Research Report August 28, 2020

Jay Obernolte

1 Table of Contents

• Jay Obernolte • Table of Contents • Highlights • Background

∘ Education ∘ Political History ⋆ Endorsements

• COVID-19

∘ COVID-19 Highlights ∘ ‘Scare Tactics’ ∘ Governor Newsom vs. Assemblyman Obernolte ∘ Unemployment Insurance ∘ Health Services and Insurance ∘ Meals on Wheels ∘ Housing and Eviction ∘ Labor and Employment During the Pandemic ∘ Vote by Mail ∘ Vaccinations

• Meeting with Corporate Lobbyists

∘ Meeting with Corporate Lobbyists Highlights

• Economy and Taxes

∘ Economy and Taxes Highlights ∘ Campaign Promises ∘ Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ∘ Income Tax ∘ Gas Tax ∘ Tax Ballot Initiatives ∘ Emergency Services Infrastructure ∘ Tampon Tax

2 ∘ Alcohol Sales ∘ Social Security

• Labor

∘ Labor Highlights ∘ Independent Contractors ∘ Minimum Wage ∘ Paid Leave ∘ Worker Protections ∘ Equal Pay for Women

• Immigration

∘ Immigration Highlights ∘ Undocumented Minors ∘ Sanctuary Cities and States ∘ Immigrant Healthcare ∘ Immigration and Customs Enforcement

• Healthcare

∘ Healthcare Highlights ∘ Medi-Cal ∘ Universal Healthcare ∘ Affordability ∘ Disability ∘ Medical Marijuana ∘ Vaccinations

• Veterans

∘ Veterans Highlights ∘ Barstow Veterans Home ∘ Veteran Job Services

• Civil Rights

∘ Civil Rights Highlights ∘ Women’s and Reproductive Rights ∘ LGBTQ ∘ Racial Justice

• Gun Regulation

3 ∘ Gun Regulation Highlights ∘ Gun Control ∘ Concealed Carry ∘ Guns in Schools ∘ Gun Purchasing ∘ Gun Violence ∘ National Riﬂe Association

• Ethics and Transparency

∘ Ethics and Transparency Highlights ∘ Public Records Transparency

• Environment & Climate Change

∘ Environment & Climate Change Highlights ∘ Sierra Club Report Card ∘ Smog and Pollution ∘ Oil and Gas ∘ Clean Water ∘ Wildﬁre Prevention & Forest Management ∘ Fire Tax ∘ Plastic and Paper Waste ∘ CEQA ∘ Clean Energy ∘ Cap and Trade

• Criminal Justice

∘ Criminal Justice Highlights ∘ Police ‘Hate Crimes’ ∘ Support from Police ∘ Parole Reform ∘ Racial Proﬁling ∘ Juvenile Offenders ∘ Cybersecurity ∘ Proposition 47

• Housing and Homelessness

∘ Housing and Homelessness Highlights ∘ Affordable Housing

4 • Partisanship

∘ Partisanship Highlights ∘ Partisanship in the Assembly

• Education

∘ Education Highlights ∘ Teachers ∘ Education Funding ∘ Student Resources ∘ School Start Times

• California State Budgets

∘ California State Budgets Highlights ∘ California State Expenditures ∘ California State Revenue ∘ California State Outstanding Debt ∘ FY 2020 California State Budget ∘ FY 2019 California State Budget ∘ FY 2018 California State Budget ∘ FY 2017 California State Budget ∘ FY 2016 California State Budget

• California State Assembly Budgets

∘ California State Assembly Budgets Highlights ∘ California State Assembly Expenditures ∘ California State Assembly Salary Expenditure ∘ California State Assembly Travel Spending ∘ California State Legislators’ Retirement System

• City of Big Bear Lake Budgets

∘ City of Big Bear Lake Budgets Highlights ∘ City of Big Bear Lake Expenses ∘ City of Big Bear Lake Revenue ∘ Big Bear Lake Mayor Salary

• Professional History

∘ Professional History Highlights ∘ FarSight Studios

5 ∘ FarSight Technologies ∘ PUMA Karate ∘ Embraer Jet Operators Association, Inc

• Campaign Finance

∘ Campaign Finance Highlights ∘ Financial Summary as of 7/15/2020 ∘ Questionable Donors ⋆ PACs ⋆ Shawn Steel ⋆ Prem Reddy ⋆ Defense Industry ⋆ Big Tobacco ⋆ Utilities ∘ Questionable Disbursements ∘ Contributions Made by Candidate ∘ Geography

• Personal Finance

∘ Personal Finance Highlights ∘ Assets and Unearned Income ∘ Questionable Holdings ⋆ Apple Inc ∘ Earned Income ∘ Liabilities ∘ Positions ∘ Agreements ∘ Compensation in Excess of $5,000 Paid By One Source ∘ Beneﬁts of Public Ofﬁce ∘ Private Jet

• Land and Legal Records

∘ Land and Legal Records Highlights ∘ Criminal Records and Infractions ∘ Civil Lawsuits ∘ Land Records

6 +++

7 Highlights

COVID-19 Highlights

• Obernolte accused the Los Angeles Times of using “scare tactics” due to a graph depicting the “number of coronavirus cases in New York approaching that of Italy, with California not far behind.” • Obernolte promoted a Pandemic Insurance program that would expand unemployment benefits for independent contractors during COVID-19. However, the year before, Obernolte voted against a bill that would expand employee benefits to gig-economy workers. • In 2015, Obernolte voted against restoring a $1.9 million budget for Meals on Wheels, an organization making sure that “those vulnerable to hunger are staying fed” during the coronavirus pandemic. • In 2019, Obernolte voted against legislation seeking to prevent surprise emergency room billing and mandate that most insurance programs cover medically necessary services and prescription drugs. • Obernolte voted against a bill giving tenants the right to remain in housing beyond three days of eviction notice in 2018. In 2017, he also voted against a bill prohibiting landlord disclosure of tenant immigration status. • In 2020, TIME Magazine reported that renters were still being “forced” from homes despite “eviction moratoriums,” with law enforcement in Fresno and Riverside counties still carrying our evictions in April 2020. • Obernolte voted against allowing childcare workers to unionize in 2019. The legislation passed without his vote. In 2020, ABC10 reported that California childcare workers were “feeling forgotten” during the pandemic. One California childcare worker stated that she she was seeking “much needed relief” from her childcare union during the pandemic. • Obernolte voted against making postage free for vote by mail in 2017. In August 2020, Obernolte declined to vote on a resolution “urg[ing] the federal administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate to cease and desist from all efforts to reduce the ability of voters to cast their ballots by mail or diminish public confidence in the vote by mail program as it relates to the November 3, 2020, general election.” • Obernolte has voted against multiple vaccine mandate bills. He has stated, “If we give the state the power to mandate immunizations as a requirement to receive a public education, it will only open the door for further government intrusion into our lives.” One public health researcher stated in 2020 that there “no such thing as ‘safe’ reopening of schools without vaccine or treatment.” • Obernolte opposed legislation in 2019 which “s[ought] to combat fake medical exemptions” to vaccine requirements. An anti vaccine group known as the “Freedom Angels” also opposed this legislation. The Freedom Angels organized at least one 2020 rally opposing stay at home orders and

8 other California regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Meeting with Corporate Lobbyists Highlights

• On February 24, 2020, Obernolte’s company jet ﬂew to Washington DC. On February 26, 2020, Obernolte held a meet and greet event in Washington DC hosted by lobbying ﬁrm Prenda Group, which specializes in lobbying for “ ‘large-scale’ business and infrastructure projects.” Obernolte then missed three votes in the California State Assembly on February 27, 2020.

Economy and Taxes Highlights

• Obernolte’s campaign websites evolved from promises of small government and innovation in 2014 to promises of pushing criminals, protecting the second amendment, and “mak[ing] California great again” in later campaigns. • During his 2018 campaign, Obernolte promised to repeal California’s increase in gas taxes. How- ever, in 2018, a majority of California voters voted against a ballot measure that would have repealed increases in gas taxes. The Governor opposed repeal of the gas tax increase because gas tax revenue funded road and infrastructure maintenance. • Obernolte received perfect scores on the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association’s legislator report cards from 2015 to 2019. • Obernolte claimed that a progressive income tax leads to “volatility” in state revenues yet also argued for a reduction in sales tax in 2019. • Obernolte claimed in 2018 that there was no need to impose a $52 billion gas tax to fund transportation budgets due to the existence of a state surplus. The year before, he accused the state legislature of ignoring state law when enacting the gas tax and called it a “regressive tax.” • Obernolte introduced AB 809 in 2015, which would require tax ballot initiatives to include a description of the expected annual tax revenue and the tax’s rate and duration. • Obernolte introduced Assembly Bill 195, which Cal Matters called “corruption at its ﬁnest.” The bill would require new tax measures to state the amount of money that the measure would collect on the ballot. • Obernolte stated in 2019 that it was “unconscionable” to impose fees to pay for a 911 system upgrade while the state held a budget surplus. • In 2019, Obernolte did not vote for AB 31, a measure to exempt menstrual products from state and local taxes. He stated that “case-by-case” exemptions represented “bad ﬁscal policy.” • Obernolte co-authored legislation in 2017 that would give local governments the option to extend alcohol sales to 4 a.m.

9 • Obernolte abstained from a 2017 vote calling on congress to refrain from cutting or privatizing social security. • In 2016 and 2017, Obernolte voted against allocating social security funding to rehabilitation and independent living programs. Between both years, Obernolte voted against more than $700 million in funding for these programs.

Labor Highlights

• In 2020, Obernolte promoted a Pandemic Insurance program that would expand unemployment benefits for independent contractors. However, the year before, Obernolte voted against a bill that would expand employee benefits to gig-economy workers after criticizing the measure for stifling “innovation and entrepreneurism.” • Obernolte voted against the $15 minimum wage in 2016. He compared the measure to “prescribing aspirin for a cancer patient” and claimed that it would worsen inequality “by taking away jobs from the people that need them the most.” • Obernolte voted against measures in 2015 that would expand paid leave provisions and prohibit employers from requiring employees to waive their legal rights. • In 2019, Obernolte voted at least three times against bills that would expand paid leave policies. These bills included policies that would mandate employers to issue paid leave during “public health emergenc[ies]” and during situations in which employees need to care for ill family members. • Obernolte voted against bills in 2016 that would extend labor protections to agricultural workers and create a statewide retirement savings plan for all workers. • The California Labor Federation gave Obernolte a six percent Lifetime Score for floor votes in 2017. In 2019, Obernolte received a ten percent lifetime score. • Obernolte was one of two Assembly Members who declined to vote on the California Fair Pay Act in 2015. The bill became law.

Healthcare Highlights

10 • Obernolte opposed a tax on people who refuse to purchase health insurance 2019, stating that “it makes no sense” because the tax would “take money away from people making $30,000 to $50,000 a year and give it to people making between $75,000 and $130,000 a year.” • In 2015, Obernolte voted for, then abstained from, a measure extending protections for insured patients receiving covered services from non-contracting health professionals. • Obernolte voted against legislation to limit surprise emergency room billing in 2019. The bill would “impose the same out-of-pocket costs for emergency care whether the providers are in-network or not.” • In 2019, Obernolte voted against AB 1246, which would require most large insurance programs to cover “medically necessary” services and prescriptions drugs. • Obernolte voted against a bill in 2016 that increased state aid for the elderly, blind, and disabled. • Obernolte did not vote for AB 243 and AB266 in 2015, two measures that contained “California’s historic new medical cannabis regulations.” • Obernolte voted against mandatory school vaccinations in 2015.

Immigration Highlights

• Obernolte was one of six assembly members to vote against AB 163, which required oversight of immigrant minors in custody. before AB 163, “there [was] no policy…to provide information about youth in [Office of Refugee Resettlement] custody to any California state departments.” • Obernolte voted against California’s Sanctuary State law and claims on his website that he “will work to provide adequate funding to secure our borders and crack down on human trafficking, drug trafficking and illegal entries.” • Obernolte has voted multiple times against providing healthcare to undocumented immigrations. Obernolte claimed on his website that he “[opposed] giving free health care to illegal immigrants.” He also voted against allowing undocumented immigrants to purchase insurance through the ACA marketplace in 2016. • Obernolte voted against the No Private ICE Act in 2019, which would prohibit ICE from hiring private contractors to arrest people on their behalf.

Veterans Highlights

• Obernolte has voted against every state budget proposed during his tenure containing funding for the Barstow Veterans Home. • Obernolte has voted against at least $1 billion in funding to the Employment Development Depart- ment, which provided funding to the Employment Development Panel. The Panel “has funded training for Veterans for the past six years.”

11 Civil Rights Highlights

• Obernolte voted against the Reproductive Health Discrimination Act in 2017, which would have prohibited employers from retaliating against employees “based on their private reproductive health choices, such as using birth control, having an abortion, or using assisted reproductive technologies.” • Obernolte voted against the Reproductive FACT Act in 2015, and the Supreme Court struck down the law in 2018. • Obernolte voted against prohibiting advertising of conversion therapy in 2018 and declined to vote on a measure encouraging schools to require staff trainings on support of LGBTQ+ students.

Gun Regulation Highlights

• Obernolte supported the 2019 “Second Amendment Sanctuary City” proposal, which would promote “lenient enforcement” of ammunition and concealed-carry permits in California. • Obernolte introduced legislation in 2020 allowing local governments to recognize out-of-state concealed carry permits. • In 2015, Obernolte voted against banning concealed carry on school grounds. • Obernolte voted against a bill which sought to prohibit purchase of more than one semi-automatic riﬂe per month in 2019 after a deadly shooting at the Borderline Bar in Thousand Oaks, California. • Obernolte criticized gun control measures in 2016 by stating that they “will do nothing to prevent another terrorist attack like the one that occurred in my county.” • Obernolte voted against a bill allowing coworkers and mental health professionals, and other non- family members to petition for gun violence restraining orders in 2016. • In 2016, Obernolte voted for a gun control measure to ban the manufacture of phone cases that look like ﬁrearms. • In 2015, Obernolte voted for an early Assembly version of AB 156, which required record keeping and authorization of ammunition purchases. The Senate version of AB 156, known as SB 1235, advanced through the legislature, and included an additional provision establishing licenses for ammunition vendors. The NRA opposed both pieces of legislation, and in 2016, Obernolte voted against SB 1235. • Obernolte’s 2018 campaign accepted $1,000 from the NRA.

Ethics and Transparency Highlights

• In 2015, Obernolte introduced a bill to ensure “full and free disclosure of legislative committee documents.”

12 Environment & Climate Change Highlights

• The California Sierra Club gave Obernolte a 9 percent score in 2019 for voting favorably on only one out of 11 of the organization-backed bills. The average score among Republican Assembly- members was 17 percent. • Obernolte voted against requiring heavy-duty truck owners to perform regular smog checks in 2019. • Obernolte has voted at least six times since 2018 against legislation aimed at regulating oil and gas drilling. In 2019, Chevron spilled “nearly 800,000 gallons of oil and water into a California canyon,” making the spill “larger” than California’s two previous oil spills. • In 2019, Obernolte opposed additional scrutiny of the Cadiz Water Project by voting against a measure to ensure that water transfer facilities do not negatively impact natural or cultural resources. • Obernolte declined to vote on a bill that would use statewide water tax to fund clean water programs in 2017. In 2018, he stated, “If we start taxing a basic human right such as clean drinking water, it’s time to reevaluate our spending priorities.” • Obernolte introduced a bill in 2019 that would ease California’s “strict environmental laws when building fire safety routes.” • Obernolte deemed California’s “fire prevention and safety services” tax as “unfair and illegal” in 2015. • Obernolte called bans on straws and paper receipts “freedom-stifling” measures in 2019. That same year, he voted against legislation to reduce California’s solid waste. • In 2017, Obernolte advocated for cutting the “red tape” of the California Environmental Quality Act to promote affordable housing construction. • Obernolte opposed 2018 legislation promoting clean energy use. The previous year, Obernolte received $10,000 in contributions from “oil interests” prior to his vote on “legislation to reduce carbon emissions by charging polluters” through a cap and trade system.

Criminal Justice Highlights

13 • Obernolte stated that 2020 legislation to increase age for offenders to be tried as adults is “problematic.” In 2017, he voted against a measure that allowed juveniles sentenced to life to become eligible for parole after 25 years of incarceration. • Obernolte introduced a bill in 2017 to establish the California Cybersecurity Integration Center to “develop a statewide cybersecurity strategy.” • In 2016, Obernolte criticized Proposition 47, which “reclassiﬁed numerous crimes that previously had been considered felonies as misdemeanors,” stating that it would increase “risk of violent crime in our communities”

Housing and Homelessness Highlights

• Obernolte opposed 2017 affordable housing package, claiming it would do “little to nothing to alleviate the worsening housing crisis.” • Obernolte did not vote on 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Act, which would authorize billions of dollars in bonds to ﬁnance housing programs in the state.

Partisanship Highlights

• Obernolte is known for voting in favor of left’s legislation, and says he “doesn’t worry” about being called a RINO, or a Republican in name only. • Obernolte said he was “astonished” that he liked “almost all” of his colleagues in Sacramento. • Obernolte introduced House Resolution 35, “requiring Assembly committee chairs to grant a hearing to all bills referred to their committees.” Obernolte said the resolution “ensured that members were not discriminated against based on their party or their standing within their caucus.” • A Professor Marcia Godwin of University of La Verne told the San Bernardino Sun, “Most of the bills that [Obernolte] has successfully authored have been bipartisan technical changes and updates.” Godwin stated “these bills are necessary but not partisan.”

California State Budget Highlights

14 Californians with COVID-19 health and job resources. Obernolte criticized the budget for “record state spending” at a time when Californians faced “skyrocketing” costs of living. Obernolte criticized the budget for “record state spending” at a time when Californians faced “skyrocketing” costs of living. • Obernolte voted against the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget, a $139 billion budget that used state sur- pluses to “boost funding for homeless programs, welfare, child care, and universities.”

∘ Obernolte criticized the state’s budget surplus in 2018 as evidence that “Californians pay too much in taxes.” He advocated for “limiting additional spending to one-time costs” and building up the state’s reserve. ∘ Obernolte opposed the inclusion of a new deﬁcit reserve fund in the Fiscal Year 2019 budget in 2018. ∘ Seven Republican members of the Assembly voted for the Fiscal Year 2019 budget.

• Obernolte voted against the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget, a $125 billion budget that invested in infrastructure, paid down debt, and funded the earned income tax credit.

∘ Four Republican members of the Assembly voted for Fiscal Year 2018 budget.

• Obernolte voted against the Fiscal Year 2017 budget bill, a $170.9 billion budget that increased funding for social services and stashed “an extra $2 billion into the rainy-day fund.” The budget was also “cheered” by “advocates for the poor” for repealing a controversial cap on welfare payments, including more money for higher education, and raising rates for child care providers.

∘ Obernolte criticized negotiations surrounding the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget for a lack of transparency in 2016. ∘ Obernolte voted against the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget, a $117 billion budget that included $14 billion in education funding, $380 million to “lift approximately 50,000 families out of poverty,” and $40M for Medi-Cal services.

California State Assembly Budgets Highlights

15 • During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, total spending on Assembly Members’ travel increased by 29.5 percent. • During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, total contributions to the Legislators’ Retirement System decreased by 5.05 percent.

City of Big Bear Lake Budgets Highlights

• During Obernolte’s tenure as the Mayor of Big Bear Lake, the city’s total expenses decreased by 4.96 percent and total revenue increased by 7.72 percent. • Obernolte received $24,400 in total pay and beneﬁts in 2014 as the Mayor of Big Bear Lake. He received $21,600 in 2013, $19,800 in 2012, and $19,000 in 2011.

Professional History Highlights

• Obernolte founded video game studio FarSight Studios in 1998. • Obernolte founded FarSight Technologies in 2005. • Obernolte owned PUMA Karate prior to becoming California state representative. The company was founded in 1996.

Campaign Finance Highlights

16 • The Obernolte Campaign has paid Jamestown Associates over $180K in 2020. In 2018, Jamestown Associates faced allegations of trading services for endorsements from the Club for Growth. More- over, Jamestown Associates produced the “most racially charged national political ad in 30 years” for the Trump campaign. • Obernolte himself contributed $2,800 to Michelle Steel for Congress in 2020. Steel opposed the Affordable Care Act and “use[d] the powers of her ofﬁce to curry favor with her corporate backers.” • Between 2012 and 2014, Obernolte contributed $3K to Paul Cook for Congress. Cook voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and VICE featured Cook on its 2017 list of “Climate Change Deniers.” • 13.5 percent of Obernolte’s contributions come from out of state. The top metro areas of contribution origin include Riverside-San Bernardino, CA, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Sacramento, CA.

Personal Finance Highlights

• Obernolte reported owning as much as $122,530,000 in assets in 2019. He reported no debts or liabilities in this time period. • Obernolte reported receiving as much as $2,359,539 in income in 2018, only $124,339 of which was earned. • Obernolte reported as much as $250,000 in holdings in Apple Inc in 2019. Apple has been criticized for working conditions in its sweatshops, purposefully slowing older phones, and practicing anti- competitive business behaviors. • In 2019, Obernolte reported Executive positions at two companies, FarSight Studios and Embraer Jet Operators Assoc Inc. • Obernolte reportedly owns a private jet.

Land and Legal Records Highlights

• Obernolte currently lives in a $2 million home in Big Bear Lake, California. • Obernolte received two liens on ofﬁce property in Las Vegas, Nevada for failure to pay property taxes. Both liens were paid off in 2015. • A citizen of Big Bear Lake sued Obernolte for negligence after police failed to arrest a suicidal man properly. The plaintiff argued that the arrest led to the man’s suicide. • Obernolte entered a subordination agreement on ofﬁce property in Big Bear Lake in 2000, agreeing to pay $150,000 to

+++

17 Background

• Name: Jay Phillip Obernolte • Date of Birth: 8/1970 • Family: • Current Address: • Political Experience: Big Bear Lake City Council (2010-2014); Mayor, Big Bear City Council (2012- 2014); California Assembly AD33 (2014-present) • Professional Experience: FarSight Studios • Military Experience: N/A • Education: M.S. Artiﬁcial Intelligence (division of Computer Science) 1997 University of California, Los Angeles; B.S. Engineering and Applied Science 1992 California Institute of Technology (Cal- tech)

Education

Obernolte received M.S. in Artiﬁcial Intelligence in 1997. Reportedly, Obernolte received his Masters of Science from University of California, Los Angeles in 1997.[Mayor Jay Obernolte Biography, Accessed 4/20/2020]

Obernolte received B.S. in Engineering and Applied Science in 1992. Reportedly, Obernolte received his Bachelors of Science from California Institute of Technology in 1992.[Mayor Jay Obernolte Biography, Accessed 4/20/2020]

Obernolte graduated from Edison High School in 1988, was Valedictorian. Reportedly, Obernolte graduated from Edison High School in 1988. He was Valedictorian with a 4.0 GPA. [Mayor Jay Obernolte Biography, Accessed 4/20/2020]

Political History

Obernolte announced Congressional bid in September 2019. According to the Daily Press, Obernolte announce he was running for the District 8 United States House seat on September 19, 2019. [Daily Press, 9/19/2019]

In 2018, Obernolte won State Assembly seat with 60.2 percent of vote. According to the California Election Commission, Obernolte won the 2018 District 33 State Assembly election with 60.2 percent of the vote against Democrat Socorro Cisneros. [California Election Commission, 11/6/2018]

18 In 2018, Obernolte won State Assembly primary with 65.8 percent of vote. According to the California Election Commission, Obernolte won the 2018 District 33 State Assembly primary with 60.2 percent of the vote. Two Democrats, Socorro Cisneros and Scott Markovich, ran against him. [California Election Commission, 6/5/2018]

In 2016, Obernolte won State Assembly seat with 60 percent of the vote. According to the California Election Commission, Obernolte won the 2016 District 33 State Assembly election with 60 percent of the vote against Democrat Scott Markovich. [California Election Commission, 11/8/2016]

In 2016, Obernolte won State Assembly primary with 60.7 percent of the vote. According to the California Election Commission, Obernolte won the 2016 District 33 State Assembly primary with 60.7 percent of the vote against Democrat Scott Markovich. [California Election Commission, 6/7/2016]

In 2014, Obernolte won State Assembly seat with 65.9 percent of the vote. According to the California Election Commission, Obernolte won the 2014 District 33 State Assembly election with 65.9 percent of the vote against Democrat John Coffey. [California Election Commission, 11/4/2014]

In 2014, Obernolte won second in State Assembly primary with 18.8 percent of the vote. According to the California Election Commission, Obernolte won second in the 2014 District 33 State Assembly primary with 18.8 percent of the vote. Democrat John Coffey won the primary with 23.1 percent of the vote. The remaining candidates were Republicans and all received less than 18 percent of the vote. [California Election Commission, 6/x/2014]

Endorsements

Obernolte was endorsed by Trump. In a February 2020 post to his campaign’s Facebook page Ober- nolte wrote,

Jay Obernolte is the ONLY Republican candidate endorsed by President Donald Trump in #CA08. Jay will work with our President to secure the border, stand with law enforcement, and protect our veterans. Stand with President Trump and support Jay Obernolte for Congress!

In February 2020 Trump tweeted,

.@JayObernolte of California is running for Congress in 2020. Jay will help me to continue securing the Southern Border, he Loves our GREAT Law Enforcement Of- ﬁcers, Military, Vets, and he will protect your #2A. Jay has my Complete and Total Endorsement!

