Is Democrat Congresswoman Katie Hill a #MeToo Sexual Predator? Photos say YES

The story is simple.  A 30 year old woman, Congresswoman to be Katie Hill, and her husband take in a 22 year old girl that just graduated from College.  The man and the woman have been married for several years, with the woman a leading candidate for Congress.  The woman, Katie Hill, the openly bi-sexual, now member of Congress.

While running for Congress she puts the young girl on campaign staff.  Then, when elected, the girl is put on the congressional staff.  As part of her “duties” for the Congresswoman Katie Hill AND her husband, she has sex with them—all over the place.  They travel the country finding new beds and locations.  But Hill, as the picture shows, wants to make sure the girl has nice looking hair.  While naked, Hill brushes the girls’ hair.  But, note the girl is very disinterested—she is looking at her Smartphone.

Men have been destroyed for much less.  Former Congressman Joe Barton had to leave Congress because he took nude selfies—but he is a Republican.  What did Katie Hill do? 

  1.  Took a series of sexual photos in a threesome with a staff member.
  2. Used tax dollars to finance her sexual life with a young girl.
  3. Appears to be a sexual predator, #MeToo, using her position to get a girl in bed with her AND her husband
  4. Determine how much in tax dollars was used for salaries and travels by the threesome to finance sexual escapades.

It is time for the Ethics Committee of Congress to investigate this matter.  It is time for Alyssa Milano and the rest of the #MeToo industry to demand the resignation of Democrat Congresswoman Katie Hill.  I would hope that House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy would lead this effort to remove Hill from Congress.  I would expect the California Republican Party

P.S.  Since the photos are so personal—who had access to the cell phone that took the pictures?  My guess is the husband, who was cuckhold by Katie Hill, his wife.(without permission).

CA Rep. Katie Hill Allegedly Involved Female Staffer in 2-Yr ‘Throuple’ Relationship

by Jennifer Van Laar, RedState,  10/18/19 

Freshman Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA), Vice Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, shared with Elle in a June 2019 interview a quote from the late Rep. Elijah Cummings, Chairman of the Committee “that has stuck with her.”

In one of those first meetings, Hill says, Cummings said something that has stuck with her. “It [was] that our role on Oversight is to get to the truth and to follow the truth wherever it leads us and to expose that for the American people,” Hill tells me over the phone. “To make sure that they have the information that they should have to, frankly, evaluate their government.”

It is in that spirit that we are sharing information obtained from multiple confidential sources relating to Rep. Hill, who’s currently in divorce proceedings. It is this writer’s view that events that occur within a marriage or affairs that lead to its demise should be kept between the parties involved and are not the business of the general public. When those events or affairs occur within one of the parties’ workplace, though, and that workplace is the United States Congress, the public should know about them as they determine that elected official’s fitness to serve.

Photographs and text messages obtained by RedState show that Rep. Hill was involved in a long-term sexual relationship with a female campaign staffer. The woman, whose name is not being released, was hired by Hill in late 2017 and quickly became involved in a “throuple” relationship with Hill and her estranged husband, Kenny Heslep.

Heslep and the staffer, according to text messages provided to RedState, believed the polyamorous arrangement to be a long-term, committed relationship. The trio took multiple vacations together, including to Alaska, where this photograph was taken.

Click to view image — Warning: Explicit Image

RedState was also provided with intimate photographs of the women, which we have chosen not to publish.

Click here to read the full story on Red State.

DONORS BEWARE: Do You Know Where Your Campaign Donations Go?

You live in Maryland and are 82 years old.  You get a call from a California campaign.  “Will you donate to defeat Nancy Pelosi or Maxine Waters?’  You are told how that hate America and killing the Republic.  If you give $50 we have a chance to throw them out.”  Of course in Maryland, you do not know the GOP registration in the Pelosi district is 6% or in the Waters district it is 12%.  All they know is that Pelosi and Waters are bad people, harming minorities, the State and nation.

No one is suggesting anything being done is illegal or violated the rules of the Federal Elections Commission.  In fact, the numbers come from the FEC, as given them by the campaigns.  While I am pointing out two campaigns and two fund raising companies (none of whom did anything wrong), we as donors need to be wise in how we spend our political dollars.  In one case a campaign spent 90% of the money raised going to the fund raisers.  In the other race, 60% went to fund raisers.

What do you think the donors, especially the elderly and those out of State should do to help finance campaigns against Democrats instead of providing massive amounts of money to fund raisers and very little to voter contact in the District?

DONORS BEWARE:  Do You Know Where Your Campaign Donations Go?

Stephen Frank, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views,  10/21/19  

This article is not about the two campaigns mentioned.  It is about warning donors to be careful how they spend their political dollars and who it really goes to.  To win an election you need voter contact.  That means raising a lot of money.  If you are running against a Nancy Pelosi or a Maxine Waters, it really takes a lot of money.  If your overhead eats up almost all your money, consultants, attorneys, travel expenses, fund raisers and have little left over to tell the voters your side of the story—or to remind them how your opponent is harming them, then the money raised is being wasted.

For example, In 2014, John Dennis ran for Congress against San Fran Nan.  He raised $623,000.  That is amazing—a massive amount is a 6% GOP District.  His fund raiser, from Akron Ohio (using telemarketing) took $507,000—or 83% of the money raised.  But that is good.  In the 3rd quarter of 2019 he raised $95,000 (all numbers rounded off in this article) of which $87,000  (90%) went to InfoCision Management Corporation—the same firm he used in 2014.  See his 2019 FEC report here. 

In total for the 2020 race against Pelosi, Dennis has raised $145,000.-  Yet, his Cash on Hand (COH) at the end of the period was $25,000.

Then you have the Joe Collins for Congress campaign against Maxine Waters—in a 12% GOP District.  In this race he has raised an eye popping $437,000.  That is beyond belief (please do not take this sentence out of context).  His fund raiser/telemarketer is Campaign Solutions—they got $271,000 or a little over 60%.  After raising $437,000, with money going to telemarketers, lots of travel—including Uber and Lyft—Mr. Collins has $21,000 COH—with $6,000 in debts.  So, for $437,000 he has $15,000 to spend on voter contact.  See his FEC report here

I spoke with John Dennis about this and he agreed with my numbers.  Of course, “my numbers” come from his reports to the FEC.  He explained that the reason most of the telemarketing donors are as Rush Limbaugh calls them “seasoned citizens”, is because young people seldom have landline anymore and it is difficult to get cell phone numbers legally.  He went on to explain that folks around the nation know who Pelosi and Waters are—and are donating emotionally to defeat the “bad guys”.,.  I understand that. 

