CA lawmakers set aside hundreds of millions for targeted brands

Earlier this summer, California lawmakers, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, worked to close a multibillion-dollar deficit. But a closer look at “pork-barrel spending” raises questions about whether the state’s $325 billion spending plan is it goes to those who need it mostwrites Ryan Sabalow of CalMatters.

To curry favor with their constituents and tip the scales for re-election, legislators can allocate money to fund projects that benefit their districts. Known as pork barrel spending, the practice is not unique to California lawmakers. But to the state secret budget negotiation process makes it difficult to identify which districts benefit from these special earmarks and the lawmakers behind them.

c one of the state’s 40 budget bills that expired this year, Ryan opened nearly 100 earmarks totaling $415 million for local projects. One of the biggest recipients of these earmarks appears to be the Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuirewhose district received more than two dozen grants totaling more than $100 million. In addition to funding for hospitals, schools, fire stations and other regional projects, the Santa Rosa Democratic district provided $250,000 to private farm animal rescues.

Lawmakers also appropriated tens of millions of dollars from Proposition 4, a Last year, voters approved $10 billion in climate bonds. McGuire’s biggest targets include $50 million from Prop. 4 for a 320-mile redwood trail that runs through his area. Other means of Prop. 4 of other areas include $20 million to support public access to a closed Santa Barbara County beach and $15 million for “geologic heritage sites.”

With interest and other costs, taxpayers could spend an estimated amount $16 billion over the next 40 years for full repayment of the bond measure.

Newsom and the 90 Democrats who control the Legislature approved the budget and its earmarks while leaving the civil servant positions vacant, suspending some health benefits and the aforementioned promotions for firefighters.

For Susan Shelley, vice president of communications for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, politicians like to say, “We need money for everything in California,” she said.

• Shelly: “And what are they spending the money on now? Mainly gifts to constituencies that make the elected representatives look good and that are not essential or not like essential.”

Read more here.

An apparent misunderstanding between the Newsom administration and a San Francisco lawmaker has led to renewed questions about California’s move away from a nearly decades-long “housing first” policy.CalMatters’ Marissa Kendall reports.

In October, Newsom introduced a bill that would have allowed counties and cities to use some of their state funds to pay for housing projects for the homeless that require sobriety. Known as “recovery housing,” the measure would depart from California’s current housing framework, which requires housing providers to accept homeless people even if they use drugs or alcohol.

In his veto messageNewsom said the “recent guidelines” already allow local governments to do that — much to the surprise of the bill’s author, a Democratic Assembly member Matt Haney. The manual that Newsom referred to was a document that was from July 2025but it was posted online the day after the governor’s veto.

The paper also highlights the challenges of requiring sobriety at the potential expense of long-term placement. For example, the guidelines say that sober housing providers can’t evict someone for recidivism. But if providers can’t kick people out for drug or alcohol use, Haney argues, they can’t effectively run a sober home.

• Haney: “There are some questions about whether anyone will actually step up and do this under the guidelines as written.”

Read more here.

Under President Donald Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency is rolling back federal climate rules. But as the administration loosens regulations on vehicle emissions — arguing that greenhouse gases don’t endanger people’s health — some experts say California could use this as an opportunity to lead the way in climate policy.

As Alejandro Lazo of CalMatters explains, California has been both a laboratory and a pioneer in reducing air pollution for decades. The state has set its own standards for vehicular pollution as long as it has secured federal permission through an exemption.

But now that the Trump administration is working to roll back the EPA’s statutory authority under the Clean Air Act to set the nation’s greenhouse gas rules for vehicles — known as a “threat finding” — California can argue that it no longer needs federal approval to set its own rules.

• Ann Carlsona former federal employee and current UCLA law professor who first floated the idea: “If greenhouse gases are not covered by the Clean Air Act, then California could probably regulate them — just like any other state.”

Legal experts agree, however, that in practice that would be a long way off — in addition to resistance from the Trump administration, car and truck makers are likely to sue the state to block its attempts to regulate greenhouse gases.

Read more here.

In a victory for the LGBTQ community, the California Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to a state law that argued that requiring nursing home staff to address transgender patients by their preferred gender and pronouns was a violation of free speech. Read more by Nigel Duara of CalMatters.