[Facebook @ElectJay, 2/28/2020; Twitter @realDonaldTrump, 2/12/2020]

19 Obernolte pledged to work with Trump ‘on his agenda for a vibrant American economy, strong national security, and a secure border’ after receiving Trump’s endorsement. In December 2020, the Desert Sun reported that “With California’s primary election less than three weeks away, President Donald Trump has endorsed Big Bear Lake Assemblyman Jay Obernolte’s bid to succeed Rep. Paul Cook, R-Yucca Valley, in California’s 8th Congressional District.” Trump tweeted, “Jay will help me to continue securing the Southern Border, he Loves our GREAT Law Enforcement Ofﬁcers, Military, Vets, and he will protect your #2A.” In response, Obernolte said: “I’m grateful for the support of President Trump and I look forward to working with him in Congress on his agenda for a vibrant American economy, strong national security, and a secure border.” [Desert Sun, 2/12/2020]

Obernolte was endorsed by the California State Sheriffs’ Association. In a February 2020 post to his campaigns Facebook page Obernolte wrote,

The California State Sheriffs’ Association, which represents all 58 county sheriffs, has joined a long list of law enforcement groups and leaders in supporting our campaign. I will always ﬁght to keep our families safe.

The post linked to a press release from Obernolte’s campaign which describes the Sheriffs’ Association as “California’s public, collective voice on matters of public safety.” [Facebook @ElectJay, 2/27/2020; Jay Obernolte For Congress, accessed 4/14/2020]

+++

20 COVID-19

COVID-19 Highlights

21 other California regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

‘Scare Tactics’

In 2020, Obernolte accused the Los Angeles Times of ‘scare tactics’ due to graph depicting the ‘number of coronavirus cases in New York approaching that of Italy, with California not far behind.’ In March 2020, Obernolte posted on Facebook describing how he was reading an article that “included this alarming graph, which appears to show the number of COVID-19 cases in New York approaching that of Italy, with California not far behind.” According to Obernolte,

I wondered how this could possibly be factual, given that California just passed 3,000 cases, while there are over 74,000 cases in Italy (over 20 times more). New York has 37,000 cases, which is only half that of Italy. It certainly doesn’t look that way on the graph. But read the ﬁne print on the bottom of the graph. Most graphs are plotted on a linear scale, but this one is plotted on a logarithmic scale … That’s why California’s total looks so close to Italy’s, even though it is actually 20 times less.

He continued,

It it certainly important that we not underestimate the risks in this crisis. However it is equally important that we remain calm and make informed decisions based on what the data is telling us about the spread of the virus. I know that newspapers are in the businesses of selling more newspapers. But scare tactics like this graph are not helpful.

[Assemblyman Jay Obernolte Facebook, 3/27/2020; 3/27/2020]

Governor Newsom vs. Assemblyman Obernolte

Governor Newsom issued executive order to ‘Protect Ongoing Safety Net Services for Most Vul- nerable Californians During COVID-19 Outbreak.’ In March 2020, the ofﬁce of Governor Gavin New- son issued a press release announcing that the Governor was “taking action to ensure that California’s most vulnerable residents can continue to receive health care, food assistance and in-home supportive services in a timely manner.” Reportedly, “Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order today to extend the eligibility period for important safety net services.” Reportedly, “the order waives eligibility re-determinations for 90 days for Californians who participate in: Medi-Cal health coverage, CalFresh food assistance, CalWORKS, Cash Assistance for Immigrants; and In-Home Supportive Services.” New- som stated, “These social safety net programs are so important for families — especially during this

22 crisis…We don’t want Californians who rely on these services to lose them.” [Ofﬁce of Governor Gavin Newson, 3/18/2020]

KQED: Obernolte ‘expressed concerns over Newson using the emergency fund to shore up…social safety net’ in April 2020. In April 2020, KQED reported that lawmakers met a an oversight subcommittee hearing. Reportedly, “Republicans and Democrats both questioned how Newsom is spending some of the money they authorized for the COVID-19 crisis,” including Obernolte. Obernolte reportedly “expressed concerns over Newsom using the emergency fund to shore up the state’s social safety net, such as spending on food banks.” Reportedly, Obernolte stated:

Though that may be desirable, though that might even be wise, though that might be something we agree with … that’s not something that I feel [Newsom] was given the authority to allocate money for.

[KQED, 4/20/2020]

Obernolte said that poor communication with Governor Newson ‘needs to stop’ to have ‘relationship of trust’ in May 2020. In May 2020, CBS Sacramento published an article entitled “Governor’s increased spending draws concern from lawmakers,” referring to Governor Newson’s spending during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Reportedly, “California lawmakers delivered a stern rebuke to Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday for his coronavirus spending.” Lawmakers accused Newson of “sidestepping the Legislature in his decision to take an extra $1.8 billion from the state’s dwindling coffers.” Reportedly,

Newsom, a Democrat, has also asked the Democratic-controlled Legislature for an additional $2.9 billion to spend as he pleases should a second wave of coronavirus cases hit the state this fall when lawmakers are not in session. He is also trying to control how to spend $9.5 billion in federal aid. And he has asked for broad authority over how to spend a number of other state funds, including the money generated by the state’s cap and trade program to reduce pollution.

In response, Obernolte reportedly ”said the poor communication ‘needs to stop if we are going to continue to have a relationship of trust.’ [CBS Sacramento, 5/22/2020]

Unemployment Insurance

In 2020, Obernolte promoted Pandemic Unemployment Insurance that would assist independent contractors. In April 2020, Obernolte posted on Facebook promoting the Pandemic Unemployment Insurance (PUA) program, which had been set up to assist business owners, self-employed individuals, independent contractors, and “individuals who may have qualified for regular UI benefits but have collected all benefits for which they are eligible.” [Assemblyman Jay Obernolte Facebook, 4/15/2020]

23 In 2019, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 5 which sought to provide benefits to gig workers. According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 5 on September 11, 2019. Reportedly, the bill was “an act to amend Section 3351 of, and to add Section 2750.3 to, the Labor Code, and to amend Sections 606.5 and 621 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, relating to employment, and making an appropriation therefor.” According to Business Insider, the legislation “tightens the definition of ‘independent contractor’” and “minimizes the amount of work which can be conducted by freelancers and contractors without being considered full-timers.” Reportedly, “The intention is to prevent employers from taking tax shortcuts and to provide workers who should be classified as employees with healthcare, workers’ compensation, paid time off, and other rights.” Assembly Bill 5 passed the California State Assembly by a 61-16 vote. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 5, 9/11/2019; Business Insider, 1/27/2020]

Health Services and Insurance

Obernolte one of nine lawmakers to vote against legislation to limit surprise emergency room billing in 2019. In May 2019, Obernolte voted with a 9-48 minority to oppose AB 1611. The Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece in May 2019 claiming that the bill, “would require health insurance policies that take effect on or after Jan. 1, 2020, to impose the same out-of-pocket costs for emergency care whether the providers are in-network or not.” The piece continued:

The measure would probably push up premiums — insurers would have to start ab- sorbing high out-of-network fees that they pass on to their customers today. But it would eliminate a risk of potentially crushing bills, which is why people buy insurance in the ﬁrst place. The Legislature has already protected Californians against surprise bills from doctors for nonemergency care, and Chiu’s proposal was intended to close the loophole for hospital ERs. But AB 1611 didn’t propose the same formula for re- solving disputes between insurers and out-of-network providers over fees, and that’s drawing some special-interest ﬂak. The insurers lobby wants to keep moving the measure forward while stakeholders work out their problems with the language; the hospitals lobby wants it to die in the Assembly unless the language changes now.

The Assembly passed the bill in May 2019, and the bill remained in the Senate as of May 2020. [California Legislative Information, AB 1611, Introduced, 2/22/2019; Los Angeles Times, 5/30/2019]

New York Times Op-Ed in 2020: ‘public health calamity’ if ‘we do not end’ surprise billing ‘in a world with coronavirus.’ In March 2020, the New York Times published an opinion piece by “healthcare scholars” David Anderson and Nicholas Bagley. According to the piece, “To date, Congress — cowed by a furious public relations campaign led by private equity and specialty physicians — has been unable to pass a law banning routine surprise billing.” While “congress has moved closer to a watered-down deal

24 in recent months, neither the House nor the Senate has actually passed a bill,” but some states “including California” have passed legislation. The piece continued:

Already, reports of people who have received eye-popping bills for coronavirus testing or emergency room visits are circulating. As these stories proliferate, people will become even more reluctant to get tested or treated when they should. That will obscure the spread of the virus, complicate efforts to adopt measures for social distancing, and lead to unnecessary deaths. It’s a national disgrace that the United States didn’t ban surprise bills in a time of relative prosperity and security. It could become a public health calamity if we do not end them in a world with coronavirus.

[New York Times, 3/15/2020]

Obernolte voted against bill that would require most health insurance plans to cover medically necessary prescriptions. In May 2019, Obernolte voted with a 19-58 minority to oppose AB 1246, which would mandate that many group health plans cover medically necessary prescription drugs. According to the legislation,

This bill would require large group health insurance policies, except certain special- ized health insurance policies, issued, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2020, to include coverage for medically necessary basic health care services and…would prohibit those large group health insurance policies from imposing annual or lifetime dollar limits on basic health care services or medically necessary prescription drugs.

In April 2019, The California Health Benefits Review Program published the following summary of the bill: Applicable only to the health insurance of enrollees in large-group policies regulated by the California Department of Insurance (CDI), AB 1246 includes language that would require coverage of basic health care services (BHCS), as BHCS are defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1345 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 1300.67 of Title 28 of the California Code of Regulations (see following Context section for list of benefits). In addition, for these enrollees, when a pharmacy benefit is present, medically necessary prescription drug coverage would be required, with the definitions of medical necessity as described in Section 1342.7 of the Health and Safety Code

As of May 2020, the Senate had yet to vote on the bill. [California Legislative Information, AB 1246, Introduced 2/21/2019; California Health Beneﬁts Review Program, 4/4/2019]

25 Meals on Wheels

Obernolte voted against restoring $1.9 million budget for Meals on Wheels in 2015. In September 2015, Obernolte voted against SB 101, a bill that amended the Budget Act of 2015. In particular, one of the changes made to the original budget act was the restoration of “an unintentional reduction of $1.9 million General Fund for the Congregate Nutrition ‘Meals on Wheels’ program.” The bill passed the Assembly in a 50 to 29 vote with one person not voting. [California Legislature, SB 101, passed the Assembly, 9/11/2015; Assembly Floor Analysis, 9/11/2015; became law, 9/22/2015] Meals on Wheels volunteers making sure that ‘those vulnerable to hunger are staying fed’ during coronavirus pandemic. In March 2020, CBS News reported that “With the CDC’s warning that people 65 and older are most vulnerable to the coronavirus, older Americans, even those facing food insecurity, have been encouraged to stay home and self-quarantine.” Reportedly, “non-proﬁt Meals on Wheels has set out to make sure those vulnerable to hunger are staying fed, with more than 5,000 chapters around the country.” [CBS News, 3/19/2020]

Housing and Eviction

Obernolte voted against bill which extended tenants’ right to remain in housing beyond three days of eviction notice in 2018. In 2018, Obernolte voted with a minority to oppose AB 2384. According to Tenants Together, the bill made it such that tenants had “10 days instead of three to pay back rent or correct a claim that they have violated their lease.” Reportedly, “the bill also gives California tenants more time to respond to an unlawful detainer (UD) eviction lawsiut [sic]–14 days instead of 5 to respond to a UD” and “will also add protections from landlord retaliation.” The bill became law. [California Legislative Information, AB 2384, Introduced 2/13/2018; Tenants Together, Accessed 5/4/2020] Obernolte voted against AB 2925 to prohibit landlords from terminating tenancy without cause in 2018. In May 2019, Obernolte voted with a 36-16 majority to oppose AB 2925. The bill would:

prohibit a landlord from terminating a tenancy, or seeking to recover possession from a tenant who continues in possession of property after the expiration of the term for which it is let, as described above, except for cause, as set forth with particularity in the notice.

Twenty-six members of the Assembly declined to vote, and the bill failed. [California Legislative Informa- tion, AB 2925, Introduced 2/16/2018] Tenants Together in 2018: legislators who voted against AB 2925 ‘betrayed’ tenants, ‘allow[ed] arbitrary eviction.’ In June 2018, Tenants Together issued a press release regarding the defeat of AB 2925. The press release was entitled “Betraying Tenants, California Legislators Vote to Allow Arbitrary Eviction”:

26 In a major test of the will of California Legislators to stand up to the real estate industry that funds them, AB 2925 (Bonta) was defeated on the ﬂoor of the California Assem- bly. This bill would have required a landlord to state a cause when evicting a tenant. Legislators deferred to the landlord lobby and voted down the measure. 37 Assembly Democrats joined with all Assembly Republicans to defeat this bill. The ﬂoor vote occurred on Thursday evening, May 31, 2018, the day after Tenants Together released a new report showing that 1.5 million tenants have faced court eviction actions in Cali- fornia over the last three years. Increasingly, tenants who are forced from their homes end up homeless or displaced from California.

[Tenants Together, 6/1/2018] Obernolte voted against bill prohibiting landlord disclosure of tenant immigration status in 2017. In September 2017, Obernolte voted with a 20-56 minority to oppose AB 291. AB 291 proposed a range of policy changes, including changes to law related to housing rights:

This bill would make it unlawful for a lessor to disclose to any immigration authority, law enforcement agency, or local, state, or federal agency information regarding or relating to the immigration or citizenship status of any tenant, occupant, or other person known to the lessor to be associated with a tenant or occupant, as provided, for the purpose of, or with the intent of, harassing or intimidating a tenant or occupant, retaliating against a tenant or occupant for the exercise of his or her rights, inﬂuencing a tenant or occupant to vacate a dwelling, or recovering possession of the dwelling, unless the lessor is complying with any legal obligation under federal law, or a subpoena, warrant, or order issued by a court.

The Senate passed the bill in September 2017, and the Governor signed the bill into law in October 2017. [California Legislative Information, AB 291, Introduced 2/2/2017] TIME in April 2020: renters ‘forced’ from homes ‘despite eviction moratoriums,’ California law enforcement ‘still carrying out evictions.’ In April 2020, TIME Magazine published an article titled “Renters Are Being Forced From Their Homes Despite Eviction Moratoriums Meant to Protect Them.” Reportedly, in “California…and several other states, tenants must show proof that their ﬁnancial hardship is related to COVID-19 in order to be protected from eviction.” Law enforcement reportedly continued enforcing evictions after the pandemic hit California:

Sheriffs in many jurisdictions are enforcing evictions that were approved before the COVID-19 ﬁnancial crisis; the Fresno County sheriff in California carried out evictions until April 1, according to Tony Botti, a spokesperson for the Fresno County Sheriff’s Ofﬁce. Also in California, Riverside County sheriffs are still carrying out evictions that

27 were approved before COVID-19, according to Riverside Sheriff Sergeant Deanna Pecoraro.

[TIME Magazine, 4/15/2020]

Labor and Employment During the Pandemic

Obernolte voted against authorization of collective bargaining for childcare workers in 2019. In September 2019, Obernolte voted with a 16-63 minority to oppose AB 378, which authorized childcare providers to participate in collective bargaining activities. The General Assembly and Senate passed the bill in September 2019, and Governor Newson signed the bill into law in September 2019. In September 2019, LAist reported that the legislation applied only to certain childcare providers, most of whom are women of color: The people we’re talking about here are family day-care providers who educate and care for young kids in a daycare set up in their own home, or at the home of the kid they’re taking care of, and who receive money from the state to provide this care for kids from low-income families. For context: A fact sheet circulated by AB 378’s author Assemblymember Limón says that adds up to about 40,000 child care workers.Organizers with the SEIU say that most of those affected are women of color.

[California Legislative Information, A.B. 378, Introduced, 2/5/2019; LAist, 9/13/2019]

California childcare worker sought assistance from Child Care Union for ‘much needed relief’ during pandemic. In April 2020, ABC10 reported, “though childcare professionals are often working on the front lines of the pandemic, many feel forgotten.” Reportedly, Pat Alexander, “a childcare provider and early educator in Elk Grove,” told ABC10 that childcare providers are, “the invisible essential worker.” Reportedly:

The need for childcare workers is clear. Essential employees with children are increasingly in need of care options in the Sacramento area. In El Dorado County, demand has led to the creation an Emergency Childcare Task Force, recruiting early educators for essential workers. And yet, many childcare providers are struggling. Non-essential employees with children now have to stay at home, causing some childcare providers to lose their sole income, while options for financial assistance have been slow to ar- rive. While she continues to provide children in her care with a stable environment, Alexander is in a difficult financial situation and is struggling to find options. ‘Some providers had literally closed down and can’t even see re-opening again,’ Alexander said. ‘It was that bad. They lost their businesses.’ After 50 years, Alexander thinks

28 her business may be going the same way. She predicts a dramatic drop in the number of child care providers in the state by the time the pandemic runs its course. She is looking now to California and the Child Care Union working together to provide some much needed relief.

[ABC10, 4/28/2020]

Vote by Mail

Obernolte voted against requiring counties to prepay vote by mail postage in 2018. In July 2018, Obernolte voted with a 14-61 minority to oppose AB 216, which would provide voters with free postage for vote by mail. According to the legislation,

This bill would clarify that the elections official is required to deliver to each qualified applicant an identification envelope for the return of the vote by mail ballot and would require the identification envelope to have prepaid postage.

[California Legislative Information, Introduced 1/24/2017] California Voter Foundation in 2017: Washington state election administrators ‘attributed higher than expected turnout to use of pre-paid ballot envelopes.’ In March 2017, the California Voter Foundation, a “nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving the voting process,” wrote a letter to Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, the sponsor of AB 216. The letter supported AB 216 and cited evidence of turnout in a King County, Washington election using prepaid ballot envelopes:

A recent experiment in King County, WA with paid postage in a special election found turnout in the two jurisdictions that conducted the election rose above the predicted 30 percent turnout to 37 and 40 percent. The local election administrators attributed this higher-than-expected turnout to the use of pre-paid mail ballot envelopes.

[California Voter Foundation, 3/15/2017] California Voter Foundation in 2017: ‘not covering postage costs’ can be ‘perceived’ as ‘poll tax.’ In March 2017, the California Voter Foundation, a “nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving the voting process,” wrote a letter in support of AB 216 to Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, the sponsor of AB 216. The letter stated, “not covering postage costs may be perceived by some as a ‘poll tax’ and sends a message that the government is putting up barriers, rather than facilitating, the voting process.” [California Voter Foundation, 3/15/2017] Obernolte declined on August 2020 resolution urging protection of access to mailboxes ‘in order to guarantee the timely and efﬁcient delivery of vote by mail ballots.’ In August 2020, Obernolte declined to vote on HR105, a resolution stating:

29 WHEREAS, The COVID-19 global pandemic has taken the lives of over 160,000 people in the United States and over 11,000 in California, including 5.2 million conﬁrmed cases nationwide and over 600,000 in California; and WHEREAS, The COVID-19 pandemic severely limits the public’s ability to do in-person activities, so providing vote by mail as an alternative to voting in-person for the November 3, 2020, general election is critical to protecting public health and safety; and WHEREAS, California will mail every registered voter in the state a vote by mail ballot for the November 3, 2020, general election to allow voters to safely exercise their constitutional right to vote; and WHEREAS, It is imperative to fully protect and support the operations and postal carriers of the United States Postal Service in order to facilitate a safe, secure, and uncorrupted national election on November 3, 2020;

now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, That the As- sembly urges the federal administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate to cease and desist from all efforts to reduce the ability of voters to cast their ballots by mail or diminish public conﬁdence in the vote by mail program as it relates to the November 3, 2020, general election; and be it further Resolved, That the Assem- bly urges United States Postmaster General Louis DeJoy to immediately restore all mailboxes and mail sorters back to the communities from which they were removed in order to guarantee the timely and efﬁcient delivery of vote by mail ballots in the November 3, 2020, general election

[California State Legislature, HR105, Introduced, 8/24/2020]

Vaccinations

Obernolte voted to maintain ‘personal belief exemption from school immunization requirements’ in 2015. In June 2015, Obernolte voted with a 31-46 minority to oppose SB 277. The Senate passed the bill, and the Governor signed the bill into law in 2015. According to Health Affairs, this 2015 law “eliminated [California’s] personal belief exemption from school immunization requirements.” [California Legislative Information, SB 277, Introduced 2/19/2015]

30 SB 277 infringes on a parent’s right to make this choice, which directly challenges the constitutional freedoms that our country was founded upon…If we give the state the power to mandate immunizations as a requirement to receive a public education, it will only open the door for further government intrusion into our lives.

[Victorville Daily Press, 6/22/2015]

Obernolte voted against requiring daycare, preschool staff to be vaccinated against inﬂuenza, measles, pertussis in 2015. In September 2015, Obernolte voted with a 16-60 minority to oppose SB-792. The Assembly and Senate approved the measure, and the bill became law in October 2015. According to the Berkeley Political Review,

a part of this [bill] ‘prohibit[s] a person from being employed or volunteering at a daycare center or a family day care home if he or she has not been immunized against inﬂuenza, pertussis [whooping cough], and measles.’

Reportedly, exemptions to the bill exist “only if a physician approves of an exemption due to an individual’s medical conditions or if a vaccination is incomplete and time is required in between doses.” [California Legislative Information, SB 792, Introduced 2/27/2015; Berkeley Political Review, 4/16/2016]

Obernolte voted against bill which ‘s[ought] to combat fake medical exemptions’ after tripling in exemptions to childhood vaccines. In September 2019, Obernolte voted with a 19-48 minority to oppose SB 276. In September 2019, The Cut reported that “California senator Richard Pan, a practicing pediatrician who chairs the Senate Committee on Health,” introduced the bill. The bill reportedly “seeks to combat fake medical exemptions” due to increasing rates of medical exemptions to vaccines among children; reportedly, in the two years preceding the introduction of the bill, “the number of children in California who have been granted a medical exemption has tripled, according to California Healthline, which has serious implications.” Reportedly:

under the bill, California’s Department of Public Health will make the ﬁnal decision regarding whether the underlying condition claimed in a doctor’s medical exemption met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidelines. Per the Los Angeles Times, state health ofﬁcials estimate that more than 40 percent of California’s yearly 11,500 medical exemptions would be denied under the legislation.

[The Cut, 9/10/2019]

Same anti-vaccine group that opposed 2019 vaccine legislation led rallies protesting stay at home order in 2020. In April 2020, Spectrum News reported that,

31 a group calling itself the Freedom Angels, whose members last year stood on chairs and chanted at public hearings on the California vaccine bill, says governors are abusing their power by shutting down gun shops and other businesses.

Reportedly, “many anti-vaccine activists — who have claimed that diseases such as measles aren’t that serious — now contend the coronavirus isn’t dangerous enough to justify staying home.” This has reportedly “led some vaccine foes to join the protesters — whom Trump has encouraged on Twitter — in staging demonstrations in state capitals to ‘reopen America.’” Freedom Angels Co-Founder Heidi Munoz Gleisner reportedly stated in a Facebook video “This is the time for people to take notice and really evalu- ate the freedoms they’re giving up, all in the name of perceived safety.” The Freedom Angels took further action in April 2020 protests against stay at home orders and other regulations:

The group organized a rally on 20 April in Sacramento, California, called ‘Operation Gridlock.’ ‘People need to get back to work, get back to life, get back into contact with their loved ones who they’re isolated from; they need to be able to have a paycheck,’ group co-founder Tara Thornton told The Sacramento Bee, which interviewed her during the demonstration. ‘This is the grounds they will enslave us upon.’

Reportedly, “the highway patrol has now banned all group events at the Capitol during the pandemic to avoid spreading the coronavirus.” [Spectrum News, 4/28/2020]

Researcher in 2020: ‘no such thing as ’safe’ reopening’ of schools without vaccine or treatment. In April 2020, National Public Radio reported that, “three-quarters of U.S. states have now ofﬁcially closed their schools for the rest of the academic year” and “attention is already starting to turn to next fall.”

There are still many more unknowns than guarantees [about schools reopening]. Among the biggest, says Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, is this: ‘Is it safe and healthy for my kids to pack them into that classroom?’

Maria Litvinova, a researcher at the Institute for Scientiﬁc Interchange in Turin, Italy, has modeled how school closures reduce the spread of illness. She argues that without treatments or a vaccine, ‘there is no such thing as ’safe’ reopening.’

[National Public Radio, 4/24/2020]

TIME in 2020: vaccine needed to ‘end this pandemic.’ In April 2020, TIME Magazine published an article by Dr. Gavin Yamey, the Director of the Center for Policy Impact in Global Health at Duke University. Titled “To End this Pandemic We’ll Need a Free Vaccine Worldwide,” the article stated, “until we end COVID-19 transmission across the planet, we are likely to keep getting multiple COVID-19 ‘waves’— that is, rolling, recurrent outbreaks”:

32 Right now, many countries including Italy, Spain, the United States, and the United Kingdom, are still struggling desperately to put out the initial ﬁre. They are using suppression measures like stay-at-home orders as a ﬁre extinguisher to smother transmission while urgently trying to ramp up their capacity to conduct testing, to manufacture and distribute personal protective equipment for health workers, and to treat people with COVID-19. If we develop a safe and highly effective vaccine, over time we will be able to vaccinate a high enough proportion of the world’s population to eliminate the risk of overwhelming epidemics. An effective vaccine will both prevent people getting COVID-19 and also curb transmission.

[TIME Magazine, 4/15/2020]

+++

33 Meeting with Corporate Lobbyists

Meeting with Corporate Lobbyists Highlights

• On February 24, 2020, Obernolte’s company jet ﬂew to Washington DC. On February 26, 2020, Obernolte held a meet and greet event hosted by lobbying ﬁrm Prenda Group, which specializes in lobbying for “‘large-scale’ business and infrastructure projects.” Obernolte then missed three votes in the California State Assembly on February 27, 2020.

