In the wake of a turbulent election season and a disturbing new study on the credulity of many political news consumers, a handful of California legislators have put forward new bills designed to ensure the state’s public schools make students aware that not everything purporting to be factual reportage is as true or unbiased as it seems. Although “fake news” has swiftly become a recognized problem, it has also become a political football — a label with which to swiftly discredit opponents or undermine criticism. 

Wave of worry

“A bill from Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael, will ask the state to adopt high school history curricula based on a recent national intelligence assessment that Russia tried to influence the election by producing fake news and hacking into Democrat Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” the San Jose Mercury News reported. “Another bill, introduced last week by Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa, would require schools to teach children ‘media literacy’ — including how to tell the difference between ‘fake news’ and real news.”

“During the final, critical months of the 2016 presidential campaign, 20 top-performing false election stories from hoax websites and hyperpartisan blogs generated 8,711,000 shares, reactions and comments on social media,” SB135 read, according to the paper. 

Additionally, lawmakers will consider a companion “fake news” bill, AB155, introduced by Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles, which “would require the state to establish curriculum standards and frameworks to teach ‘civic online reasoning’ to middle- and high-schoolers,” as the Washington Post reported.

“Ordinary people once relied on publishers, editors and subject matter experts to vet the information they consumed, but information shared on the internet is disseminated rapidly and often without editorial oversight, making it easier for fake news to reach a large audience,” his bill suggested. “When fake news is repeated, it becomes difficult for the public to discern what’s real,” Gomez said in a statement, according to the paper. “These attempts to mislead readers,” he warned, “pose a direct threat to our democracy.”

From bias to ignorance

The line has blurred in recent years between factual reporting and deliberately misleading or partial content, with partisans on opposite ends of the ideological divide hurling contending accusations. In addition to fears that outside propaganda could impact voting patterns at home, the credibility of both mainstream and alternative outlets — online and off — has come under question.

So too has the responsiveness of American schools and universities to the problem and its sources, which reach deeper than partisan preferences or agendas. “In November, a Stanford University study found that 82 percent of high school students surveyed could not distinguish between a reported news story and an advertisement,” the Guardian observed. “During last year’s election, rumors and false reports spread widely, and in the aftermath of the vote partisans began to accuse each other of propagating ‘fake news.'” In introducing his legislation, Gomez invoked the Stanford report as reason for action:

“President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump have both denounced ‘fake news’ in recent weeks, to different purposes. In November, Obama warned that democracies would be threatened by the spread of misinformation and false reports, and by the discrediting of once trusted news sources. This week, Trump seized on the phrase ‘fake news’ to characterize unsubstantiated allegations about him, blaming BuzzFeed and CNN in particular.”

The debate over what counts as fake news, and who gets to decide, has helped ensure that California’s new bills won’t sail through the Legislature without at least some criticism. State Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, for instance, called Levine’s bill “petty” and “showmanship.”

“I’d just be happy if we taught kids how to read and write and do arithmetic,” he told the Mercury News. 

Assemblyman: Russian interference should be taught in schools

Good morning. Happy Thursday. We begin this morning with an inauguration eve question: Should Russia’s interference with the 2016 presidential election be taught in schools?

One assemblyman thinks so.

The extent to which Russia interfered is still being investigated, but reports suggest there’s consensus among U.S. intelligence officials that Russia hacked emails of Democratic officials and operatives in an effort to influence the election. The hacked emails were distributed to the news media, including CalWatchdog, throughout the election through the site WikiLeaks. 

Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-Marin County, has introduced legislation to require state educators to develop curriculum for students to learn about Russia’s involvement in the election.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• Trump Transition: “In selecting former Georgia governor Sonny Perdue for agriculture secretary, Donald Trump dealt Abel Maldonado, the former California lieutenant governor and apparent finalist for the position, one more high-profile, if unsurprising, blow,” writes Politico. 

• Bullet Train: “A lawsuit filed in 2014 by Kern County against the California High-Speed Rail Authority will be dismissed under the terms of a settlement announced Wednesday afternoon by the state agency. … This is the third of the seven CEQA lawsuits to be settled.” The Fresno Bee has more. 

