California Campaign Cash, Legal Bills and Unanswered Questions

When a member of Congress opens a legal defense fund, it usually makes national news. Reporters dig into the donors, and ethics experts ask whether federal rules allow the lawmaker to spend donor money to fight specific types of legal battles.

Investigations into state legislators is hit or miss when it comes to media scrutiny. In California, where citizen journalists and federal probes have uncovered a series of high-profile fraud and corruption cases this year, Democratic state Sen. Susan Rubio’s defense fund has drawn virtually no public attention. The lack of scrutiny has continued even after the Los Angeles Times and other media outlets have identified Rubio as the only possible person accused in a plea deal of taking illegal campaign contributions and soliciting bribes in a sprawling marijuana pay-to-play scheme, which has ensnared several local officials.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Rubio opened the defense fund in early 2024, collecting at least $161,000 in contributions so far, as well as $85,000 in loans from her Senate campaign committee. She has used the funds to pay at least $95,000 to a Los Angeles-based law firm Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump Holley LLP, or KWIKH, which specializes in entertainment law and civil and criminal defense cases, and another $9,000 to Nossaman LLP, a national law firm with a range of legal practices, including litigation. Another $127,000 in payments to KWIKH came from Rubio’s Senate campaign committee.

The same year she opened the defense fund, Rubio, who previously served on Baldwin Park’s city council, said she was questioned in the federal marijuana bribery public corruption probe. Her ex-husband, whom she has repeatedly accused of domestic violence, also was suing her for defamation at the time.

The public silence about the legal set-up and payments is striking because the federal probe has been anything but quiet. In August, the Los Angeles Times ran the headline: “Cash buried in L.A. politician’s backyard helped expose marijuana corruption scheme.”

The cash in the backyard

The “L.A. politician” in question is Baldwin Park Councilmember Ricardo Pacheco, who buried nearly $63,000 in illicit cash in his backyard amid the “green rush” of marijuana legalization a decade ago. After federal agents found the money, Pacheco began cooperating with the government. His cooperation helped open a wide FBI investigation into bribes paid for marijuana permits and political favors across Los Angeles County and beyond.

Officials in Compton, Commerce, and San Bernardino County have since pleaded guilty. So has Baldwin Park’s former city attorney. His unsealed plea agreement describes an unnamed official identified as “Person 20.” It says Person 20 took $30,000 in illegal campaign contributions and asked a cannabis company for a $240,000 bribe.

In December 2024, the Los Angeles Times reported that only one person fits that description: Susan Rubio. She served on the Baldwin Park city council with Pacheco before winning her Senate seat in 2018. The investigation is ongoing. Rubio, who says the FBI has told her she is not a target of the probe, has not been charged and has denied taking bribes.

Two legal fights, one pot of donor money

Amid the federal probe, Rubio was fighting a defamation lawsuit from her ex-husband, former Assemblyman Roger Hernandez. She won it in 2025 and has paid her lawyers with donor money from two sources: the legal defense fund and her Senate campaign committee.

California law allows a legal defense fund to pay for an elected officials’ attorneys when a case arises directly from a campaign, legislative, or official duties. If any federal allegations are filed in the marijuana bribery case, those would involve Rubio’s time on the city council and her 2018 Senate campaign, so they may meet that test. But the Hernandez suit grew out of a marriage that ended a decade ago amid domestic violence accusations. That’s a tougher fit, according to legal experts familiar with California campaign finance law, but it’s the explanation she has cited.

Click here to read the full article at Real Clear Politics

No campaign? No problem. Inside California political elites’ shadowy spending

California Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Santa Rosa, is a die-hard San Francisco 49ers fan. During his first speech as Senate President pro Tempore in early 2024, McGuire gave a shout-out to his beloved team, who were days away from facing the Kansas City Chiefs at the Super Bowl. His late grandmother “would be more excited that the 49ers are heading to the Super Bowl than me being up here today,” McGuire joked to laughs and applause.