Yet, where are the adults in these campaigns?  They have to know that with almost all the money going to vendors for travel and fund raising, there is little left to use for voter contact.  Campaigns are not about raising money and making vendors rich—they are about defeating Democrats and changing public policy.

As I said in the beginning NOTHING done was illegal nor in violation of any law.  Yet, I feel we need to be more sophisticated in our giving and strategic.  At the least, the vast majority of money raised should go to voter contact, not vendors.

How do you think we should handle this?  Yes, we do need small donors—and it costs a lot of money to develop those lists. But it appears we are not meeting the first priority of a campaign by spending upwards of 90% on fund raising and leaving no money for voter contact.  It is like starting a business just to say you started a business.

California AG Supports Billion Dollar False Claims Lawsuit Filed Against Lennar Corporation

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren yell and scream about crony capitalists, companies that take advantage of the public, customers and our communities.  Usually they are just blathering radical slogans.  In the case of Lennar Corporation, a nationwide developer of homes, they are right on target.  In a recent Court case in Delaware they told the Judge that the State of California has expunged all claims relating to the 2009 bankruptcy of their sister company Landsource. At that hearing  the California AG was forced to go to the Delaware court and say Lennar did not tell the truth, California did not do away with its claims—for ONE BILLION DOLLARS taken from CalPERS.

“In a bid to keep the case out of the California courts, Mr. Petrocelli conjured up a defense for client Lennar – asserting in a Delaware court proceeding initiated by Lennar’s lawyers – that Lennar had obtained “releases” of False Claims exposure from the California Attorney General back in a 2008 bankruptcy proceeding filed by Lennar on behalf of a controlled subsidiary named LandSource. Contrary to the assertions of Lennar’s lawyers, Federal, State, and even Congressional laws prevent the release, waiver, or discharge of False Claims Act liability.

The California Attorney General’s office has been actively monitoring the case since it was filed. A deputy Attorney General made a special appearance in the Delaware proceeding to specifically inform the judge that the Lennar lawyers were misleading the court. The deputy AG told the judge that ONLY the California Attorney General could release False Claims Act liability, and that NO releases of False Claims liability had EVER been obtained by Lennar. “

In the past Lennar has been found guilty in Massachusetts and Maryland courts, for somewhat the same type of actions—forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in those cases.  This case can cost them $3 billion (not a typo).  We will watch this as it goes forward.

California AG Supports Billion Dollar False Claims Lawsuit Filed Against Lennar Corporation

Stephen Frank, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views, 10/21/19  

A lawsuit has been filed in Sacramento against Lennar Corporation alleging the theft of ONE BILLION DOLLARS from CalPERS. The plaintiff is Citizens Against Corporate Crime LLC. The lawsuit is filed under the California False Claims Act on behalf of The People of California. The California Attorney General’s office has confirmed the validity of the claim.  

According to the complaint, Lennar – in a gross violation of public trust – engaged in an unconscionable swindle resulting in the theft of pension money from the firefighters, law enforcement personnel, state employees, and the many others that contribute to and rely on CalPERS. The complaint alleges that key Lennar executives – including COO Jonathan Jaffe and CEO Stuart Miller – implemented and directed this scheme in order to stave off the implosion and collapse of Lennar at the onset of the financial crisis beginning in 2007.

A key feature of the California False Claims Act is that the defendant is subject to treble damages, and certain penalties also apply. Lennars’ exposure in the case – including damages and penalties – exceeds THREE BILLION DOLLARS.

The California False Claims Act is a powerful statute. NOT ONE CASE filed under the Act has either been dismissed or gone all the way to trial in 17 years. All filed cases – and there have been many – have settled – generally on the State of California’s terms.

In many, and perhaps most California False Claims cases, private citizens – termed “relators” – take the lead in filing and prosecuting False Claims Act cases on behalf of the People of California – and that is what has occurred here.

Criminal charges are a possibility in the Lennar case. That consideration may have factored into the Lennar executives’ choice of defense counsel.

To defend this case, Lennar hired Los Angeles lawyer Daniel Petrocelli of O’Melveny & Myers.  The reader may recall that Mr. Petrocelli was Jeffrey Skilling’s criminal lawyer – who claimed in the Houston trial of Mr. Skilling that Enron was a “Shining Star”. A jury wholeheartedly disagreed, sending Mr. Skilling to Club Fed for 25 years.  Disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti was recently quoted as saying that Mr. Petrocelli was his “mentor”.

In a bid to keep the case out of the California courts, Mr. Petrocelli conjured up a defense for client Lennar – asserting in a Delaware court proceeding initiated by Lennar’s lawyers – that Lennar had obtained “releases” of False Claims exposure from the California Attorney General back in a 2008 bankruptcy proceeding filed by Lennar on behalf of a controlled subsidiary named LandSource. Contrary to the assertions of Lennar’s lawyers, Federal, State, and even Congressional laws prevent the release, waiver, or discharge of False Claims Act liability.

The California Attorney General’s office has been actively monitoring the case since it was filed. A deputy Attorney General made a special appearance in the Delaware proceeding to specifically inform the judge that the Lennar lawyers were misleading the court. The deputy AG told the judge that ONLY the California Attorney General could release False Claims Act liability, and that NO releases of False Claims liability had EVER been obtained by Lennar.

Which leaves Lennar and its top executives fully exposed to this huge claim. The State of California through its Attorney General routinely prosecutes wrong-doers under the False Claims Act. Billions of dollars have been paid to California in settlements over the years in these cases.

Here, for example, is a recently-settled case right on point. A California False Claims Act lawsuit was filed against Morgan Stanley for defrauding CalPERS and CalSTRS. Morgan Stanley denied liability and vowed to “defend vigorously”. And they tried. But in an April 25, 2019 press release, AG Xavier Becerra announced a settlement with Morgan Stanley, saying “Morgan Stanley’s scheme resulted in millions in losses to CalPERS and CalSTRS”, and he also said “Today’s settlement holds Morgan Stanley accountable for misleading Californians who were unfairly blindsided. Our office has recovered over $1 billion from cheaters on Wall Street since the financial crisis. Our work isn’t over”.

Our work isn’t over” is the key phrase in this press release. The Lennar swindle may be the biggest single fraud committed against the State of California ever identified and prosecuted.

The complaint can be reviewed at www.citizensagainstcorporatecrime.com. This organization has taken the lead on exposing this fraud and bringing Lennar and its’ executives to justice. All California citizens will benefit from recovery of funds hijacked from CalPERS by Lennar.