Obernolte ﬂew to Washington, D.C. on February 24, 2020, and returned to Big Bear City via Chicago on February 27, 2020. Flight logs pertaining to tail number N900HT, a jet owned by Farsight Studios, indicate a ﬂight was taken from Big Bear City to Washington, D.C. on February 24, 2020, depart- ing at 10:01 AM PST and landing at 5:18 PM EST. The aircraft returned on February 27, 2020 with an approximately 3 hour layover in Chicago:

Destination Enroute (Flight Origin Name Name Departure Time Arrival Time Duration)

Big Bear City Manassas 2020-02-24 2020-02-24 4:16 Rgnl 10:01AM PST 05:18PM EST Manassas Chicago 2020-02-27 2020-02-27 1:51 Rgnl Executive 01:53PM EST 02:44PM CST Chicago Big Bear City 2020-02-27 2020-02-27 3:55 Executive 05:27PM CST 07:23PM PST

[Federal Aviation Administration, Farsight Studios, 9/14/2011; FlightAware Flight Logs, ID #N900HT, Ac- cessed 7/16/2020]

Obernolte held a meet and greet in Washington D.C. on February 26, 2020. According to the Gov- ernment Affairs Industry Network, Obernolte held a “Candidate Meet and Greet” in Washington D.C. on February 26, 2020. [Government Affairs Industry Network, Accessed 7/29/2020]

Obernolte’s Washington D.C. meet and greet hosted by The Prenda Group, a lobbying ﬁrm. Ac- cording to the Government Affairs Industry Network, Obernolte’s meet and greet in Washington D.C. was hosted by The Prenda Group, a lobbying ﬁrm. [Government Affairs Industry Network, Accessed 7/29/2020]

• The Prenda Group is a registered lobbying ﬁrm that ‘provides federal representation in Washington D.C.’ According to the Prenda Group website,

34 The Prenda Group provides federal representation in Washington, D.C. and has principals who hold well established records of success supporting client efforts with the U.S. Congress and Federal agencies. The Prenda Group possesses the expertise to address today’s challenging environment within the Congress and the Administration. Our extensive legislative and agency contacts in the ﬁelds of energy, transportation, shipping, defense, homeland security and the federal government in general, uniquely qualify The Prenda Group to promote policy changes and provide executive and congressional advocacy.

[The Prenda Group, Accessed 7/29/2020; Ofﬁce of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, Accessed 7/29/2020]

• The Prenda Group has advocated for ‘large-scale’ businesses and infrastructure projects. According to the Prenda Group website, their background is in “large-scale” business and infrastructure projects. They have advocated for IBC Advanced Alloys Corporation, Arkansas Lithium Corporation, Selex Es Inc., and UV-Concepts. [The Prenda Group, Accessed 7/29/2020; Ofﬁce of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, Accessed 7/29/2020]

Obernolte missed three votes on February 27, 2020. According to Assembly records, Obernolte did not vote in roll call votes on three pieces of legislation on February 27, 2020: ACR-168, SCR-81, and HR-82. [California Legislature, ACR-168, 2/27/2020; [SCR-81, 2/27/2020; HR-82, 2/27/2020]

• Obernolte did not vote on ACR-168, resolution to designate California Kidney Day. According to Assembly records, Obernolte did not vote in a roll call vote on ACR-168, “California Kidney Day.” The resolution would: designate March 12, 2020, as California Kidney Day, and would urge Cali- fornians to familiarize themselves with the main causes and consequences of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the importance of early intervention to conserve health care resources, and to produce a better quality of life for CKD patients.

[California Legislature, ACR-168, Vote 2/27/2020; Text, 3/18/2020] • Obernolte did not vote on SCR-81, resolution to designate California Court Reporting and Captioning Week. According to Assembly records, Obernolte did not vote in a roll call vote on SCR-81. The resolution would: proclaim the week of February 8, 2020, to February 15, 2020, inclusive, as Cali- fornia Court Reporting and Captioning Week and request the Governor to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the great State of California to observe

35 the week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and educational activities.

[California Legislature, SCR-81, Vote 2/27/2020; Text, 3/4/2020] • Obernolte did not vote on HR-82, resolution proclaiming California Aerospace and Aviation Days. According to Assembly records, Obernolte did not vote in a roll call vote on HR-82, a resolution “Relative to California Aerospace and Aviation Days.” The resolution wrote:

Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, That the Assembly recog- nizes the contributions of the aerospace and aviation industries to the history, economy, security, and educational system of California, its communities, and its citizens by proclaiming the days of February 24, 2020, to February 26, 2020, inclusive, as California Aerospace and Aviation Days.

[California Legislature, H-82, Vote 2 /27/2020; Text, 2/14/2020]

+++

36 Economy and Taxes

Economy and Taxes Highlights

37 Campaign Promises

Obernolte’s ﬁrst State Assembly campaign emphasized small government, innovation, low taxes. According to a web archive snapshot of Obernolte’s 2014 State Assembly campaign, Obernolte emphasized four issues on his platform, including “Make Government Work,” “Bring Innovation to Government,” “Return Local Control,” and “Overcome Economic Challenges”:

[WebArchive, electjay.com, Archived 4/15/2014]

In 2016, Obernolte altered his campaign platform to support gun rights and Proposition 13 and oppose regulations and high state spending. According to a web archive snapshot of Obernolte’s 2016 State Assembly campaign website, Obernolte’s platform in 2016 included “Defend the 2nd Amend- ment,” “Protect Prop 13,” “Eliminate Harmful Regulations,” and “Cap State Spending.” Obernolte also ran on “bringing innovation to government,” citing his experience with FarSight Studios. Obernolte also ran on reducing taxes and size of government:

38 Sacramento has presided over the decline of the middle class in California. Whether it is creating a toxic regulatory climate that is suffocating small businesses or a punitive tax code that is making it difﬁcult for Californians to provide for their families, Sacra- mento is hurting us. As your Assemblyman I have fought to reduce the tax burden on hardworking Californians because YOU know how to spend your money better than the politicians! I have also introduced legislation that would reduce burdensome regulations on business. We can make California great again if government gets out of the way!

As your Assemblyman I have challenged myself to make government less impactful on your everyday life. Unfortunately State government has grown so big and wastes so much money on unnecessary programs it is unable to provide the basic services we need every day. For example, California pays more for roads than most states in America, yet we have some of the worst roads in the nation. This is because much of the money is lost to administrative costs and bureaucracy. As your representative I have worked to make government smaller so it can get back to the basics.

[WebArchive, electjay.com, Archived 3/26/2016] Obernolte’s 2018 campaign platform included promises to ‘punish criminals,’ ‘repeal gas tax increase’ and ‘make California great again!’ According to a web archived snapshot of Obernolte’s 2018 campaign website, Obernolte’s 2018 platform maintained 2016 promises to “Protect Prop 13,” “Eliminate Harmful Regulations,” and “Cap State Spending.” However, the platform added additional language, including “Repeal Gas Tax Increase” and “Punish Criminals.” Moreover, Obernolte stated in his platform:

Sacramento has presided over the decline of the middle class in California. Whether it is creating a toxic regulatory climate that is suffocating small businesses or a punitive tax code that is making it difﬁcult for Californians to provide for their families, Sacra- mento is hurting us. As your Assemblyman I have fought to reduce the tax burden on hardworking Californians because YOU know how to spend your money better than the politicians! I have also introduced legislation that would reduce burdensome regulations on business. We can make California great again if government gets out of the way!

[WebArchive, electjay.com, 7/28/2018]

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Obernolte received perfect scores on the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association legislator report cards 2015-2019. According to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association website, Obernolte received

39 100% scores on the “HJTA Legislative Report Card” from 2015, the ﬁrst year for which he was eligible to be scored, to 2019. HJTA wrote: Our report card is designed to help Californians measure how their state representatives are actually voting on, not just talking about, taxpayer-related issues including tax increases and direct attacks on Proposition 13.

In 2015, Obernolte was one of only eight legislators, including both California Assemblymembers and Senators, to receive a perfect score. Obernolte was one of seven in 2016, one of ten in 2017, one of thirteen in 2018, and one of sixteen in 2019. [Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Legislative Report Card, Accessed 4/19/2020]

Income Tax

Obernolte claimed progressive income tax leads to ‘volatility’ in state revenues in 2019, but argued for reduction in sales tax. According to the Needles Desert Star in August 2019, Obernolte commented: Obernolte pointed out that the state’s historic three sources of revenue: income tax, sales tax and other fees and assessments have boiled down to 70 percent coming from income tax in recent years. ‘We also have a very progressive income tax system here in California […] which means the wealthy pay, disproportionately, a larger share of income tax. I was shocked to ﬁnd out that 50 percent of state income tax is paid by just 1 percent of the people that live here. The thing about that is it leads to a lot of volatility in our revenue source.’

However, Obernolte also remarked that the legislature’s refusal to reduce state sales tax makes his “blood boil”: So your state government voted to deny the people of California any reduction in their sales tax when we had a $21 billion budget surplus. That just makes my blood boil.

[Needles Desert Star, 8/16/2019]

Gas Tax

In 2018, Obernolte claimed that there was no need to impose $52B gas tax to fund transportation projects due to state budget surplus. In May 2018, KPBS reported that California’s “budget surplus has ballooned to nearly $9 billion, the largest in at least 18 years, at a time when California is facing serious challenges like rising homelessness and growing inequality.” Reportedly,

40 Brown’s $137.6 billion revised general fund budget was up nearly $6 billion from his earlier proposal in January. He wants to save most of the surplus to protect spending during a future recession, boosting the rainy day fund to nearly $14 billion. The As- sembly budget committee’s ranking Republican, Jay Obernolte of Hesperia, said the surplus means there was no need for the state to impose a $52 billion gas tax to pay for transportation projects.

[KPBS, 5/14/2018]

Obernolte called gas tax legislation a ‘regressive tax’ in 2017. In November 2017, the Needles Desert Star reported Obernolte said:

It was a very difﬁcult year for me representing the 33rd District because usually I’m really good at creating some emotional space for myself between the policies and the impacts they have on people I represent […] One of the things that the legislature did that I disagreed with was SB (Senate Bill) 1 which is a gas tax increase. The bill just phased in on Nov. 1 and everyone is now paying an extra 12 cents a gallon on gas and 20 cents on a gallon on diesel. SB 1 is a $5 billion tax increase a year on Californians. SB 1 is a regressive tax because in a big district like mine where everyone commutes people are going to be disproportionally impacted by the tax increase […] Here in Needles you’ve got a unique problem because you’ve got Arizona right across the bridge and I’m amazed you still have a gas station. In fact I use Needles as an example quite often, when I speak to my colleagues on the ﬂoor, to show what a competitive disadvantage all of our business are at, in California. I’m not opposed to spending more money on roads and streets but I don’t agree with charging people more on gas tax.

[Needles Desert Star, 11/17/2017]

Obernolte: SB 1 ‘just another broken promise to taxpayers.’ In April 2017, Obernolte authored an editorial in The San Bernardino Sun where he argued:

The Legislature has acted irresponsibly with our tax money, and now they are asking everyday Californians to bail them out. Since I was elected to the Assembly in 2014, the state’s budget has grown by $18 billion, but not one dollar of that increase went to pay for road maintenance. In fact, over the last ﬁve years we have grown our state budget by more than $36 billion and yet we’ve failed to dedicate any of that money to roads. Taxpayers should not be on the hook because Sacramento politicians have failed to do their jobs.

41 Obernolte criticized SB 1’s allocation of funding to parks, rural bike lanes and local planning grants as “just another broken promise to taxpayers,” and wrote:

SB 1 does nothing to address trafﬁc congestion in California. In a recent PPIC poll, nearly 60 percent of Californians said that trafﬁc congestion was a ‘big problem.’ How- ever, SB 1 does nothing to address congestion. In fact, not a single penny of the new tax dollars raised goes to increase highway lane capacity. SB 1 actually explicitly prohibits any funding for ‘highway lane capacity-increasing projects.’ This is another failure by the Legislature to address our constituents’ needs.

[The San Bernardino Sun, 4/21/2017]

Obernolte on gas tax: ‘We need to use our budget surplus to ﬁx our roads instead of taxes that make it even less affordable to live here!’ In June 2018 Obernolte posted on his personal Facebook page,

I am so excited that in November voters will have the opportunity to repeal the gas tax and vehicle registration increases recently enacted by the Legislature. We need to use our current $9B budget surplus to ﬁx our roads instead of burdening Californians with taxes that make it even less affordable to live here!

42 Obernolte’s post linked to a Los Angeles Times article that detailed the gas tax initiative. [Facebook @JayObernolte, 6/25/2018]

Obernolte in April 2017: California state legislature ‘ignored state law’ in enacting gas tax. In April 2017 Obernolte posted to his ofﬁcial Facebook page:

43 Yesterday, the Legislature ignored state law and decades of practice to vote for a bill that handed out a billion dollars of pork to Members who were “persuaded” to vote for the gas tax increase. Transportation earmarks are illegal in California to prevent politicians from using their political inﬂuence to get money for their districts. Instead, the Transportation Commission is responsible for directing funds to projects with the most urgent need. I strongly opposed this bill and will continue to work to ensure that the Legislature is accountable to the people of California.

The post also included a video of Obernolte’s comments to the state assembly in which he urged a “no” vote for the gas tax and stated,

I believe that transportation projects in the state of California should be funded on the basis of each project’s individual merit and the overall state need for that project, and not based on political expediency.

[Facebook @AssemblymanObernolte, 4/25/2017]

Tax Ballot Initiatives

In 2015, Obernolte introduced Assembly Bill 809, which would require tax ballot initiatives to include a description of the expected annual tax revenue and the tax’s rate and duration. According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte introduced Assembly Bill 809 on February 26, 2015. The bill is described as “an act to amend Section 13119 of the Elections Code, relating to elections.” Reportedly,

Existing law requires that the ballots used when voting on a proposed county, city, or district ordinance submitted to the voters as an initiative measure have printed on them speciﬁed text relating to the proposed ordinance and dictates the placement of that text. This bill would also require that if the ordinance proposes to impose a tax or raise the rate of a tax to be levied, the ballot include in the statement of the ordinance the amount of money to be raised annually and the rate and duration of the tax to be levied. By imposing new duties on local elections ofﬁcials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Assembly Bill 809 passed the California State Assembly by a 57-8 vote and was approved by the Governor on September 28, 2015. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 809, 2/26/2015]

In 2017, Obernolte introduced Assembly Bill 195, which would require local governing bodies to provide a ‘a true and impartial synopsis’ of tax ballot initiatives. According to the California

44 Legislative Information site, Obernolte introduced Assembly Bill 195 on January 19, 2017. The bill is described as “An act to amend Section 13119 of the Elections Code, relating to elections.” Reportedly,

Existing law requires that the ballots used when voting upon a proposed county, city, or district ordinance submitted to the voters as an initiative measure have printed on them a speciﬁed statement describing the nature of the proposed ordinance. This bill would extend these ballot requirements to any measure submitted to the voters that is proposed by a local governing body or submitted to the voters as an initiative or referendum measure. The bill would require the statement describing the measure to be a true and impartial synopsis of the proposed measure, as speciﬁed. By expanding the local measures to which the ballot requirements apply, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Assembly Bill 195 passed the California State Assembly by a 74-0 vote and was approved by the Governor on July 24, 2017. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 195, 1/19/2017]

Cal Matters op-ed in April 2018: Obernolte’s school bond legislation example is ‘corruption at its ﬁnest’ where ‘political expediency [has] defeated common sense.’ According to a Cal Matters op-ed published in April 2018, Obernolte’s bill which “[required] bond measures or taxes proposed by local governments or school districts to state ‘the amount of money to be raised annually and duration of the tax to be levied’” was full of “evident discrepancies.” Cal Matters wrote,

Fixing ‘leaking roofs’ is a common phrase, but few of the promised benefits are specific, giving school officials almost unlimited latitude to spend the bond money as they wish, even though state law also requires proposals to contain ‘specific school facilities projects’ to be financed.

Cal Matters wrote that the legislation “much criticism from school ofﬁcials” who “persuaded Obernolte to introduce a new bill that exempts all local bond measures…from placing tax estimates in their ballot labels,” and further wrote that the new legislation is an example where “political expedience…[has] defeated common sense.” Richard Michael, described by Cal Matters as “self-appointed Southern California bond watchdog” who “uncovered…discrepancies in the bond measures’ wordage,” reportedly called the new legislation “corruption at its ﬁnest” as “there was no problem in complying with the [original] law, as written.” [Cal Matters, 4/5/2018]

Emergency Services Infrastructure

Obernolte in 2019: it’s ‘unconscionable’ to impose fees to pay for 911 system upgrade while state holds a budget surplus. According to ABC News in June 2019, Obernolte disapproved of budget

45 legislation that sought to fund updates to the state’s 911 system. ABC reported, “A $214.8 billion budget approved Thursday by California lawmakers would upgrade the state’s aging 911 system following the most devastating wildﬁre season in state history,” paid for with a new monthly fee on phone bills “even though the state has a projected $21.5 billion surplus, the largest in at least 20 years.”

Republican Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, vice chairman of the Assembly Budget Com- mittee, said it’s ‘unconscionable’ to ask taxpayers to fund the 911 upgrades when there is such a large surplus. Democrats, who have super majorities in both houses of the Legislature, counter that they don’t want to use the surplus to pay for ongoing expenses, something previous Legislatures were eager to do and led to multi-billion dollar budget deﬁcits when the economy soured.

[ABC News, 6/13/2019]

Fee to fund 911 system upgrades estimated to be 34 cents on each bill. US News reported in June 2019 that the fee imposed by the California legislature to pay for upgrades to the state’s 911 system is “estimated to total about 34 cents on each bill and includes landlines and cellphones.” [US News, 6/17/2019]

Tampon Tax

In 2019, Obernolte declined to vote on AB31, a measure to exempt menstrual products from state and local taxes, stating that ‘case-by-case’ exemptions represent ‘bad ﬁscal policy.’ In March 2019, the San Francisco Chronicle reported California Assemblymember Christina Garcia introduced AB31, with “would have California exempt ‘sanitary napkins, tampons, menstrual sponges and menstrual cups’ from all state and local taxes — joining 10 other states and several countries that have repealed similar levies.” The Chronicle reported:

Republican Assemblyman Jay Obernolte of Big Bear Lake (San Bernardino County) declined to vote on the bill. ‘I have nothing against feminine hygiene products; I just believe that making case-by-case exemptions to a broad-based tax is bad ﬁscal policy,’ he said in an email this week.

[San Francisco Chronicle, 3/21/2019]

Alcohol Sales

Obernolte co-authored 2017 legislation to give local governments the option of extending alcohol sales to 4 a.m. According to the Los Angeles Daily News in December 2017, Obernolte co-authored the

46 Let Our Communities Adjust Late-Night (LOCAL) Act, “which would have given local governments across the state the option of extending alcohol sales in bars, nightclubs and restaurants to 4 a.m.” Reportedly, the legislation created a “5-year pilot version” of the Act in six major cities across California. The Los Angeles Daily News reported,

‘As a strong proponent of local control, I think it’s entirely appropriate for cities to determine what’s right for their community,’ said Obernolte. ‘Ultimately, I support giving each municipality the choice on how their local businesses operate without any state interference.’

[Los Angeles Daily News, 12/6/2017]

Social Security

Obernolte abstained from vote on resolution calling on Congress to ‘vote against cuts’ to social security in 2017. In July 2017, Obernolte declined to vote on AJR 8. According to California Legislative Information, AJR 8 would:

call on California’s Representatives in Congress to vote against cuts to, and proposals to privatize, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and would call on the President of the United States to veto any legislation to cut or privatize these programs.

56 members of the Assembly voted for the resolution, while 24 members declined to vote. [California Legislative Information, AJR 8, Introduced 3/23/2017]

Obernolte voted against FY 2017 budget allocating over $357 million in social security funds to rehabilitation programs. In June 2016, Obernolte voted against the Fiscal Year 2017 budget. The budget included line items allocating $353,938,000 to “Vocational Rehabilitation Services” and $3,096,000 to “Independent Living Services.” According to the budget:

The amount appropriated in this item that is payable from federal Social Security Act funds for vocational rehabilitation services for SSI/SSDI recipients shall be expended only to the extent that funds received exceed the amount appropriated in Item 5160- 101-0890 that is payable from the federal Social Security Act funds. It is the intent of the Legislature that ﬁrst priority of federal Social Security Act funding be given to independent living centers in the amount of federal Social Security Act funding appropriated in Item 5160-101-0890.

These line items included a total of $357,034,000 in funding. [California Legislative Information, SB 826, Introduced, 1/7/2016]

47 Obernolte voted against FY 2018 budget allocating over $360 million in social security funds to rehabilitation programs. In June 2017, Obernolte voted against the Fiscal Year 2018 budget. The budget included line items allocating $357,236,000 to “Vocational Rehabilitation Services” and $3,107,000 to “Independent Living Services.” According to the budget:

These programs included a total of $360,343,000 in funding. [California Legislative Information, AB97, Introduced, 1/10/2017]

+++

48 Labor

Labor Highlights

Independent Contractors

Obernolte touted his ‘pushing the state to devote more…funding’ to Employment Development Program, Unemployment Insurance on Facebook in 2020. In April 2018, Obernolte posted on Face- book claiming:

Good News! We have been pushing the state to devote more personnel and funding to ensure that those economically affected by the coronavirus crisis have access to

49 the federal and state unemployment beneﬁts they’ve earned. The Employment Devel- opment Department (EDD) will launch a new call center on Monday that will operate 7 days a week from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

For those of you who have been struggling to get ahold of this department regarding questions with your UI beneﬁts, these extended hours should help ensure that there’s a staff member available to answer your call. I have also attached a link to the frequently asked questions about PUA, which is really helpful in explaining who qualiﬁes for the new program.

[Facebook, Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, 4/18/2020]

Obernolte sent Governor ‘bipartisan letter’ asking for expanded hours of EDD representatives, said Californians ‘deserve better.’ In April 2020, Obernolte posted on Facebook:

This week I sent the Governor a bipartisan letter asking him to expand the hours that EDD representatives can help Californians with their unemployment insurance claims. Just recently, the Governor announced a new call center open seven days a week, 12 hours a day. Unfortunately, this call center was set up only to answer general questions or provide technical assistance.

This is a very frightening time for many Californians who are filing for unemployment benefits for the first time and they need assistance with their claims, not answers to technical questions. Californians are already struggling during this difficult time and deserve better treatment than this.

[Facebook, Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, 4/29/2020]

In 2019, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 5 which ‘minimizes’ work freelancers can complete ‘without being considered full-timers.’ According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 5 on September 11, 2019. Reportedly, the bill was “an act to amend Section 3351 of, and to add Section 2750.3 to, the Labor Code, and to amend Sections 606.5 and 621 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, relating to employment, and making an appropriation therefor.” According to Business Insider, the legislation “tightens the deﬁnition of ‘independent contractor’” and “minimizes the amount of work which can be conducted by freelancers and contractors without being considered full-timers.” Reportedly, “The intention is to prevent employers from taking tax shortcuts and to provide workers who should be classiﬁed as employees with healthcare, workers’ compensation, paid time off, and other rights.” Assembly Bill 5 passed the California State Assembly by a 61-16 vote. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 5, 9/11/2019; Business Insider, 1/27/2020]

In 2019, Obernolte criticized bill expanding employee benefits to gig-economy workers for stifling ‘innovation and entrepreneurism.’ In September 2019, Record Net reported that “A high-profile bill to

50 expand which workers are entitled to employee benefits soon will be California law after Gov. Gavin New- som gave it final approval Wednesday.” Reportedly, “Lawmakers who support the new law say it will force gig-economy companies like ride-share service Uber to reclassify their workers as employees.” Accord- ing to Forbes, gig economy workers are currently classified as independent contractors and therefore do not receive the same benefits as other employees. However, “many Republican lawmakers spoke forcefully against the measure, arguing it will force many workers to become employees against their will.” According to Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Big Bear Lake, “It stifles innovation and entrepreneurism here in California. I’m tired of hearing people say that this bill empowers workers. This bill disenfranchises workers.” [Record Net, 9/18/2019; Forbes, 1/10/2020]

Minimum Wage

Obernolte voted against $15 minimum wage in 2016. In March 2016, Obernolte voted against SB 3, a bill that set the minimum wage at $15 an hour by 2022. The bill passed the Assembly 48 to 26, with ﬁve people not voting, and became law. [California Legislature, SB 3, passed the Assembly, 3/31/2016, became law, 4/4/2016]

Obernolte in 2016: Raising minimum wage would worsen inequality ‘by taking jobs away from the people that need them the most.’ In April 2016, Obernolte wrote an op-ed published in The Sun, entitled, “Minimum wage hike treats symptom, makes problem worse.” The op-ed criticized California’s “recent push to increase the minimum wage in $15 per hour.” According to Obernolte, “dozens and dozens of studies in countries all over the world have shown that raising the minimum wage will make the problem of inequality worse by taking jobs away from the people that need them the most.” [The San Bernardino Sun,4/4/2016]

In 2016, Obernolte compared increasing the minimum wage to ‘prescribing aspirin for a cancer patient.’ In April 2016, Obernolte authored an editorial published in The San Bernardino Sun where he argued increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour in California was akin to prescribing aspirin for a cancer patient—the “cancer” in Obernolte’s metaphor being income inequality. Obernolte wrote:

The real minimum wage is something that we in the Legislature don’t control. The real minimum wage is zero, because that’s what you make when your job no longer exists. And when you take away an entry-level job, you not only deny a worker the low pay from that job, but also the higher pay from the next job they would have secured with the skills they learned in that entry-level job. Working together, we can treat the cancer of income inequality. Unfortunately, this misguided proposal treats just the symptom and thereby unintentionally makes the problem much worse.

