The California Legislature’s adoption of Senate Bill 100 – committing the state to have an electricity grid powered by 100 percent renewable energy in 2045 – was billed by Sen. Kevin De León, D-Los Angeles, (pictured) as another landmark triumph for the environmental movement in the Golden State.

But the measure’s relatively narrow adoption in the Assembly – on a 44-33 vote – carries loud hints from Democrats who represent poor communities that they see environmental policies that add to the cost of living as increasingly problematic in the state with the nation’s highest level of poverty.

A Los Angeles Times interview with Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, hammered home this point:

“This is yet another in a laundry list of bills that are discriminatory to the people I represent,” Gray said. He was paraphrased as “saying that supporters were motivated to impress national progressives rather than poor residents in rural communities who would face higher electric bills as a result of the legislation.”

The Assembly Democrats who opposed SB100 besides Gray: Anna Caballero of Salinas, Jim Cooper of Elk Grove, Tom Daly of Anaheim, Jim Frazier of Oakley, Mike Gipson of south Los Angeles, Sharon Quirk-Silva of Fullerton, Blanca Rubio of the San Gabriel Valley and Rudy Salas of Bakersfield.

The issue of how poor people would be affected was very much part of the debate in the run-up to the 2006 adoption by the Legislature of the landmark anti-global warming Assembly Bill 32, which mandated the use of costlier but cleaner energy sources. As a result, a portion of cap-and-trade fees on pollution permits are designated to go to “disadvantaged” communities.

A 2017 report by the California Climate Investments state website said that $614 million in cap-and-trade fees had been spent on these communities, including helping nearly 30,000 homeowners with solar panels and other energy-efficient projects, as well as funding more than 2,600 affordable-housing units.

Energy costs contribute to state’s high poverty rate

But most of the 20 percent-plus of state residents who are impoverished get relatively little direct help in dealing with overall energy costs that aren’t just higher on average than any other state with a relatively temperate climate; they’re also higher than states with harsh winters like Montana and Colorado. And because of unique state rules and fees, gasoline costs more in California than any state but Hawaii.

California’s emergence as the nation’s most impoverished state only became evident in 2011, when the U.S. Census Bureau began issuing state-by-state poverty statistics that included the cost of living. This has helped create an appreciation in the Legislature of the need to add housing stock to try to slow the sharp increase in rent and home prices over the past quarter-century.

But a recent study by Chapman University’s Center for Demographics and Policy found that state energy policies were also a major contributor to high poverty rates.

The study faulted state agencies, starting with the California Air Resources Board, for their impact studies which have consistently minimized the effects of laws like AB32 on the less affluent.

“Notably absent [in the air board’s ‘scoping plan’ for AB32] is any discussion of how the state’s existing costs, let alone additional burdens, severely harm lower-income and historically disadvantaged communities and households,” the study noted.

Gov. Jerry Brown has so far declined direct comment on SB100, but most Capitol watchers expect him to sign the bill. The governor has called climate change the state’s and nation’s most pressing problem.

Despite a fresh warning from the Internal Revenue Service, a key committee in the California Legislature on Friday unanimously advanced legislation designed to shield wealthy residents from the effects of the federal tax overhaul enacted by Congress in December.

The tax overhaul ended the previously unlimited itemized deduction for all local and state taxes and capped the deduction at $10,000. A Tax Policy Center study estimates the change will cost about 489,000 state tax filers an average of $3,290.

Three high-tax states – New York, New Jersey and Connecticut – have already passed elaborate legislation that allows tax filers to defray their bills by giving money to state-designated charities. Such donations remain deductible, in theory, on federal tax forms.

But last Wednesday, the IRS took dead aim at the three states’ tax-avoidance measures. In what the Bond Buyer website called “an unusually blunt notice,” the IRS warned taxpayers to be “mindful” that “federal law controls the characterization of the payments for federal income tax purposes regardless of the characterization of the payments under state law.”

The IRS warning makes it close to inevitable that the interpretation of what is an eligible charitable deduction under the federal tax code will come before the federal courts. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is likely to lead the charge, describing the warning as an unlawful “attack” by the Trump administration on the Empire State.

California lawmakers may end up part of that legal fight. On Friday, a measure setting up a charity-donation system like New York’s – Assembly Bill 2217, by Inglewood Democrat Autumn Burke – won the support of the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan 14-0 vote; three Republicans abstained. On May 14, it passed the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee on a 7-0 vote in which there were also three GOP abstentions.

