Calls to Action: Citizens

As 2025 is winding down so is our schedule of Zoom interviews with candidates for statewide offices.

Earlier this week the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) issued its annual Fiscal Outlook. This year’s edition is the gloomiest I’ve read during an economic expansion.

Linked here is an updated schedule of Zoom interviews with candidates for statewide offices, including three this week.

Occasionally I get inquiries from donors asking how they should respond to requests for support from other organizations that they worry might duplicate what GFC does. Recently I responded to one such request as follows…

Earlier this week in Sacramento, a wealth tax initiative was filed that would impose an excise tax in 2026 on “excessive accumulation of wealth,” which is defined as $1 billion or more.

Yesterday was the deadline for CA Governor Gavin Newsom to take final action on bills passed by the 2025 Legislature. He signed 794 and vetoed 123. Since taking office in 2019, Newsom has now signed 5,710 bills and $1.942 trillion of budgets. How has California performed since he took office?

Thanks in large part to 500 letters of opposition from members of the GFC Network, yesterday Governor Newsom vetoed AB 699, a bill that would have blinded voters to the costs of tax and bond ballot measures.

GFC has sent the following letter to Governor Newsom requesting a veto on AB 699.

Earlier today in Sacramento we delivered a letter signed by 500 members of the GFC Network in opposition to AB 699, a bill that would exempt ballot measures that authorize the issuance of bonds, impose a tax, or increase a tax with more than one rate from laws requiring ballots to disclose the amount of money to be raised and the rate and duration of the tax to be levied.

When Gavin Newsom took office as governor in January 2019, California’s unemployment rate was the 13th highest in the nation and just five percent above the national rate. But now California’s unemployment rate is the highest in the nation and nearly 30 percent above the national rate. What should California’s next governor do to improve the market for job seekers?

California’s government employee unions and other beneficiaries of government spending are pressing state legislators to enact a law that would obscure the costs of bond and tax measures.

For some time I have been telling those who asked me about Kamala Harris that I thought she would not run for governor.

GFC has joined with California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters of California and other good government organizations in signing a letter of opposition to any effort to undo California’s Independent Redistricting Commission…

GFC supports candidates for important local races when we are asked to do so by people we trust. Recently our friends at Vibrant LA asked us to support four candidates for the Los Angeles City Council: Traci Park, Tim Gaspar, Jose Ugarte and Lou Calanche.

Yesterday many eyes were on New York City’s mayoral primary but ours were also on a special election for the San Jose City Council for which GFC supported Anthony Tordillos against a machine politician.

Tomorrow, the California Legislature is expected to pass a 2025-26 budget bill that will take even more from the future than the budget proposed by Governor Newsom.

As you know, GFC supports candidates for important local races when we are asked to do so by people we respect. Recently one of the people we respect most, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, asked us to support Anthony Tordillos…

Thanks in part to hundreds of opposition letters from the GFC Network, two costly pension bills — AB 569 and AB 1383 — were stopped in the California Legislature today.

Yesterday I published a note on Substack about a footnote in California’s state budget that cost taxpayers $26 billion. I don’t want to burden your emails with too much technical information so if you’re interested please click on that link.

AB 84 (Muratsuchi) would severely damage California’s public charter schools by cutting their funding by almost $1 billion, diverting funds to new bureaucracies, and imposing unnecessary restrictions.

This chart shows the top five donors to Governor Gavin Newsom’s campaigns and ballot measures and to committees that made independent expenditures in support of his campaigns and measures since he first ran for state office in 2010…

SB 799 would allow private attorneys to bring lawsuits against taxpayers and give rise to the types of harassment that already plague California under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), disability access laws (ADA) and Proposition 65.

A CA lawmaker under the influence of government unions has proposed yet another bill to expand retirement benefits. AB 1383 would boost pensions for safety employees without requiring sufficient funds to be set aside to meet those promises.

AB 569 would allow California cities to boost pension promises to public employees without requiring sufficient funds to be contributed upfront to guarantee payment of those promises. If it becomes law, AB 569 would set the table for another explosion in unfunded retirement obligations, the costs of which are already crushing California governments.

One of the questions we will ask of gubernatorial candidates is their view of Gavin Newsom’s performance as governor. In preparation, I’ve been doing a deep dive into the record.

Please see the note below about a very important contest that could bring Oakland into alignment with San Jose and San Francisco where two pragmatic mayors (Matt Mahan and Daniel Lurie) have been elected. Please help add Loren Taylor to that mix.

Thirteen years ago, the California Chamber of Commerce and other big business organizations cut a deal with Governor Jerry Brown not to oppose a 30 percent temporary tax increase on individuals. Since then the state’s General Fund has extracted an extra $95 billion from individual taxpayers, including small businesses that pay business taxes at individual rates, and annual General Fund Expenditures have increased 165 percent.

Klein and his co-author Derek Thompson believe more of everything is the answer to what ails California. But bad governance will ruin it all.