[The San Bernardino Sun, 4/4/2016]

51 Paid Leave

Obernolte voted against expanding paid leave provisions in 2015. In September 2015, Obernolte voted no on SB 406, a bill that expanded upon the reasons leave is provided for under the Moore-Brown- Roberti Family Rights Act, which “makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to grant a request by an eligible employee to take up to 12 work weeks of unpaid protected family or medical leave.” SB 406, Would redefine the term ‘child’ to include a biological, adopted, or foster son or daughter, a stepchild, a legal ward, a son or daughter of a domestic partner, or a person to whom the employee stands in loco parentis, and would remove the restriction on age or dependent status. The bill would expand the definition of leave with regard to caring for persons with a serious health condition to also include leave to care for a grandparent, grandchild, sibling, or domestic partner who has a serious health condition. The bill would include a parent-in-law in the definition of ‘parent.’

The bill passed the Assembly 41 to 30, but the Governor vetoed. [California Legislature, SB 406, passed the Assembly, 9/11/2015; vetoed by Governor, 10/11/2015]

In committee in 2019, Obernolte voted against AB 555, which would increase number of paid sick leave days and mandate application of sick days ‘due to a public health emergency.’ In 2019, Obernolte voted with a 5-12 minority to oppose AB 555 in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The bill would modify the employer’s alternate sick leave accrual method to require that an employee have no less than 40 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 200th calendar day of employment or each calendar year, or in each 12-month period. The bill would expand the purposes for which paid sick days are required to be provided to include purposes related to the employee’s donation of bone marrow or an organ and the closure, due to a public health emergency, of the employee’s place of business or of the employee’s child’s school or childcare.

According to a May 2019 Cal Chamber podcast, the bill speciﬁcally “seeks to expand the number of paid sick days employers are required to provide from 3 days (24 hours) to 5 days (40 hours).” The bill “died on inactive ﬁle.” [California Legislative Information, 2/13/2019; Cal Chamber, Proposed Expansion of Leaves of Absence Programs, 5/2/2019]

Obernolte voted against bill which would give paid leave to Californians caring for seriously ill children and family members in 2019; bill takes effect in July 2020. In June 2019, Obernolte voted with an 11-63 minority to oppose SB 83. Republicans voting for the bill included Assemblyman Cunning- ham, Assemblyman Lackey, and Assemblyman Diep. The bill became law. According to the Society

52 for Human Resource Management, the bill will “extend the maximum duration of paid family leave (PFL) beneﬁts from six to eight weeks beginning on July 1, 2020.” Reportedly, “individuals may receive such from California’s state disability insurance (SDI) program” if they take time off to “care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling or domestic partner.” The legislation also applies to parents who take time off “to bond with a minor child within one year of the birth or placement of the child through foster care or adoption.” [California Legislative Information, SB 83, Introduced 1/10/2019; Society for Human Resource Management, 7/2/2019]

Obernolte one of three Assemblymembers to vote against paid maternity leave for educators in 2019. In 2019, Obernolte voted with a 3-68 minority to opposed AB 500. According to the California Federation of Teachers, the bill would “would mandate a minimum of six weeks paid maternity leave for school and community college employees.” The leave would apply to educators needing to time off due to “pregnancy, miscarriage, childbirth, and recovery from those conditions.” Five members of the entire California State Legislature, three in the House and two in the Senate, voted against the bill. The legislation became law in 2020. [California Legislative Information, AB 500, Introduced, 2/13/2019; California Federation of Teachers, 5/14/2019]

Worker Protections

Obernolte voted against prohibiting employer from requiring employee to waive legal rights in 2015. In August 2015, Obernolte voted against AB 465, a bill that prohibited,

Any person from requiring another person, as a condition of employment, to agree to the waiver of any legal right, penalty, forum, or procedure for any employment law violations. The bill would prohibit a person from threatening, retaliating against, or discriminating against another person based on a refusal to agree to such waiver, and would provide that any such waiver required from an employee or potential employee as a condition of employment or continued employment is unconscionable, against public policy, and unenforceable.

The Assembly passed the bill in a 46 to 31 vote, with three people not voting, but the Governor vetoed. [California Legislature, AB 465, Assembly concurred with Senate amendments, 8/27/2015; vetoed by Governor, 10/11/2015]

In 2019, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 35, which aimed to protect employees from lead exposure. According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 35 on September 10, 2019. The bill was described as “An act to amend Section 105185 of the Health and Safety Code, and to add Section 147.3 to the Labor Code, relating to employment.” Reportedly,

53 This bill would require the State Department of Public Health (department) to consider a report from a laboratory of an employee’s blood lead level at or above 20 micrograms per deciliter to be injurious to the health of the employee and to report that case within 5 business days of receiving the report to the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (division). The bill would further provide that the above-described report would constitute a serious violation and subject the employer or place of employment to an investigation, as provided, by the division, and would require the division to make any citations or ﬁnes imposed as a result of the investigation publicly available on an annual basis. The bill would specify that the blood lead levels identiﬁed in these provisions that trigger action by the department and the division do not supersede any lower blood lead levels established by regulations adopted by the division that would trigger required action by an employer.

Assembly Bill 35 passed the California State Assembly by a 51-22 vote and was approved by the Governor on October 10, 2019. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 35, 9/10/2019]

Obernolte voted against extending labor protections to agricultural workers in 2016. In August 2016, Obernolte voted against AB 1066:

Existing law sets wage, hour, meal break requirements, and other working conditions for employees and requires an employer to pay overtime wages as specified to an employee who works in excess of a workday or workweek, as defined, and imposes criminal penalties for the violation of these requirements… This bill would remove the exemption for agricultural employees regarding hours, meal breaks, and other working conditions, including specified wage requirements, and would create a schedule that would phase in overtime requirements for agricultural workers, as defined, over the course of 4 years, from 2019 to 2022, inclusive.

The Assembly passed the bill in a 44 to 32 vote, with four people not voting, and became law. [California Legislature, AB 1066, passed by Assembly, 8/29/2016; became law, 9/12/2016]

Obernolte voted against creation of a statewide retirement savings plan for all workers in 2016. In August 2016, Obernolte voted against SB 1234, a bill that created the California Secure Choice Re- tirement Savings Program. The program required,

Eligible employers that do not offer speciﬁed retirement plans or accounts to have a payroll deposit retirement savings arrangement so that employees may participate in the program within speciﬁed time periods based on the number of eligible employees

54 that the employer has, and the bill would authorize the board to extend these time periods.

According to The Sacramento Bee, the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program,

Will be the largest of its kind in the country. Phasing in over several years, the program could begin accepting its first contributions from workers at employers with 100 or more employees by 2018, officials said. Within a year, it would apply to all companies with five or more workers.

The bill passed the Assembly 52 to 26, with two people not voting, and became law. [California Legislature, SB 1234, passed the Assembly, 8/25/2016; became law, 9/29/2016; The Sacramento Bee, 9/29/2016]

California Labor Federation gave Obernolte six percent Lifetime Score for ﬂoor votes in 2017. In 2017, the California Labor Federation gave Obernolte six percent Lifetime Score for ﬂoor votes. The previous year, the organization gave Obernolte a score of 7 percent. [VoteSmart, Accessed 4/20/2020; Accessed 4/20/2020]

California Labor Federation gave Obernolte ten percent lifetime score in 2019. In 2019, the Califor- nia Labor Federation gave Obernolte a ten percent Lifetime Score for ﬂoor votes. The organization gave Obernolte a 20 percent score for 2019 votes. [California Labor Federation, 2019]

Equal Pay for Women

Obernolte one of two Assembly Members not to vote on 2015 California Fair Pay Act, bill became law. In August 2015, Obernolte declined to vote on S.B. 358, the California Fair Pay Act. The Assembly passed the bill in a 76-2 vote, with two members, including Obernolte, declining to vote. The Senate passed the bill unanimously in August 2015. In January 2016, the Society for Human Resource Manage- ment reported that Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill into law in October 2015. The law reportedly took effect on January 1, 2016. The legislation:

requires employers to pay employees of the opposite sex equivalent wages for ‘for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsi- bility, and performed under similar working conditions.’ This is a signiﬁcant change from the law’s former requirement that employees of the opposite sex receive equal pay for ’equal work.

[California Legislative Information, SB 358, Introduced 2/24/2015; Society for Human Resource Manage- ment, 1/11/2016]

+++

55 Immigration

Immigration Highlights

Undocumented Minors

Obernolte one of six assembly members to vote against requiring oversight of undocumented minors in 2019. In January 2019, Obernolte voted with a 5-60 minority to oppose AB 163. In February 2019, the Chronicle of Social Change reported that legislators introducing AB 163 “want[ed] the state to exercise more oversight over the federal program that handles unaccompanied minors from other countries.” Reportedly, this included oversight of “those who were separated from their families under Trump’s controversial 2018 policy”:

Assembly Bill 163 would require the group homes and foster family agencies (FFA)that contract with federal Ofﬁce of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to report to the state the number of unaccompanied immigrant youth in their care. Those agencies would also have to report on the length of placements, and arrange for each youth to meet with a legal aid group. The bill would also require a county child welfare representative to meet with each youth to assess their well-being and offer mental health services.

Reportedly, before AB 163, “there [was] no policy for ORR-contracted group homes and FFAs to provide information about youth in ORR custody to any California state departments.” [California Legislative Information, AB 163, Introduced 1/7/2019; Chronicle of Social Change, 2/21/2019]

56 Sanctuary Cities and States

Obernolte opposed California’s ‘Sanctuary State’ law. According to his campaign website, Obernolte “opposed the ‘Sanctuary State’ law.” Obernolte states on his campaign website that he “will work to provide adequate funding to secure our borders and crack down on human trafﬁcking, drug trafﬁcking and illegal entries.” [Obernolte for Congress, Accessed 5/4/2020; Accessed 5/4/2020]

Obernolte voted against California Values Act which sought to make California a sanctuary state in 2017. In September 2017, Obernolte voted with a 26-51 majority to oppose SB 54, also known as the California Values Act or the California Sanctuary Law According to the ACLU of Southern California, the bill “ensures that no state and local resources are used to assist federal immigration enforcement.” Reportedly, this made it such that, “our schools, our hospitals, and our courthouses are safe spaces for everyone in our community.” [California Legislative Information, SB 54, Introduced 12/5/2016; ACLU of Southern California, Accessed 5/10/2020]

Federal appeals panel unanimously upheld SB 54 in 2019. In April 2019, National Public Radio reported that, “a federal appeals panel has upheld California’s controversial ‘sanctuary state’ law.” Re- portedly, the court ruled, “that the measure does not impede the enforcement of federal immigration laws in that state”: A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, found that the state law, known as SB 54, limiting cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities does not conﬂict with federal law. The judges said they ‘have no doubt that SB 54 makes the jobs of federal immigration authorities more difﬁcult.’ But ‘California has the right … to refrain from assisting with federal efforts.’

[National Public Radio, 4/18/2019]

Immigrant Healthcare

Obernolte opposes providing healthcare to undocumented immigrants. According to his campaign website, Obernolte “opposed […] giving free health care to illegal immigrants.” [Obernolte for Congress, Accessed, 5/4/2020; Accessed, 5/4/2020]

Obernolte voted against providing undocumented immigrants with MediCal benefits in 2019. In May 2019, Obernolte voted with a 17-51 minority to oppose AB 4. According to the bill’s Assembly Floor Analysis, the bill “extends eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits to undocumented adults age 19 and above who are otherwise eligible for those benefits but for their immigration status.” Moreover, the legislation “implements this bill only to the extent there is an appropriation in the annual Budget Act

57 or another statute.” In July 2019, the author of the bill requested that a senate hearing regarding the legislation be cancelled. As of May 2020, the bill remained in Committee in the Senate. [California Legislative Information, AB 4, Introduced 12/3/2018] Obernolte voted against providing undocumented immigrants with MediCal benefits in 2018. In May 2018, Obernolte voted with a 25-47 minority to oppose AB 2965. Modern Healthcare reported in May 2018 that, “the proposal would eliminate legal residency requirements in California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal.” Reportedly, “the state ha[d] already nixed the requirement for individuals younger than 19.” Reportedly, “offering full-cost coverage would cost the state $3 billion for the 2018-19 year, according to California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.” The bill sought to address the issue of “undocumented California residents hav[ing] inconsistent access to care and [significant] rel[iance] on community clinics or emergency rooms.” [California Legislative Information, AB 1965, Introduced 2/16/2018; Modern Healthcare, 5/30/2018] Obernolte voted against allowing undocumented immigrants to purchase insurance through the ACA marketplace in 2016. In May 2016, Obernolte voted with a 20-55 minority to oppose SB 10. Ac- cording to the California Immigrant Policy Center, SB 10:

would expand access to health care coverage for all Californians, regardless of immigration status, through the state marketplace. The bill requires the state to apply for a federal waiver that would allow undocumented immigrants and DACA recipients to buy unsubsidized coverage through Covered California using their own money. re- moves a critical barrier to health access due to immigration status and moves Cali- fornia closer to ensuring that every Californian has comprehensive, affordable, and accessible care. This bill directs the state to apply for a waiver under Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act allowing undocumented immigrants to purchase health coverage through Covered California with their own money. If granted, the 1332 waiver would make it possible for undocumented adults to review, and purchase Covered California plans available to them. Unfortunately, these individuals will not be eligible for subsidies.

[California Legislative Information, SB 10, Introduced, 12/1/2014; [California Immigrant Policy Center, 4/2016]

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Obernolte voted against ‘No Private ICE Act’ in 2019 which would ban privately hired security from arresting or detaining immigrants. In September 2019, Obernolte voted with a 16-61 minority to oppose AB 1282, also known as the “No Private ICE Act.” According Advancing Justice LA, a non-proﬁt civil rights organization, the bill

58 prohibits the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) from facilitating or allowing private security guards to detain, take custody of or arrest individuals for immigration enforcement purposes.

Reportedly, “in recent years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has increasingly relied on private contractors to carry out its extensive enforcement operations” in California. As such, “many of these arrests for immigration enforcement purposes in state prisons are conducted not by ICE ofﬁcers, but by employees of private security corporations.” Reportedly, “ICE’s use of private contractors to execute immigration arrest warrants in prisons violates the federal Immigration and Nationality Act” because, “private contractors clearly do not have authority to conduct immigration arrests” under the law. According to the fact sheet, “the practice of…private security guards arresting individuals in state prisons for immigration enforcement purposes has been particularly harmful to Southeast Asian refugees.” The Governor vetoed the bill in January 2020. [California Legislative Information, AB 1282, Introduced 2/21/2019; Advancing Justice LA, 4/24/2019]

+++

59 Healthcare

Healthcare Highlights

• Obernolte criticized the Fiscal Year 2020 budget in 2019 for expanding the “systematically broken” Medi-Cal program, citing his constituents’ inability to access healthcare due to the program’s “low reimbursement rates.” • In 2018, Obernolte voted against SB910, a bill that sought to ban the sale of “junk” healthcare plans that can “deny those with pre-existing conditions.” The bill still succeeded without Obernolte’s vote. • Obernolte voted against a bill in 2015 that would extend Medi-Cal beneﬁts to children 18 years or younger, regardless of immigration status. • Obernolte opposed a tax on people who refuse to purchase health insurance 2019, stating that “it makes no sense” because the tax would “take money away from people making $30,000 to $50,000 a year and give it to people making between $75,000 and $130,000 a year.” • In 2015, Obernolte voted for, then abstained from, a measure extending protections for insured patients receiving covered services from non-contracting health professionals. • Obernolte voted against legislation to limit surprise emergency room billing in 2019. The bill would “impose the same out-of-pocket costs for emergency care whether the providers are in-network or not.” • In 2019, Obernolte voted against AB 1246, which would require most large insurance programs to cover “medically necessary” services and prescriptions drugs. • Obernolte voted against a bill in 2016 that increased state aid for the elderly, blind, and disabled. • Obernolte did not vote for AB 243 and AB266 in 2015, two measures that contained “California’s historic new medical cannabis regulations.” • Obernolte voted against mandatory school vaccinations in 2015.

Medi-Cal

Obernolte criticized expansion of ‘systemically broken’ Medi-Cal in 2019-20 state budget. Accord- ing to the Big Bear Grizzly in June 2019, Obernolte commented on the passage of California’s 2019-20 state budget:

Unfortunately, the Legislature also approved a massive expansion to Medi-Cal, a health care program that is systemically broken and already fails to fulﬁll its promise to the California residents it is meant to serve. Expanding this program before ﬁxing its existing problems is a huge disservice to the most vulnerable Californians, many of whom currently have little access to care. Californians deserve better than a bud-

60 get that expands the size of state government without ﬁxing the basic problems that plague our state.

[Big Bear Grizzly, 6/15/2019]

In 2019, Obernolte opposed Medi-Cal expansion, citing his constituents’ inability to access healthcare due to Medi-Cal’s ‘low reimbursement rates.’ In June 2019, California Healthline reported that the state’s $215 billion budget makes “several investments” in Medi-Cal enrollment and services. How- ever, “covering young adults became the most controversial health care issue in this year’s budget” and “Republicans criticized the effort, arguing that Medi-Cal should be ﬁxed before it is expanded.” According to state Assemblyman Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake), “Every day, my district ofﬁces get calls from my constituents who are unable to see a doctor, even though they are technically covered by Medi-Cal, because so few doctors in my district are able to take the low reimbursement rates that Medi-Cal provides.” [California Healthline, 6/24/2019]

Obernolte voted against an omnibus funding bill that extended eligibility for Medi-Cal beneﬁts to children under the age of 19, regardless of immigration status. In June 2015, Obernolte voted against:

Extend[ing] eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits to individuals under 19 years of age who do not have, or are unable to establish, satisfactory immigration status. The bill would direct the State Department of Health Care Services to seek any necessary federal approvals to obtain federal financial participation for these services, and would require that these services be provided with state-only funds only if federal financial participation is not available.

The bill passed the Assembly 52 to 27, with one not voting, and became law. [California Legislature, SB 75, passed the Assembly, 6/19/2015; became law, 6/24/2015]

Obernolte voted against extending state healthcare beneﬁts to undocumented children. In Septem- ber 2015, Obernolte voted against SB 4, a bill that required,

Individuals under 19 years of age enrolled in restricted-scope Medi-Cal at the time the director makes the above-described determination to be enrolled in the full scope of Medi-Cal benefits, if otherwise eligible, pursuant to an eligibility and enrollment plan, as specified… the California Legislature has extended eligibility for full-scope Medi- Cal benefits to all children in California, regardless of immigration status.

The bill passed the Assembly 52 to 23, with ﬁve people not voting, and became law. [California Legislature, SB 4, passed the Assembly, 9/11/2015; became law, 10/9/2015]

61 Universal Healthcare

In 2019, Obernolte opposed tax on people who refuse to buy health insurance, stating that it ‘makes no sense.’ In June 2019, KTLA 5 reported that “The California Legislature voted Monday to tax people who refuse to buy health insurance, bringing back a key part of former President Barack Obama’s health care law in the country’s most populous state after it was eliminated by Republicans in Congress.” Reportedly,

If the bill becomes law, California would join Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington, D.C., next year as the only governments in the U.S. to penalize people who don’t buy health insurance. That means a family of four earning up to $150,000 a year would be eligible.

According to Republican state Sen. John Moorlach, “in 2014 that 82% of Californians who paid the penalty for not having health insurance had taxable incomes of $50,000 or less.” Obernolte commented: “This trailer bill will take money away from people making $30,000 to $50,000 a year and give it to people making between $75,000 and $130,000 a year. That makes no sense.” [KTLA 5, 6/24/2019]

Obernolte voted for, then abstained from, extending protections for insured patients receiving covered services provided by non contracting health professionals. In June 2015, Obernolte voted for AB 533, a bill that required:

Health care service plan contract or health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2016, to provide that if an enrollee or insured receives covered services from a contracting health facility, as deﬁned, at which, or as a result of which, the enrollee or insured receives covered services provided by a noncontracting individual health professional, as deﬁned, the enrollee or insured would be required to pay the noncontracting individual health professional only the same cost sharing required if the services were provided by a contracting individual health professional. The bill would prohibit an enrollee or insured from owing the noncontracting individual health professional at the contracting health facility more than the in-network cost-sharing amount if the noncontracting individual health professional receives reimbursement for services provided to the enrollee or insured at a contracting health facility from the health care service plan or health insurer.

The bill passed the Assembly in a 74 to one vote with ﬁve people not voting. However, in September 2015, Obernolte abstained from voting on AB 533. The Assembly vote to concur with Senate amendments failed 38 to 10, with 32 people not voting, and in November 2016, the bill died. [AB 533, Assembly failed to concur with Senate amendments, 9/12/2015; bill died, 11/30/2016]

62 Affordability

Obernolte voted against requiring some California health plans to cover enrollees with pre- existing conditions in 2018. In August 2018, Obernolte voted with a 21-51 minority to oppose SB910. According to Health Access, the bill eliminated sale of short term health programs that did not abide by the Affordable Care Act’s pre-existing condition protections:

In July, the Trump Administration announced that it would allow so-called ‘short-term’ health care coverage — insurance that does not have to abide by Affordable Care Act (ACA) consumer protections & can deny those with pre-existing conditions — to last a year, with the option to renew for up to 3 years. SB 910 (Hernandez) bans the sale of these junk plans in California.

[California Legislative Information, SB 910, Introduced, 1/18/2018; Health Access, 9/28/2019]

Obernolte voted against legislation to limit surprise emergency room billing in 2019. In May 2019, Obernolte voted with a 9-48 minority to oppose AB 1611. The Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece in May 2019 stating that the bill “would require health insurance policies that take effect on or after Jan. 1, 2020, to impose the same out-of-pocket costs for emergency care whether the providers are in-network or not.” The piece continued:

The Assembly passed the bill in May 2019, and the bill remained in the Senate as of May 2020. [California Legislative Information, AB 1611, Introduced, 2/22/2019; Los Angeles Times, 5/30/2019]

63 This bill would require large group health insurance policies, except certain special- ized health insurance policies, issued, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2020, to include coverage for medically necessary basic health care services and…would prohibit those large group health insurance policies from imposing annual or lifetime dollar limits on basic health care services or medically necessary prescription drugs.

As of May 2020, the Senate had yet to vote on the bill. [California Legislative Information, AB 1246, Introduced 2/21/2019; California Health Beneﬁts Review Program, 4/4/2019]

Disability

Obernolte voted against a 2016 omnibus bill that increased the amount of aid paid under the state supplementary program for the elderly, blind, and disabled by 2.76 percent. In June 2016, Obernolte voted against AB 1603:

Existing state law provides for disability benefits programs, including the State Supple- mentary Program for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled (SSP), under which state funds are provided in supplementation of federal SSI benefits… This bill, commencing Jan- uary 1, 2017, would increase the amount of aid paid under SSP that is in effect on December 31, 2016, less the federal benefit portion received, by 2.76%.

The Assembly passed the bill in a 54 to 24 vote, with two people not voting, and the bill became law. [California Legislature, AB 1603, Assembly concurred with Senate amendments, 6/16/2016; became law, 6/27/2016]

64 Medical Marijuana

In 2015, Obernolte did not vote for Assembly Bill 243, which was one of ‘three bills containing California’s historic new medical cannabis regulations.’ According to the California Legislative Infor- mation site, Obernolte abstained from voting on Assembly Bill 243 on September 11, 2015. The bill is described as “An act to add Article 6 (commencing with Section 19331), Article 13 (commencing with Sec- tion 19350), and Article 17 (commencing with Section 19360) to Chapter 3.5 of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, to add Section 12029 to the Fish and Game Code, to add Sections 11362.769 and 11362.777 to the Health and Safety Code, and to add Section 13276 to the Water Code, relating to medical marijuana, and making an appropriation therefor.” Reportedly,

This bill would require the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the State Department of Public Health, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the State Water Resources Control Board to promulgate regulations or standards relating to medical marijuana and its cultivation, as speciﬁed. The bill would also require various state agencies to take speciﬁed actions to mitigate the impact that marijuana cultivation has on the environment.

Additionally, “This bill would require a state licensing authority to charge each licensee under the act a licensure and renewal fee, as applicable, and would further require the deposit of those collected fees into an account speciﬁc to that licensing authority in the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Fund, which this bill would establish.” According to the East Bay Express, Assembly Bill 243 was one of “three bills containing California’s historic new medical cannabis regulations.” The legislation passed the California State Assembly by a 60-13 vote and was approved by the Governor on October 9, 2015. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 243, 9/11/2015; East Bay Express, 9/11/2015]

In 2015, Obernolte did not vote for Assembly Bill 266, a measure that would ‘regulate medical cannabis production and sale for the first time in 20 years.’ According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte abstained from voting on Assembly Bill 266 on September 11, 2015. The bill is described as “An act to amend Sections 27 and 101 of, to add Section 205.1 to, and to add Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 19300) to Division 8 of, the Business and Professions Code, to amend Section 9147.7 of the Government Code, to amend Section 11362.775 of the Health and Safety Code, to add Section 147.5 to the Labor Code, and to add Section 31020 to the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to medical marijuana.” In September 2015, Cashinbis reported that Assembly Bill 266 is “a measure that would finally regulate medical cannabis production and sale for the first time in 20 years.” The legislation passed the California State Assembly by a 59-14 vote and was approved by the Governor on October 9, 2015. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 266, 9/11/2015; Cashinbis, 9/16/2015]

65 Vaccinations

Obernolte in 2015: student immunization mandate ‘will only open the door for further government intrusion into our lives.’ In June 2015, the Victorville Daily Press reported that Obernolte opposed SB 277, which would “require vaccinations for most children in California’s public or private schools, excluding only those with medical exemptions.” Reportedly, ”Obernolte said Monday that he and his wife had decided to vaccinate their children after ‘a signiﬁcant amount of research … but it was exactly that: A choice.’ Obernolte continued: SB 277 infringes on a parent’s right to make this choice, which directly challenges the constitutional freedoms that our country was founded upon…If we give the state the power to mandate immunizations as a requirement to receive a public education, it will only open the door for further government intrusion into our lives.