“So I think we need to do a ‘Go Niners,’ everybody.” A few days later, McGuire attended the game in Las Vegas. He paid for the tickets not out of his own pocket, but through a ballot measure committee called “Progress for California.” The committee spent $40,000 for tickets, meals, lodging and transportation for a three-day stay in Las Vegas during the event, according to campaign finance records, paying Super Bowl beer sponsor Anheuser-Busch directly. The company also gifted McGuire ticket packages worth $33,750.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

A campaign spokesman for McGuire said the trip was for a fundraiser held with his predecessor, former Senate pro Tem Toni Atkins. In the two years since he opened the account, McGuire’s “Progress for California” ballot committee has amassed more than $850,000 in political donations from labor unions, tribes, businesses and other political action committees But despite its name, it has yet to donate to any ballot measure. The arrest and indictment of Dana Williamson, a former top aide to Gov. Gavin Newsom, cracked open a window to Sacramento’s campaign finance ecosystem, showing the sometimes questionable ways that lawmakers, lobbyists, consultants and interest groups use accounts to trade money, time and access.

A Sacramento Bee review of more than 100 accounts and lobbying records reveals how two types of accounts in particular – ballot measure committees and campaign accounts held by ex-lawmakers – are commonly used to shore up political connections and help elected officials live large, while spending little, if anything, on campaigns those accounts were ostensibly designed to support. Williamson, Newsom’s former chief of staff, pleaded not guilty in November in a scheme to enrich her friend Sean McCluskie, a longtime deputy to former Attorney General Xavier Becerra, using money funneled from one of Becerra’s dormant campaign accounts. McCluskie and another lobbyist pleaded guilty; Becerra said he was unaware of what was happening and cooperated with federal investigators. The Bee’s analysis of campaign accounts controlled by current and former elected officials, including dozens like the one used to steal from Becerra, reveals the price to get a state lawmaker’s ear for an evening or a weekend – and it’s not cheap. Special interests often donate tens of thousands of dollars to lawmakers and gain access to private fundraisers at high-end resorts and other exclusive events.

Click here to read the full article at the Sacramento Bee

California is FOR SALE: Gavin Newsom’s Pay-to-Play Politics

…and using his wife’s non-profits as a political slush fund

Governor Gavin Newsom “used his office to try to block a small tribe from opening a casino in Northern California, after taking nearly $2 million from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, a major California political donor which operates its own gambling compound just 15 miles away from its rival’s proposed site, which broke ground on a $1 billion expansion in 2023,” the Washington Free Beacon reported in July.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Known as “behested” payments, this isn’t the Governor’s first rodeo. He accepted more than $700,000 from two major law firms in 2021 to both create and defend his Executive Order to repeal death penalty rules and dismantle the death chamber at San Quentin, James Lacy reported.

Gov. Gavin Newsom “behested” $3.5 million in 2018, the year he was elected governor. In 2019, he reported behested payments totaling $12.1 million, the Orange County Register reported in “Behested payments and the specter of corruption.”

But wait! There’s more.

In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, and when the governor’s emergency powers were greatly expanded, payments to various entities – at Newsom’s “behest” – shot up to a whopping $226 million, according to data from the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), Fox News reported:

$45 million from Blue Shield of California and Kaiser Permanente for his housing initiative – and then the governor chose both Blue Shield and Kaiser Permanente to help manage vaccine distribution in California.

Between 2018 and 2019, UnitedHealth donated $220,000 to political committees controlled by Newsom, who later awarded $492 million in contracts to UnitedHealth subsidiaries in no-bid and expedited situations.

There is a lot more, but you get the point.

FPPC Behested payments graph. (Photo: FPPC.gov)

The Free Beacon continues:

“In April 2024, a few months before Newsom sent his letter to the Biden Interior Department, the Democratic governor requested Graton Rancheria to contribute $500,000 to his wife’s charity, the California Partners Project. And in April 2025, one month before Newsom filed his lawsuit against the Trump administration, he again asked Graton Rancheria to contribute another $500,000 to his wife’s charity. The tribe cut those checks specifically at Newsom’s request, according to California’s “behested payments” database, which discloses whenever state elected officials request others to make donations on their behalf.

While the data doesn’t show an explicit quid pro quo between Newsom and Graton Rancheria, several ethics experts told the Washington Free Beacon that Newsom’s charitable solicitations from the tribe to his wife’s charity just before he used the powers of his office to try to block its rival from opening a competing casino raises major red flags.”

Siebel Newsom’s California Partners Project “champions gender equity across the state and ensures our states media and technology industries are a force for good in the lives of all children.”

Siebel Newsom has another charity, “The Representation Project,” in which she produces “Gender Justice” films and sells them to California’s public schools.

“California Governor Gavin Newsom helped bankroll his wife’s charity with nearly $2million he solicited from a Native American tribe – while fighting on its behalf to kill a rival casino,” The Daily Mail reported this week.