• AG appointment: “(Xavier) Becerra also said he’d defend and enforce recently approved voter-enacted ballot initiatives to speed up the death penalty process and legalize recreational marijuana.” The Sacramento Bee has more. 

• State vs. Feds: “Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency cast doubt on whether California should continue to have power to impose its own emission rules for cars and trucks, an authority the state has enjoyed for decades that is also the cornerstone of its efforts to fight global warming.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

Legislature:

• In at 9 a.m.

Gov.Brown:

• No public events announced.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @sam_s_oh

The extent to which Russia interfered is still being investigated, but reports suggest there’s consensus among U.S. intelligence officials that Russia hacked emails of Democratic officials and operatives in an effort to influence the election. The hacked emails were distributed to the news media, including CalWatchdog, throughout the election through the site WikiLeaks. 

Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-Marin County, has introduced legislation to require state educators to develop curriculum for students to learn about Russia’s involvement in the election. 

“This is a threat to our democracy and must be treated with appropriate significance in American history,” Levine said of the Russian hacking in a statement. “California is the largest textbook market in the nation. Textbooks approved in our state are used throughout the country. Through this legislation, we can make sure students in California and across the United States receive accurate information about the 2016 presidential election.”

The move by Levine is not unprecedented. Recent laws modifying curriculum included subjects like the Armenian genocide, civics, the environment and Barack Obama and the importance of the first African American president. 

A bill that could double California counties’ vehicle registration fees has passed the Legislature, and is awaiting a signature or veto from Gov. Jerry Brown.

Assembly Bill 2393, by Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael, authorizes counties to charge annual $2 registration fees on noncommercial vehicles and $4 on commercial vehicles. That represents a 100 percent increase from the current county fees of $1 on noncommercial vehicles and $2 on commercial vehicles.

The additional revenue would increase funding for the state’s Cal-ID fingerprint identification program. Forty five of the state’s 58 counties have imposed the fee, which has not increased for more than 15 years, according to Levine.

Critics charge that AB2393 violates the two-thirds vote requirements for new taxes that is mandated by Propositions 13, 26 and 218.

Levine: need to increase fingerprint ID funding

Levine made his case for the fee hike to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on June 17.

“By using cutting edge technology, the Cal-ID program has proven to be remarkably successful,” he said. “The program has helped reduce DOJ [Department of Justice] workload since inked fingerprint cards no longer have to be scanned. Also, officer and community safety have increased as the program provides rapid and accurate identification of the people that law enforcement encounters in the field.

“However, enhancements in technology and inflation have reduced the purchasing power of the fees collected for this program. AB2393 gives local law enforcement agencies the tools they need to make their communities safer. It’s also important to emphasize that this bill … simply provides counties with the discretion to increase their fees if they see fit.”

Cory Salzillo, representing the bill’s sponsor, the California State Sheriffs Association, said the current fee brings in about $30 million statewide annually.

“There are reporting requirements in existing law that would be carried through with this bill to ensure accountability in the spending of the funds,” he said.

Taxpayer advocate: bill violates constitution

David Wolfe, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, argued that the bill violates provisions of the state constitution.

“We believe special taxes approved on the local level, as this bill would do, require a two-thirds vote,” he said. “And there’s nothing in the bill that indicates or states that a two-thirds vote is needed.

“We believe that this case is bolstered by Proposition 26, which was approved by voters in 2010.” He said Prop. 26 said that, “For this to be an appropriate regulatory fee, which I think the author and supporters would claim, there either needs to be a direct benefit to the fee payer or this needs to be a regulatory fee.

“In order for this bill to meet that standard and not be a special tax that would require a two-thirds vote, everybody paying the fee would either have to be a perpetrator or a victim of a vehicle crime. Clearly, this fee goes against everyone who is a vehicle owner, not just perpetrators or victims of vehicle crimes. As such we do believe this is a special tax on the local level.”

John Caldwell, a lobbyist for the Association of California Car Clubs, said car owners are already paying about $36 million in extra fees for law enforcement.