[Victorville Daily Press, 6/22/2015]

66 California who have been granted a medical exemption has tripled, according to California Healthline, which has serious implications.” Reportedly:

[The Cut, 9/10/2019]

+++

67 Veterans

Veterans Highlights

Barstow Veterans Home

Newsom’s May 2020 proposed budget would have eliminated Barstow Veterans Home, Assembly rejected cuts with Obernolte’s support in June 2020. In June 2020, according to the Victorville Daily Press, lawmakers in the California State Assembly rejected Governor Newsom’s proposed elimination of funding for the Barstow Veterans Home. Reportedly, Obernolte, who represents the district where the Home is located, was “elated” that the Home would remain open, saying “Keeping this vital facility open is a huge victory for our veterans, their families, and our community.” [Victorville Daily Press, 6/17/2020]

Obernolte voted against every state budget containing funding for Barstow Veterans Home between 2016 and 2019.. According to California Legislative Information, the Budget Act of 2016 included $23,859,000 for “Veterans Home of California at Barstow.” Similarly, the Budget Act of 2017 contained $24,224,000 for the “Veterans’ Home of California at Barstow,” and the Budget Act of 2019 contained $26,815,000 for “Veterans Home of California at Barstow.” Obernolte voted against all three of these budget bills. [California Legislative Information, SB 826, 6/15/2016; AB 97, 6/15/2017; AB 74, 6/13/2018]

In 2020, Obernolte voted against FY 2021 budget including funding for the Barstow Veterans Home and its 216 employees. According to California Legislative Information, Obernolte voted against AB 89, the Budget Act of 2020, on June 26, 2020. The bill reportedly included funding for the Barstow Veterans Home, which, according to the California State Controller in February 2020, employed 216 California residents. Despite voting against the bill that would have provided funding for the Home, Obernolte reportedly claimed he remains “steadfastly committed to keeping this home open,” according to the Victor Valley News. [California Legislative Information, 6/26/2020; California State Controller, 2/2020; Victor Valley News, 6/29/2020]

68 Veteran Job Services

Obernolte voted against FY20 budget bill. According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 74, the Budget Act of 2019, on June 13, 2019. The bill was described as “an act making appropriations for the support of the government of the State of California and for several public purposes in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of Article IV of the Constitution of the State of California, relating to the state budget, to take effect immediately, budget bill.” The bill passed the California Assembly by a 60-17 vote. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 2019, 6/13/2019]

FY 2020 budget allocated over $1 billion to the Employment Development Department; the department employs 7,565 and runs Unemployment Insurance in California. According to California Legislative Information, the Fiscal Year 2021 California State Budget included $1,037,610,000 in funding for the Employment Development Department, some of which is payable from various other state funds. According to the California State Controller, the Department employed a total of 7,565 people, including 7,012 full-time employees, as of February 2020. According to the Employment Development Board, the Department runs various jobs programs throughout the state, including the CalJOBS job search platform, and also distributed unemployment insurance payments to Californians during the pandemic. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 89, 6/26/2020; California State Controller, 2/2020; Employment Development Department, Accessed 7/22/2020]

Employment Training Panel ‘provides funding to employers to assist in upgrading the skills of their workers through training that leads to good paying, long-term jobs.’ According to the Employment Training Panel, the Panel “provides funding to employers to assist in upgrading the skills of their workers through training that leads to good paying, long-term jobs.” Reportedly, in 2020 alone, the program approved 38 contracts to train employees, ultimately assisting 12,000 workers in California. The Board does not run the training programs themselves, instead giving employers the funds to conduct their own skills-based training. [Employment Training Panel, Accessed [7/8/2020](https://etp.ca.gov/#:~:text=The%20Employment%20Training%20Panel%20(ETP,paying%2C%20long- term%20jobs)]

Employment Training Panel employs 106 people. In February 2020, according to the California State Controller, 106 state employees, including 90 full-time employees, worked with the Employment training panel.[California State Controller, 2/2020]

Employment Training Panel ‘fully supports the use of ETP funds to train Veterans and funds Veteran-speciﬁc training programs. According to the Employment Training Panel website, “ETP has funded training for Veterans for the past six years.” Employers that have worked with the ETP to run Veteran-speciﬁc training programs include “National Veterans Transition Services, Inc., Alliance Environ- mental Holdings, LLC, Herman Weissker Power, Inc., Herman Weissker, Inc., Peterson Holding Com-

69 pany, Diamond Foods, LLC, Land O’Lakes, Inc., California Manufacturers and Technology Association, and ASAP Holding Co. dba ASAP Drain Guys & Plumbing.” Reportedly, Peter Cooper, ETP’s Assistant Executive Director, said, “the Panel fully supports the use of ETP funds to train Veterans and Individuals With Disabilities. We are glad to recognize the efforts made by our Contractors to recruit, hire, train and retain from this workforce population.” [Employment Training Panel, 7/2/2020]

Employment Training Panel expanded training programs in response to COVID-19.. According to the Employment Training Panel website, the Panel altered their training protocols. The Panel reportedly increased the cap on percentage of training that could be dedicated to safety from 10 percent to 50 percent. Reportedly, employees who had previously expected to participate in an ETP training program but were furloughed could still “meet the minimum training and wage requirements.” [Employment Training Panel, 3/2/2020]

+++

70 Civil Rights

Civil Rights Highlights

Women’s and Reproductive Rights

Obernolte voted against Reproductive Health Discrimination Act in 2017, Governor Brown vetoed legislation. In September 2017, Obernolte voted with a 20-55 minority to oppose AB 569. The bill would: Amend provisions of labor law relating to the prohibition on an employer from taking any adverse action against an employee or their dependent or family member for their reproductive health decisions, including, but not limited to, the timing thereof, or the use of any drug, device, or medical service. The bill would also specify that any contract or agreement, express or implied, made by an employee to waive this beneﬁt is null and void.

NARAL reported in October 2017 that the bill would have:

protected workers from ﬁring or other punishment in the workplace based on their private reproductive health choices, such as using birth control, having an abortion, or using assisted reproductive technologies. Women around the country have been ﬁred for reproductive health decisions like using IVF or being pregnant while unmarried, including Teri James of San Diego. RHNDA passed the legislature with bipartisan support. More than 80 organizations supported the bill, including 16 faith groups that argued that true religious freedom means allowing people to make decisions based on their own morals and values. More than 300 small businesses signed on to urge the legislature and governor to grant these protections to all employees in California.

71 Governor Brown vetoed the legislation in October 2017. [California Legislative Information, AB 569, Introduced 2/14/2017; NARAL, 10/16/2017]

Obernolte voted against requiring employers to make lactation accommodations in 2019. In September 2019, Obernolte voted with a 12-17 minority to oppose SB 142. According to Bloomberg Law, SB 142 “signiﬁcantly expands an employer’s obligation to provide lactation accommodations for employees and provides consequences for non-compliance.” Reportedly, the law, which took effect on January 1, 2020, requires that employers with over ﬁfty employees create breastfeeding spaces that must: Be shielded from view and free from intrusion while the employee expresses milk; Be safe, clean, and free of hazardous materials; Contain a surface to place a breast pump and personal items; Contain a place to sit; and Have access to electricity or alternative devices (such as extension cords or charging stations) needed to operate an electric or battery-powered breast pump.

[California Legislative Information, SB 142, Introduced 1/18/2019; Bloomberg Law, 12/5/2019]

Obernolte voted against Reproductive FACT Act in 2015, SCOTUS struck down law in 2018. In May 2015, Obernolte voted with a 26-49 minority to oppose the Reproductive FACT Act, or AB 775. The bill would: enact the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act, which would require a licensed covered facility, as defined, to disseminate a notice to all clients, as specified, stating, among other things, that Cal- ifornia has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women. The bill would also require an unlicensed covered facility, as defined, to disseminate a notice to all clients, as specified, stating, among other things, that the facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California.

In June 2018, National Public Radio reported that:

The FACT Act requires unlicensed crisis pregnancy centers to post a sign or otherwise disclose to their clients in writing that the center is not a licensed medical facility and has no licensed medical provider who supervises the provision of services. The disclosure requirement extends to advertising, which anti-abortion pregnancy centers objected to as an attempt to ‘drown out’ their message.

The second provision of the law, dealing with licensed centers, requires clinics that do not provide a full range of reproductive care, including services covered by Medicaid,

72 to post a sign that says the state provides free or low-cost access to prenatal care, birth control and other reproductive care, including abortions.

Reportedly,

In a 5-4 ruling, the [Supreme] court said the centers are likely to succeed in their claim that the law violates the First Amendment. That overturns an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit upholding the law and sends the case back for further consideration.

[California Legislative Information, AB 775, Introduced, 2/25/2015; National Public Radio, 6/26/2018]

Obernolte appears not to employ women at FarSight Studios. While public records cannot conﬁrm the gender diversity of the staff at FarSight Studios, a photo of the staff on the FarSight Studios website appears to include only men.

[WebArchive, FarSight Studios, Archived 6/15/2020]

LGBTQ

Obernolte voted against prohibiting advertising of conversion therapy in 2018. In April 2018, Ober- nolte voted with an 18-50 minority to oppose AB 2943. The Sacramento Bee reported in August 2018 that “Assembly Bill 2943 would have made it illegal to sell any service intended to change an individual’s sexuality or gender identity.” Reportedly, “the measure had already passed with large majorities in both

73 the Assembly and Senate, with overwhelming support from Democrats, and was one vote away from the governor’s desk.” However, the main sponsor of the bill Assemblyman Evan Low decided to withdraw the bill from consideration “after meeting this summer with faith leaders.” Reportedly, “he would instead try again next year with a new version of the proposal they could feel more comfortable with.” [California Legislative Information, AB 2943, Introduced, 2/16/2018; Sacramento Bee, 8/21/2018]

Obernolte declined to vote on bill encouraging schools to train educators in supporting LGBTQ+ students, bill passed assembly with 64-3 majority. In September 2019, Obernolte declined to vote on AB 493, which

would encourage each school operated by a school district or county office of education and each charter school to use resources developed by the State Department of Education to provide training at least once every 2 years to teachers and other certificated employees at that school that serve pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, and to other certificated employees at that school, on schoolsite and community resources for the support of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) pupils, and strategies to increase support for LGBTQ pupils and thereby improve overall school climate, as specified.

Obernolte was one of 12 Assembly Members who declined to vote on the measure. The bill became law in October 2019. [California Legislative Information, AB 493, Introduced 2/12/2019]

Racial Justice

In committee, Obernolte voted against bill to establish reparations committee in 2020. In June 2020, Cal Matters reported that after the death of George Floyd and the “anger and frustration that ﬂooded more than 20 cities […] one proposed bill out of Sacramento could offer a starting point for apology — and healing.” Reportedly,

San Diego Democratic Assemblywoman Shirley Weber’s AB 3121 would establish an eight-member reparations committee to educate Californians about slavery and to recommend direct and indirect state settlements to help remedy generations of inequality and discrimination. The bill quietly advanced out of the Assembly’s judiciary committee before the nation erupted in protest and heads to the full Assembly for a vote.

There is no formal opposition to the bill, but three Republican lawmakers — James Gallagher of Yuba City, Kevin Kiley of Granite Bay and Jay Obernolte of Hesperia — voted against Weber’s bill in the judiciary committee. According to Kiley’s chief of

74 staff, Joshua Hoover, one reason the assemblyman voted no is that he believes ‘the federal level is a more appropriate place for this discussion to take place.’

[Cal Matters, 6/1/2020]

+++

75 Gun Regulation

Gun Regulation Highlights

Gun Control

Obernolte voted to ban manufacturing of phone cases that look like firearms. In 2016, Obernolte voted with a 74-5 majority to support AB 1798. According to the legislation, law already dictated people were prohibited “from manufacturing, entering into commerce, shipping, transporting, or receiving any toy, look-alike, or imitation firearm unless the firearm contains, or has affixed to it, a marking approved by the federal Secretary of Commerce.” This legislation extended that law to a “protective case for a cellular telephone that is so substantially similar in coloration and overall appearance to an existing firearm as to lead a reasonable person to perceive that the device is a firearm.” The bill became law in August 2016. [California Legislative Information, AB 1798, Introduced 2/8/2016]

Obernolte voted for one version of an ammunition background check bill which NRA opposed in 2015, voted against the ﬁnal version of legislation in 2016. In June 2015, Obernolte voted with a

76 76-4 majority to support AB 156, a bill that would require both record keeping of ammunition purchases and authorization of ammunition purchases:

The Attorney General shall establish and maintain an online database to be known as the Prohibited Armed Persons File. The purpose of the file is to cross-reference persons who have ownership or possession of a firearm on or after January 1, 1996, as indicated by a record in the Consolidated Firearms Information System, and who, subsequent to the date of that ownership or possession of a firearm, fall within a class of persons who are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. (b) Commencing July 1, 2019, the file shall also be used to cross-reference persons who attempt to acquire ammunition to determine if those persons fall within a class of persons who are prohibited from owning or possessing ammunition.

A sister bill of AB 156 known as SB 1235 advanced through the legislature during the same session. In June 2016, the Santa Maria Sun reported that AB 156 and SB 1235 were part of a set of “sweeping gun restrictions” progressing through the California legislature. Reportedly, the ﬁnal version of HB 156, also known as SB 1235, created licenses for sale of ammunition and established background checks for purchase of ammunition:

The Attorney General shall establish and maintain an online database to be known as the Prohibited Armed Persons File. The purpose of the file is to cross-reference persons who have ownership or possession of a firearm on or after January 1, 1996, as indicated by a record in the Consolidated Firearms Information System, and who, subsequent to the date of that ownership or possession of a firearm, fall within a class of persons who are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm […] Commencing July 1, 2019, the file shall also be used to cross-reference persons who attempt to acquire ammunition to determine if those persons fall within a class of persons who are prohibited from owning or possessing ammunition.

Article 3. Ammunition Vendor License 30345. (a) Commencing January 1, 2018, only an ammunition vendor who is licensed by the Department of Justice shall be authorized to sell ammunition in this state, except as provided by Article 5 (commencing with Section 30360).

In 2016, the National Riﬂe Association Institute of Legislative Action opposed AB 156 and SB 1235, claiming that:

SB 1235 and Assembly Bill 156 would place unjustiﬁed and burdensome restrictions on the purchase of ammunition and would require the attorney general to keep records of purchases. This legislation would further require any online ammunition sales to

77 be conducted through a licensed vendor.

In June 2016, Obernolte voted with a 30-46 minority to oppose SB 1235, but the bill passed both cham- bers and became law in 2016. [California Legislative Information, AB 156, Introduced 1/20/2015; [Santa Maria Sun, 6/1/2016; [National Riﬂe Association, 5/16/2016; [California Legislative Information, SB 1235, Introduced 2/18/2016]

Concealed Carry

In 2019, Obernolte supported ‘Second Amendment Sanctuary City,’ measure promoting ‘lenient enforcement’ of ammunition and concealed-carry permits. In July 2019, CalMatters reported the city of Needles, California declared themselves a “Second Amendment Sanctuary,” “a place where both California gun owners and those visiting from out-of-state can expect lenient enforcement of the Golden State’s rules governing, for example, ammunition and concealed-carry permits.” Reportedly,

Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, a Republican representing the largely rural 33rd District that includes Needles, supports the town’s gun sanctuary declaration. He plans to introduce a bill in December to give more local control to rural gun owners and allow for interstate reciprocity with ﬁrearms laws. Republicans are a decided minority in the Capitol, and the chances are low that gun-rights proponents will get a carve-out. But Teresa Trujillo, Obernolte’s chief of staff, said her boss supports more local control for the state’s rural residents. ‘These people have a different culture than what’s in Sacramento,’ she said. ‘They should be able to govern themselves with certain things and make decisions that are best for their community.’

According to CalMatters, the word “sanctuary” was selected to:

take a swipe at Democratic legislators in Sacramento […] who have declared sanctuary policies limiting the involvement of state and local law enforcement in the pursuit of undocumented immigrants targeted by the Trump administration.

[CalMatters, 7/15/2019]

Obernolte introduced legislation to allow local governments to recognize out-of-state concealed carry permits. In February 2020, the Needles Desert Star reported Obernolte introduced AB 2206, which would allow California cities or counties to recognize other states’ concealed carry

78 laws with authorization from either the city council or county board of supervisors. County approval would also require consent from the county sheriff.

Reportedly,

In the event that a local jurisdiction made a declaration allowing another state’s residents to carry a ﬁrearm concealed in their community, the CCW holder would also be required to comply with California concealed carry law.

[Needles Desert Star, 2/26/2020]

As of March 2020, the bill hearing for Assembly Bill 2206 was postponed by committee. According to the California Legislative Information site, Assembly Bill 2206, introduced by Assembly Member Ober- nolte, “would authorize a city council or county board of supervisors to declare that city or county to be a jurisdiction in which persons may carry a concealed firearm in compliance with a valid license to carry a concealed firearm that was issued by another state, as specified.” Additionally, “the bill would exempt a person from the prohibition on carrying a concealed firearm if they are carrying a concealed firearm in a jurisdiction that has made the declaration above and they are carrying that firearm in compliance with a valid license to carry a concealed firearm that was issued by another state.” As of March 16, 2020, the bill hearing for Assembly Bill 2206 was postponed by committee. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 2206, 2/12/2020]

Guns in Schools

Obernolte voted against concealed carry ban in school zones in 2015. In September 2015, Ober- nolte voted with a 24-54 minority to opposed SB 707. According to the text of the legislation,

Existing law, the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995, subject to exceptions, prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, unless with the written permission of certain school district officials. This bill would recast the provisions relating to a person holding a valid license to carry a concealed firearm to allow that person to carry a firearm in an area that is within 1,000 feet of, but not on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive. The bill would also delete the exemption that allows a person holding a valid license to carry a concealed firearm to bring or possess a firearm on the campus of a university or college. The bill would create an additional exemption from those prohibitions for certain appointed peace officers who are authorized to carry a firearm by their appointing agency, and an exemption for certain retired reserve peace officers who are authorized to carry a

79 concealed or loaded ﬁrearm.

[California Legislative Information, SB 707, Introduced, 2/27/2015]

Gun Purchasing

Obernolte voted against bill to prohibit purchase of more than one semi-automatic rifle per month in 2019. In September 2019, Obernolte voted with a 22-55 minority to oppose SB 61. ABC 10 reported in December 2019 that SB 61 “extends the prohibition from buying more than one handgun a month to include semiautomatic rifles as well.” Reportedly, law before SB 61 dictated that “people c[ould] only buy one handgun in a 30-day window” and “prohibit[ed] gun dealers from delivering a handgun to a gun buyer in that 30-day time period.” Reportedly, the “exception [was] if the gun buyer is a law enforcement officer or an active duty member of the armed forces.” Reportedly, SB 61 went into effect in January 2020, “extending” the law prohibiting more than one purchase of a hand gun per month “to those who want to buy a long gun as well.” Reportedly, “the law would also restrict people under the age of 21 from buying a gun.” [California Legislative Information, SB 61, Introduced 1/3/2019; ABC 10, 12/13/2019]

SB 61 sought to address 2018 shooting at Borderline Bar, prevent similar incidents in the future. In December 2019, ABC 10 reported that the Ventura County Board of Supervisors “said SB 61 would prevent similar tragedies” to the “Nov. 2018 shooting at the Borderline bar.” Reportedly, the shooting “left 12 dead.” [ABC 10, 12/13/2019]

Gun Violence

Obernolte voted against bill allowing coworkers and mental health professionals to petition for gun violence restraining orders in 2016. In June 2016, Obernolte voted with a 37-41 minority to oppose AB 2607. ABC 10 reported in June 2016 that:

AB 2607 Expands who can petition a court for a gun violence restraining order (GVRO) beyond immediate family members or law enforcement ofﬁcers. It would allow an employer, a coworker, a mental health worker who has seen a person as a patient in the prior six months, an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that a person has attended in the last six months to also petition for a GVRO.

[ABC 10, 6/30/2016]

Obernolte voted against AB 12 in 2019, bill extends length of gun violence restraining orders and attaches search warrants to restraining orders. In September 2019, Obernolte voted with a 15-59 majority to oppose AB 12. AB 12 would alter policy regarding gun violence restraining orders. According

80 to Courthouse News Service, “the bill would extend orders from one year to ﬁve.” Moreover, the bill would “grant simultaneous approval of a search warrant for ﬁrearms and ammunition when a gun violence restraining order is issued.” The bill “honors the 12 victims of the 2018 mass shooting at Borderline Bar in Thousand Oaks, California.” The bill became law in October 2019. [California Legislative Information, AB 12, Introduced 12/3/2018]

Obernolte in 2016: gun control measures ‘will do nothing to prevent another terrorist attack like the one that occurred in my county.’ According to The Orange County Register in July 2016, Ober- nolte criticized California Governor Jerry Brown’s gun control measures, which the Register described as “adding sharp teeth to a set of California laws already considered the nation’s toughest.” The Orange County Register reported,

magazines may be taken away. Among the bills Brown approved was Senate Bill 1446, which bans possession of magazines with the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds and requires people who already have them to turn them in to authorities. Among other things, the legislation also outlaws assault riﬂes that have something called a bullet button, which enables gun operators to quickly change magazines, and mandates background checks when guns are loaned to someone other than a close relative. Background checks also will be mandatory for ammunition purchases.

The Orange County Register further reported that Obernolte “strongly criticized the package of new laws, which he said clearly infringe on the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.” Obernolte reportedly said, “These new laws will not address the underlying problems of why gun violence occurs and they will do nothing to prevent another terrorist attack like the one that occurred in my county.” [The Orange County Register, 7/2/2016]

National Rifle Association

Obernolte accepted $1,000 from NRA-Political Victory Fund during the 2018 campaign cycle. In October 2018, Obernolte for Assembly accepted $1,000 from NRA-Political Victory Fund. [California Secretary of State, Jay Obernolte for Assembly 2018, Form 460, Filed 10/21/2018]

NRA spent over $3.8K in independent expenditures for Obernolte in 2016. According to filings with the California Secretary of State, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund California spent $3,003.71 on “Endorsement Postcards - Postage” for Obernolte in October 2016. The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund California spent an additional $799.58 on “Endorsement Postcards - Mailhouse” for Obernolte in October 2016. [California Secretary of State, Independent Expenditure Power Search, Accessed 6/17/2020]

81 Obernolte ‘strong supporter of 2nd amendment,’ received ‘A’ rating from NRA. According to his campaign website, Obernolte “is a Constitutional conservative” and “will ﬁght against government encroachment on our individual liberties.” Obernolte states on his website that he is a “strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, having received an ‘A’ rating from the NRA for his work in the California Legislature.” [Obernolte for Congress, Accessed 5/4/2020; Accessed, 5/4/2020]

Obernolte’s NRA rating increased from ‘B’ to ‘A’ between 2014 and 2016. According to Everytown for Gun Safety’s NRA grades archive, Obernolte had a “B” rating in 2014 and an “A” rating in 2016. [Everytown For Gun Safety, Accessed 5/16/2020]

Average California Republican had scores of A- in 2014 and 2016. According to analysis of Everytown for Gun Safety’s NRA grades archive, the average California Republican had an “A-” rating in both 2014 and 2016. [Everytown For Gun Safety, Accessed 5/16/2020]

+++

82 Ethics and Transparency

Ethics and Transparency Highlights

• In 2015, Obernolte introduced a bill to ensure “full and free disclosure of legislative committee documents.”

Public Records Transparency

Obernolte introduced 2015 bill to ensure ‘full and free disclosure of legislative committee documents.’ According to The San Bernardino Sun in March 2015, Obernolte introduced a bill meant to ensure the “full and free disclosure of legislative committee documents” in an effort to reform the Califor- nia Public Records Act. Reportedly,

long before a bill reaches the floor, legislative staff create reports explaining the bill to those who will end up voting on it in committee. Those reports are public records under the Public Records Act, but those wanting the information in them must get copies of the physical reports, as the law doesn’t require them to be posted online, despite most having been created as electronic word-processing or spreadsheet files. Obernolte’s AB 410, introduced this month, would require legislative staff to post those files online as well.

Obernolte reportedly stated, “I don’t think it’s an undue burden on the agencies since a lot of these documents begin their life as electronic documents and these agencies have websites already.” The bill was reportedly part of a Republican package “aimed at making state government work again.” [The San Bernardino Sun, 3/20/2015]

+++

83 Environment & Climate Change

Environment & Climate Change Highlights

Sierra Club Report Card

California Sierra Club gave Obernolte nine percent score. According to the Sierra Club of California in 2019, Obernolte received a nine percent score. Obernolte voted favorably on one out of 11 bills the Sierra Club used to create the score. He did not vote on one of the bills and voted unfavorably on the remaining nine bills. [Sierra Club 2019 Report Card, 10/1/2019]

Four Republican Assembly members had lower score than Obernolte, average 2019 score among Republicans was 17 percent. According to the Sierra Club of California 2019 Legislative Scorecard,

84 four Republican members of the California State Assembly had a 2019 score lower than Obernolte. All four of these members had a zero percent score. Analysis of scorecard data reveals that the average score of a Republican members of the Assembly in 2019 was 17 percent.[Sierra Club 2019 Report Card, 10/1/2019]

Smog and Pollution

In 2019, Obernolte voted against Senate Bill 210, which would require heavy-duty truck owners to ‘perform regular inspections of their vehicles for excessive emissions of smoke.’ According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte voted against Senate Bill 210 on September 10, 2019. The bill is described as “An act to add Chapter 5.5 (commencing with Section 44150) to Part 5 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, and to amend Section 27153 of, and to add Sections 4000.17, 4156.5, 24019, 27158.1, and 27158.2 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicular air pollution.” Reportedly,

Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board, in consultation with the Bureau of Automotive Repair and a speciﬁed review committee, to adopt regulations requiring owners or operators of heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles to perform regular inspections of their vehicles for excessive emissions of smoke. Existing law requires the state board, in consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Develop- ment Commission, to adopt regulations requiring heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles to use emission control equipment and alternative fuels. This bill would require the state board, in consultation with the bureau and other speciﬁed entities, to implement a pilot program that develops and demonstrates technologies that show potential for readily bringing heavy-duty vehicles into an inspection and maintenance program … This bill would require the state board, upon the implementation of the Heavy-Duty Vehicle In- spection and Maintenance Program, to provide mechanisms for out-of-state owners of heavy-duty vehicles to establish and verify compliance prior to entering the state.