We here at California Political News and Views have carefully reviewed the complaint, the underlying facts, and selected documents in this case. The case is a winner for the State of California. We support and applaud the effort to recover funds stolen by duplicitous Lennar executives from existing and prospective retirees, and encourage our readers to help support this effort.

Citizens Against Corporate Crime is actively soliciting contributions to aid in the efforts to bring Lennar and its executives to justice. Our readers are encouraged to visit the Citizens Against Corporate Crime website and make a contribution now.

California community colleges need money to meet new state law to help illegal aliens

On the March ballot there will be a $27 billion bond measure (including principal and interest).  Part of the money will go to the community colleges.  No, not for education, but to create benefits for illegal aliens.

“The California Community Colleges system does not have the money needed to implement newly signed legislation requiring its colleges to expand resources for undocumented students, the system’s vice chancellor said.

Only 19 community colleges have staff designated to serving undocumented students, according to the system’s data. But under AB 1645, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Saturday, all 115 colleges in the system will be required to designate a staff member as a Dream Resource Liaison. The liaisons will be responsible for assisting undocumented students in accessing financial aid and other resources.”

State wide this will cost the taxpayers about $50 million a year—money taken from education and helping those that violate our laws.  This is just one of the reasons to vote NO on the bond measure.

California community colleges need money to meet new state law to help dreamers

Official says community colleges mandated to implement AB 1645 “with no new resources.”

Michael Burke, EdSource,  10/17/19 

The California Community Colleges system does not have the money needed to implement newly signed legislation requiring its colleges to expand resources for undocumented students, the system’s vice chancellor said.

Only 19 community colleges have staff designated to serving undocumented students, according to the system’s data. But under AB 1645, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Saturday, all 115 colleges in the system will be required to designate a staff member as a Dream Resource Liaison. The liaisons will be responsible for assisting undocumented students in accessing financial aid and other resources.

The law, which also applies to all 23 California State University campuses, also encourages campuses to have Dream Resource Centers that would provide a variety of support services, including counseling and legal help.

While CSU says it expects each of its campuses to be in compliance with the law when it goes into effect beginning in the 2020-21 academic year, officials with the community college system say their campuses may struggle to do the same. Officials say those colleges will either need to find existing dollars in their budgets or seek philanthropic funding to fulfill the requirement.

Laura Metune, vice chancellor of governmental relations for the community college system, said that while establishing liaisons and resource centers “are a well-known best practice” to support undocumented students, the system has not been allocated the funding necessary to implement the law at each of its campuses. She estimated implementation would cost $2.9 million.

“Community colleges serve the largest number of undocumented students of any of California’s higher education systems, but continue to receive the lowest per student funding levels,” Metune said in a statement. “Addressing funding adequacy will be key to ensuring colleges can meaningfully provide services to all students, including our undocumented students.”

The liaisons would assist undocumented students in accessing all available financial aid, legal services, internships and other academic opportunities. The Dream Resource Centers that the campuses are encouraged to establish could include counseling in areas like academic, mental health and financial aid. They could also provide other services such as legal clinics and professional development.

The University of California’s nine undergraduate campuses and one graduate campus already provide the liaisons and resource centers. (The law requests but does not require UC to do so.)

Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, the author of AB 1645, told EdSource that she “was very proud” to see the legislation signed into law.

“AB 1645 is the result of a multi-year effort to ensure that college counselors are knowledgeable of services available to Dreamers in California’s Higher Education Segments,” she added. “As a formerly undocumented resident of California, I am well aware of all of the barriers facing our State’s Dreamers and I applaud Governor Newsom for his support on this important piece of legislation.”

Currently, 35 of the system’s 115 community colleges have Dream Resource Centers, according to a report on undocumented students published earlier this year by the California Community Colleges. Nineteen of those centers have dedicated staff members. The other 16 centers provide services but staff have other duties as well.

The existing centers are supported by a combination of the colleges’ own funding as well as external dollars. For example, the California Campus Catalyst Fund, an initiative that supports undocumented students, helps fund centers at colleges including Chabot College in Alameda County, Oxnard College in Ventura County and San Diego Mesa College.

But for the majority of community colleges that don’t already have centers or dedicated staff, “implementation will vary,” said Metune. “But the reality is that colleges are being mandated to implement with no new resources. We hope, and will continue to encourage, colleges to identify existing funds or leverage philanthropic dollars to accomplish this work.”

Toni Molle, a spokeswoman for the CSU chancellor’s office, noted that a majority of CSU campuses already have staff and centers dedicated to helping immigrant students. According to an analysis by the Assembly Committee on Higher Education, 19 of the 23 campuses have resource centers.

Molle added that the chancellor’s office will work “over the coming months” to ensure that all of the campuses are in compliance with the law in time for the 2020-21 academic year.

“The California State University’s commitment to ensuring that all students have the opportunity to pursue their higher education goals no matter their country of origin remains steadfast,” she added.

Sarah McBride, a spokeswoman with the UC president’s office, said each of UC’s 10 campuses already have designated liaisons and resource centers for undocumented students.

“UC has consistently supported efforts to provide resources and create a supportive community at each campus for undocumented students and we are proud to already be providing the services requested within AB 1645,” she said in an email.

In addition to signing AB 1645, Newsom also vetoed other higher education bills, in most cases pointing out that the issue should be considered during the state budget process.

  • SB 296 would have expanded eligibility for the Cal Grant program, the core program of state financial aid, to include students who recently came to California seeking asylum. Currently, undocumented students are eligible for state aid if they have attended a California high school or community college for three or more years. Recently arrived migrant students, however, are ineligible.

Gov. Newsom Named in Federal Lawsuit Targeting New Statewide Rent Control Law

Magicians are the experts in misdirection—they get you to look one way, while the “magic” is happening in another direction.  The same with government.  Newsom and the Democrats create a equality killing damper to building affordable housing by making “rent control” the law of the land.  No one took a look at the rest of the bill—the part where it could cost a landlord up to $4500 to remove a tenant.

“Almost simultaneously in July, the City Council of Long Beach passed the “Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance,” which requires a property owner to pay to a tenant the equivalent of two months’ rent for a unit of similar size in the City (up to $4,500) for any reason the owner needs to repossess the rental property.

AB 1482 also requires (among other things) that an Owner pay a tenant one month’s rent – characterized by the law as “relocation assistance,” the lawsuit says.”

As Paul Harvey would say, “Now you know the rest of the story”.  Democrats are forcing landlords into bankruptcy—certainly making sure no one else gets into the business.  Want a housing crisis—this bill puts the California housing crisis on steroids.