“Now the governor’s office has reacted angrily to questions Daily Mail asked about the payments, called it ‘insulting and offensive’ to even be asked whether his official actions on behalf on the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) amount to a quid-pro-quo. Records show that the governor personally requested the ‘behest payments’ from FIGR.”

“The Bay Area tribe donated $1.8million to The California Partners Project, a nonprofit co-founded by Newsom’s wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom, and another $450,000 to fund his inaugurations.

Newsom and the state then joined the tribe’s efforts to block a casino from opening just 15 miles from theirs, filing a lawsuit in May challenging the federal government’s approval of the project.”

Records show that from 2018 to 2024, the California governor solicited a total of $2.25million from the FIGR – with the majority going to Jennifer’s charity, the Daily Mail said.

This is pay-to-play politics, or legally known as “quid pro quo”, Latin meaning “something for something.”

While the citizens of the state were locked down under Gov. Newsom’s covid orders, Gavin Newsom and the Legislature also slithered a bill through committees in 2020 to ratify separate tribal-state gaming compacts between the State of California and six California tribes. SB 869, the Tribal gaming: compact ratification for:

  • the Ione Band of Miwok Indians
  • the Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California
  • the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians
  • the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians
  • the Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation
  • the Tule River Indian Tribe

The compacts authorized the Tribes to engage in Class III Gaming, which governs most slots and casino table games like Random Number Generator slots, blackjack, craps and roulette.

The governor and legislature also exempted the six tribes from the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, which identifies environmental impact reports on construction projects, was well as mitigation measures, such as increased traffic, excessive road use, noise, etc…

SB 869 (Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa), ratified in 2020 the tribal-state gaming compacts entered into between the State of California and the above-named tribes. “The bill provides that, in deference to tribal sovereignty, certain actions related to these compacts and amended compacts are not projects for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.”

The bill also authorized the Governor, under the California Constitution, to negotiate and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature.

This brings us to a lawsuit filed in March, which the Globe reported on, and states, “The Ione Band of Miwok Indians is not on any of the four lists of historically recognized Indian tribes composed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) after the adoption of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA).” The lawsuit challenges federal government actions on behalf of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians:

As the lawsuit states, “Defendant Bureau of Indian Affairs and Laverdure, based on the Indian trust, unlawfully reached the May 24, 2012 ROD conclusion that the Ione Band was eligible, as a “federally recognized tribe” under federal jurisdiction in 1934, to have the Secretary “acquire 228.04 acres of land into trust for” its benefit under Section 5 of the IRA.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Ranks of high-priced public pensioners explode in California

Column: CalPERS’ ‘100K’ club had fewer than 2,000 members in 2005. Guess how many there are now?

Yes, public employees, we know you detest $100K club stories. We hear you when you say it’s a distorted lens on public pension challenges. And that there’s nothing magical — or diabolical —about the number $100,000.

We’re even sympathetic to accusations that we suffer from “pension envy” (guilty as charged).

But we argue that the growth of the $100K club in the gargantuan California Public Employees Retirement System — the nation’s largest — is a canary in the coal mine, signaling stresses on public retirement systems as a whole. These stresses trickle down to Jo Citizen, and thus are a legitimate line of inquiry.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

To wit: After more than a decade of skyrocketing contributions to CalPERS from state, city, school and special district governments — and from public workers themselves! — the system still only has 72% of the money it currently owes to public workers.

Who’s on the hook for filling that hole if investments don’t produce what’s needed to pay the bills? Um. You are.

Yes, public employees contribute to their pensions up front. But taxpayers contribute up front and are on the hook for 100% of any funding deficiencies later on, writes David Crane, president of Govern For California and public policy lecturer at Stanford University.

As our local and state governments shovel ever more money into the pension system, those dollars can’t fund services for Jo Taxpayer — like more libraries or repaired pot holes or recreation programs. Critics call that “crowd out.”

“There’s just so much money to go around,” said Fred Smoller, associate political science professor at Chapman University. “If the state spends it on generous pensions, there’s less for other budget priorities. That’s just common sense.”

We haven’t crunched this data since 2019, and a local government-watcher recently prodded us to check on its growth. So we did. Suffice to say it has been huge. HUGE!

Up up and away

• Back in 2005, only 1,841 CalPERS retirees collected pensions exceeding $100,000 a year.

• By 2009, the $100K Club had more than tripled, to 6,133.

• In 2013, membership had nearly tripled again, to 16,838.