Senate Bill 210 passed the California State Assembly by a 51-19 vote and was approved by the Governor on September 20, 2019. [California Legislative Information, 9/10/2019]

Oil and Gas

In 2019, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 342, which would prohibit ‘new construction of oil- and gas-related infrastructure’ on state-owned public lands. According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 342 on September 9, 2019. The bill was described as “An act to add Section 6827.5 to the Public Resources Code, relating to public lands.” Reportedly,

85 This bill, notwithstanding the leasing authority described above or any other law, and to the extent not prohibited by federal law, would prohibit any state agency, department, or commission, or any local trustee, as defined, with leasing authority over public lands within the state from entering into any new lease or other conveyance authorizing new construction of oil- and gas-related infrastructure upon public lands, including tidelands and submerged lands, to support production of oil and natural gas upon federal lands that are designated as, or were at any time designated as, federally protected lands, as defined. The bill would provide that these provisions do not prevent specified activities, including, among others, any activity undertaken to convey oil or natural gas produced from state lands or waters.

Assembly Bill 342 passed the California State Assembly by a 59-19 vote and was approved by the Gov- ernor on October 12, 2019. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 342, 9/9/2019]

Obernolte voted against bill aimed at ‘assessing the costs of decommissioning all oil and gas infrastructure’ in 2019. In September 2019, Obernolte voted with a 17-50 minority to oppose SB 551. In October 2019, Edhat Santa Barbara reported that:

Senate Bill 551 directs the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) to develop a process for assessing the costs of decommissioning all oil and gas infrastructure within its jurisdiction, and requires operators of an oil or gas facility to report its total liability for plugging and abandoning all wells and other facilities beginning in July 1, 2022 and at least every ﬁve years thereafter.

In October 2019, the Governor signed the bill into law. [California Legislative Information, SB 551, Intro- duced, 2/22/2019; Edhat Santa Barbara, 10/14/2019]

Obernolte voted against resolution opposing Trump proposal to deregulate offshore drilling in 2018. In March 2018, Obernolte voted with a 9-56 minority to oppose AJR 29. The joint resolution would: provide that the Legislature strongly and unequivocally supports the current federal prohibition on new oil and gas drilling in federal waters offshore California, opposes the Trump administration’s proposal to remove safety and environmental protections related to offshore drilling operations, and opposes the Trump administration’s proposed leasing plan that would expose the state to new offshore drilling. The measure would also urge the United States Secretary of the Interior to remove California from that proposed leasing plan, and would request that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Man-

86 agement hold more than one public hearing on the plan in the State of California to ensure that all Californians have an opportunity to have their voices heard.

[California Legislative Information, AJR 29, Introduced 1/16/2018]

AJR 29 had support from Republican leadership in Assembly, seven Republican members of Assembly voted in favor. According to the California State Legislature, Republicans and Republican leadership voted for AJR 29, which expressed support for the “current federal prohibition on new oil and gas drilling in federal waters offshore California” and “oppose[ed] the Trump administration’s proposal” to deregulate offshore drilling. Republican members of the Assembly who voted for AJR 29 included Mi- nority Leader Waldron, Assemblyman Maienschein, Assemblyman Cunningham, Assemblyman Chávez, Assemblyman Mayes, Assemblywoman Baker, and Assemblyman Acosta. [California Legislative Infor- mation, AJR 29, Introduced 1/16/2018]

Obernolte voted against bill that created ‘contingency plans that prepare’ for spillage of nonfloating oil in 2019. In September 2019, Obernolte voted with a 10-60 minority to oppose AB 936, an environmental protection bill focused on oil spills related to a specific type of oil known as non-floating oil. AB 936 would: define ‘nonfloating oil’ for purposes of the [Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Preven- tion and Response Act]. The bill would require the administrator to hold, on or before January 1, 2022, a technology workshop that shall include the topic of technology for addressing nonfloating oil spills, and, in fulfilling specified duties, to consider information gained from technology workshops, as well as available scientific and technical literature concerning nonfloating oil spill response technology. The bill would require the administrator to include in the revision to the California oil spill contingency plan due on or before January 1, 2023, provisions addressing nonfloating oil.

In October 2019, the Natural Resources Defense Council reported that Governor Newsom signed the bill into law. Reportedly, the legislation “g[ot] specifically at the transportation risk associated with California’s heavy investment in oil refining” and particularly addressed “the danger of a spill of heavy ‘nonfloating’ crude oil,” which is, “being increasingly imported into California’s refineries.” Reportedly,

AB 936 requires measures to ensure that California has an accurate definition of nonfloating oil, and contingency plans that prepare for its spillage. Additionally, it requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to collect full information about crude oil transport through the state, meaning that for the first time California communities will know what type of oil—including nonfloating oil—is being shipped through them.

[California Legislative Information, AB 936, Introduced 2/20/2019; Natural Resources Defense Council, 10/16/2019]

87 Obernolte voted against bill that ‘reform[ed] the antiquated statute’ on oil drilling, ‘ﬁx[ed]’ drilling authorization practices in 2020. In January 2019, Obernolte voted with an 18-21 minority to oppose AB 1441. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the bill would, “bring California’s regulation of fossil fuel production operations into the twenty-ﬁrst century.” The bill, introduced by Assembly Member Marc Levin, would, “reform the antiquated statute that has been governing oil and gas drilling in California since 1939”: Levine’s bill updates language in the statute that states an outdated policy of maximiz- ing production; re-tools the statute’s drilling authorization provisions; and provides for notice to local communities before operators commence drilling.

AB 1441 also ﬁxes the process by which DOGGR would approve oil and gas wells. Currently, the system is heavily geared toward the convenience of drilling companies rather than protection of the public. It provides that anyone seeking to drill or re-drill a well need only provide ‘notice of intention’ to commence drilling—and the notice is deemed approved if DOGGR does not respond within 10 days.

AB 1441 retools the system to require a permit application, not merely a ‘notice of intention’; requires that the application be considered in a manner consistent with the Permit Streamlining Act, enacted in the 1970s to govern agencies’ permitting pro- cesses; and allows permit issuance only upon an afﬁrmative ﬁnding that the proposed drilling project will not harm public health and the environment.

[California Legislative Information, AB 1441, Introduced 2/22/2019; Natural Resources Defense Council, 2/26/2019]

Obernolte voted against AB 1440, deemed ‘important’ to ‘prioritiz[ing] public health and the environment over oil industry proﬁts.’ In September 2019, Obernolte voted with a 20-47 minority to oppose AB 1440. The bill would alter the responsibilities of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor:

This bill would revise and recast the duty on the supervisor to supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells so as to permit the owners or operators of the wells to utilize methods and practices known to the oil industry that, in the opinion of the supervisor, are suitable in each proposed case. The bill would revise the declared policy of the state relating to the grant in an oil and gas lease or contract of the right or power to explore for and remove hydrocarbons from any lands in the state. The bill would instead require the supervisor to perform their administrative duties in a manner so as to help ensure the wise oversight of oil and gas development used to meet oil and gas needs in this state.

In September 2019, the Marin Independent Journal reported that:

88 AB 1440 refocuses the [State Oil and Gas] supervisor’s responsibilities adding an ‘obligation to prevent damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; damage to underground oil and gas deposits; loss of reservoir energy; and damage to underground water quality.’ The global climate crisis and California’s future requires us all to take action to reduce our production and dependence on fossil fuels,” said Levine, D-Greenbrae. ‘As California moves towards a carbon neutral economy, AB 1440 is an important tool to ensure that we prioritize public health and the environment over oil industry proﬁts when deciding where to locate future oil and gas drilling.’

[California Legislative Information, AB 1440, Introduced, 2/22/2019; Marin Independent Journal, 9/9/2019]

2019 Chevron oil spill ‘larger’ than California’s ‘last two major oil spills.’ In July 2019, US News reported that, “ofﬁcials began to clean up a massive oil spill Friday that dumped nearly 800,000 gallons of oil and water into a California canyon.” Reportedly, the spill was “larger — if less devastating — than the state’s last two major oil spills.” The Chevron spill reportedly occurred after California agencies and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency altered policies:

Environmental groups said the Chevron spill is another sign of weakened regulations under an embattled California agency. Gov. Gavin Newsom this week ﬁred the head of the state’s oil and gas division over a recent increase in hydraulic fractur- ing permits and amid a conﬂict-of-interest investigation of other division employees. The Last Chance Alliance, which opposes California’s oil and gas industry, said the state’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources adopted weaker restrictions on steam injection earlier this year, ‘making these operations even more dangerous.’ The group said state regulators and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last year approved an exemption that removed protections from an aquifer in the Cymric Oil Field at the request of Chevron and other oil companies.

[US News, 7/12/2019]

Clean Water

In 2019, Obernolte voted against Senate Bill 307, which would require investigation of water transfer facilities to ensure that they will not adversely affect natural or cultural resources. According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte voted against Senate Bill 307 on July 11, 2019. The bill is described as “An act to add Section 1815 to the Water Code, relating to water.” Reportedly,

89 This bill would, notwithstanding that provision, prohibit a transferor of water from using a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity to transfer water from a groundwater basin underlying desert lands, as defined, that is in the vicinity of specified federal lands or state lands to outside of the groundwater basin unless the State Lands Commission, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Water Resources, finds that the transfer of the water will not adversely affect the natural or cultural resources of those federal or state lands, as provided. The bill would require a transferor of water to submit an application to the commission before using a water conveyance facility pursuant to these provisions. The bill would require, if the commission finds that the transfer of the water will not adversely affect the natural or cultural resources of those federal and state lands, the transferor of water to annually report to the commission on the condition of the groundwater basin.

Senate Bill 307 passed the California State Assembly by a 50-24 vote and was approved by the Governor on July 31, 2019. [California Legislative Information, Senate Bill 307, 7/11/2019]

Obernolte opposed additional scrutiny of Cadiz Water Project. According to the Palm Springs Desert Sun in July 2019, Obernolte opposed legislation that would have required Cadiz, Inc. “undergo additional environmental review to prove its extraction plans will not harm the surrounding desert.” The Cadiz project reportedly:

would pump 16.3 billion gallons of groundwater out of an expansive aquifer under the Mojave Desert and transport it across public lands to the Colorado River Aqueduct, which will then ship the water to coastal residents. The Los Angeles-based company has projected the project could earn them $2.4 billion.

According to the Desert Sun:

Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Big Bear, said the project had already gone through necessary environmental review. Obernolte, whose district includes the area Cadiz hopes to pump groundwater, said subjecting it to additional scrutiny due to opposition from activists and lawmakers would set a dangerous precedent. ‘What we’re telling people if we pass the bill today is … if enough powerful, connected people get together, they can sponsor a bill in the legislature to stop any project,’ he said. ‘If we set that precedent, what comes next?’

[Palm Springs Desert Sun, 7/11/2019]

In 2017, Obernolte declined to vote on Senate Bill 623, which would ‘fund clean water programs by imposing a new statewide tax on water.’ According to the California Legislative Information site,

90 Obernolte abstained from voting on Senate Bill 623 on September 1, 2017. The bill aimed to create a “Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund.” According to the League of California Cities, the bill was introduced by Sen. Monning and was the ﬁrst to address “the creation of a safe, affordable, drinking water fund.” The bill “intended to fund clean water programs by imposing a new statewide tax on water, as well as fertilizer and dairy fees.” However, Senate Bill 623 “ultimately died in 2018 after being rolled into a budget trailer bill.” [California Legislative Information, Senate Bill 623, 9/1/2017; League of California Cities, 5/17/2019] Obernolte in June 2018 op-ed: ‘If we start taxing a basic human right such as clean drinking water, it’s time to reevaluate our spending priorities.’ According to a June 2018 op-ed published in The Sacramento Bee, Obernolte opposed a water tax to fund “access to safe drinking water.” He wrote that the proposed tax would be collected by “local water companies” and it would be sent to “State Water Resources Control Board, an unelected bureaucracy, which would determine who would beneﬁt from these taxes.” Obernolte wrote,

Given our current $9 billion surplus, there is ample money in the general fund to pay for clean water projects without this new tax. If providing clean drinking water is so important to our state government, then why haven’t we been investing in these communities? What we lack is the political willpower to spend our existing resources on these vital government services rather than imposing new taxes on our citizens. Many Californians are fed up with our state’s high taxes. If we start taxing a basic human right such as clean drinking water, it’s time to reevaluate our spending priorities.

[The Sacramento Bee, 6/7/2018]

Wildfire Prevention & Forest Management

In 2018, Obernolte advocated for reduced spending on high speed rail ‘boondoggle,’ increased spending on forest management in light of wildfires. In December 2018, Obernolte co-authored an editorial with Congressman Paul Cook in The San Bernardino Sun, where they argued the “catastrophic” Woolsey and Camp fires are a “wakeup call that our current land management policies are ineffective and require immediate remedy.” Cook and Obernolte argue for forest “thinning” activities, to “help forests return to a more natural state, will result in smaller, less intense wildfires.” They continue:

Much can also be done at the state level to make our forests healthier. California currently spends billions of taxpayer dollars each year in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Legislative Analyst’s Office lists forest management as among the most efficient uses of this funding, yet California spends little to keep our forests healthy. Instead, it’s allocated to less efficient programs, like the High Speed Rail

91 Authority, which just received a scathing report from the State Auditor concluding the program is poorly managed and won’t achieve its goals. Carbon emissions from wildfires are the equivalent to an additional 19 million vehicles on our state’s roadways. It begs the question: Why aren’t we using this funding to address the threat of wildfires? Instead of pouring more tax dollars into the Bay-to-LA high-speed rail boondoggle, funds should be used for fire suppression and prevention. Our state government cannot continue to ignore the fact that wildfires constitute approximately one-eighth of California’s carbon emissions.

[The San Bernardino Sun, 12/4/2018]

LTE: Obernolte-supported HR 2936 ‘a gift to the logging industry.’ In a December 2018 letter to the editor of The San Bernardino Sun, Upland resident Paul Clement wrote:

Congressman Paul Cook and Assemblyman Jay Obernolte write in support of the Westerman bill, HR 2936, ironically called the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017.

This bill has nothing to do with ﬁre suppression, as the authors suggest, but instead is a gift to the logging industry and promotes irresponsible logging and road building in our national forests on a massive sale.

This bill would allow clear-cutting of national forest tracts of up to 47 square miles without oversight or accountability, revokes National Monument protections (putting our public lands at risk), eliminates Endangered Species Act safeguards and prevents the public from going to court to enforce environmental laws.

Thinning of forests in areas immediately surrounding homes and communities, when combined with regular controlled burns of the same areas, is useful in reducing the severity of fires. Gifting our national forests to logging companies, exempting them from oversight and accountability and deliberately tying the hands of the public from doing anything to prevent it is not a fire-fighting strategy.

[The San Bernardino Sun, 12/21/2018]

In 2019, Obernolte introduced Assembly Bill 394, which would ease ‘the state’s strict environmental laws when building ﬁre safety routes.’ According to the California Legislative site, Obernolte introduced Assembly Bill 394 on February 6, 2019. The bill is described as “An act to add and repeal Section 21080.53 of the Public Resources Code, relating to environmental quality.” According to KCRA, the legislation “would have eased the state’s strict environmental laws when building ﬁre safety routes.” Reportedly,

92 This bill would, until January 1, 2025, exempt from [California Environmental Quality Act] egress route projects undertaken by a public agency that are speciﬁcally recom- mended by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection that improve the ﬁre safety of an existing subdivision if certain conditions are met.

Assembly Bill 394 passed the California State Assembly by a 76-1 vote but was vetoed by the Gover- nor on October 2, 2019. Reportedly, Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom stated that the “measure is premature and could bring unintended consequences.” [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 394, 2/6/2019; KCRA, 10/2/2019]

Fire Tax

Obernolte in 2015: state ﬁre tax is ‘unfair and illegal.’ According to a Valley Voice Daily Press op-ed Obernolte authored in April 2015, he called California’s “ﬁre prevention and safety services” tax “unfair and illegal.” Obernolte wrote,

In midst of the recession, Cal Fire’s budget was cut by approximately $150 million. To make up the difference, the legislature voted in 2011 to place an onerous fee on rural residents throughout California. Although our state budget has improved in recent years, this supplemental charge unjustiﬁably remains in place….Levying a ‘fee’ with less than two-thirds approval by the legislature does not pass muster under Proposi- tion 13.

Obernolte further wrote, “my hope is that this unconstitutional tax on property owners will be abolished by the courts, since an outright repeal by the legislature seems very unlikely.” He also wrote that he introduced Assembly Bill 203 to “double the amount of time to pay or dispute the fee to 60 days.” [Victorville Daily Press, 4/15/2015]

Plastic and Paper Waste

Obernolte in 2019: ‘freedom-stiﬂing’ bans on straws and paper receipts are evidence of a ‘nanny state.’ According to a March 2019 op-ed Obernolte wrote for the Victorville Daily Press, he opposed “bills that chip away at our personal freedom” including bans on straws and other waste. Obernolte wrote that the plastic straw ban is “unlikely to have much of an impact,” and further wrote,

Another bill pending in the Legislature this year would make paper receipts illegal starting in 2022. At that point, retailers will be ﬁned $25 on the third offense and for each subsequent offense, similar to the ban on plastic straws. While I am a passionate

93 advocate of doing everything electronically, it’s absurd to make this a mandate pun- ishable by ﬁnes. Many businesses are already moving in this direction and provide paper receipts only on request.

Obernolte wrote that these “freedom-stiﬂing” pieces of legislation are “nanny state proposals” and further wrote that “every ban imposed by government disregards individual choice and more importantly infringes on our personal liberty.” [Victorville Daily Press, 3/31/2019]

In 2019, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 1080, which aimed to reduce California’s solid waste. According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 1080 on May 30, 2019. The bill was described as “An act to amend Section 23671 of the Business and Professions Code, and to add Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 42040) to Part 3 of Division 30 of, and to add and repeal Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 48710) of Part 7 of Division 30 of, the Public Resources Code, relating to solid waste.” Reportedly,

Existing law makes a legislative declaration that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020. This bill would enact the California Circular Economy and Pollution Reduction Act, which would impose a comprehensive regulatory scheme on producers, retailers, and wholesalers of single-use packaging, as defined, and priority single-use products, as defined, to be administered by the department. The bill would require the department to develop criteria to determine whether the packaging or priority single- use products are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. The bill would authorize local governments, solid waste facilities, recycling facilities, and composting facilities to provide information requested by the department for purposes of developing that criteria. The bill would require single-use packaging and priority single-use products offered for sale, sold, distributed, or imported in or into California by a producer to meet specified recycling rates that are based on date of manufacture and that increase over a prescribed timeframe, and would authorize the department to impose a higher or lower recycling rate, as specified.

Assembly Bill 1080 passed the California State Assembly by a 44-19 vote. [California Legislative Infor- mation, Assembly Bill 1080, 5/30/2019]

CEQA

In 2017, Obernolte favored ‘cutting red tape’ of CEQA to promote affordable housing construction. In an editorial authored by Obernolte published in The San Bernardino Sun, he wrote:

94 The only rational solution to this affordable housing crisis is to increase the supply of housing by encouraging new construction and lowering the costs of that construction. The biggest regulatory hurdle to this that must be addressed is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While I support its original premise of assessing environment impacts of construction, CEQA has unfortunately turned into a complex regulatory obligation that encourages litigation, slows down housing construction, and makes existing housing more expensive. Cutting government red tape is the only way to help alleviate our housing shortage.

[The San Bernardino Sun, 8/31/2017]

Clean Energy

Obernolte opposed 2018 legislation to promote clean energy use. According to The San Francisco Chronicle, in August 2018 Obernolte opposed legislation that “[required] the state to obtain 100 percent of its power from clean sources by 2045.” The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), reportedly stated that “decarbonizing the grid is the easiest thing we can do” to prevent California wildﬁres. Obernolte reportedly said of the bill,

‘The concern a lot of us are raising is that we have to have a credible plan for getting us from where we are to where we want to be,’ said Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Hesperia (San Bernardino County). ‘We need to come up with a plan that strikes a reasonable balance between the goal we are trying to achieve and the costs and impacts on our state. This bill doesn’t even come close to doing that.’

[The San Francisco Chronicle, 8/29/2018]

Cap and Trade

The Seattle Times in 2017: Obernolte received $10k from ‘oil interests’ before cap and trade legislation vote. According to The Seattle Times in August 2017, Obernolte received $10,000 from ‘oil interests’ before the California Assembly voted on “legislation to reduce carbon emissions by charging polluters” through a cap and trade system. Reportedly, nine Assembly members each received over $10,000 from “oil interests” before the vote, and of that group, “six are moderate Democrats or Repub- licans who were considered swing votes on the deal” who all reportedly voted for the legislation, which “squeaked through the [Assembly] by a single vote.” The Seattle Times reported that the legislation included “two wins for the oil industry” as the legislation “hands out some free allowances and bars local air districts from adopting stricter regulations on reﬁneries.” [The Seattle Times, 8/7/2017]

95 +++

96 Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice Highlights

• Obernolte introduced legislation in 2016 to classify peace officers as a protected class for hate crimes. He stated, “An attack on a police officer is an attack on … the very basis of our society.” • Obernolte received a perfect score from the California Police Chief’s Association in 2017 for voting in favor of all 11 of the organization-backed bills. • Obernolte opposed 2017 legislation that would review elderly inmates’ eligibility for parole after they served “a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration.” He stated that “reducing punishments on criminals will only exacerbate” California’s “spiking crime rates.” • Obernolte voted against a 2015 bill that aimed to eliminate racial profiling and “improve diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement.” • Obernolte stated that 2020 legislation to increase age for offenders to be tried as adults is “problematic.” In 2017, he voted against a measure that allowed juveniles sentenced to life to become eligible for parole after 25 years of incarceration. • Obernolte introduced a bill in 2017 to establish the California Cybersecurity Integration Center to “develop a statewide cybersecurity strategy.” • In 2016, Obernolte criticized Proposition 47, which “reclassified numerous crimes that previously had been considered felonies as misdemeanors,” stating that it would increase “risk of violent crime in our communities”

Police ‘Hate Crimes’

In 2016, Obernolte introduced Assembly Bill 2, which would classify peace officers as a protected class for hate crimes. According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte introduced Assembly Bill 2 on December 5, 2016. The bill is described as “An act to amend Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, relating to hate crimes.” Reportedly, “This bill would make any criminal act, except the crime of resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer, committed in whole or in part because of the victim’s status as a peace officer, as defined, a hate crime.” Assembly Bill 2 died in committee on January 31, 2018. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 2, 12/5/2016]

Obernolte in December 2016: ‘An attack on a police officer is an attack on…the very basis of our society.’ In a December 2016 interview with Fox Business Network, Obernolte stated that he drafted legislation to include attacks on peace officers as hate crimes as a response to “police officers in Dallas that were basically assassinated just as a result of their profession.” Obernolte also stated that “if you look at these ambush-style police attacks in the last year, they fit the very definition of what a hate crime

97 is and what we’re supposed to be protecting against.” In the interview Obernolte further stated, “an attack on a police ofﬁcer is an attack on the rule of law, which is really an attack on the very basis of our society.” [Fox Business Network, 12/12/2016]

Support from Police

In 2017, Obernolte received 100 percent score from California Police Chiefs Association. Accord- ing to the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) in 2017, Obernolte received a perfect 100 percent score from the CPCA. Obernolte voted with the CPCA on all 11 bills they tracked in 2017. [California Police Chiefs Association 2017 Scorecard, 10/5/2017]

Obernolte’s ‘tough on crime record’ led to ‘endorsement of Sheriff John McMahon and over 150,000 [ofﬁcers].’ According to the website of Obernolte for Congress, Obernolte’s “tough on crime record has earned him the endorsement of Sheriff John McMahon and over 150,000 law enforcement ofﬁcers.” Obernolte states on his website that he “he will work to crack down on gang crimes and violent criminals to make our communities safer.” [Obernolte for Congress, Accessed 4/5/2020; Accessed, 4/5/2020]

Parole Reform

Obernolte in 2017: ‘Reducing punishments on criminals will only exacerbate’ California’s ‘spiking’ crime rates. In October 2017, Obernolte wrote an op-ed published in the Daily Breeze describing how the California legislature “passed several bills that make our communities less safe.” According to Obernolte,

Take for example Assembly Bill 1448, which allows prisoners who are 60 years of age or older and have served 25 years of continuous incarceration to be eligible for parole, regardless of how much time is left on their sentence. Perhaps even worse is SB394, which allows a person sentenced to life without the possibility of parole as a juvenile to become eligible for parole after serving 25 years in prison. Both of these bills will result in more criminals being released into our community. Crime rates are already spiking across California — reducing punishments on criminals will only exacerbate the problem.

[Daily Breeze, 10/31/2017]

In 2017, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 1448, which would review elderly inmates’ eligibility for parole after serving ‘a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration.’ According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 1448 on September 13,

98 2017. The bill is described as “An act to amend Sections 3041 and 3046 of, and to add Section 3055 to, the Penal Code, relating to parole.” Reportedly,

This bill would establish the Elderly Parole Program, for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of inmates who are 60 years of age or older and who have served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration, as deﬁned, on their sentence.