Gov. Newsom Named in Federal Lawsuit Targeting New Statewide Rent Control Law

City Council of Long Beach also named in lawsuit

By Katy Grimes, California Globe,   10/18/19  

The California Legislature passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed into law Assembly Bill 1482 to impose statewide rent control by capping rent increases. Assembly Bill 1482 by Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco), prohibits California landlords from raising rent by more than 7 percent plus inflation over the course of a year.

Almost simultaneously in July, the City Council of Long Beach passed the “Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance,” which requires a property owner to pay to a tenant the equivalent of two months’ rent for a unit of similar size in the City (up to $4,500) for any reason the owner needs to repossess the rental property.

AB 1482 also requires (among other things) that an Owner pay a tenant one month’s rent – characterized by the law as “relocation assistance,” the lawsuit says.

Named as defendants in the federal lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, are California Governor Gavin Newsom, and the City of Long Beach. The lawsuit, filed by attorney Paul Beard of Alston & Bird, names Better Housing for Long Beach and Joani Weir as plaintiffs.

Rent Control in California

California voters soundly defeated a ballot measure less than one year ago in November 2018 that would have allowed for rent control in every city across the vast state.  Proposition 10 would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which limits the use of rent control in California, but voters defeated it.

However, rent control advocates vowed to soldier forward, and Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that he had plans to make a deal on new rent control policies when he took office, the Globe reported. “We need new rules to stabilize neighborhoods and prevent evictions, without putting small landlords out of business,” Newsom said during his State of the State address. “I want the best ideas from everyone in this chamber. Here is my promise to you, get me a good package on rent stability this year and I will sign it.”

And he did sign it.

‘Takings Clause’

In a Globe interview, Attorney Beard said the new Long Beach ordinance mostly harms “mom and pop” landlords who may own one or a few small rental units. Plaintiff Joani Weir is the founder and President of Better Housing, and said she owns two four-plexes.

Beard said the payout to renters is not tied to relocation costs, and puts no requirements that the money be used for rent. “The Long Beach ordinance was enacted to placate powerful interest groups,” Beard said. “This is a naked ‘taking’ of property from one person to the other.”

The Long Beach payment standards are as follows: studio—$2,706; one bedroom—$3,325; two bedrooms—$4,185; three or more bedrooms—$4,500.

Beard said the Long Beach ordinance is a violation of (a) the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as incorporated against state and local governments by the Fourteenth Amendment, and (b) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The state law, AB 1482, “imposes requirements on Owners intended to make it more difficult for them to exercise their right to repossess their properties, and to penalize them when they do,” the lawsuit says. AB 1482 imposes a cap on rent increases, but there is nothing in the bill to prevent the 7 percent rent cap from being lowered in the future to 5 percent, then 3 percent.

Beard noted that New York City, San Francisco, and Santa Monica – all cities with rent control ordinances – also have the highest rents in the nation. “This has displaced much of the minority community,” Beard said. “Rent control pushes them out much quicker.”

Rent Control Lawsuit

Attorney Beard said under the U.S. Supreme Court, these cases apply here. “The Court has consistently said the Constitution does not allow the government to take from one individual and give to the other.”

Beard said the payment mandated by AB 1482 must be made regardless of the fact that an existing lease or rental agreement may not contemplate or allow it. It must be made “regardless of the tenant’s income” or ability to afford relocation costs. “Further, the relocation-payment amount set by AB 1482 is arbitrary, as it is not tied to the costs of relocation. Finally, the tenant need not use the payment for relocation expenses. The tenant may use the payment for any purpose whatsoever.”

An Owner’s “failure to strictly comply” with the relocation-payment mandate “render[s] the notice of termination void.” In other words, an Owner may not repossess his/her property unless and until the Owner fully complies with the relocation-payment mandate.

Joani Weir said that in Long Beach, the goal is to take control of personal private properties where the government will treat it like a utility and control your assets. The owner may still technically “own” it, but it will be so heavily regulated, the owner can do nothing to it without permission from the government.

Beard said “Unconstitutional takings” commonly arise in the context of the government attempting to take land or other real-property interests. But that is not the extent of the Takings Clause’s reach. When “the demand for money . . . operate[s] upon . . . an identified property interest by directing the owner of a particular piece of property to make a monetary payment,” the Takings Clause applies.

“This clearly is an unlawful transfer of money from the landlord to tenants,” Beard said.

He said the U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent in their rulings upholding the takings clause. “AB 1482 also violates the Just Compensation Clause of the Takings Clause, because it contains no provision for compensating or otherwise mitigating the impacts to Owners of the forced relocation payments.”

“The relocation-payment condition under AB 1482 is unconstitutional under the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine, as applied in Nollan, Dolan, and Koontz in the context of the Takings Clause,” and with no conceivable legitimate state purpose.

The Globe will follow this case closely and report any updates.

It’s bigger than Huawei–Chinese Video Games Spy on Us

Many people believe that your cell phone and computer by using Huawei 5G is the best way for China to monitor us as individuals.  It is a great way.  But your kids—and many adults—play video games and those are made in China—and they can be used to monitor individuals and gain data on how we live and what we do.  Yes, video games.

Chinese firms are also prompting concerns about data privacy.

  • Experts say TikTok could become China’s next big weapon in the race for personal data. “Think about all the data that TikTok has on American teenagers,” says Sacks.
  • In May, the U.S. government pushed China’s Kunlun to sell off the American dating app Grindr over similar worries about data privacy.

It looks like the Chinese are more sophisticated than Google or Facebook in monitoring us and data mining.  We live in dangerous times.