On Jan. 30, Senate Bill 227 – a similar measure proposed Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles – passed the Senate on a 27-6 vote, with seven GOP abstentions. It has yet to receive an Assembly hearing.

Like Burke’s measure, de León’s bill would give tax filers who made a donation to a specified institution a state income tax credit that was nearly equal to their contribution.

Brown’s view of tax-avoidance proposals unclear

How Gov. Jerry Brown views the bills is unclear. In December, while Congress was finalizing the tax overhaul, he blasted the plan as “evil in the extreme” and joined Cuomo in calling the cap on state and local tax deductions a partisan assault by Republicans on Democratic states.

In January, he repeated his criticism of the tax changes as partisan when he unveiled his proposed 2018-19 budget, saying at a news conference that he worried that because of the lost deductions, wealthy Californians “may be tempted to leave.”

But so far, Brown has not commented specifically on the measures before the Legislature. He’s also kept clear of proposals to address the federal tax changes with a huge overhaul of California’s tax system that would reduce income and sales taxes while adding new taxes on services. This would both limit the pain caused by the cap on the federal deduction and lessen the heavy volatility of the state’s revenue stream.

Such tax changes were endorsed in 2009 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a bipartisan commission he established. But their 425-page tax reform plan was dead on arrival in the Legislature. Democrats blasted it for being a giveaway to the wealthy. Republicans ripped the proposal for sharply expanding categories of taxation.

Democratic state lawmakers’ interest in pursuing an unprecedented plan to minimize the hit that California’s high-income residents face because of the federal tax overhaul’s $10,000 cap on deductibility of state and local taxes may be losing momentum – undermined by strong warnings from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who oversees the Internal Revenue Service, and by a new analysis that says the IRS could easily squelch the maneuver.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, pictured, introduced Senate Bill 227 early this month. It would allow the estimated 6 million Californians who itemize their federal income taxes to effectively continue to write off state and local tax deductions in excess of $10,000 by allowing them to pay their state taxes to a state charitable foundation, the California Excellence Fund.

Tax experts note that states have long allowed tax deductions for charitable donations and say de Leon’s ploy is protected by the fact that tax laws are traditionally subject to stricter interpretation than most federal laws because of concerns that a rogue IRS could target individuals or companies it didn’t like.

Democratic lawmakers embraced de Leon’s proposal, saying the move would allow the 6 million state taxpayers who itemize deductions to save an average of more than $8,000 a year.

Washington Post: California shows how to take on Trump

But after Washington Post coverage of the legislation asserted it could create a “national boilerplate for skirting Trump tax changes,” the Trump administration took notice of what California was up to.

Politico reported that Mnuchin called the proposal in California and similar proposals in other high-tax states “ridiculous.” Mnuchin emphasized that the IRS was allowed to decide what qualifies as an IRS-recognized charity.

“Let me just say again from a Treasury standpoint and IRS, I don’t want to speculate on what people will do, but I think it’s one of the more ridiculous comments to think you can take a real estate tax that you are required to make and dress that up as a charitable contribution,” Mnuchin told reporters at the White House. He described the ploy as an obvious attempt by states “to evade the law.”

Mnuchin’s comments were backed up in a report by the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation.

“This proposal, while interesting, is fairly obviously in violation of existing law and jurisprudence,” wrote veteran tax analyst Jared Walczak. “Just because the IRS has not consistently cracked down on some minor efforts here and there does not mean it would turn a blind eye to a concerted effort to contravene the tax code by providing a contribution in lieu of taxes program.”

Walczak warned state lawmakers that when it comes to de Leon’s Senate Bill 227, the IRS could readily thwart it under precedents that allow it to block deductions for charitable donations if the agency concluded there was no “charitable intent” to the donations.

Given that de Leon and other backers of the bill have openly described it as being designed to reduce Californians’ payments to the U.S. Treasury, lawyers defending the bill if it became law and was rejected by the IRS would face a difficult task: making a plausible case that a “charitable donation” that was undertaken with the goal of reducing an individual’s or family’s tax obligations meets the requirements set by the IRS for allowable charitable deductions.

The latest IRS overview of which deductions are allowed – Publication 526, released in 2016 under the Obama administration – doesn’t seem to allow such self-serving deductions.

