non-profit organization are tax deductible, according to an IRS database.

Conflicting history of group’s operations

According to his biography on the Platinum Advisors website, “Through Californians Building Bridges, Darius founded Project Havana, a humanitarian project dedicated to making a difference in the lives of the Cuban people through providing grants and donations of supplies to charitable organizations that lack their own resources. For the past 10 years, Darius and CBB have led over 50 missions to Cuba.”

Yet, according to the organization’s website, it did not receive a license to legally operate in Cuba until 2011. “On March 29, 2011, Californians Building Bridges (CBB) was granted a license by the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control, License # CT-16606, to travel and engage in transactions directly related to a new humanitarian project in Cuba,” the organization states under “Project Havana,” one of only four pages on its website. Guide Star, the independent organization that tracks nonprofit financial information, lists the organization’s founding and ruling year as 2012.

Only one tax return, filed on October 30, 2012, was publicly available.

Well-connected lobbyists

According to state disclosure reports, Anderson’s firm is the lobbyist of record for thirty-four government organizations and special interest groups, including Anthem Blue Cross, AT&T, California Thoroughbred Breeders Association, Clear Channel Communications, Station Casinos, LLC, Sutter Health, United Food and Commercial Workers, UPS, and the counties of Alameda, Napa, Orange and San Bernardino.

In 2009, Anderson was voted by state legislators as the “best connected lobbyist,” according to a survey of all 120 legislators conducted by Capitol Weekly. In 2010, Anderson and Platinum Advisors “paid $500,000 to settle claims by New York Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo stemming from a yearlong investigation into so-called pay-to-play practices in city and state pension fund investment partnerships,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

Following the settlement, Dan Schnur, then chairman of the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, appointed Anderson to serve on the Chairman’s Task Force on the Political Reform Act. The appointment was criticized by Common Cause.

The past three consecutive years, Anderson has ranked in Capitol Weekly’s Top 100, the list of the most influential people in state politics.

“Darius Anderson rose to prominence during former Gov. Gray Davis’ administration, handling fund-raising chores, then expanded his contacts and influence dramatically,” read Capitol Weekly’s 2012 profile, when Anderson ranked 76th on the list.

In November 2012, Anderson and former Democratic Rep. Doug Bosco were among a group of investors that purchased the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.

Cuba trip: One of three spring junkets

CalWatchdog.com contacted every member of the state Senate to confirm their whereabouts over the spring holiday.

Thirty-one offices confirmed that their bosses did not participate in any foreign travel over the holiday. Only the offices of four state Senators, Ron Calderon, Hannah-Beth Jackson, Curren Price, Jr. and Rod Wright, would not definitely confirm that their bosses did not participate in any trip to Cuba. Two state Senate seats are vacant.

State Senator Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Senate Republican leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar were participating in a separate junket to Eastern Europe, which, according to the Los Angeles Times, was “sponsored by the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, which is bankrolled by groups lobbying the Legislature, including PG&E, Chevron, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Southern California Edison, among others.”

CalWatchdog.com was unable to reach all members of the State Assembly.

By John Hrabe

If you’ve started your spring cleaning, or are in desperate need of a last-minute tax deduction, there’s probably a pile of clothes in your house marked for charity. Now you’ve just got to remember to drop it off at a donation bin before April 15.

That task could soon get more difficult, thanks to a proposal by a Central Valley lawmaker, who is looking to impose new state regulations on secondhand donation bins.

For the second year in a row, state Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Stockton, has introduced legislation at the behest of Goodwill Industries that would authorize local governments to adopt ordinances regulating the placement and removal of donation boxes.

The legislation is a mixed bag for property owners. For bins that have been placed without the property owner’s consent, the bill would grant the owner civil immunity for any damages in removing the unauthorized bins. However, if the property owner changes their mind and removes a bin that was previously authorized, the property owner could be slapped with a $1,000 fine if they fail to follow the bill’s notification and removal provisions.

Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto, a co-author of S.B. 450, told CalWatchdog.com that the bill will better protect property owners and provide a legal method for removing unwanted bins.

“My interest is property rights,” Olsen said. “This is a reasonable measure that is about respecting the rights of property owners and businesses.”

Olsen expressed concerns that, under current law, property owners could be held civilly liable for removing unauthorized bins on their property. But some charitable organizations say that the bill’s new regulations are unnecessary. They say the bill is an effort by Goodwill Industries to shut them out of the secondhand clothing market.

Property owners

“Property owners aren’t asking for the protections in this bill,” said Jonathan Franks, a spokesman for a coalition of organizations that are fighting the new regulations. “It’s a bold-faced, anti-competitive measure fronted by a team of lobbyists and political consultants.”

Franks describes the bill as Goodwill’s “attempt to corner the clothing donation market and make more money.” In 2011, Goodwill Industries generated nearly $3 billion of its $4.4 billion in annual revenue from its secondhand clothing stores. Goodwill would benefit from collection bin regulations because it commonly uses larger tractor-trailer donation centers, the bill’s critics say. Smaller charities, on the other hand, use smaller bins, and therefore must go through the bureaucratic process for each location.