It’s bigger than Huawei
Erica Pandey , Axios Future,  10/16/19   
 
The consensus in Washington is increasingly clear: The security threat to the U.S. from Chinese firms is bigger than just Huawei. Why it matters: If the administration views every Chinese company with suspicion, it could prolong the trade war and put the U.S. and China on a crash course toward a swift technological decoupling. “The State Department and the White House and Congress are all saying it’s not just Huawei, but all Chinese companies are part of China’s military-civil fusion complex and are a national security threat.” — Samm Sacks, a China expert at New America Context: In a September speech, Christopher Ford, an assistant secretary at the State Department, warned not just of Huawei — the telecom giant sanctioned by the administration in May — but also “its siblings.” “This narrative is creating a lot more pressure on Chinese companies,” Sacks says. While Huawei has grabbed most of the recent headlines, attention is now turning to other Chinese firms, like ByteDance, which runs the wildly popular TikTok video app. Driving the news: The NBA’s fallout with China over a general manager’s tweet regarding the Hong Kong protests has raised concerns about the Chinese Communist Party’s ability to enforce censorship on U.S. soil. Activision Blizzard, an American gaming company that counts the Chinese tech giant Tencent as an investor, was criticized for suspending a Hong Kong-based gamer who supported the protest movement. Moderators at TikTok — the short-form video-sharing app that is habit-forming among U.S. kids — are instructed to censor videos that mention topics that bother the Chinese Communist Party, including Tiananmen Square and Tibetan independence, according to leaked documents viewed by the Guardian. The Guardian report prompted Sen. Marco Rubio to call for an investigation of the app. TikTok announced Tuesday it had hired two former congressmen and was convening a panel of outside experts to review its content moderation policies. Chinese firms are also prompting concerns about data privacy. Experts say TikTok could become China’s next big weapon in the race for personal data. “Think about all the data that TikTok has on American teenagers,” says Sacks. In May, the U.S. government pushed China’s Kunlun to sell off the American dating app Grindr over similar worries about data privacy. All the while, Washington’s rhetoric and policies have grown more hawkish. Congress has strengthened CFIUS, the Treasury Department’s committee for reviewing foreign investments in the U.S. “We understand that the program is staffing up in ways that suggest increased scrutiny is the new norm for the foreseeable future,” says Doug Barry of the U.S.-China Business Council. But, but, but: A heavy-handed approach to Chinese firms has a host of consequences. “No one should take national security lightly, but the real risk here is government overreach,” Barry says. The government risks making U.S. companies less competitive in the international market by prohibiting them from selling products to Chinese companies — and pushing those companies to buy the same goods from Japan or South Korea, Barry says. A true decoupling that gives the U.S. no visibility into technological advancement in China could be “really dangerous,” says Sacks. “Gene-editing? AI? These are technologies that are going to fundamentally change society, and if China and the U.S. go down completely different paths here, there could be dire consequences for humanity,” says Sacks.

San Fran Blacklists 22 States over Pro-Life Laws

If your State protects the birth of babies, San Fran will not allow employees to travel to your State.  If your State believes that babies have the right to be born, San Fran will blacklist you.  This totalitarian approach is similar to the China approach—babies live or die at the acceptance of government—not circumstances or parents.

“The city of San Francisco has added 22 states with laws limiting abortion access to a blacklist that prevents city employees from traveling to those states on the city’s dime or dealing with businesses based in them.

The ban will take effect on January 1, 2020.

“We are standing up against states that put women’s health at risk and that are actively working to limit reproductive freedoms,” said Mayor London Breed in a press release announcing the ban. “By limiting travel and contracting with certain states, we are sending a clear message to states that disregard the right to abortion.”

This is not standing up for reproductive freedom, it is promoting baby killing as a government policy.  Name other countries past and present that did that.

San Francisco Blacklists 22 States over Pro-Life Laws

By Zachary Evans, National Review,   10/17/19 

 

The city of San Francisco has added 22 states with laws limiting abortion access to a blacklist that prevents city employees from traveling to those states on the city’s dime or dealing with businesses based in them.

The ban will take effect on January 1, 2020.

“We are standing up against states that put women’s health at risk and that are actively working to limit reproductive freedoms,” said Mayor London Breed in a press release announcing the ban. “By limiting travel and contracting with certain states, we are sending a clear message to states that disregard the right to abortion.”

City Supervisor Vallie Brown said the ban showed “our commitment to women, trans men, and nonbinary people in San Francisco and across the country.”

The blacklisted states all have “restrictive abortion laws,” defined by the city as laws which “restrict abortion before viability of the fetus to live outside of the womb,” according to the press release.

Nine of the states — Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas — were already included in a previous blacklist for what city officials deemed laws that discriminated against LGBTQ citizens.

San Francisco city officials also drew fire from conservatives last month when the City Council passed a resolution calling the National Rifle Association a “domestic terrorist organization.” The NRA subsequently sued the city, and in late September, Mayor Breed and City Attorney Dennis Herrera ruled that the resolution would have no effect on city policies.

New IRS Distributional Data on the Federal Individual Income Tax: Rich Pay a Lot!

Sanders/Warren and the Socialists Democrat Party claim the rich pay less than the poor and that they pay very little.  The IRS statistics for 2017 prove they are liars—in a class with Clinton, Schiff and Pelosi.

“According to this data, in 2017, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average federal income tax rate of 26.76 percent. The bottom 99 percent, or all the rest of the taxpayers, paid an average rate of 11.4 percent. If we look at just the bottom 50 percent, the average rate paid by these taxpayers is even lower, at 4 percent.

At the very top end of the AGI distribution, we see average rates decrease slightly, but remain significantly higher than the average rates paid by those lower on the income distribution: 25 percent for the top 0.01 percent and 24 percent for the top 0.001 percent.

In 2017, the top 1.4 million tax returns faced an average rate more than twice as high as the bottom 141.9 million tax returns. The top half of taxpayers paid an average rate (15.99 percent) nearly four times the bottom half’s average rate (4.05 percent). And the top 0.001 percent, or the richest 1,433, in terms of AGI, paid an average federal income tax rate (24.09 percent) nearly six times that of the bottom half.

Want more tax revenues.  Do it the old fashioned way—cut taxes—it has worked every time.

New IRS Distributional Data on the Federal Individual Income Tax

Erica York, Tax Foundation.  10/17/19 

This week the Internal Revenue Service published its early release data on individual income tax rates and shares for 2017. The release is timely given the current debate on the distribution of taxes in the United States. However, it is worth noting some of its limits and how it differs from data currently being cited about the tax burden in the United States.

According to this data, in 2017, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average federal income tax rate of 26.76 percent. The bottom 99 percent, or all the rest of the taxpayers, paid an average rate of 11.4 percent. If we look at just the bottom 50 percent, the average rate paid by these taxpayers is even lower, at 4 percent.

At the very top end of the AGI distribution, we see average rates decrease slightly, but remain significantly higher than the average rates paid by those lower on the income distribution: 25 percent for the top 0.01 percent and 24 percent for the top 0.001 percent.

In 2017, the top 1.4 million tax returns faced an average rate more than twice as high as the bottom 141.9 million tax returns. The top half of taxpayers paid an average rate (15.99 percent) nearly four times the bottom half’s average rate (4.05 percent). And the top 0.001 percent, or the richest 1,433, in terms of AGI, paid an average federal income tax rate (24.09 percent) nearly six times that of the bottom half.

There are obviously several large differences between this IRS data and the new data being debated, which comes from a new book by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.