It says that for a donation to qualify for a deduction, it must be “made without getting, or expecting to get, anything of equal value. … Qualified organizations include nonprofit groups that are religious, charitable, educational, scientific or literary in purpose, or that work to prevent cruelty to children or animals.”

Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, on Thursday unveiled his plan to allow Californians to skirt the provision of the newly passed federal tax overhaul that caps the state and local tax deduction (SALT), in just the latest effort by Democrats in the Golden State to thwart the Trump agenda in Washington.

Under the plan, state residents could make charitable contributions to a state fund, called the California Excellence Fund, and be able to deduct those payments on their federal taxes. 

The move would decrease the amount of taxes Californians have to pay under the new law, as the deduction for charitable contributions remains uncapped.

“The Republican tax plan gives corporations and hedge-fund managers a trillion-dollar tax cut and expects California taxpayers to foot the bill,” de León said in a statement. “We won’t allow California residents to be the casualty of this disastrous tax scheme.”

In California, the average taxpayer claimed $18,000 in state and local deductions in 2015, according to IRS data. Under the new law, the deduction is capped at $10,000, a provision that hurts high-tax blue states.

The “Protect California Taxpayers Act” essentially allows state taxpayers to reclassify their tax payments as charitable deductions, letting them deduct the entire amount on their federal tax returns.

Additionally, the legislation could serve as a model for other states to circumvent the law. Just recently, Gov. Andrew Cuomo suggested that New York will take its own action, possibly mirroring California’s.

“Washington’s tax plan uses New York and California as piggy banks to finance tax cuts for Republican states,” Cuomo said in his recent annual state of the state address. “We must take dramatic action to save ourselves and preserve our state’s economy.”

While it’s not entirely clear if the proposed law would comport with current IRS guidelines for charitable deductions, similar frameworks, on a smaller scale, have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a tax break for religious schools in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, ruling that a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that pays for children to go to religious schools cannot be challenged on constitutional grounds.

The High Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring suit.

And while Congress could simply pass a new law or the IRS could change the rules for charitable deductions, that is unlikely because existing tax credit regimes provide school choice opportunities, an issue popular with Republicans.

“This could end up in extended litigation, perhaps before the U.S. Supreme Court,” tax policy expert Alan Auerbach told KQED. “I don’t think this will be a smooth thing to do.”

For the California state Senate leader, the bill also provides fuel for his primary campaign against longtime incumbent Sen. Dianne Feinstein to show the state’s liberal voters that he’s more equipped to aggressively combat Republicans in Washington.

California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León’s decision to challenge the 2018 re-election bid of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat, for not being sufficiently liberal in the Trump era is beginning to look more serious.

A poll released last week by the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley found Feinstein leading de León 41 percent to 27 percent among likely voters. The remaining 32 percent of respondents said they would not support either candidate or were undecided. A Los Angeles Times/USC poll released in early November had shown Feinstein crushing de León, 58 percent to 31 percent.

After the UC Berkeley poll was released, Feinstein reversed her position on whether to support a continuing resolution funding the federal government that ended up being approved by Congress over the weekend. Her initial support for the measure triggered scathing criticism from some Democrats because the resolution did not address the fate of the nearly 800,000 young men and women who enjoyed some legal protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program created by President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive order. President Donald Trump ordered the cancellation of the program in September, effective in March, giving Congress a six-month window in which to make DACA part of U.S. law.

De León was the harshest critic of all, telling Feinstein “don’t came back to California” without doing much more to help DACA beneficiaries, known colloquially as “Dreamers.”

Feinstein’s flip-flop was covered in depth by the Washington Post, which concluded the 84-year-old and 25-year Senate veteran “is facing the most credible primary challenge of any Democrat up for re-election next year.”

The Post report included an interview with Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, the Berkeley progressive activist with a large following in California and nationally.

“By dragging her feet and reinforcing the notion that she was either indifferent or outright hostile to the plight of the Dreamers, Feinstein just gave de León a much-needed opening,” Moulitsas told the Post. “It just reminded core Democrats that we can’t count on Feinstein to do the right thing without having to pressure her to do so. In California, we should be able to count on our senators to automatically do the right thing.”

Is Steyer the real beneficiary of Democrats’ coolness to incumbent?

But two other recent analyses in California newspapers question the idea that de León has made significant gains.

A piece by the Bay Area News Group’s Casey Tolan reacting to the IGS poll suggested its biggest winner “might be somebody whose name wasn’t even part of the survey: Tom Steyer, the Democratic mega-donor behind a high-profile President Trump impeachment campaign who has been considering jumping into the race for months.”