Katie Porter entered the 2026 race for governor this week and has asked to meet with GFC, which we will do. Among the questions we will have for her and other candidates for governor are the following…

All too often, political donors enable poor governance by not engaging in due diligence. Eg, in 2022 an entertainment industry executive spent $1.85 million to help Karen Bass defeat Rick Caruso in the contest for mayor of Los Angeles. Do you think he exercised due diligence before making that choice? That doesn’t seem likely to me.

At this moment the best way to help GFC is to encourage your friends to subscribe to our emails and follow us on X.

Later this month Daniel Lurie will take office as mayor of San Francisco and in April Oakland will hold a special election to elect a new mayor. Both will contend not only with deficits but also with the problem of spending on current services being crowded out by spending on past services.

My heart sank last week when Congress added $200 billion in debt by passing legislation with broad support from both Republicans and Democrats that expands a financial windfall for retired state and local employees.

At the root of California’s poor public services is legislation signed by Governors Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown in 1968, 1975 and 1977 that conferred collective bargaining rights on the public employees who provide those services. In the private sector, labor and management report to different parties…

As previous writings have disclosed, our current focus falls into three categories…

For years public school families in California have been poorly treated by elected officials. That’s because they haven’t had political muscle. Fortunately that’s changing.

Presidents have little influence over the quality of most services provided by California’s governments. For example, public school kids in California have long been poorly served regardless of who has sat in the Oval Office and it’s not presidents who drain funds from UC and CSU to overcompensate prison staff.

Whoever wins today’s elections will need to govern. While some elected officials will continue to talk about fighting or resisting, others will be ready to roll up their sleeves and to work across aisles. To succeed, they will need the protection of political philanthropists.

As we reported last month, if you’re an LA voter in search of guidance, we recommend the LA Voter Guide from Thrive LA, which is a fast-growing political philanthropy that we also recommend for your financial support.

We’re always evaluating elected officials and in California no one impresses us more than San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who leads the Yes on 36 campaign to reform Proposition 47.

Last year I wrote about GFC’s most expensive failure, which is our continuing lack of success in reforming the public-employee retirement system, and earlier this week CalMatters columnist Dan Walters wrote about what I consider to be collectively our most shameful failure, which was the prolonged shutdown of California’s public schools during the pandemic.

When GFC launched in 2011, Republicans held enough seats in the California Legislature that occasionally they could exercise some leverage by joining with pragmatic Democrats to bridge some gaps.

Last month we wrote you about Friends of the University, a muscular addition to California’s political philanthropy ecosystem that advocates for the University of California, which for far too long has been treated like a doormat by elected state officials.

A number of GFC’ers have asked what traits we seek in the next governor. In short, if the next governor is a Democrat, we would like someone like Gina Raimondo when she served as governor of Rhode Island. If a Republican, we’d like someone like Mitt Romney when he served as governor of Massachusetts.

Because a number of GFCers have asked how I’ll be voting on state ballot measures this year, I thought it would be easiest to create a post that you can disregard if not interested.

For years the University of California has been treated like a doormat by the state’s elected officials. That’s because UC supporters have not flexed their political muscles. That’s changing.

Inspired by the success of pragmatic political coalitions in San Francisco, two GFC chapters led by Alistair Thornton and Eli Bildner have identified political giving opportunities in the East Bay.

Earlier this month we wrote to you about $195 billion in annual spending by California governments on compensation and benefits for public employees but that figure did not include spending by counties, which the Mercury News reported yesterday to be $45 billion per year.

Last week I wrote you about the $195 billion California governments spend every year on compensation and benefits for public sector employees. Part of that cost is annual service on $270 billion of debt issued to public employees by lawmakers, none of which was approved by voters.

If ever you had any doubt that governments in California are run primarily for the benefit of public employees, look no further than $195 billion of annual spending by those governments on compensation and benefits awarded by elected officials who receive support or avoid opposition by public sector unions.

Yesterday San Francisco Mayor London Breed made a gutsy appointment to the presidency of the SF Board of Education when she selected Phil Kim, who served as the national director of STEM education for the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) and is a charter school champion.

Everyone knows the truth. In California it is serious drug addiction that drives homelessness, overdose deaths and retail theft. The solution is mass treatment. Voters took a step in that direction in March by approving Proposition 1, which authorizes Bonds for Mental Health Treatment Facilities. The next step must be taken in November with voter approval of Proposition 36, The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act that will give judges the tools to require treatment.

As we’ve reported to you before, GFC is already focused on the 2026 governor’s race because California’s next governor is likely to inherit a precarious situation from Governor Newsom, the candidates who have announced so far are from the usual depressing cast of characters who specialize in loudly signaling virtue to the common person while quietly doing the bidding of special interests, and we are hoping the prospect of early backing by GFC could help elicit a bolder alternative.

The good news is that a tax increase measure has been pulled from the November ballot. The bad news is that Governor Newsom and legislative leaders announced a budget deal that draws from taxpayer reserves and thereby boosts pressure for a tax increase down the road.

Earlier this week a reporter asked me to comment about a bond under discussion in the Legislature. I responded that the costs of past obligations already crowd out spending on current programs…

A political renaissance is taking place in San Francisco thanks to a robust ecosystem of political philanthropies operating in that city.