“The insurance code charges every driver for every car $1.80 for law enforcement for fighting fraud,” he said. “So that’s 20 million cars times $1.80. The Department of Insurance gives that money to the DAs and police departments, and they use it themselves. So it’s not like the drivers of these cars are not paying for helping law enforcement. We think this is one too much on people who are already paying a lot for multiple cars.”

There was no discussion by the committee except a comment from its chairman, Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, who said he’s happy to support the bill “in spite of Mr. Wolfe’s compelling testimony, and my respect and affection for him.”

Republican opposition

There also was no debate when the full Senate approved the bill. But several Republicans argued against it on the Assembly floor on Aug. 11.

“This bill doubles the fees. And it does so without two-thirds [voter approval], which makes it a violation of Prop. 218,” said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks. “It makes it a back door tax increase. I think it’s something we should stand against here on this floor, because not only do we have this, but we also have a hidden gas tax coming down the highway for the average Californian.”

He was referring to the state cap-and-trade gas-tax increase of about 15-cents a gallon that will hit motorists on Jan. 1. It’s part of the implementation of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law.

“You know, this will hurt the working poor the most,” Donnelly said. “We need people that want to go to work in this state. So this right here is something that will make it more difficult to get Californians back at work at a critical time.”

Donnelly was echoed by Assemblyman Donald Wagner, R-Irvine. “This bill violates Propositions 13, 26 and 218, which require two-thirds votes,” said Wagner. “Those are important protections that your constituents and mine have repeatedly asked to have in the law. By supporting this bill we are essentially thumbing our nose at our constituents.

“I don’t urge that ever, certainly not in an election year. There are three – three – statements by our voters out there telling us procedurally not to do this. I urge that we take them at their word and not raise their taxes again.”

Also opposed was Assembly member Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield. “Under Prop. 218 there’s no new fees to be allowed except for sewer, water, garbage collection, and it must receive voter approval,” she said. “This measure is based on a supposed connection between vehicle registration and automatic fingerprint identification system. Common sense tells you that there’s no nexus between the two.

“This is an issue that is facing the state of California: We are here instituting fees [which] are truly taxes, and to increase these fees on our citizens right now when taxes are the highest in the state of California.”

Levine: not unconstitutional

Levine countered that his bill doesn’t violate those propositions’ two-thirds vote requirements because AB2393 doesn’t actually raise vehicle registration fees. “What it does is empower our counties to decide locally how to set these fees,” he said.

He was backed at the state legislative level by the committee’s legislative analysis of the bill. But the analysis also left open the question of constitutionality at the local level:

“[T]his bill is a majority vote measure in the Legislature because it does not directly result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax. Instead, this bill delegates to county boards of supervisors the authority to impose a vehicle registrations [sic] fee. Ultimately, county counsels will have to determine the appropriate vote threshold at the county level, where a two-thirds vote of the electorate may be required.”

Democrats support

Two Assembly Democrats ignored the constitutionality question, focusing instead on how the fee hike revenue would be spent.

“By all accounts the fingerprint ID program supported by the nominal registration fees has been very successful,” said Assembly member Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach. “This additional one dollar fee will allow the counties the opportunity to advance the programs with new technology.”

Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, agreed. “The Cal-ID system is crucial for giving law enforcement 21st century tools,” he said. “These advancements in technology allow officers to fingerprint and identify individuals while in the field rather than having to waste time scanning inked fingerprint cards.

“This improves officer safety and provides a benefit to the entire community. Increased funding will help ensure the continued operation of this valuable and effective system.”

Brown had yet to sign or veto AB2393 as of Thursday morning.

Hawaii is further along the road to being a one-party state than California. Its state Senate — where Kouchi is now vice president — has only one Republican. Oahu businessman Sam Slom is Senate minority leader, minority whip and minority rank-and-file all in one. To make sure a Republican voice is occasionally heard, he’s on all 14 Hawaii Senate committees.

But a lot of these Hawaii Dems are Kouchi-esque Southern Dems ready to hear out business and not reflexively back unions.