Sonoma State political science professor David McCuan told Tolan that “the high number of undecided voters and Feinstein’s anemic numbers could be a big motivator for Steyer and other candidates. … She should be farther ahead. Someone outside of politics has to be encouraged to at least test the waters.”

But syndicated columnist Tom Elias noted the potential for Feinstein to be saved by the state’s “jungle primary” reform, in which the top two finishers in the primary advance to the general election regardless of party. Feinstein could lose more than half of Democrats next November and still coast to victory on the strength of Republican and independent voters who don’t want a Bernie Sanders-style progressive representing California in the U.S. Senate.

Whatever happens in coming months, Feinstein seems unlikely to have as easy a time getting re-elected as she did in 2012. That year, she defeated Republican Elizabeth Emken 62.5 percent to 37.5 percent, drawing 3.1 million more votes than her GOP foe.

Overall, 44.3 percent of registered voters believe California is on the right track, and 55.7 percent believe it’s on the wrong track. The poll also shows that criticism of the recent gas tax hike may resonate at the ballot box. Of registered voters surveyed, only 45.8 percent would keep the gas tax, while 54.2 percent want it canceled.

Here are a few other insights from the poll:

Newsom strong favorite for governor

Democratic Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom currently has a commanding lead in the race to replace Gov. Jerry Brown, with 31.1 percent of voters backing him. Former Democratic mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa is in second with 20.7 percent of the vote, and Assemblyman Travis Allen leads the Republican field with 15 percent. Rounding out the top five is Democratic Treasurer John Chiang with 12 percent and Republican businessman John Cox with 11.4 percent.

However, despite the majority of registered voters believing the state is on the wrong track, a slim majority of 50.4 percent would like their next governor to continue Brown’s policies, with 49.6 percent wanting a change.

Feinstein re-election likely

In a two-way race between Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein and Democratic State Senate President pro Tem Kevin de Leon, 58.2 percent would support the incumbent senator while 31.4 percent would support de Leon. In a three-way race between Feinstein, de Leon and progressive businessman Tom Steyer, the figures are, respectively, 49.7 percent, 24 percent and 17.2 percent.

Californians at odds with Trump

Only 22.3 percent of the state approves of the job President Trump is doing, with 66.2 disapproving. In comparison, Gov. Brown has a net approval of 44.6 percent, with 34.9 disapproving. When it comes to his administration, the president fairs a bit better: 25.8 percent agree with some or all of his policies and 61.2 percent disagree with some or all of them.

Consequently, when asked if their member of Congress should work with the president whenever possible, only 46.7 percent said yes, with the remainder wanting their representatives to never cooperate.

Immigration has broad support

When asked about those who come to America without a visa or overstay one, 64.4 percent believe they strengthen the economy, while 39.6 percent believe they take jobs from citizens. Only 35.9 percent believes this population increases crime, while an overwhelming majority – 64.1 percent – believe these people help revitalize cities. Just 20.5 percent believe they come for a handout, while 79.5 percent believe they want to work.

Finally, when it comes to policy, 60.1 percent of registered voters do not want California to cooperate with the president’s immigration policies while 39.9 percent want the state to cooperate.

Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, announced this week that all harassment investigations in his chamber will be handled by an outside legal firm. De Leon also announced that he was moving out of a house he shared with Sen. Tony Mendoza, the Artesia Democrat who is the latest legislator accused of inappropriate behavior.

California’s state government has been dealing with a sexual harassment scandal after 140 influential women who have worked in and around the Capitol published an open letter in mid-October stating that they have “endured, or witnessed or worked with women who have experienced some form of dehumanizing behavior by men with power in our workplaces.”

Signed by six sitting legislators, the letter decried such behavior “in a state that postures itself as a leader in justice and equality.” The California Legislative Women’s Caucus was even more pointed, as its statement alleged “a lack of accountability and remorse” and a “pervasive culture of sexual harassment within California politics.” The statement claimed that “the Legislature’s own zero-tolerance policies are not enforced.”

A couple of prominent legislators have been caught up in the scandal. First, longtime Capitol staffer Elise Flynn Gyore said that she was treated like “prey” and then groped by Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra, D-Pacoima, in 2009, when he was a staffer. The Assembly Rules Committee investigated and disciplined Bocanegra, but didn’t release the details to a group of 11 women who sought such information when he was running for office with widespread party backing.