• In 2018, club membership exceeded 26,000.

• And in 2023, membership nearly doubled yet again, to 51,530, according to data from CalPERS.

You can chalk this up to uber-generous pension formulas (particularly for public safety types) approved by your elected officials when the stock market was booming in the early 2000s, as well as to generous pay packages.

It may be fitting that the most well-paid CalPERS retiree was the erstwhile director of CalPERS’ investments, Curtis D Ishii. He retired in 2018 after more than 45 years of service, and drew benefits of $444,295 last year.

Next up was Michael D. Johnson, erstwhile administrator for Solano County, who retired after nearly 43 years of service. He drew benefits of $404,307.

All told, there were just those two with benefits over $400,000 a year. There were 19 people getting $300,000 to $400,000 a year; another 1,782 with benefits between $200,000 and $300,000 a year; and 49,727 with benefits between $100,000 and $200,000 a year.

Other findings of note:

• Total benefits paid by CalPERS more than doubled between 2012 and 2023, from $14.4 billion to $30.2 billion.

• The number of folks receiving benefits between 2012 and 2023 leaped 63%, from 483,902 to more than 790,500.

• The average for all retirees and their survivors/beneficiaries was a bit more than $38,000 a year. But that hides big variations.

• Old-timers — those who retired between 1956 and 1981 — got a measly $16,749 on average.

• Folks who retired from 1982 to 2002 got $25,328.

• Folks who retired from 2003 to 2023 averaged $40,636.

• Public safety types — such as police and firefighters — had much higher pensions than regular retirees, averaging $64,279 last year.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

You Can Earn $100,000 a Year in These Bay Area Counties and Still Be ‘Low-Income’

In two core Bay Area counties, a resident making up to $104,400 a year is considered to have a low-income

In the exorbitantly expensive Bay Area, you can earn a six-figure salary and still be considered low-income.

According to the latest state eligibility requirements for affordable housing, a resident of San Francisco or San Mateo County making up to $104,400 a year has a low income. In Santa Clara County, the cut-off is $96,000. And in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, it’s $78,550.

The eye-popping figures underscore the deepening housing crisis across the region, where software engineers and service workers alike feel the squeeze of sky-high housing costs.

Last month, the state raised the eligibility limits to reflect growing incomes across California. For many affordable housing programs, the limits help determine who can apply and how much they’re expected to pay — generally around 30% of their total earnings. Experts warn that the raised caps could spell rent hikes for some low-income housing tenants already struggling to make ends meet.

“In theory, those higher rents should be affordable,” said Matt Schwartz, chief executive of the nonprofit California Housing Partnership. “But in practice, often the reason the income limits go up is not because the incomes of all the working, lower-income households are going up but because some of those lower-income households have left the region, and higher-income households are coming in.”

The limits — which increased by around 3% to 8% in the Bay Area — are set by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development and based mostly on the typical earnings for different-sized households in each of the state’s 58 counties. The more people in a home, the higher the limit.

In Santa Clara County, for example, the median income for a family of four is around $181,300, and a family that size earning up to about 80% of the median, or $137,100 a year, would qualify as low-income. Households making as much as 120% of the median can qualify for some affordable-housing openings.

Nationwide, the median income for households of all sizes was $70,784, according to the U.S. census.

In the Bay Area, some 207,800 renter households are in need of an affordable home, according to the housing partnership. Almost a quarter of all local renters spend more than half their income on rent, and many thousands remain stuck on years-long, affordable-housing waiting lists.

“One of the challenges when you have a chronic housing shortage, which we do in the Bay Area, is that those who are higher income can outbid everyone else for scarce housing resources,” said Sarah Karlinsky, a housing expert with regional think tank SPUR. “We need to build substantially more housing in our region overall to help address the housing crisis.”

In recent years, state and local officials have taken steps to spur more construction by streamlining the complicated city permitting process and rolling back some restrictions on where developers can build larger housing projects. State regulators are also pushing hard on the region to add more than 180,000 affordable units over the next decade for residents making up to either 50% or 80% of the median income.

In Santa Clara County, for instance, a single person could qualify for affordable housing if they earn less than $96,000. That’s higher than the typical income of kindergarten teachers, power plant operators, chiropractors and local lawmakers in the area, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Despite efforts to boost the housing supply, there remains only a limited pool of public funding available to finance and support affordable housing. To raise more money, officials and housing advocates are backing a Bay Area-wide bond measure worth up to $20 billion that could come before local residents in 2024. Voters may also decide on a $10 billion statewide housing bond next spring.


