CA Democrats save face on sex trafficking bill

From CalMatters politics reporter Yue Stella Yu: 

In the state Legislature, an open rebellion sometimes does wonders. 

Two weeks ago, Assemblymember Maggy Krell, a first-year Sacramento Democrat, publicly defied Democratic leaders in attempting to pass harsher penalties for soliciting sex from 16- and 17-year-olds. Joined by some moderate Democrats and Republicans, the fight laid bare the splinters among Democrats and forced Assembly leaders into damage control mode. 

The end result? An overwhelming Assembly vote on Thursday to raise penalties for teen sex solicitation, with no votes in opposition. 

The measure — amended after a weeklong negotiation between Krell and Assembly Democratic leaders — would allow prosecutors to charge someone soliciting sex from a child more than three years younger than them with a felony. It would also increase the fines on businesses and hotels for facilitating or shielding sex trafficking activities and require the Office of Emergency Services to fund up to 11 district attorneys’ efforts to prosecute human trafficking. 

It was a victory lap for Republicans, who have long fought to enhance punishments for child sex trafficking and solicitation. During a Thursday press conference, they urged Senate Democrats, who will consider the measure next, to leave it intact.

• Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego: “Don’t you dare water down a word in AB 379 as passed today. We will not tolerate any weakening of the tools that law enforcement needs to protect these children.”

It is unclear how Senate Democrats will respond. Last year, Senate Democrats removed provisions from a Republican-backed proposal that would have applied harsher penalties to soliciting 16- and 17-year-olds — the same provisions that Krell unsuccessfully fought for this year. 

Krell, who was stripped off of the bill as a principal author after her defiance, told CalMatters she is “thankful” to others for cooperating. 

Her takeaway after all this drama? 

• Krell: “I’m easy to work with, hard to f—k with.”

As California faces a $12 billion budget shortfall, Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing to expand support for one industry, while reducing support for another. 

In recent years California’s film industry has been struggling due to pandemic-era production shutdowns, labor strikes, deadly wildfires and competitive tax incentives offered by other states. 

The Legislature is considering a bill that would expand the state’s film and television tax credits and set aside as much as $750 million annually to film production. It would also raise the tax break applicants can receive, and extend the credit to live action and animated series. 

The bill is backed by motion picture studios, unions representing entertainment industry workers and Newsom, who told reporters on Wednesday, “we need to step things up,” when it comes to supporting the state’s film industry.

At the same time, the governor wants to reduce the first-year payment the state is required to provide to help fund local news outlets from $30 million to $10 million. H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the Department of Finance, said in an email the proposed cut is due to “fewer resources than projected in the January budget.”

The money stems from a deal lawmakers brokered with Google last year: To support California’s beleaguered journalism industry, the state and the tech giant agreed to put millions of dollars into a fund to be distributed to outlets over five years. In exchange, the Legislature pulled two bills that would have forced tech companies to pay outlets for their content. To date, no money has been distributed to news outlets.

Read more about the proposed film tax credits and cuts to the news fund from CalMatters’ Stella and Jeanne Kuang, respectively.

Though it’s unlikely that a congressional bill to implement a decade-long ban on state governments from regulating artificial intelligence will pass out of the U.S. Senate, proponents of AI regulation are still ringing alarm bells about the bill’s broad implications.

As CalMatters’ Khari Johnson explains, Republicans from the U.S. House of Representatives included the AI proposal in a sweeping budget reconciliation bill. On Wednesday the House approved that budget bill along party lines. Now sitting before the Senate, the AI proposal faces tough odds since federal rules require that budget reconciliation bills be strictly related to fiscal matters.

But if passed, the legislation would make enforcing over 20 laws California passed last year illegal. It would also jeopardize 30 bills the state Legislature is currently considering to regulate AI, including ones to protect consumers from AI-powered price gouging, or require reporting when health insurance companies use AI to deny care.

Proponents of the bill say a moratorium is necessary to resolve a patchwork of state regulation. But the proposal also aligns with efforts by the President Donald Trump administration to curb AI regulation, which it argues stifles innovation. A White House plan to advance the AI industry’s growth by lifting some regulations is expected this summer.

Read more here.

If you live in Sacramento County and you call the Sheriff’s Department because someone in your family is having a mental health crisis, there’s a chance they may not come. That’s because of a new policy that says deputies will only respond to those calls if a crime has already occurred, is in progress or the person in crisis is putting someone else in imminent danger. 

But this isn’t just a Sacramento issue. An investigation by CalMatters contributor Lee Romney has found that other police agencies are also backing away from mental health crisis calls. 

This week Lee joined the health policy podcast Tradeoffs to break down her findings. Listen here.