Bocanegra recently has apologized for the incident, but the details raise questions about an institution that some people say values secrecy over accountability. It’s also led to criticism of Sen. Nancy Skinner, a Berkeley Democrat known for her strong stance for women’s rights, who chaired the Assembly Rules Committee at the time of the incident. KPIX-TV in the Bay Area contacted one of the women who signed the letter asking for the file on the harassment complaint, but she said that “Nancy Skinner never responded to their request.”

Now Mendoza is in the spotlight. Southern California Public Radio reported that Mendoza “fired three employees after they reported his alleged inappropriate behavior toward a young female colleague, according to an attorney representing one of the staffers.”

Mendoza denies the allegations and apologized if he “ever communicated or miscommunicated anything that made an employee feel uncomfortable.” He also says the firings were based on work performance. The Sacramento Bee broke the news this week about allegations from a second intern. She claims that Mendoza took her to his hotel suite at the California Democratic Party convention and acted inappropriately toward her. Mendoza’s spokesperson told the Bee that that the woman’s recounting of what took place was “completely false.”

And the Senate president has received criticism, with some “wondering how de Leon – who chairs the Senate committee that investigates allegations of sexual harassment – could have been unaware of the reports and investigation into his roommate,” reported the San Jose Mercury News. De Leon denies knowing anything about the reports.

The scandal comes against the backdrop of Alabama’s Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, who is facing sexual misconduct allegations – a nationally publicized story that’s being depicted by Moore and some of his supporters as a “witch hunt.” And, of course, sexual harassment allegations have been roiling the entertainment industry.

For California political observers, the big questions are whether the Capitol has fostered an insular environment that promotes, or at least tolerates, sexual misbehavior – and whether de Leon’s new rules have a chance of fixing that situation.

Specifically, the new approach will remove the Senate Rules Committee from dealing with harassment allegations. “Instead, an independent outside legal team will investigate any and all allegations and make findings and recommendations to resolve and, where appropriate, discipline,” according to the committee’s statement this week. “The Senate’s Rules Committee and Senate Democratic Women’s Caucus will work jointly and expeditiously to retain a highly qualified team of counsel and investigators to fulfill this obligation.”

The committee stated that the process “will be designed to protect the privacy of victims and whistleblowers, transparency for the public, and adequate due process for all parties involved.” The “general findings will be made public” even if some names and details will be withheld based on the discretion of “victims and whistleblowers.” This will apply to all current complaints. The committee has also asked the women’s caucus to make recommendations for reform and has retained a human-resources consulting firm to review its policies.

Yet some critics believe that by bringing in an outside legal firm that this could establish attorney-client privilege and shield key facts from the public. But others believe the rules will help Capitol staffers, who are at-will hires who can be fired for any reason, to feel more comfortable lodging a complaint. “The short-range plan is to pull this out of the current system where people really don’t feel their complaints will be handled appropriately,” Sen. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, told Capital Public Radio. She is on the rules committee.

Even if the new process succeeds in dealing more forthrightly with particular harassment claims, it might just be the first step in dealing with broader problems within the Capitol.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

Veteran California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bid for re-election could prompt a challenge from a second fellow Democrat – San Francisco hedge fund billionaire turned activist Tom Steyer – who also believes she’s insufficiently opposed to President Donald Trump.

California Senate President Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, has campaigned across the state in the month since announcing he would challenge Feinstein, who at 84 is the oldest U.S. senator and who has been blasted by progressives for saying in August that it was possible Trump might end up being a “good president.”

On Thursday, de León, who is 50, won the endorsement of four Democratic supervisors in Feinstein’s home town of San Francisco – Jane Kim, Hillary Ronen, Aaron Peskin and Norman Yee.

That came four days after the Sacramento Bee posted a scathing piece by columnist Marcos Bretón that declared that white San Francisco Democrats acted as gatekeepers blocking the ascension of talented Latinos like de León.

“For all the self-congratulatory proclamations of California as a progressive haven, the state is not as cool as it thinks it is,” Bretón wrote. “The traditional paths to power in California have been closely guarded by a Bay Area pecking order heretofore off-limits to Latino candidates.”

National TV ad sends name recognition soaring

But Steyer is coming off an even better month than de León – thanks to an unprecedented political maneuver that’s sent his name recognition soaring and prompted excitement from progressives.