Yesterday Governor Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore McGuire and Assembly Speaker Rivas confirmed they still intend to close the budget deficit in part by drawing half of the state’s budget reserves when they finalize the budget in June.

As recent election results demonstrate, San Francisco has become ground zero for the effective political philanthropy movement. Next up is the November General Election, which will offer an all-important opportunity to elect a majority of pragmatists to the Board of Supervisors, protect a public-safety-oriented District Attorney, and enact important changes to the city’s charter.

While there wasn’t much on the statewide ballot yesterday, there was plenty on the San Francisco ballot and the results look to be a resounding endorsement of that city’s vibrant ecosystem of political philanthropies.

It’s election season. Citizens looking for questions to ask of candidates or state officials might consider the following two.

We always encourage readers to explore Cal-Access to gain a sense of how campaigns are financed in California.

Our last email elicited several questions about campaign finance so over the next few months we will provide you with short briefings about that subject. Today we address direct donations to candidates and committees that can donate to candidates.

Unlike their counterparts in California, poor students in Texas and Florida didn’t fall behind in math during the pandemic. That’s because they were allowed to attend school in person. According to a new study by Harvard University,

Among the 2,167 bills we are reviewing are several dealing with mental health and homelessness. Recently the Newsom Administration issued a proposal to establish CARE (Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment) Courts “to deliver behavioral health services to severely ill and vulnerable individuals while preserving self determination and community living.” Yesterday we joined a webinar about CARE and will be paying close attention going forward.

GFC President David Crane walks through the surprising statistics and lesser-known history behind California’s state government and how the public can help to elevate the quality of their state government.

More than 30 open-seat races for the state legislature will be contested this year. Some of you have asked about our process for considering pre-election endorsements.

State legislators introduced nearly 1500 bills this week, bringing the total number of bills submitted this year to 2103. Here’s a small sample of measures proposed this week:

Three years ago, a California businessman/philanthropist who had spent $19 million to help elect charter-school-friendly state legislators asked me why so many of those he had helped to elect had joined in passing anti-charter legislation. I responded that they couldn’t count on him to be there for them. When it comes to political power, reliability beats wealth. Just ask former state official John Chiang, who during a recent forum said that politicians “make calculations about which interests will be there for them through thick and thin . . . cycle to cycle,” or former US Senator John Kerry, who once told me legislators favor interests who “are always there” for them.

USC Center for the Political Future (CPF) Co-Directors Bob Shrum and Mike Murphy were joined by former California State Treasurer John Chiang and former Gov. Schwarzenegger advisor David Crane to assess California’s governance and government services amid rising housing costs and tax rates, and the future of the Golden State on Wednesday, February 9. In partnership with Govern For California.

We looked high and low for an article that exposed the poison pill buried in Section 100610 of AB 1400, a single-payer measure recently proposed and withdrawn in the California State Assembly, but found none. That’s worrisome. Typical single-payer systems are not governed by boards dominated by providers as called for by Section 100610, which would put the fox in charge of the henhouse. California already has a fox/henhouse problem on its public pension fund boards, which since Proposition 162 passed in 1992 must give precedence to beneficiaries, thereby delegating residents and taxpayers to subordinate roles. That’s how, eg, CalPERS’s board employed biased actuarial assumptions in 1999 to justify a retroactive pension increase the cost of which is still crushing services and taxpayers today.

It’s that time of year when California state legislators rush to introduce bills before a February deadline. Because it’s also an election year, many — including some to whom we give support from time to time — support bad bills that are good for them politically. We will work to defeat those bills but not to defeat those legislators unless alternative candidates from their districts are better bets for us.

The quality of government services in California declined because for decades there was little resistance in the legislature to special interests who profit from providing those services. That started to change in 2011 with the launch of GFC to support legislators who serve the general interest.

When a private equity executive filed papers to run for governor of Illinois in 2013, I wondered if he had done due diligence. That’s because Illinois governors can do little without the consent of a majority of legislators whose terms of office, unlike the governor’s term of office, are not term-limited. To me, being governor of Illinois would be like being CEO of a business with 177 board members the consent of a majority of whom I would need to do virtually anything but unlike me with no deadline to act.

If ever you needed a reminder that our nation has always been a confederation of diverse states united only when facing a common enemy, re-read Democracy In America, Alexis de Tocqueville’s 1835 masterpiece.

In traditional philanthropy there’s likely a correlation between wealth and impact but that’s less the case with political philanthropy where steadfastness is more important. That’s because the path to political change is steep and narrow. To change any of California’s 29 codes of law, a legislator must gain the agreement of 61 other legislators, each of whom has their own priorities. What matters in that world are seniority, committee assignments and bank balances, and what legislators in that world need are supporters who are always there for them. That’s one reason we have 18 chapters, each of which is among the largest and most steadfast donors to legislators.

Recently a journalist concluded “the California Dream is dying.”

In June the governor and legislature quietly granted an unwarranted $500 million per year salary increase to state prison guards using a loophole inserted into state code in 1981.