First, the IRS only considers the federal individual income tax. The data currently being discussed includes not just the federal individual income tax, but all federal, state, and local taxes. Some of these taxes, such as the corporate tax, are more progressive than the income tax. Other taxes, such as sales and excise taxes, are less progressive.

Second, the IRS data uses adjusted gross income as the income measurement. AGI is a rather narrow income measure that leaves out important sources of income for taxpayers at the bottom of the distribution, such as transfer payments, and for taxpayers at the top of the distribution, such as unrealized capital income.

And finally, the 2017 data does not account for changes made by the new tax law passed at the end of 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Data for 2018 will likely show a drop in average taxes rates across all income levels, but a somewhat larger drop for the highest-income earners.

The IRS data shows a picture of a progressive individual income tax in 2017, but remember it is only looking at one of the many types of taxes that individuals face and excludes some important types of income that individuals earn.

California: We Need ANALYZE Your Child for TRAUMA Before Entering School

Parents of California need to be on the alert.  The Newsom Administration is going to demand that before your child enters school, they MUST go through “a screening” for childhood trauma.  This will not be done by someone you choose, but by the government.  So, if a child talks about going to church and believing that abortion is murder, the government could consider that a childhood trauma.  In the extreme, take the child from the parents.  If you thought government mandating that poisons be put into your child was bad—this is a million times worse.

We need a movement, now to stop this threat to families and children.  As I have said before government believe your children belong to the State—not the parents.  Who is to decide what a trauma is—government?

“Dr. Nadine Burke Harris has an ambitious dream: screen every student for childhood trauma before entering school.

“A school nurse would also get a note from a physician that says: ‘Here is the care plan for this child’s toxic stress. And this is how it shows up,'” said Burke Harris, who was appointed California’s first surgeon general in January.

“It could be it shows up in tummy aches. Or it’s impulse control and behavior, and we offer a care plan. Instead of reacting harshly and punitively, every educator is trained in recognizing these things. Instead of suspending and expelling or saying, ‘What’s wrong with you?’ we say, ‘What happened to you?'”

Another reason to Recall Gavin Newsom—do it for the children.

California’s first surgeon general: Screen every student for childhood trauma

By Patrice Gaines, NBC,  10/14/19 

Dr. Nadine Burke Harris has an ambitious dream: screen every student for childhood trauma before entering school.

“A school nurse would also get a note from a physician that says: ‘Here is the care plan for this child’s toxic stress. And this is how it shows up,'” said Burke Harris, who was appointed California’s first surgeon general in January.

“It could be it shows up in tummy aches. Or it’s impulse control and behavior, and we offer a care plan. Instead of reacting harshly and punitively, every educator is trained in recognizing these things. Instead of suspending and expelling or saying, ‘What’s wrong with you?’ we say, ‘What happened to you?'”

Burke Harris has dedicated her career to changing the way society responds to childhood trauma, which research has shown affects brain development and creates lifelong health problems.

“This involves public education, routine screening to enable early detection and early intervention, and cross-sector coordinated care,” she said at a hearing on providing care in schools held by the House Committee on Education and Labor in September. “The opportunity ahead of us is about a true intersection of health care and education.”

A study on youth trauma, known as Adverse Childhood Experiences, or ACES, was a landmark when it was published in 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Kaiser Permanente. The study specified 10 categories of stressful or traumatic childhood events, including abuse, parental incarceration, and divorce or parental separation; its research showed that sustained stress caused biochemical changes in the brain and body and drastically increased the risk of developing mental illness and health problems.

Burke Harris first noticed this connection while treating children at a clinic in San Francisco.

“One thing that tipped me off was the number of kids being sent to me by schools — principals, teachers and administrators — with ADHD,” she said, referring to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). “What I found was that many of the kids were experiencing signs of adversity, and there seemed to be a strong association between adversity and the trauma they experienced and school functioning.”

This finding spurred her to review the health records of over 700 of her patients. Her research team found that patients who had experienced severe trauma were 32 times more likely to be diagnosed with learning and behavioral problems than kids who had not.

Trauma in general leads to a surge in stress hormones. When this trauma goes unchecked and is sustained, it can disrupt a child’s brain development, interfering with functions children depend on in school such as memory recall, focus and impulse control.

“When we talk about the effect of ACEs on learning, part of the impact is on the child’s ability to sit still in class and … be able to receive and process information,” Burke Harris said.

She found that too often the children she saw at her clinic had been prescribed drugs that actually stimulated parts of the brain that did not need it — and children did not improve as a result. If the children had been diagnosed with ACEs, Burke Harris said she believes treatment may have been as easy as teaching them how to calm themselves down.

She recalled seeing a boy, 14, who had recurrent abdominal pain. Instead of testing for ulcers, she tested for ACEs and found he scored six out of 10. His parents were going through a divorce and his father refused to see him. Burke Harris said the teen had a number of support systems in place, and she added another.

“I said, ‘We are going to have you join a sports team,’” she said. “A month later his abdominal pain was gone and we didn’t have to have expensive tests.”

“When we are talking about addressing the root cause, science shows that safe, stable environments are healing for kids,” said Burke Harris, who is also the author of “The Deepest Well: Healing the Long-Term Effects of Childhood Adversity.”

“What research tells us is that sleep, exercise, nutrition, mindfulness and a nurturing environment can reduce stress hormones and enhance the ability of the brain to recover from stress,” Burke Harris said. “As we’re thinking about how to help students be successful, we must recognize that PE and team sports are part of a comprehensive response to address ACEs. What we put in our kids’ lunches or provide in a school environment makes a difference in a child’s ability to regulate stress response.”

Toxic stress suffered by children because of ACEs can also result in health issues that cause absentism.

“The higher the ACEs score, the more likely a child is to miss a day in school,” Burke Harris noted. “Asthma is the No 1 reason for chronic absenteeism, and kids with four or more ACEs experience a higher percentage of asthma.”

In her congressional testimony, Burke Harris cited a pilot program in San Francisco in which students learn a form of deep meditation to reduce their stress.

“Not only did they see a reduction in school suspension rates and episodes of violence, but they also saw an increase in GPA and standardized tests,” Burke Harris told NBCBLK.

As California’s first surgeon general, Burke Harris sees herself as a leader in a national movement toward the creation of “trauma sensitive and trauma-informed” education programs that she hopes will lead to changes in school policies. She said she plans to travel the U.S. to call for a public initiative to address ACEs, which she refers to as “one of the most serious, expensive and widespread public health crises of our time.”