Assembly Bill 1448 passed the California State Assembly by a 45-31 vote and was approved by the Governor on October 11, 2017. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 1448, 9/13/2017]

Racial Profiling

In 2015, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 953, which aimed to eliminate racial proﬁling and ‘improve diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement.’ According to California Legislative Information, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 953 on September 10, 2015. The bill was “An act to add Section 12525.5 to the Government Code, and to amend Sections 13012 and 13519.4 of the Penal Code, relating to racial proﬁling.” According to the legislation,

Existing law creates the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and requires it to develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all law enforcement officers, as described. Existing law prohibits a peace officer from engaging in racial profiling and requires the training to prescribe patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial profiling, as defined. Existing law requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office to conduct a study of the data that is voluntarily collected by jurisdictions that have instituted a program of data collection with regard to racial profiling.

This bill would enact the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015, which would, among other changes, revise the definition of racial profiling to instead refer to racial or identity profiling, and make a conforming change to the prohibition against peace officers engaging in that practice. The bill would require, beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General to establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) to eliminate racial and identity profiling and improve diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement. The bill would specify the composition of the board. The bill would require the board, among other duties, to investigate and analyze state and local law enforcement agencies’ racial and identity profiling policies and practices across geo- graphic areas in California, to annually make publicly available its findings and policy recommendations, to hold public meetings annually, as specified, and to issue the board’s first annual report no later than January 1, 2018.

99 The bill would require each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General data on all stops, as defined, conducted by the agency’s peace officers, and require that data to include specified information, including the time, date, and location of the stop, and the reason for the stop. The bill would require an agency that employs 1,000 or more peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2019. The bill would require an agency that employs 667 or more but less than 1,000 peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2020. The bill would require an agency that employs 334 or more but less than 667 peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2022. The bill would require an agency that employs one or more but less than 334 peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2023.

Assembly Bill 953 passed the California State Assembly by a 43-30 vote and was approved by the Gov- ernor on October 3, 2015. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 953, 9/10/2015]

Juvenile Offenders

Obernolte in January 2020: legislation to increase age for offenders to be tried as adults is ‘problematic.’ In January 2020 Obernolte posted on his ofﬁcial Facebook,

This week a Senator from Berkeley introduced legislation that increases the age for offenders to be tried as an adult from 18 to 20. That is a quite a departure from current law, which allows 18-year-olds to marry, vote, and join the military. I ﬁnd it problematic that every year Members of the Legislature are proposing laws to bring down the voting age, arguing that teenagers are mature enough to make decisions that affect our entire state, while on the other hand saying that they are not mature enough to face consequence when they break our laws and put our public safety in jeopardy.

The post linked to a January 2020 article in The Sacramento Bee which reported,

Under the proposed bill, 20 would be the new age when someone would automatically face criminal charges as an adult.

‘When teenagers make serious mistakes and commit crimes, state prison is not the answer,’ said bill sponsor Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley. ‘Processing teenagers through the juvenile justice system will help ensure they receive the appropriate ed-

100 ucation, counseling, treatment, and rehabilitation services necessary to achieve real public safety outcomes.’

[Facebook @AssemblymanObernolte, 1/30/2020; The Sacramento Bee, 1/28/2020]

In 2017, Obernolte voted against Senate Bill 394, which made juveniles sentenced to life eligible for parole after 25 years of incarceration. According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte voted against Senate Bill 394 on September 15, 2017. The bill was described as “An act to amend Sections 3051 and 4801 of the Penal Code, relating to parole.” Reportedly, “This bill would make a person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed before the person had attained 18 years of age and for which a life sentence without the possibility of parole has been imposed eligible for release on parole by the board during his or her 25th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing.” Senate Bill 394 passed the California State Assembly by a 44-30 vote and was approved by the Governor on October 11, 2017. [California Legislative Information, Senate Bill 394, 9/15/2017]

Cybersecurity

In 2017, Obernolte introduced Assembly Bill 1306, which would establish the California Cyberse- curity Integration Center to ‘develop a statewide cybersecurity strategy.’ According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte introduced Assembly Bill 1306 on February 17, 2017. The bill was described as “An act to add Section 8586.5 to the Government Code, relating to emergency services.” Reportedly,

This bill would establish in statute the California Cybersecurity Integration Center (Cal- CSIC) within the Ofﬁce of Emergency Services to develop a statewide cybersecurity strategy for California in coordination with the Cybersecurity Task Force.

Assembly Bill 1306 passed the California State Assembly by a 79-0 vote but was vetoed by the Governor on October 11, 2017. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 1306, 2/17/2017]

Proposition 47

In 2016, Obernolte opposed Proposition 47, stating that it would increase ‘the risk of violent crime in our communities.’ According to a July 2016 op-ed published in The Press-Enterprise, Obernolte criticized Proposition 47 and wrote that “local neighborhoods in particular are experiencing [a] worrying rise in crime.” Obernolte wrote,

101 Prop. 47 reclassified numerous crimes that previously had been considered felonies as misdemeanors. This means that crimes that used to put people into state prisons are now classified as minor offenses, carrying only a small fine as punishment. For example, Prop. 47 made any theft of items worth $950 or less a misdemeanor. There are now stories about shoplifters who bring calculators into stores to make sure the items they steal remain under the felony threshold.

Obernolte wrote that “[e]nforcing the law…is unquestionably one of the most crucial roles that our government must perform” and Proposition 47 undermined this function by “[increasing] the risk of violent crime in our communities.” [The Press-Enterprise, 7/30/2016]

+++

102 Housing and Homelessness

Housing and Homelessness Highlights

Affordable Housing

In 2017, Obernolte opposed the affordable housing package that passed California State Legisla- ture, arguing ‘every Californian deserves the opportunity to be a homeowner.’ In September 2017, Big Bear Lake News reported that “Assemblyman Jay Obernolte (R-Hesperia) opposed the affordable housing package that passed the California State Legislature this week.” According to Obernolte,

I am deeply disappointed that the Legislature passed a package of bills that does little to address the severe housing shortage facing our state. These bills are based on the misguided premise that we can simply spend our way out of this problem. Unfor- tunately, the data shows unequivocally that this is not the case. In fact, according to the Legislative Analyst Ofﬁce, we would have to spend over $250 billion to provide housing for just the very lowest income Californians. That is twice our General Fund Budget for this year. Unfortunately, this legislative housing package will do little to nothing to alleviate the worsening housing crisis. Instead, these bills will make housing more expensive for all Californians. We currently spend a staggering $332,000 on average to build a single unit of low-income housing and these bills will make it even costlier. This problem will not be solved until we increase the supply of housing by reducing the cost of construction and streamlining the permitting process. Every Californian deserves the opportunity to be a homeowner.

[Big Bear Lake News, 9/15/2017]

Obernolte opposed legislation requiring prevailing wages for affordable housing contraction projects. In an editorial authored by Obernolte published in The San Bernardino Sun, he wrote:

California is facing a severe housing crisis as home prices have skyrocketed in recent years. Many working families can no longer afford homes. In an attempt to address this growing problem, the state Legislature is considering several proposals, including

103 a new tax and a housing bond. Unfortunately, neither legislative measure even comes close to addressing the magnitude of our housing shortage. […] One solution being considered is Senate Bill 35. This bill proposes a streamlined approach for builders of low- income housing developments that would be very narrowly applied as long as 18 different conditions are met. It further mandates that prevailing wages must be paid for these projects, even if those projects are built and owned by private organizations. This means that the state would require more expensive union contractors to build these homes. Low-income housing already costs a staggering $332,000 per unit to build on average - this proposal would make it even more costly.

[The San Bernardino Sun, 8/31/2017]

August 2016: Obernolte did not vote on Affordable Housing Bond Act. In August 2016, Obernolte did not vote on SB 879, also known as the Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2016, which sought to:

Authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $3,000,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. Proceeds from the sale of these bonds would be used to finance various existing housing programs, as well as infill infrastructure financing and affordable housing matching grant programs, as provided.

The bill passed the Assembly 50 to 20, with ten people, including Obernolte, not voting, but, in the latest action, was held in the Assembly without further action. [SB 879, passed the Assembly, 8/19/2016; held in Assembly without further action, 11/30/2016]

+++

104 Partisanship

Partisanship Highlights

Partisanship in the Assembly

Obernolte got more items passed during 2015-2016 session than Inland Empire Democrats, credits reputation for voting for the left’s legislation. According to the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin in April 2017, “In the 2015-2016 session, Obernolte introduced 21 bills and three resolutions, and saw 12 bills signed into law, more than any other legislator in the Inland Empire — Republican or Democrat.” Ober- nolte reportedly commented:

‘Sometimes our caucus will attach a ‘no’ recommendation on a bill, and I’ll read the bill and I’ll think it’s a reasonable one,’ he said. ‘I’ll vote for it if it’s good for my constituents and the people of California. Everyone notices when you do that, and over time, you acquire a reputation as someone who’s reasonable to work with, and that makes it easier when you have bills.’ Obernolte doesn’t worry about whether that opens him up to a future primary challenge as RINO, or Republican In Name Only. ‘I’m going to make the best decision that I can for the people that I represent on bills,’ he said. ‘Re-election, I think, if I do my job, takes care of itself.’

[Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, 4/18/2017]

Obernolte: I’ve been ‘astonished’ that I ‘like almost all’ of my Sacramento colleagues. In April 2017, Obernolte commented,

I’ve been astonished that, even though I frequently disagree with my colleagues in Sacramento, I like almost all of them. And 95 percent of us are there for exactly the

105 same reasons. We’re genuinely concerned about our constituents and the future of California, and we want to see our state progress.

[The Mercury News, 4/18/2017]

In 2019, Obernolte introduced House Resolution 35 to ‘require Assembly committee chairs to grant a hearing to all bills referred to their committees.’ According to the California Legislative Infor- mation site, Obernolte introduced House Resolution 35 on May 6, 2019. The resolution is described as “Relative to Standing Rules of the Assembly for the 2019–20 Regular Session.” According to Big Bear Grizzly, “California State Assemblyman Jay Obernolte (R-Hesperia) introduced House Resolution 35 to require Assembly committee chairs to grant a hearing to all bills referred to their committees.” Reportedly, “under the Standing Rules of the Assembly that just took effect this year, chairs of committees are given complete discretion on whether or not to hear bills.” According to Obernolte,

The new rules have already proven unfair and have led to legislative censorship. Now that committee chairs have the unilateral power to set legislation, they can essentially kill a bill by denying it a hearing – without a vote of the members of committee and without any testimony from the public. In fact, dozens of bills have already been held this year. This is a violation not only of the longstanding practice of this chamber, but also of the principles of democracy itself.

[California Legislative Information, House Resolution 35, 5/6/2019; Big Bear Grizzly, 5/7/2019]

Obernolte: ‘there are chairs who abuse their power and hold bills based on insincere or spiteful motives.’ In a May 2019 editorial authored by Obernolte and Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva in CalMatters, the representatives argue new house rules adopted by the legislature “provide the chairs of committees with the discretion to arbitrarily decide whether to set a bill for hearing or not, without any justiﬁcation.” They write:

Previously, Assembly rules required that every bill be set for a committee hearing. That rule was fair and reasonable. It ensured that members were not discriminated against based on their party or their standing within their caucus. The rule prevented powerful special interest groups from silencing unfavorable legislation and kept controversial bills from being shelved because committee members simply did not want to cast a politically difﬁcult vote. […] While most committee chairs are even-handed and set all the bills that have been referred to them, this is not always the case. The saying, ‘Absolute power corrupts absolutely,’ applies. Unfortunately, there are chairs who abuse their power and hold bills based on insincere or spiteful motives. Regret- tably, this year there have already been an alarming number of bills that have not been set due to this rule change. In particular, several bills related to operations at

106 the Department of Motor Vehicle have not received a hearing.

[CalMatters, 5/29/2019]

Obernolte ‘passed more legislation’ than any legislator in Inland Empire, and thinks there’s too much ‘partisan inﬁghting.’ On his campaign website, Obernolte states, “Washington is broken with too much partisan inﬁghting and nothing getting done.” The website continues:

In the Assembly, Jay Obernolte passed more legislation than any other Republican or Democratic legislator in the Inland Empire, and he will do the same in Congress to ﬁnd solutions to our country’s problems.

[Obernolte for Congress, Accessed 5/4/2020; Accessed 5/4/2020]

Professor in 2017: Obernolte’s legislation is ‘necessary but not partisan.’ In 2017, the San Bernardino Sun reported that that “Obernolte introduced 25 bills and a constitutional amendment” in 2017. Reportedly, “eight of his bills ended up being signed into law.” Marcia Godwin, a professor of Public Administration at La Verne University, told the San Bernardino Sun “Most of the bills that he has successfully authored have been bipartisan technical changes and updates”

For example, one bill extends an exemption on environmental reviews related to bi- cycle transportation plans and another updates court reporting requirements. These bills are necessary but not partisan.

[San Bernardino Sun, 10/20/2017]

+++

107 Education

Education Highlights

• Obernolte had the lowest grade of all Assembly members from the California Teachers Association in 2018 and garnered a 39 percent score from the California Federation of Teachers in 2019. • Obernolte has voted at least twice against paid leave for teachers. • In 2019, Obernolte was the only member of the Assembly to oppose AB, which would have created $15 billion in bonds for education funding. • Obernolte voted against funding a computer science grant program in 2018.

∘ Obernolte has a Masters in Artiﬁcial Intelligence from the University of California Los Angeles.

• In 2019, Obernolte declined to vote on a Preschool for All bill. Aside from providing preschool services, the bill would have increased teacher salaries. • Obernolte supported a bill preventing schools from starting prior to 8:30 am, calling it “the single most cost-effective thing we can do to improve high school graduation rates.”

Teachers

Obernolte had the lowest grade of all Assembly members from California Teachers Association in 2018. According to the California Teachers Association 2018 legislative scorecard, Obernolte had an F grade and 39 percent score for the 2018 legislative session. No Assembly member had a lower score than 39 percent. [California Teachers Association, Accessed 6/16/2020]

California Federation of Teachers gave Obernolte 39 percent score in 2019. According to the Cal- ifornia Federation of Teachers 2019 scorecard, Obernolte voted with educators only 39 percent of the time during the 2019 legislative session. [California Federation of Teachers, 9/20/2019]

Obernolte was one of three Assemblymembers to vote against paid maternity leave for educators in 2019. In 2019, Obernolte voted with a 3-68 minority to opposed AB 500. According to the California Federation of Teachers, the bill would “would mandate a minimum of six weeks paid maternity leave for school and community college employees.” The leave would apply to educators needing to time off due to “pregnancy, miscarriage, childbirth, and recovery from those conditions.” Five members of the entire California State Legislature, three in the House and two in the Senate, voted against the bill. The legislation became law in 2020. [California Legislative Information, AB 500, Introduced 2/13/2019; [California Federation of Teachers, 5/4/2019]

Obernolte voted against creating paid leaves of absence for public employees including teachers. In August 2018, Obernolte voted with a 21-55 minority to oppose SB 1085. The bill would:

108 require public employers […] to grant reasonable leaves of absence without loss of compensation or other benefits for the purpose of enabling employees to serve as stewards or officers of the exclusive representative, or of any statewide or national employee organization with which the exclusive representative is affiliated. The bill would specify that leave may be granted on a full-time, part-time, periodic, or intermit- tent basis, in accordance with certain procedures.

The bill became law in September 2018. [California Legislative Information, SB 1085, Introduced 2/12/2018]

Education Funding

Obernolte was the only legislator to vote against AB 48, which would have created $15 billion in new bonds to fund education. In September 2019, Obernolte was the only member of the Assembly to vote against AB 48. According to the legislation,

This bill would set forth the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide $15,000,000,000 to construct and modernize education facilities, as speciﬁed. This bond act would become operative only if approved by the voters at the March 3, 2020, statewide primary election. The bill would also provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at that election.

In March 2020, Cal Matters reported that voters did not approve the bond measure, which was known as Proposition 13. This Proposition 13 is different than the one related to property taxes. [California Legislative Information, AB 48, Introduced 12/3/2018; [Cal Matters, 3/14/2020]

Obernolte voted against funding a computer science grant program in 2018. In August 2018, Ober- nolte voted with a 24-47 minority to oppose AB 2303. According to the legislation,

This bill would, for the 2019–20 fiscal year, appropriate $50,000,000 from the General Fund to the commission to establish the Computer Science Teacher Grant Program. The bill would require the commission to competitively select a county office of education to administer the grant program to provide specified grants to each student enrolled in an approved teacher preparation program who commits to teaching computer science, at a school district, county office of education, or charter school, for 4 years after he or she receives a preliminary teaching credential, and when he or she has completed 2 and 4 years of the teaching obligation, as provided.

109 The bill would require the administrator of the grant program to annually report the status and progress of the grant program to the commission and to submit a ﬁnal implementation report, within 6 years of being selected as the administrator, that describes the outcomes and effectiveness of the grant program.

[California Legislative Information, AB 2303, Introduced 2/13/2018]

Obernolte has multiple degrees in STEM field, Masters in computer science field. According to his Big Bear Mayoral biography, Obernolte has a Masters of Science in “Artificial Intelligence” from the University of California, Los Angeles. Re- portedly, the Artificial Intelligence department is a division of the Computer Science department. Moreover, Obernolte has a B.S. in Engineering and Applied Science from the California Institute of Technology. He also attended Edison/Computech High School. [City of Big Bear Lake, 6/15/2020]

Obernolte declined to vote on Preschool for All bill in 2019. In May 2019, Obernolte was one of 18 members of the assembly not to vote on AB 123. According to Early Edge California, AB 123, also known as the Preschool for All Bill, “expands access to preschool for all 4-year-olds living in low-income neighborhoods and all 3-year-olds in poverty, and raises preschool quality and funding to help close the school readiness gap.” Reportedly, the bill “expands access to full-day, full-year preschool for all 4-year- olds who live in a neighborhood where more than 70% of students are eligible for free or reduced-priced meals” and “ensures that all 3-year-olds in poverty receive two years of high-quality preschool.” Moreover, the bill “Increases salaries and qualifications of preschool teachers to support children’s learning with adequate financial support” and “provides scholarships for teachers to pursue higher education in Early Learning fields.” No member of the assembly voted against the legislation, and the bill remained in the Senate as of June 2020. [California Legislative Information, AB 123, Introduced 12/3/2018]

Student Resources

Obernolte voted against policy offering one free and nutritious meal a day to low income charter school students. In May 2018, Obernolte voted with a 16-56 minority to oppose AB 1871. According to the legislation:

Existing law requires each school district or county superintendent of schools main- taining any kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to provide for each needy pupil one nutritionally adequate free or reduced-price meal during each schoolday, and authorizes them to use funds made available through any federal or state program the purpose of which includes the provision of meals to a pupil, including the

110 federal School Breakfast Program, the federal National School Lunch Program, the federal Summer Food Service Program, the federal Seamless Summer Option, or the state meal program, or to provide those meals at the expense of the school district or county ofﬁce of education.

Existing law, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, provides for the establishment and operation of charter schools, and exempts charter schools from the laws governing school districts, except as speciﬁed.This bill would, commencing with 2019–20 school year, require a charter school to provide each needy pupil, as deﬁned, with one nutritionally adequate free or reduced-price meal during each schoolday, except as provided for a charter school that offers nonclassroom-based instruction.

The bill became law. [California Legislative Information, AB 1871, Introduced 1/16/2018] 2019: Obernolte declined to vote on AB 493 which encouraged schools to train educators in supporting LGBTQ+ students; AB 493 passed the CA assembly with 64-3 majority. In September 2019, Obernolte declined to vote on AB 493, which would encourage each school operated by a school district or county office of education and each charter school to use resources developed by the State Department of Education to provide training at least once every 2 years to teachers and other certificated employees at that school that serve pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, and to other certificated employees at that school, on schoolsite and community resources for the support of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) pupils, and strategies to increase support for LGBTQ pupils and thereby improve overall school climate, as specified.

Obernolte was one of 12 Assembly Members who declined to vote on the measure. The bill became law in October 2019. [California Legislative Information, AB 493, Introduced 2/12/2019]

School Start Times

Obernolte supported September 2018 bill to ‘bar middle and high schools from starting before 8:30 a.m.’ According to the U.S. News & World Report in September 2018, Obernolte supported state legislation to “bar middle and high schools from starting before 8:30 a.m.,” reportedly giving schools up to three years to ensure compliance. Obernolte reportedly stated, “This is the single most cost-effective thing we can do to improve high school graduation rates.” Reportedly, Assemblyman Jose Medina (D- Riverside) said of the bill, “When it comes to education, the farther away the decisions are made from the classroom, the worse those decisions are.” [U.S. News & World Report, 9/1/2018]

111 +++

112 California State Budgets

California State Budgets Highlights

• During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, the state’s total expenditures increased by 36.85 percent, total revenue increased by 36.32 percent, and the state’s outstanding debt decreased by 10.82 percent. • Obernolte voted against the Fiscal Year 2020 Budget, a $214.8 billion budget that promised to cover low-income immigrants under Medi-Cal, increased spending on K-12 schools, and expanded fee waivers for college students. The budget also funded health programs that are now helping Californians with COVID-19 health and job resources. Obernolte criticized the budget for “record state spending” at a time when Californians faced “skyrocketing” costs of living. • Obernolte voted against the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget, a $139 billion budget that used state sur- pluses to “boost funding for homeless programs, welfare, child care, and universities.”

• Obernolte voted against the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget, a $125 billion budget that invested in infrastructure, paid down debt, and funded the earned income tax credit.

∘ Four Republican members of the Assembly voted for Fiscal Year 2018 budget.

113 California State Expenditures

During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, state’s total expenditures increased by 36.8 percent. During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, the state’s total expenditures increased by 36.8 percent, from $107,987,000,000 in 2014 to $147,781,000,000 in 2019. Obernolte was elected to the California State Assembly in 2014 representing the state’s 33rd Assembly District.

California State Year to Year Change Fiscal Year Ofﬁce Expenditures Change % Source

2014-2015 Not in Ofﬁce $107,987,000,000 N/A N/A California’s 2014-15 (Actual) State Budget 2015-2016 California $115,369,000,000 $7,382,000,000 6.84% California’s 2015-16 (Actual) Assembly State Budget 2016-2017 California $122,468,000,000 $7,099,000,000 6.15% California’s 2016-17 (Actual) Assembly State Budget 2017-2018 California $125,096,000,000 $2,628,000,000 2.15% California’s 2017-18 (Actual) Assembly State Budget 2018-2019 California $138,688,000,000 $13,592,000,000 10.87% California’s 2018-19 (Actual) Assembly State Budget 2019-2020 California $147,781,000,000 $9,093,000,000 6.56% California’s 2019-20 (Actual) Assembly State Budget 2020-2021 California $151,635,000,000 $3,854,000,000 2.61% California’s 2020-21 (Proposed) Assembly Governor’s Budget Change $39,794,000,000 36.8% 2014-2019

[California State Budget, 2014-2015; 2015-2016; 2016-2017; 2017-2018; 2018-2019; 2019-2020; 2020- 2021; Daily Press, 3/3/2020]

California State Revenue

During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, state’s total revenue increased by 36.32 percent. During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, the state’s total state revenue increased by 36.32 percent, from $105,488,000,000 in 2014 to $143,804,000,000 in 2019. Obernolte was elected to the California State Assembly in 2014 representing the state’s 33rd Assembly District.

114 California State Year to Year Change Fiscal Year Ofﬁce Revenue Change %

2014-2015 (Actual) Not in Ofﬁce $105,488,000,000 N/A N/A 2015-2016 (Actual) California $115,033,000,000 $9,545,000,000 9.05% Assembly 2016-2017 (Actual) California $120,310,000,000 $5,277,000,000 4.59% Assembly 2017-2018 (Actual) California $125,880,000,000 $5,570,000,000 4.63% Assembly 2018-2019 (Actual) California $133,332,000,000 $7,452,000,000 5.92% Assembly 2019-2020 (Actual) California $143,804,000,000 $10,472,000,000 7.85% Assembly 2020-2021 California $153,083,000,000 $9,279,000,000 6.45% (Proposed) Assembly Change 2014-2019 $38,316,000,000 36.32%

[California State Budget, 2014-2015; 2015-2016; 2016-2017; 2017-2018; 2018-2019; 2019-2020; 2020- 2021; Daily Press, 3/3/2020]

California State Outstanding Debt

During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, state’s outstanding debt decreased by 10.82 percent. During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, the state’s outstanding debt decreased by 10.82 percent, from $1,158,080,000 in 2017 to $1,032,760,000 in 2019. Obernolte was elected to the California State Assembly in 2014 representing the state’s 33rd Assembly District.

California State Outstanding Year to Year Change Fiscal Year Ofﬁce Debt Change %

2017-2018 California $1,158,080,000 N/A N/A (Actual) Assembly 2018-2019 California $859,695,000 -$298,385,000 - (Actual) Assembly 25.77%

115 California State Outstanding Year to Year Change Fiscal Year Ofﬁce Debt Change %

2019-2020 California $1,032,760,000 $173,065,000 20.13% (Actual) Assembly 2020-2021 California $963,365,000 -$69,395,000 -6.72% (Proposed) Assembly Change -$125,320,000 - 2014-2019 10.82%

[California State Schedule 11, 2017 Budget Act; 2018 Budget Act; 2019 Budget Act; 2020-2021 Gover- nor’s Budget; Daily Press, 3/3/2020]

FY 2020 California State Budget

$214.8B FY20 budget included ‘first-in-the-nation’ promise to cover low-income immigrants under Medi-Cal, ‘significant new spending’ on K-12 schools, and expanded fee waivers for college students. In June 2019, the Los Angeles Times reported that “Democrats in the California Legislature sent Gov. Gavin Newsom legislation Thursday that lays out the blueprint of a $214.8-billion state budget, a plan that assumes significant new spending on K-12 schools and healthcare while setting aside an unprecedented amount of tax revenue for future economic slowdowns.” Reportedly,

California’s new budget includes a sizable effort to expand access to healthcare — a combination of larger subsidies for purchasing insurance and a ﬁrst-in-the-nation promise to provide government-subsidized Medi-Cal coverage to low-income residents up to the age of 25, regardless of their immigration status.