Confused about what the terms low-income, affordable and below-market-rate housing actually mean? The words are often used interchangeably, but there can be differences.

Affordable housing, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, means housing for which the occupant pays no more than 30% of their gross income. This includes rent or mortgage payments and the cost of utilities.

Low-income housing refers to units for families earning only a certain percentage of the area median income (AMI), which varies by household size and county. The commonly used income categories are:

Click here to read the full article in the Mercury News

California Man Charged With Stealing $1M in COVID Benefits

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A Northern California man has been charged with stealing other people’s identity to illegally obtain more than $1 million in unemployment benefits for people affected by the coronavirus pandemic.

Idowu Hashim Shittu, 46, of Castro Valley was charged with three counts of fraud in a federal complaint unsealed Friday.

Prosecutors said he used the personal information of three Washington state residents to request benefits through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act from the state’s Employment Security Department.

After the ESD deposited funds into bank accounts linked to the benefits requests, a person fitting Shittu’s description was seen withdrawing the funds from ATMs in the Bay Area.

Click here to read the full article at Associated Press

California Farmworkers Now Get Overtime Pay After 8 hours. Some Growers Say It’s a Problem

For the past two decades during the harvest season, 58-year-old farmworker Lourdes Cárdenas would wake up at 3 a.m. to get dressed, say her daily prayers and prepare lunch before driving an hour south from her home in Calwa to a farm in Huron. She’d pick crops like cherries, nectarines, and peaches from daybreak until sundown — at least 10 hours a day, six days a week.

There would be days where she wouldn’t get home until 7 p.m or 8 p.m., depending on traffic, she said. For many of those years, she was paid minimum wage. There was no overtime pay.

“It’s a long work day,” she said in Spanish. “I’d get home very late, exhausted. It’s very hard work being in the fields.”

For years, hundreds of thousands of farmworkers toiling in California’s agricultural heartland weren’t entitled to overtime pay unless they worked more than 10 hours a day. But that has changed due to a 2016 state law that’s been gradually implemented over four years. As of Jan. 1, California law requires that employers with 26 or more employees pay overtime wages to farmworkers after eight hours a day or 40 hours a week.

That means many farmworkers like Cárdenas will now be compensated time-and-a-half for working more than eight hours. It’s a change advocates say is long overdue to provide the agricultural labor force with the same protections afforded to other hourly workers. But opponents argue that the law — though well-intentioned — strains farmers who already operate on thin margins and confront other financial challenges. Employers also say the new rules will disadvantage workers, as they’ll likely reduce hours in an attempt to cut increasing labor costs.

Today’s top headlines

Sign up for the Afternoon Update and get the day’s biggest stories in your inbox.SIGN UP

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Under the law, which was authored by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, farmworkers began in 2019 to gradually receive the same overtime pay as employees in other industries. Farmworkers previously became eligible for overtime benefits after 10 hours, but the law has lowered the threshold for overtime pay by half an hour annually for the past three years, until reaching the standard eight hours this year.

In a Twitter post on Wednesday, Gonzalez said “none of my bills stole my heart more.”

The full implementation of the law for larger-scale growers marks the most recent win for labor advocates, who had been running a decades-long campaign to secure overtime pay for farmworkers. California is one of six states, alongside Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, New York and Washington, to provide overtime pay to agricultural workers. Many states, however, only provide overtime pay after the 60-hour threshold has been met.

FRESNO GROWERS CONCERNED ABOUT FARMWORKER OVERTIME LAW

Eriberto Fernandez, the government affairs deputy director at the UFW Foundation, which sponsored the California bill, said the law secures a basic protection for a workforce that has long been exploited. He added that agricultural workers were excluded from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 that gave most employees the right to minimum wage and overtime pay.

“It’s a very historic and momentous occasion for farmworkers that they now, for the first time in the history of agricultural labor, have the same rights as all other Californians do,” he said. “For the first time since the 1930s, equal overtime pay now also applies to farmworkers.”

Fernandez said the law will provide farmworkers with more quality time with their families. He also said farmworkers, many of whom work ten- to twelve-hour shifts during the peak harvest season, will be fairly compensated for their labor.

“This is about leveling the playing field for farmworkers,” he said. “We’re hoping that this new law now puts farmworkers on equal ground with all other industries in California.”

But many growers say the new law could do more damage than good.