“Ultimately, as a doctor I don’t spend all day with a child,” she said. “Part of treatment is recognizing that everyone in the educational environment has an opportunity to administer buffering care for kids. That’s the power of a public initiative. Everyone from the superintendent to the teacher to the bus driver and the person cleaning recognizes and understands this information.”

“When you have a whole community making real change,” Burke Harris said, “you can have a big and lasting change.”

This story appears as part of coverage for “NBC News Learn Presents: Education Now Detroit,” a two-hour live community event supported by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. For more information, go to nbcnews.com/learndetroit.

Free Lance Writers: FIRST VICTIMS of AB 5—Hundreds of Thousands More to Come

Well, free lance writers, the backbone of newspapers, magazines and blogs are going to be the first victims of AB 5.  In order for them to work, they will need to leave the State of California—maybe Arizona or Texas.  Obviously, in most cases you do not have to live in California to be a free lance writer.  Out of State publications will not want the hassle of California employment laws, mandated wages and benefits, to hire someone to write about the wonders of Yosemite.

“Jeret is now coming to terms with how her lifestyle will change come Jan. 1, when AB 5, California legislation aimed directly at the gig economy that was signed into law Sept. 18, will go into effect.

The bill, which cracks down on companies — like ride-sharing giants Lyft and Uber — that misclassify would-be employees as independent contractors, has been percolating through the California legislative system for nearly a year. It codifies the 2018 Dynamex decision by the State Supreme Court while carving out some exemptions for specific professions.

But the exemption for freelance journalists — which some have only just learned about via their colleagues, press reports, social networks and/or spirited arguments with the bill’s author on Twitter — contains what some say is a potentially career-ending requirement for a writer to remain a freelancer: If a freelance journalist writes for a magazine, newspaper or other entity whose central mission is to disseminate the news, the law says, that journalist is capped at writing 35 “submissions” per year per “putative employer.” At a time when paid freelance stories can be written for a low end of $25 and high end of $1 per word, some meet that cap in a month just to make end’s meet.

Under AB 5 they are limited to up to 35 stories a year—not enough to live on.  Moving to Arizona or Texas solves that problem.  Which industry to be forced out of California is next?

“Everybody Is Freaking Out”: Freelance Writers Scramble to Make Sense of New California Law

by Katie Kilkenny, Hollywood Report,  10/17/19 

A new bill that caps freelance submissions may make writing financially unsustainable for many workers even though the legislator behind the law insists that the goal is “to create new good jobs and a livable, sustainable wage job.”

California-based freelance writer Arianna Jeret recently learned about Assembly Bill 5 and is now concerned she and her colleagues in CA may soon be speaking about their jobs in the past tense.

Jeret, who contributes to relationship websites YourTango.com and The Good Men Project, says freelance writing has helped support her two children and handle their different school schedules. Her current gigs — covering mental health, lifestyle and entertainment — allow her to work from home, from the office and even from her children’s various appointments. “There were just all of these benefits for my ability to still be an active parent in my kids’ lives and also support us financially that I just couldn’t find anywhere in a steady job with anybody,” she says.

Jeret is now coming to terms with how her lifestyle will change come Jan. 1, when AB 5, California legislation aimed directly at the gig economy that was signed into law Sept. 18, will go into effect.

The bill, which cracks down on companies — like ride-sharing giants Lyft and Uber — that misclassify would-be employees as independent contractors, has been percolating through the California legislative system for nearly a year. It codifies the 2018 Dynamex decision by the State Supreme Court while carving out some exemptions for specific professions.

But the exemption for freelance journalists — which some have only just learned about via their colleagues, press reports, social networks and/or spirited arguments with the bill’s author on Twitter — contains what some say is a potentially career-ending requirement for a writer to remain a freelancer: If a freelance journalist writes for a magazine, newspaper or other entity whose central mission is to disseminate the news, the law says, that journalist is capped at writing 35 “submissions” per year per “putative employer.” At a time when paid freelance stories can be written for a low end of $25 and high end of $1 per word, some meet that cap in a month just to make end’s meet.

Amy Lamare, who writes for money site Celebritynetworth.com and YourTango.com, adds, “Everyone’s freaking out, like my anxiety is going through the damn roof.”

To keep their lifestyles under AB 5, all of these writers will have to develop a much broader base of editor contacts and likely experience more competition as a result.

In the last few weeks, concerned freelancers who like their contractor status have slid into the Twitter replies of Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, the bill’s author, and her chief of staff to voice their opposition. Frustrated with the response they’ve received so far, freelancers have organized a Facebook group to discuss tactics, cold-called local legislators, sought out labor and tax lawyers, and, as a result of their efforts, won two meetings at Gonzalez’s San Diego offices this month. Still, with the law set to go into effect on Jan. 1 and some employers already distancing themselves from California freelance journalists, their efforts may be too little, too late.

The crux of AB 5 for freelance journalists is the “B” requirement of the legislation’s so-called “ABC test” to determine if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. The B test requires that a freelancer “performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.” For freelance writers — who perform the same work as staff writers, just less frequently — the odds are that any argument they present as to how their roles are unique won’t pass muster, and therefore the 35-“submission” cap per year will apply if they want to remain an independent contractor. Work that counts as a “submission” can include a published individual story, a series or coverage of a single event, Gonzalez tells The Hollywood Reporter.

The overall goal of AB 5, Gonzalez says, is “to protect and preserve good jobs. We’re trying to create new good jobs and a livable, sustainable wage job.” Indeed, freelancers typically do not enjoy employee benefits like paid leave, sick days, health care and retirement benefits, nor are they covered by workplace civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination, and they have less recourse if laws are broken or fees aren’t paid on time (the latter a frequent complaint of freelance journalists). Gonzalez, who previously worked as a labor organizer and says she spoke to “dozens” of freelance journalists while writing the bill and moving it through the lawmaking process, adds that freelancers can be used to break newsroom unions like the ones formed last year at The Los Angeles Times and this year at The Ringer.

As for how lawmakers settled on the 35-submission figure, Gonzalez says that she and her team decided that a weekly columnist sounded like a part-time worker and so halved that worker’s yearly submissions. After protest from some freelancers, the number was bumped up to 35. “Was it a little arbitrary? Yeah. Writing bills with numbers like that are a little bit arbitrary,” she says.

Still, labor experts and freelancers alike are skeptical that the desired outcome of AB 5 — that newsrooms will hire California-based freelancers as part-time or full-time employees — will be achieved in the short term, especially as the news media continues to face major challenges to its business (in September, Business Insider estimated that 7,200 workers have lost their media jobs so far this year). Many publications that employ California freelancers aren’t based in the state and it’s not clear how AB 5 will affect them. Still, some are choosing to opt out entirely. Indeed, several freelance writers who spoke to THR say that various out-of-state employers — some with offices in California — have already told them they’re cutting ties with California freelancers.