Steyer paid for a $10 million national ad buy for a commercial in which he personally urges Americans to support his effort to impeach Trump.

“Donald Trump has brought us to the brink of nuclear war, obstructed justice, and taken money from foreign governments. We need to impeach this dangerous president,” he somberly intones in the ad.

Steyer, who is 60, told Politico on Thursday that more than 1.9 million Americans had signed his online petition calling for the president’s ouster and that he was so heartened by the response that he would spend another $10 million to air the ads.

While Steyer has also shown interest in running for governor next year or even president in 2020, leading a push for Trump’s impeachment seems an ideal start for a run against an incumbent Democratic senator accused of being soft on Trump.

Footage of the August event in San Francisco in which Feinstein made her remarks would make for potent primary attack ads in a state in which Democratic delegates at a May party convention gleefully chanted “F— Trump.”

That intense sentiment is hard to square with Feinstein’s remarks to a crowd at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco: “Look, this man is going to be president, most likely for the rest of this term. I just hope he has the ability to learn, and to change. And if he does, he can be a good president. And that’s my hope.”

Steyer’s impeachment push won him national attention even before his ad campaign began. An Oct. 11 New York Times story noted how the prolific Democratic fund-raiser had sent a letter to every congressional Democrat’s office and to the party’s Senate and House campaign committees urging them to make a pledge to impeach Trump central to their 2018 campaigns.

The story noted that while impeachment was very unlikely because of Republican control of Congress and the view of many Democratic leaders that it was an energy-sapping distraction, polling showed 70 percent of Democrats nationally backed impeachment.

The Times account also noted Steyer’s unsubtle dig at Feinstein in his letter: “It is clear for all to see that there is zero reason to believe ‘he can be a good president,’” as Feinstein said in August.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, is among more than 140 women who signed the letter detailing sexual harassment in politics and demanding that it end. (Bert Johnson/KQED)

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, announced on Tuesday that the state Senate will hire outside firms to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct at the Capitol in Sacramento – allegations referenced in an open letter signed by women claiming widespread harassment while working in California politics.

“There’s always more employers can do to protect their employees,” de León said. “Everyone deserves a workplace free of fear, harassment and sexual misbehavior and I applaud the courage of women working in and around the Capitol who are coming forward and making their voices heard.”

The open letter was published on wesaidenough.com.

“The time has come for women to come together, to speak up and to share their stories,” part of the letter read. “The time has come for good men to listen, to believe us, and to act as strong allies by speaking out against harassment in all its forms.”

Below the text was a box to share and submit a story of your own to the group.

“If you see – or experience – inappropriate behavior, don’t sweep it under the rug. Speak up, speak loud, and know there is a community of people who will support you. Let’s work on the solution together,” the letter added.

In particular, the writing criticized the Legislature’s procedures for dealing with such complaints, with some women arguing they fear speaking out over concerns that it will put their professional life in jeopardy.

“If you hang someone out to dry as a Weinstein of the Sacramento community, that sort of gives folks the political cover to say look we got the bad guy, we fixed this,” lobbyist Samantha Corbin told the Sacramento Bee. “That’s not true. We want long-term culture change where men are held accountable and there is a system where woman can work and feel safe.”

Assembly leaders also said this week that they will launch public hearings, prompting some speculation that the claims are being given a heightened sense of attention in wake of the Harvey Weinstein sex scandal that has rocked Hollywood.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, issued a joint statement with with Assemblyman Ken Cooley, D-Rancho Cordova, and Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, D-Glendale.

“First, we must change the climate that has allowed sexual harassment to fester,” the statement read. “Second, we must ensure victims have a safe and dependable environment to come forward and discuss complaints no matter who the perpetrator is and without detriment to their career or environment. Third, we must ensure that sexual harassment is dealt with expeditiously and that the seriousness of consequences match the violations committed.”

The move by de León comes just days after he announced his primary challenge to longtime incumbent U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., likely creating a sense of urgency to quell any criticism that he presided over a toxic and abusive culture while in leadership in Sacramento.

The Law Offices of Amy Oppenheimer will conduct the investigation and CPS HR Consulting will “review the Senate’s policies and practices against harassment, discrimination and retaliation,” according to de León.

One of the more explosive allegations comes from lobbyist Pamela Lopez, who described to several papers an incident where a current lawmaker, who has not been named, shoved her into a bathroom and masturbated in front of her.