“It’s really unfortunate that Goodwill has devoted so much money to a statewide attempt to make it impossible for legitimate charities like D.A.R.E. and Planet Aid to place clothing donation boxes in California,” Franks said. “We believe Californians should have the right to choose the cause they donate to, and it’s unfortunate that Goodwill doesn’t share that position.”

John Lindsay, vice-president of development for D.A.R.E. America, expressed similar concerns last year when Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed another Galgiani-authored donation regulation bill. Lindsay said it’s not always easy to obtain permission from the property owner compared to the lessee or primary business.

“Many properties are owned by large corporations and companies,” Lindsay told us last year. “Actually obtaining the written permission of the ‘property owner’ vs. permission from the agent or lessee are two different things.”

CalWatchdog.com asked Olsen to address the concerns raised by smaller charities. She said she would be open to amendments in order to make sure that “fantastic organizations like D.A.R.E. are able to raise money.”

“I do believe the author’s intent is to be collaborative — to make sure that it’s effective for everyone,” she said.

Bad will from Goodwill

The 800-lb. pound gorilla in the secondhand clothing market, Goodwill has pushed for more government regulations of donation bins, including an annual donation registration fee. Last year, Goodwill unsuccessfully backed an Oakland ordinance that would have “imposed an annual fee of $450 per box, included a cap on the number of bins citywide (60) and per vendor (15), and would have imposed fines on organizations for boxes that aren’t maintained or are without permits.”

The organization has also come under fire for exploiting a loophole in federal wage laws that allows it to pay some disabled workers less than the federal minimum wage.

Last year, a CalWatchdog.com investigation revealed that five California-based Goodwill charities pay hundreds of employees less than the minimum wage, while providing lucrative compensation packages to top executives. In 2010, the five CEOs of Goodwill Industries of Sacramento Valley & Northern Nevada, Goodwill of Silicon Valley, Goodwill Industries of Orange County, Goodwill Industries of San Diego County and Goodwill Southern California earned a combined $1.78 million in total compensation.

The average compensation was $356,000 a year.

These same organizations paid some disabled employees less than the federal minimum wage. In Orange County, 595 Goodwill employees work an average of 20-30 hours per week for less than minimum wage.

“I have nothing but positive things to say about the mission of Goodwill, but their tactics over the last few years are despicable,” Lindsay, vice-president of development for D.A.R.E. America told CalWatchdog.com last year. “They should be ashamed that they feel the need to use their clout to squeeze out their competition in such a manipulative manner.”

By John Hrabe

Goodwill is synonymous with used-clothing donations.

The national syndicate of secondhand retail stores is by far the biggest player in the clothing donation business. However, it’s losing market share to smaller nonprofits, churches and even some for-profit businesses, all of which have replicated the Goodwill charitable model.

So, Goodwill Industries Inc., like many struggling entities, has turned to the government for help.

To stop “illegitimate” organizations from cutting into their profits, Goodwill sponsored AB 1978 by Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani, D-Stockton. The bill, which is currently on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk, “would require the written consent of a property owner or the property owner’s authorized agent before a collection box may be placed on the property owner’s property.”

Sounds reasonable, right? Good intentions shouldn’t allow charities to disregard private property rights. But some smaller charities say that’s not what the bill is really about. They believe, under the pretext of property rights, Goodwill is trying to squeeze them out of the secondhand clothing business.

“The ‘Goodwill Bill’ is nothing less than a naked and aggressive attempt by Goodwill to use the California Legislature to accomplish what they cannot accomplish through the natural market and fair competition,” John Lindsay, vice-president of development for D.A.R.E. America told CalWatchDog. “I would ask Gov. Brown to veto this bill.”

D.A.R.E. America, which does not receive federal funds, uses clothing bins to raise money for its programs. It also gives some of the donated items away to the victims of natural disasters, such as the victims of this year’s floods in Minnesota and last year’s tornadoes in Alabama.

Lindsay says that D.A.R.E. America always obtains permission before placing a donation bin.

“D.A.R.E. always obtains permission from the property owner or her/his agent,” he said. “We will not drop a bin without permission.  We voluntarily are in full compliance with Generalcode.com, a resource for cities and counties when drafting codes related to planning, building, and zoning.”

Why, then, are charities like D.A.R.E. so worried about the bill?

Permission Requirement: A Red Herring

Lindsay says it’s not always easy to obtain permission from the property owner compared to the lessee or affected business.  For example, a charity interested in putting a donation bin at the neighborhood Walmart would normally seek permission from the store manager. This bill would stop that and require permission from whoever owns the parking lot or brick-and-mortar building.

“Many properties are owned by large corporations and companies,” Lindsay said. “Actually obtaining the written permission of the ‘property owner’ vs. permission from the agent or lessee are two different things.”