“I have heard from clients that they’re just going to avoid working with California freelancers,” freelance entertainment writer Fred Topel says (Topel chose not to name those clients in case they change their minds). THR has additionally reviewed several job notices in transcription, blogging and SEO writing that have explicitly stated that California freelancers will not be considered.

Large California-based news media brands are still figuring out the logistics of how to comply with the law. Asked how he plans to handle the implementation of AB 5 next year, San Diego Union-Tribune publisher and editor-in-chief Jeff Light says, “We’re in the process of sorting through the implications right now. Unfortunately, I suspect a number of freelancers will end up with less work from us as a result of the 35-piece limit. I don’t have anything more detailed than that at this point.”

Of the freelancer exemption, San Francisco Chronicle publisher Bill Nagel says, “This was a poorly considered part of the law, likely based on a fundamental misunderstanding of why companies use freelancers. There are situations in which we cannot make a freelancer an employee, which inhibits our First Amendment rights as a publication. It also seems odd and problematic that broadcast freelancers are treated differently than their colleagues in print media. Unfortunately, AB 5 will limit opportunities for some freelancers and silence a number of voices in the market. We will, of course, comply with the law.”

Meanwhile, national outlets are remaining mostly silent publicly. The Los Angeles Times — which just negotiated its first newsroom union contract — The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and Southern California News Group (which owns the O.C. Register and Los Angeles Daily News) declined to comment. USA Today owner Gannett, which has freelancers at papers in California, and movie website Rotten Tomatoes, which is based in Los Angeles, did not respond to requests for comment.

(A rep for Valence Media — the parent company of THR, Billboard, Spin, Vibe and Stereogum — says, “Our company routinely evaluates all new and existing laws to ensure we are in compliance.”)

If publications do hire a few current freelancers as employees after Jan. 1, those freelancers will likely receive, but are not guaranteed, all the benefits of a full-time worker. “The people that will really be screwed are the people that will fall under the requirements for [employee] benefits,” Greg Zbylut, a tax attorney and estate planner at Breyer Andrew, says. Some freelancers might have a SEP-IRA (a retirement benefit for business owners) and their own health care as freelancers only to find “all of a sudden I’m an employee but I’m not working enough hours to qualify for the pension plan and I’m not working enough hours to be required to have insurance provided for me,” he adds.

From a tax perspective, meanwhile, freelance writers who incur expenses to craft their stories will no longer be able to write them off on tax returns, but they will enjoy no longer having to pay the 15 percent self-employment tax.

In any case, press advocates say news outlets will lose diversity in their coverage as publications think twice about hiring California freelancers and the overall breadth of voices diminishes. “The caps, from CNPA’s perspective, was a pretty significant limitation on people’s ability to be fully informed,” says Jim Ewert, general counsel of the California News Publishers Association, which advocated for a journalism exemption in AB 5 but is still looking to change the cap on submissions.

Moreover, several freelance journalists who spoke with THR say that freelancing allows them not only to fill in the gaps of newsrooms’ coverage but to keep working as journalists in an industry with baked-in biases. Newsrooms in the U.S. are predominately white, with 77 percent of newsroom employees identifying as non-Hispanic whites, according to a 2018 Pew Research Center study. While demographic information about freelance journalists is thin on the ground, Upwork and the Freelancers Union’s 2019 survey of U.S. freelancers overall found that 62 percent of participants identify as white, compared with 66 percent in the general working population.

Yolanda Machado, an L.A.-based freelance film critic for The Wrap and writer for GQ, Shondaland and Harper’s Bazaar, says that she’s found people of color only tend to get hired as freelancers: “We don’t get hired by publications, and this is a way to at least get our voices in there while building a résumé.” Machado adds that AB 5 strikes her as ironic given recent efforts to diversify entertainment coverage, including Time’s Up Critical and CherryPicks. “With all the efforts being made to diversify Hollywood and diversity who’s covering Hollywood, this is going to be a huge setback in that too, because this is where we’re employed, as freelancers,” she says.

Kristen Lopez, a freelance entertainment writer who has written for Remezcla, RogerEbert.com and THR, notes that the legislation will particularly impact the disabled writer community. “I’m not just dealing with the concept of freelance in terms of trying to make sure I can pay my bills, but freelancing is really the only job that I can do from home, that I can do without angering the [Social Security Disability Insurance] system,” Lopez says. She adds, “Freelancing allows me to have a job that I can do without affecting my health, without affecting the disability money that I get, which is not a lot, but it balances out with how much I make that allows me to live, not necessarily wealthily, but comfortably.”

Writers who are parents have been particularly outspoken about the law. “Working with a baby at home is easier to do when I have my own schedule to work from, as opposed to a 9 to 5,” says Aaron Pruner, an entertainment journalist and parenting and lifestyle columnist for The Washington Post (as well as a young father).

AB 5’s vague language prevents even the closest observers from understanding the full effects the law will have come Jan. 1. Aaron Colby, a labor lawyer and partner at Davis Wright in Los Angeles, notes that the law does not specify what a “putative employer” is — is it a particular publication, such as Rolling Stone or The San Diego Union-Tribune, or an umbrella organization, like Gannett or Tribune media, that may own it and other publications? In addition, the law does not state whether, if a freelance writer submits more than 35 published submissions, the 36th will fall under AB 5 or all 36 submissions will (35 of them retroactively). “The courts are going to have to figure that out,” Colby says.

In the meantime, as Jan. 1 creeps ever closer, freelancers have scheduled two October meetings with Gonzalez to discuss their concerns. Gonzalez says she is open to new solutions that might improve freelancers’ situation: “If somebody comes up with some idea that makes sense, that puts them in a better position, that makes them happier, more fulfilled, but doesn’t affect other workers, I’m open to that,” she says. Writers are additionally working on scheduling a conversation with the California Labor Federation and are in contact with local Assembly members and senators to see if corrective legislation can be considered for the 2019 session.

Some writers, like Lamare, are seriously considering leaving the state. Others say they don’t have a choice. “Covering entertainment, I can’t really do that in another state: The stories I’m covering are here,” Topel says.

If solutions to freelancers’ complaints come about quickly after Jan. 1, however, AB 5 will be law for a full year before new legislation can go into effect. “Given the impact of the law and the variety and depth of the interests at issue — it’s so many industries that have so much at stake here — it increases the likelihood that there is going to be a challenge,” Colby says. “But companies should still be ready to comply.”