An influx of unpredictable ‘Southern Dems’

Something like this may be happening in California as well. It may only be a trickle, but it does seem to me that there are more moderate and somewhat unpredictable Dem lawmakers in Sacramento than at any point since Gov. Pete Wilson left town 15 years ago. Dan Walters’ Sac Bee column gets to this point:

“Unions remain California Democrats’ most important constituency, and will be indefinitely, but there are some indications that union hegemony within the party may be fraying.

“The most public example is the complex, multifront battle that pits the state’s union-dominated education establishment against civil rights and reform groups over the direction of public schools. It’s essentially a Democrat vs. Democrat battle, waged within big-city school boards, in the Legislature, in the state Board of Education and in the courts. …

“Unions may also be losing some of their hegemony in legislative elections, as business groups increasingly play in Democratic politics.

“In 2012, two Democrats, Marc Levine of San Rafael and Richard Bloom of Santa Monica, defeated union-backed Assembly incumbents, and several others bested Democratic union-backed rivals for open seats.

“This year, Steve Glazer, Brown’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign manager who advised the California Chamber of Commerce on 2012 races, is running for the Assembly in Contra Costa County as an outspoken critic of unions. His chief rival, Dublin Mayor Tim Sbranti, has heavy union support.

“A few nonunion Democrats would not seem to be a big deal, but it makes a significant difference when leaders want supermajorities to pass tax increases, constitutional amendments and other union-backed measures requiring two-thirds votes.”

Fracking showdown a good test case for alleged Dem moderation

This analysis can be taken too far. Bloom, for example, looks like a classic hard-left CA Democrat with his bid to punish SeaWorld for its treatment of orcas solely because of a controversial and highly disputed documentary.

But we’ll soon have a good test case for whether some of CA’s elected Dems have moderated: Will they back billionaire enviro Tom Stever’s push to block fracking? If they care at all about trying to create middle-class jobs, of course they will.

We shall see.

By Chris Reed

On Monday, the day that finally saw criminal charges filed over CalPERS’ brazen pay-to-play bribery scheme, there were signs that some Democratic state lawmakers finally are figuring out that believing California’s pension status quo is ridiculous isn’t just partisan right-wing posturing.

Ed Mendel, one of a handful of elite reporters on pension machinations, has the scoop at Capitol Weekly:

“Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael, an upset victor last fall in a new election process, has introduced a bill containing Gov. Brown’s stalled proposal to restructure the CalPERS board, adding financial expertise and loosening labor control.

“The proposal to change the board, which needs voter approval because of a labor-backed initiative in 1992, would double the number of gubernatorial appointees to six, matching the number of labor representatives.

“’In the past, the lack of independence and financial sophistication on public retirement boards has contributed to unaffordable pension benefit increases,’ said the 12-point pension reform proposed by Brown in October 2011.

“The proposal said pension boards need members with ‘independence and sophistication’ to ensure that retirees receive promised benefits ‘without exposing taxpayers to large unfunded liabilities.’”

‘Unsophisticated’? Or union double agents?

Journalistic decorum requires Mendel to pretend the problem is a lack of sophistication on board members’ part, not the fact that they are union tools. Why is this problematic? More from Ed:

“CalPERS sponsored legislation, SB 400 in 1999, that gave state workers a major retroactive pension increase. A deep pension cut in 1991 was rolled back. Retirees received a 1 to 6 percent increase in their pensions.

“Highway Patrol pensions increased 50 percent, setting a costly bargaining benchmark for local police and firefighters that critics say is unsustainable. All of this, CalPERS erroneously said, would be paid for by investment earnings, not costing taxpayers ‘a dime.’”

Here’s a factoid that goes a long way to explain why California is so screwed up. Who is the president of the CalPERS’ Board of Administration?

Is it a UC Berkeley economist? A CEO of a thriving Califoria firm? A respected former statewide official considered an independent straight-shooter?

Nah.

It’s this guy.

“Mr. Feckner is the Past President of the California School Employees Association. He also serves as an Executive Vice President of the California Labor Federation.”

How insane that a guy with such preposterous and extreme conflicts of interest is CalPERS’ board chairman.

How … California.