The same goes for a small family-owned restaurant. The property owner, not restaurateur, would have to approve the bin. That’s why AB 1978 isn’t a simple property rights issue. Or rather, there’s an argument that the bill’s onerous requirement undermines the property rights of lessees, who are unable to fully utilize the property they’re leasing.

The bill’s sponsors argue that the bill specifies property owner because that’s who will be subject to code enforcement.

“The property owner should be the one who gives permission because the property owner is the one who is going to be subjected to any code enforcement,” Richie Ross, a Sacramento lobbyist and political advisor to the bill’s author Galgiani, told California’s Capitol. “Goodwill cares because some portion of the $8 million that’s getting siphoned off would go to them.”

Goodwill organizations throughout the country claim there has been a massive increase in the number of illegitimate charities “siphoning off” their donations. However, the assertion isn’t backed up with any hard data.

“There has been a recent surge of unattended collection boxes,” Goodwill Industries of Sacramento Valley & Northern Nevada, one of the bill’s sponsors argued in support of the bill. “They have become a nuisance, target for illegal dumping, and a blatant violation of property rights.”

Goodwill’s Intimidation Tactics

Goodwill’s bill is a part of an overall campaign to regain control of the secondhand clothing market. Earlier this year, Goodwill unsuccessfully backed an Oakland ordinance that would have “imposed an annual fee of $450 per box, included a cap on the number of bins citywide (60) and per vendor (15), and would have imposed fines on organizations for boxes that aren’t maintained or are without permits.”

Goodwill would benefit from caps on the number of collection bins because it commonly uses larger tractor-trailer donation centers. Smaller charities, on the other hand, use smaller bins. And that’s why the permission requirements of AB 1978 would make it more difficult for these smaller charities to compete with Goodwill.

“Goodwill only has to obtain the permission of one property owner to collect x number of pounds of clothing, whereas D.A.R.E. might need 20 bins, and the written consent of 20 property owners,” Lindsay told CalWatchDog.com.

Lindsay’s organization routinely works with other nonprofits to sponsor charitable events. And he’s quick to point out that he supports Goodwill’s mission.

“I have nothing but positive things to say about the mission of Goodwill, but their tactics over the last few years are despicable,” he said. “They should be ashamed that they feel the need to use their clout to squeeze out their competition in such a manipulative manner.”

D.A.R.E. fears that AB 1978 will be used to squeeze them and other charities out of the donation market, a fear that is supported by Goodwill’s own statements. Goodwill Industries of San Joaquin Valley Inc., another co-sponsor of AB 1978, vows that if Brown signs the bill into law, they’ll use it to help “cities to rid the territory of unwanted boxes.”

“After AB 1978 becomes law, Goodwill Industries SJV will continue to work closely with property owners and cities to rid the territory of unwanted boxes,” the organization explains in talking points about the bill. “Property owners and city code enforcement will be given legal authority to have unauthorized boxes towed and impounded without incurring liability.”

Or, in Lindsay’s words, “Goodwill has appointed themselves a state agency, here to help save California from unwanted boxes.”

“The first step to crushing an opponent is to either dehumanize them or put yourself above them,” he said of Goodwill’s attitude toward other charities.

The same could also be said for how Goodwill treats its own employees.

Goodwill’s Sub-Minimum Wage Policy

The mission of Goodwill Industries is to provide job training and placement services to individuals that would otherwise face employment barriers.

“But Goodwill is really an employer,” Ross explained to California’s Capitol in August. “The money they get is used to hire the disabled — 2,000 people who otherwise wouldn’t have jobs.”

Because they “otherwise wouldn’t have jobs,” Goodwill pays some disabled employees less than the federal minimum wage. A CBS News affiliate in Denver reported last month that some Goodwill employees claim to earn “just 20 cents an hour.”

Goodwill Industries exploits a loophole in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which grants organizations with a “special wage certificates” an exemption from the federal minimum wage. The National Federation of the Blind recently organized a protest of Goodwill to draw attention to the law, which it calls “unfair, discriminatory, and immoral.”

“Goodwill is a household name, but most households do not realize that Goodwill is one of the many employers that pay less than the federal minimum wage to their workers with disabilities,” the NFB states on its website. “Some Goodwill-affiliated agencies pay their workers with disabilities at least the federal minimum wage, but 64 of the 165 Goodwill-affiliated agencies choose to limit the vocational potential of their workers with disabilities by paying them pennies per hour.”

Among the 64 Goodwill-affiliated agencies with the legal authority to pay the disabled sub-minimum wages, none other than Goodwill Industries of Sacramento Valley & Northern Nevada, a co-sponsor of AB 1978. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network of Sacramento, which joined the National Federation of the Blind’s August protest effort, first identified the Sacramento affiliate’s minimum wage exemption on its Facebook page.

“This was a good protest,” one ASAN protestor wrote on the group’s Facebook wall. “We successfully managed to persuade 4 people to turn around — that is, away from the store’s doors — and to go home, thus causing Goodwill to lose business. This is a good start.”

But, disability advocates could see that good start wiped out, if Brown signs AB 1978.