The actions come in conjunction with the #MeToo campaign, which is spreading across social media, where victims are documenting their experiences with harassment.

In the announcement, de León said that as the state Senate leader, he moved to propel “progressive California values in important policy efforts like immigration, women’s rights, quality education, civil rights, job creation and fighting climate change.”           

“We now stand at the front lines of a historic struggle for the very soul of America, against a president without one,” de León added. “Every day, his administration wages war on our people and our progress. He disregards our voices. Demonizes our diversity. Attacks our civil rights, our clean air, our health access and our public safety. We can lead the fight against his administration, but only if we jump into the arena together.”

The 50-year-old Democrat has long been rumored to be eyeing the seat, as he’s termed out of the state Senate next year. And while few expected him to launch a bid unless Feinstein, 84, decided to retire, calls have been intensifying for a challenge from the left, as Feinstein’s image as a moderate Democrat willing to reach across the aisle is now viewed by many progressives as falling short of the strategy needed to defeat the Trump agenda.

For example, the California senator faced fire this summer after making comments about the president that were seen as too tepid by an audience eager to hear fierce rhetoric on how to defeat Republicans in Washington.

“Look, this man is going to be president most likely for the rest of this term,” the senator said at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club. “I just hope he has the ability to learn and to change and if he does he can be a good president. And that’s my hope.”

After the backlash, she walked back the remarks.

Feinstein’s perceived strengths – bipartisanship, civility and Washington experience – are now seen as weaknesses in a state that has positioned itself at the center of the so-called “resistance” against President Trump.

The contrast between the two is striking. De León, raised by an immigrant mother in Los Angeles is looking to climb the political ladder. He’s the first Latino to be Senate president pro tem in over a century and has embraced the role of being against all things Trump.

“Do I support impeaching Donald Trump? Well. Let me see. The answer is yes,” he told The New York Times.

Meanwhile, Feinstein is a fixture of the establishment with her roots in the Bay Area. She’s also one of the wealthiest members of Congress, and has found herself aligned with the GOP on issues like national security and privacy.

“On the big issues of our time, she’s been on the wrong side of history,” said progressive Rep. Ro Khanna ,D-Fremont, last week on SiriusXM’s “The Dean Obeidallah Show,” referencing Feinstein’s image as a “war hawk” for her vote for the Iraq war and support for the Patriot Act.

“We’re taking on the establishment, there is no doubt,” de León said. “But I’ve taken on the establishment all my life. … Now is the time for change and I look forward to having this debate of ideas, of vision for the state.”

While the announcement is grabbing early headlines, de León faces an uphill fight. Feinstein has the backing of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, major party leaders like U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and enjoys almost universal name recognition. Furthermore, she has a robust fundraising apparatus, enjoying a strong donor base across the state – something that de León lacks.

Bill Carrick, an adviser to Feinstein, had harsh words for the challenger, describing his campaign to the Los Angeles Times as “wasting money and energy on what will turn out to be a rather difficult campaign for Sen. de León. … He’s a termed-out politician looking for a gig.”

Meanwhile, the race is also bringing more focus onto the state’s jungle primary system, with it being possible that de León and Feinstein face off in the primary and the general, leaving out a Republican voice in the overwhelmingly liberal state.

“This challenge makes the point of why the top two primary is bad for California,” conservative author and commentator James Lacy told CalWatchDog. “De Leon and Feinstein are likely to face off against each other twice, once in June and again in Nov., and in the meantime a reasonable Republican viewpoint will be lost in the noise.”

But still, Republicans are welcoming the intra-party conflict, seeing the race as one that can push the party even further to the left and divert resources away from congressional races in the state.

“Senator Feinstein’s rough start to her re-election campaign is every indication of what California Democrats can expect in 2018,” RNC spokesperson Christiana Purves said in a statement. “Democrats across the state should be prepared to embrace the calls of far-left progressives who support a failed single-payer healthcare system and a $52 billion gas tax increase, or brace themselves for well-funded primary challengers,”

The primary fight comes at a time of soul-searching for Democrats nationally. Reflecting on the failures of 2016, many left-wing activists see a need to push back against the old guard, in hopes that a new crop of talent could re-energize the base and lead to more victories in 2018 and 2020.

“We won’t defeat Trump and his Republican Party with corporate Democrats pushing Republican-lite policies and weak leadership,” argued Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America. “We win when candidates offer a progressive vision for America and fight to make it happen.”