Ryan Jacobsen, a farmer and Fresno County Farm Bureau CEO, said the law doesn’t address the needs of the farming industry, arguing that agriculture requires a unique set of rules because it is subject to changing weather and seasons. And unlike other businesses, the labor-intensive industry requires more flexibility on scheduling and working, especially during peak harvest times, he said.

“Most of these jobs in the industry are still seasonal in nature and there are times of the year where there’s more work than there is in other times of the year,” he said. “In the California ag industry, there was always — up until the passage of this bill — an understanding that these employees would be able to make up these hours during these shorter windows because there’s not as much availability of farm agricultural work (in other times of the year).”

Daniel Hartwig, a fourth generation grape farmer from Easton who also works as the procurement manager at Woolf Farming, agreed. He said that the law makes an already fickle industry even more complicated for growers.

Growers have been concerned about labor costs increasing, in part due to California regulations, Hartwig said. He said many growers are reducing their employees’ hours and transitioning to cultivating other crops that don’t require as much human labor. Instead of planting fruit trees, Hartwig has switched over to nuts like almonds and pistachios, he said.

“We can’t absorb those additional labor costs,” he said. “So we’ve just kind of refocused on making sure more of our crops are able to be mechanically harvested. Those are the choices we’re making. (The law) is hurting farmers, and it’s hurting the farm workers as well.”

Fresno County broke its own record for agricultural and livestock production in 2020, peaking at more than $7.98 billion, according to the crop report from county Agricultural Commissioner Melissa Cregan. Nuts were among the top earners. Almonds were the county’s top-grossing crop, earning $1.25 billion, while pistachios made up $761 million, the report found.

Fernandez, of the UFW Foundation, said it’s “unfortunate” that farmers are reducing hours for their employees given the county’s record-breaking years.

“These are the same arguments that we hear over and over again about how these laws are going to destroy agribusiness in California,” he said. “And if anything, we’ve seen the opposite — we’ve seen the California businesses thriving. For them, it’s a matter of economics and of profitability. They’re choosing to shorten worker hours to save money that they would otherwise have paid for overtime pay.”

CALIFORNIA FARMWORKER WAGES INCREASING

Farmworkers are some of the lowest-paid workers in the U.S, according to a 2021 report from The Economic Policy Institute. On average, farmworkers in 2020 earned about $14.62 per hour, “far less than even some of the lowest-paid workers in the U.S. labor force,” the report found. Farmworkers at that wage rate earned below 60% compared to what workers outside of agriculture made, according to the report.

Click here to read the full article at the Fresno Bee

Lack Of Money Isn’t California’s Problem

California’s rate of education spending continues its rapid escalation but expected increases in performance remain lagging. While taxpayers are doing their job, politicians, education bureaucrats, and teacher unions aren’t doing theirs.

The 40-year-old myth that Proposition 13 gutted education spending was never true to begin with, despite the progressive narrative, but now it has been exposed as utter fantasy. According to the federal government’s National Center for Education Statistics, in inflation-adjusted constant dollars, per-pupil spending in California for public elementary and secondary schools rose from $5,675 in 1969-70, to $7,377 in 1979-80, to $9,121 in 1989-90. For 2017-18, the most recent year for which statistics are available, per-pupil spending for K-12 public schools was $13,129, the highest ever.

As Reason Foundation’s Christian Barnard highlighted recently in these pages, “inflation-adjusted education spending in California grew by a massive 44.03% between 2013 and 2019 — the fastest growth among any state in the nation including the District of Columbia during that period.” That’s made us 17th in the nation in per-pupil K-12 spending.

So no, California’s schools aren’t hurting for cash as the foes of Prop. 13 would like you to believe. What California’s schools are hurting for is accountability. And as two recent news items show, it starts at the top.

One example is a story reported by POLITICO about the questionable hiring of Daniel Lee, California’s first superintendent of equity. The state job, which pays a salary of up to $179,832, originated as a foundation-funded position paid for by a $700,000 grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. In July 2020, following the protests over the death of George Floyd, Lee went on the state payroll as a deputy superintendent for the California Department of Education. The purpose of the hire was to ensure the success of children of color in California.

The only problem was that Lee lives and works in Pennsylvania. Politico reported that he “owns a Pennsylvania-based psychology firm and is president of the New Jersey Psychological Association’s executive board,” but his resume shows “no prior experience in California or relationships with school districts in the state.”

Click here to read the full article