Additionally,

116 Newsom and lawmakers agreed to spend $195 million for training child-care workers and another $300 million on building new school facilities for full-day kindergarten. The plan also allocated $645 million for improved special education efforts, with much of that money going to services for children as young as 3. The budget sets aside money to expand fee waivers for students in their second year of community college and expands enrollment on University of California and California State University campuses. It also adds enough funding to the competitive Cal Grant program to provide scholarships to as many as 41,000 students a year.

[Los Angeles Times, 6/13/2019]

Obernolte criticized FY20 state budget for having ‘more pork in it that any other budget,’ stated it facilitated ‘record state spending’ at a time when Californians faced ‘skyrocketing’ costs of living. In June 2019, Big Bear Grizzly reported that “On June 13, lawmakers in California passed a $214.8 billion budget that provides new spending for schools, homelessness and health care for undocumented immigrants.” Reportedly, “California State Assembly budget committee vice chair Jay Obernolte (R-Hesperia) issued a statement on the passage of California’s 2019-20 state budget.” According to Obernolte,

With this budget, California will once again see record state spending at a time when many Californians are struggling with a skyrocketing cost of living and among the high- est taxes in the nation. We are fortunate to have a record high $21.5 billion surplus, but we should resist the temptation to create new government programs and expand others.

Obernolte also said, “Unfortunately, the Legislature also approved a massive expansion to Medi-Cal, a health care program that is systemically broken and already fails to fulﬁll its promise to the California residents it is meant to serve.” He continued, “Expanding this program before ﬁxing its existing problems is a huge disservice to the most vulnerable Californians, many of whom currently have little access to care.” Additionally, “Obernolte said previously the budget has ‘more pork in it that any other budget that I’ve seen in my time in the Legislature.’” [Big Bear Grizzly, 6/15/2019]

FY 2020 budget allocated $162.3 billion to Health and Human Services. According to an analysis of the Fiscal Year 2020 California State Budget by Health Management Associates, the “total Health and Human Services (HHS) funding increased from $160 billion ($39 billion General Fund) in 2018-2019 to $162.3 billion” in 2019-2020. Reportedly, this included expanding Medi-cal services to low income seniors. [Health Management Associates, 7/11/2019]

• California Health and Human Services Agency oversees thirteen state departments, including the Department of Health Care Services, Emergency Medical Services Authority, and the Department of Public Health. According to AllGov California, the California Health and Human

117 Services Agency “oversees 13 departments that provide a range of health care services, social services, mental health services, alcohol and drug services, income assistance and public health services.” One of these departments is the Department of Health Care Services, which “is the major provider of the health care safety net in California” for low-income and disabled people. “Most of its budget is spent on Medi-Cal,” the state’s federal Medicaid program. Others include the Emer- gency Medical Services Authority, the Department of Public Health, and the California Department of Social Services. [All Gov California, Accessed 7/22/2020] • California Department of Public Health employed 3,959 in February 2020. In February 2020, according to the California State Controller, 9,959 people, including 3,738 full-time employees, worked for the California Department of Public Health. [California State Controller, 2/2020] • California Department of Health Care Services expedited applications for people vulnerable to COVID-19 in 2020. In March 2020, the Sacramento Bee reported that the California Department of Health Care Services was “seeking to expedite applications for senior citizens and other popu- lations considered vulnerable” to COVID-19. According to the department’s director, “the Medi-Cal and Covered California systems are stepping up to eet [sic] the need for health coverage and ease access to services.” [Sacramento Bee, 3/20/2020] • California Department of Health Care Services expanded access to COVID-19 testing and treatment in 2020. In June 2020, the Department of Health Care Services wrote on its website:

The State of California has taken steps to ensure that people who have no insurance can qualify for Medi-Cal coverage for COVID- 19 testing and treatment at no cost. People who have private insurance that does not cover COVID-19 testing and treatment also qualify. Medi-Cal beneﬁciaries also are eligible for no-cost COVID- 19 testing and treatment, even if they usually are responsible for a share of cost payment.

Medi-Cal offers free or low-cost health coverage for low-income California residents. Most people with Medi-Cal pay no premium or co-payments. Medi-Cal and Covered California use the same streamlined application.

[Department of Healthcare Services, 6/17/2020]

• California Department of Public Health began coronavirus testing in February 2020. In Febru- ary 2020, Lake County News reported that the California Department of Public Health announced

118 that 16 state laboratories would “soon be able to perform testing for the novel coronavirus” and that results would be “more rapid” than current testing results. The department was taking additional actions regarding the pandemic, including:

Providing information about the outbreak and how to report sus- pect cases to local health departments and health care providers in California.

Coordinating with CDC personnel who are doing screening of trav- elers from China at SFO and LAX.

Assuring that health care providers know how to safely manage persons with possible novel coronavirus 2019 infection.

Activating the Department of Public Health’s Emergency Opera- tions Center to coordinate response efforts across the state.

[Lake County News, 2/7/2020]

• California Department of Public Health helped San Bernardino County Department of Health address COVID-19 outbreak in April 2020. In April 2020, the Mercury News reported that the San Bernardino County Department of Health was “working closely” with the California Department of Public Health to “help state corrections ofﬁcials to identify and trace the origin of COVID-19 infections at a prison in Chino where 11 staff members and one inmate had tested positive” by employing “testing and contact tracing.” [Mercury News, 4/3/2020] • San Bernardino County Department of Public Health was working with California Department of Public Health to address COVID-19 as early as March 2020. In March 2020, the Colton Courier reported that the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health “continues to work with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the California Department of Public Health to respond to reports of coronavirus (COVID-19) as it is quickly evolving,” despite the fact that no cases had been reported in the county yet. [Colton Courier , 3/5/2020] • California Emergency Medical Services Authority was sending ventilators to hospitals in April 2020. In April 2020, the Los Angeles Times reported that “the California Emergency Medical Services Authority constantly monitors the availability of ventilators statewide and has positioned stockpiles of the medical devices strategically around the state so that they can be rapidly delivered to hospitals and medical centers that need them.” The Times added:

119 Mark Ghaly, secretary of the California Health and Human Ser- vices Agency, said the state also keeps a close eye on rural hospitals that have only a limited number of ventilators, knowing that even a small increase in coronavirus patients might push the facilities past capacity. State ofﬁcials are ‘checking in with them con- tinuously, making sure that we prioritize their needs so that every hospital has enough to be able to serve the surge that we antici- pate,’ Ghaly said.

[Los Angeles Times, 4/10/2020]

• California Emergency Medical Services Authority earned power to waive regulations for emergency medical workers during COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. In March 2020, the Sacramento Bee reported that Governor Newsom called for “thousands and thousands” more health care workers to treat the incoming wave of coronavirus patients, giving “Emergency Medical Ser- vices Authority Director Dave Duncan power to waive regulations for emergency medical workers.” Newsom’s administration said there were “37,000 people who have recently retired from a medical profession, are close to earning a medical or nursing degree or who are working part time in the ﬁeld” who could “help the state accommodate a surge in patients with COVID-19.” [Sacramento Bee, 3/30/2020] • California Department of Social Services provided relief to ‘families in need’ during COVID- 19 in May 2020. In May 2020, The Californian reported that “the California Department of Social Services is providing pandemic relief to families in need through the Pandemic-EBT, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Disaster Relief Assistance for Immigrants and Medi-Cal Application Services.” The P-EBT program “ helps low-income families that have children receiving free or reduced meals at school, regardless of citizenship status.” Additionally, the CDSS “selected 12 immigrant-serving nonproﬁt organizations to help individuals apply for and receive disaster relief assistance in their region.” [The Californian, 5/22/2020] • California Department of Health Care Services expanded access to COVID-19 testing and treatment in 2020. In June 2020, the Department of Health Care Services wrote on its website:

120 The State of California has taken steps to ensure that people who have no insurance can qualify for Medi-Cal coverage for COVID- 19 testing and treatment at no cost. People who have private insurance that does not cover COVID-19 testing and treatment also qualify. Medi-Cal beneﬁciaries also are eligible for no-cost COVID- 19 testing and treatment, even if they usually are responsible for a share of cost payment.

[Department of Healthcare Services, 6/17/2020]

FY 2020 Budget allocated $2 billion to Department of State Hospitals, State Hospitals employ 11,312 people. According to a report by the Legislative Analyst’s Ofﬁce in February 2019, the Fiscal Year 2020 State Budget included $2 billion in funding for the Department of State Hospitals, a $59 million increase from the previous year. According to the California State Controller, the Department of State Hospitals employed 11,312 people as of February 2020, including 10,262 full-time employees. [Legisla- tive Analyst’s Ofﬁce , 2/13/2019; California State Controller, 2/2020]

FY 2020 budget allocated over $1 billion to the Employment Development Department; the department employs 7,565 and runs Unemployment Insurance in California. According to California Legislative Information, the Fiscal Year 2021 California State Budget included $1,037,610,000 in funding for the Employment Development Department, some of which is payable from various other state funds. According to the California State Controller, the Department employed a total of 7,565 people, including 7,012 full-time employees, as of February 2020. According to the Employment Development Board, the Department runs various jobs programs throughout the state, including the CalJOBS job search platform, and also distributed unemployment insurance payments to Californians during the pandemic. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 89, 6/26/2020; California State Controller, 2/2020; [Employment Development Department, Accessed 7/22/2020]

121 workers in California. The Board does not run the training programs themselves, instead giving employers the funds to conduct their own skills-based training. [Employment Training Panel, Accessed [7/2/2020](https://etp.ca.gov/#:~:text=The%20Employment%20Training%20Panel%20(ETP,paying%2C%20long%2Dterm%20jobs.)]

Employment Training Panel ‘fully supports the use of ETP funds to train Veterans’ and funds Veteran-speciﬁc training programs. According to the Employment Training Panel website, “ETP has funded training for Veterans for the past six years.” Employers that have worked with the ETP to run Veteran-speciﬁc training programs include “National Veterans Transition Services, Inc., Alliance Environ- mental Holdings, LLC, Herman Weissker Power, Inc., Herman Weissker, Inc., Peterson Holding Com- pany, Diamond Foods, LLC, Land O’Lakes, Inc., California Manufacturers and Technology Association, and ASAP Holding Co. dba ASAP Drain Guys & Plumbing.” Reportedly, Peter Cooper, ETP’s Assistant Executive Director, said, “the Panel fully supports the use of ETP funds to train Veterans and Individuals With Disabilities. We are glad to recognize the efforts made by our Contractors to recruit, hire, train and retain from this workforce population.” [Employment Training Panel, 7/2/2020]

Employment Training Panel expanded training programs in response to COVID-19.. According to the Employment Training Panel website, the Board altered their training protocols. The Board reportedly increased the cap on percentage of training that could be dedicated to safety from 10 percent to 50 percent. Reportedly, employees who had previously expected to participate in an ETP training program but were furloughed could still “meet the minimum training and wage requirements.” [Employment Training Panel, 3/2/2020]

FY 2020 Budget allocated over $60 million to jobs training in the California Conservation Corps, Corps employs 1,865, at least 95 in San Bernardino. According to the FY 2020 California State Budget, the FY 2020 budget appropriated $60,755,000 to the Training and Work Program of the California Conservation Corps. As of February 2020, the California Conservation Corps employed 1,865 people, and the Corps has an ofﬁce in San Bernardino. More speciﬁcally the California Conservation Corps has an “Inland Empire Center” which employs 95 “non-residential” employees. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 89, 6/26/2020; California Secretary of State, 2/2020; Inland Empire Center, Accessed 7/20/2020]

Obernolte ‘worried’ about long term budgetary pressure of expanding child care and child tax credits in FY20 budget. The Orange County Register reported in May 2019 on Governor Newsom’s proposed budget, which sought to address economic inequality. Reportedly:

Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Hesperia, said he was pleased to see money for 25 new superior court judgeships but worried about the long-term ramiﬁcations of

122 expanding child care and child tax credits. ‘These are easy things to approve of when you have a $21 billion budget surplus,’ Obernolte said. ‘But unfortunately that’s exactly the kind of spending that increases budgetary pressure in future years, because it’s very hard to walk back expansion of those programs.’

[The Orange County Register, 5/9/2019]

FY 2019 California State Budget

Obernolte voted against FY19 budget bill. According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte voted against Senate Bill 862, the Budget Act of 2018, on August 29, 2018. Reportedly, “The Budget Act of 2018 made appropriations for the support of state government for the 2018–19 ﬁscal year.” The bill passed the California Assembly by a 62-18 vote. [California Legislative Information, Senate Bill 862, 8/29/2018]

Six Republicans voted for FY 19 budget bill. In August 2018, seven Republican members of the California Assembly voted for the FY 19 budget bill, including Assemblymembers Gallagher, Baker, Cun- ningham, Lackey, Acosta, Waldron, and Maienschein. [California Legislative Information, Senate Bill 862, 8/29/2018]

FY 2019 budget allocated $99.2b to Medi-Cal. In February 2019, the California Health Care Foundation reported that “spending on Medi-Cal represents 17% of the state’s General Fund spending, with total expenditures for 2018–19 of $99.2 billion.” [California Health Care Foundation, 2/25/2019]

231K people in Assembly District 33 were eligible for Medi-Cal in 2019, including seniors, persons with disabilities, caretakers and children. In January 2019, the Department of Health Care Services released “Medi-Cal certiﬁed eligible counts” for California State Assembly Districts, which listed that As- sembly District 33 had 231,619 residents eligible for Medi-Cal, the state’s federal Medicaid program. [Department of Health Services, 9/10/2019]

In 2018, lawmakers passed $139B FY19 budget that used state surplus to ‘boost funding for homeless programs, welfare, child care, and universities.’ In June 2018, CapRadio reported that “State lawmakers approved a $139 billion budget Thursday that uses California’s massive surplus to boost funding for homeless programs, welfare, child care and universities while also socking some money into savings.” Reportedly,

The budget will boost assistance for people living in poverty, including more than 13,000 new slots for subsidized child care. People on CalWorks, the state welfare program, will see monthly grants rise by 10 percent in April, the start of a multiyear effort to lift the income of the poorest Californians to 50 percent of the federal poverty

123 level. It includes $500 million for emergency grants to help cities and counties reduce homelessness. The grants can be used on a range of programs, including housing vouchers and shelter construction to help address California’s rapidly rising costs and growing homeless population. The budget also boosts university funding, forestalling tuition increases at both California State University and University of California, and creates an online community college to offer credentials to working adults unable to attend classes in person.

According to CapRadio, “California’s nearly $200 billion total budget includes $138.6 billion in general fund spending, $57.1 billion in special funds that must be spent for speciﬁc purposes and $3.9 billion in money from bonds.” [CapRadio, 6/14/2018]

In 2018, Obernolte criticized budget surplus as evidence that ‘Californians pay too much in taxes,’ advocated ‘limiting additional spending to one-time costs’ and building up state’s reserve. In January 2018, the Whittier Daily News reported that “Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown proposed a $131.7 billion state spending plan Wednesday, launching his ﬁnal year of budget negotiations as he prepares to leave ofﬁce.” Reportedly,

Brown’s proposal is up 5 percent from last year but includes little new spending on new programs. Once again warning that he believes a recession looms, Brown dedicated $5 billion toward the state’s Rainy Day fund, more than is constitutionally required. He also proposed a new online community college program.

According to the Whittier Daily News,

Republicans said the budget surplus shows Californians pay too much in taxes, with Assemblyman Tom Lackey of Palmdale saying it makes no sense that the state just raised gas and car taxes on drivers by $5 billion per year. ‘In a perfect world, the surplus would be returned to taxpayers,’ added Assemblyman Jay Obernolte of Hes- peria, the top Republican on the Assembly budget committee. In the alternative, both Republicans supported beeﬁng up the state’s reserve and limiting additional spending to one-time costs.

[Whittier Daily News, 1/10/2018]

124 Brown’s $137.6 billion revised general fund budget was up nearly $6 billion from his earlier proposal in January. He wants to save most of the surplus to protect spending during a future recession, boosting the rainy day fund to nearly $14 billion. The As- sembly budget committee’s ranking Republican, Jay Obernolte of Hesperia, said the surplus means there was no need for the state to impose a $52 billion gas tax to pay for transportation projects.

[KPBS, 5/14/2018]

In 2018, Obernolte questioned the need for the nearly $200B FY19 budget to include a new deﬁcit reserve fund. In June 2018, the Los Angeles Times reported that “The state budget that Gov. Jerry Brown will sign by month’s end will total close to a record $200 billion.” According to the Los Angeles Times, however, the press attention on the budget is not shaped by the proposal’s spending. Rather, “it’s savings or, more precisely, a heightened focus on cash reserves,” as California continued its “push toward the largest rainy-day fund in its history.” Reportedly,

The plan on [Governor] Brown’s desk also creates two new reserve accounts, one of which lawmakers admitted last week is still a work in progress — even though it’s slated to receive a $2.6 billion deposit in October. The purpose of one of the new accounts is quite clear: providing a lifeline to health and welfare programs in the event of a ﬁscal crisis. Democratic legislators and Brown agreed to seed the account with an initial $200 million, maybe more if tax revenues remain strong. Less clear is the path ahead for a second new fund, the ‘Budget Deﬁcit Savings Account.’ For starters, lawmakers insist stashing $2.6 billion there is only temporary. They said last week the money will be moved into the more ironclad rainy-day fund, created by Proposition 2, next spring. It’s the rules of that 2014 ballot measure that may explain why this is happening. Proposition 2 will require spending on infrastructure projects once the rainy-day fund reaches its legal capacity — and that happens once the $2.6 billion is deposited.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Assemblyman Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake) spoke in opposition to the state budget plan as him and “other Republicans questioned the need for a new deﬁcit reserve fund.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/17/2018]

In January 2018 Obernolte criticized governor’s use of budget surplus, said it ‘illustrates the fact that Californians pay too much in taxes.’ In January 2018 The Sacramento Bee reported that Ober- nolte said of the proposed FY 2019 budget,

125 ‘The good news is that California currently has a substantial budget surplus. Unfor- tunately, this illustrates the fact that Californians pay too much in taxes. In a perfect world, the surplus would be returned to taxpayers. Failing that, we owe it to Califor- nians to spend their money wisely. ’I’m pleased that the Governor agrees we must continue to set aside money for the rainy-day fund, but we still need to do more to prepare for future downturns. The surplus should be used to fund one-time investments in our state’s infrastructure – not on new programs that commit the state to future ongoing spending. ’We must also consider paying down California’s outstanding debt and liabilities, which currently exceed $200 billion. Moreover, without reform, ever-increasing pension costs at the local level will continue to crowd out funding for teachers, public safety and other essential services. ’California needs to be responsible with its money now so it can provide the infrastructure our state badly needs and protect vital services for our citizens in the future.’

[The Sacramento Bee, 1/10/2018]

FY 2018 California State Budget

Obernolte voted against FY18 budget bill. According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte voted against Assembly Bill 97, the Budget Act of 2017, on June 15, 2017. Reportedly, the bill “would make appropriations for the support of state government for the 2017–18 ﬁscal year.” The bill passed the California Assembly by a 59-20 vote. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 97, 6/15/2017]

Four Republican members of Assembly voted for FY 18 budget bill. In June 2017, four Republican members of the California Assembly voted for the Fiscal Year 2018 budget. These members included Assemblywoman Baker, Assemblyman Steinworth, Assemblyman Chávez, and Assemblyman Maien- schein. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 97, 6/15/2017]

FY 2018 Budget allocated over $6.5 million to Workforce Development Board, program successfully assisting over 26,000 California adults with job searches. According to California Legislative Information, the Fiscal Year 2018 California State Budget included $6,609,000 in funding “in support of California Workforce Development Board.” According to the California State Controller, the Board directly employed 21 individuals as of February 2020. Additionally, in Fiscal Year 2017, according to the California Workforce Development Board, their WIOA Adult program serviced over 53,000 Californians. Reportedly, in that time period, 37,868 adults exited the program, 26,842 of whom successfully found found employment, a 67.6 percent success rate. [California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill 97, 6/15/2017; California State Controller, 2/2020; California Workforce Development Board, 10/15/2018]

126 In 2017, California Governor signed $125B budget that invested in infrastructure, paid down debt, and funded the earned income tax credit. In June 2017, the Associated Press reported that “Gov. Jerry Brown signed a $125 billion California budget Tuesday that gives doctors and dentists a raise while increasing funding for education and social services.” Reportedly,

The budget boosts money for K-12 schools and community colleges by $3.1 billion and makes a series of reforms to the University of California and California State University systems, including giving lawmakers more oversight of the UC president’s budget. Low-income Californians on Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, will get improved dental and eyeglass coverage, and a tax credit for the working poor will be signiﬁcantly expanded. ‘This budget provides money to repair our roads and bridges, pay down debt, invest in schools, fund the earned income tax credit and provide Medi- Cal health care for millions of Californians,’ Brown said.

[Associated Press, 6/27/2017]

FY 2017 California State Budget

Obernolte criticized negotiations surrounding FY17 budget for lack of transparency. In June 2016, Desert Sun reported that “Sacramento reporters weren’t exaggerating last week when they noted that the latest round of budget negotiations touched a nerve.” Reportedly, “Two top Republicans, including Assembly member Chad Mayes, expressed ‘disappointment with the process’ in an open letter Tuesday to Democratic Speaker of the Assembly Anthony Rendon.” Mayes and Jay Obernolte, “vice chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, are pointing to a couple ‘trailer bills,’ which authorize payments within the budget and were publicly available for only one day.” According to their letter,

This year’s state budget spends a record $122.5 billion General Fund and nearly $270 billion overall. It is imperative that the process be open and transparent, and this starts with ensuring that the public is able to review and comment on clear, deﬁnitive ﬁnal language. We can do better and the public deserves it.

[Desert Sun, 6/21/2016] Obernolte voted against FY 17 budget bill. According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte voted against Senate Bill 826, the Budget Act of 2016, on June 15, 2016. The bill was described as “an act making appropriations for the support of the government of the State of California and for several public purposes in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of Article IV of the Constitution of the State of California, relating to the state budget, to take effect immediately, budget bill.” The bill passed the California Assembly by a 52-27 vote. [California Legislative Information, Senate Bill 826, 6/15/2016]

127 Zero Republicans voted for FY 17 Budget bill. According to the California Legislative Information website, no Republican members of the Assembly crossed party lines to vote for the FY 17 budget bill. One Republican, Travis Allen, did not vote, while all other Republican members of the Assembly voted against the bill. [California Legislative Information, Senate Bill 826, 6/15/2016]

Victor Valley educators said 2016-2017 budget proposal would be ‘beneﬁcial to education oppor- tunities’ in 2016. In January 2016, according to the Victorville Daily Press, educators in Victor Valley expressed their support for the education funding included in the Governor’s 2016-2017 budget, calling the increased spending on schools “uplifting.” Reportedly, Tom Hoegerman, a school superintendent, said, “Many districts, including our own, were devastated by budget cuts several years ago, and this funding will allow us to continue the process of restoring education programs for our students.” The proposed K-12 spending reportedly totalled $71.6 billion, over 50 percent higher than school spending in the 2011-2012 budget. [Victorville Daily Press, 1/8/2020]

In 2016, lawmakers passed $170.9B FY17 budget that increased funding for social services and stashed ‘an extra $2B into the rainy-day fund.’ In June 2016, the Los Angeles Times reported that “California lawmakers approved a new $170.9-billion spending plan on Wednesday that increases some funding for social services but stashes more away in a rainy-day fund.” Reportedly,

The governor successfully convinced lawmakers to stash an extra $2 billion into the rainy-day fund, bringing the total to an estimated $6.7 billion by next summer. The budget includes another $1.75-billion cushion in case revenue runs lower or spending is higher than expected. The budget ramps up payments to state-subsidized child care providers to help them keep pace with California’s higher minimum wage, which is slated to hit $15 by 2022. The spending plan also ends a policy known as the ‘maximum family grant,’ which prevented families from receiving extra welfare assistance if they had a new child while already receiving beneﬁts.

According to the Los Angeles Times, “Republicans were critical of new spending on government programs, echoing Brown’s concerns about the possibility of another recession.” Assemblyman Jay Ober- nolte (R-Big Bear Lake), the vice chairman of the Assembly budget committee, said, “It doesn’t take more than basic arithmetic to show that level of increase is unsustainable.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/15/2016]

Obernolte opposed FY 2017 budget bill that was ‘cheered’ by ‘advocates for the poor.’ In June 2016, Obernolte voted against SB 826, a ﬁscal year 2017 budgetary appropriations bill which repealed “controversial cap on welfare payments, includes more money for higher education, raises rates for child care providers and puts an additional $3 billion into the state’s rainy-day reserve.” According to The Sacramento Bee, the bill was a “$122.5 billion package:”

128 The $122.5 billion package repeals a controversial cap on welfare payments, includes more money for higher education, raises rates for child care providers and puts an additional $3 billion into the state’s rainy-day reserve, including an optional $2 billion shift demanded by Gov. Jerry Brown to protect against a feared economic downturn. The pact also calls for borrowing $2 billion against revenue from the state’s mental health services tax to build housing for people with mental illness, a proposal that will be taken up Thursday in both houses… Democratic lawmakers praised the plan, highlighting its new spending as ‘investments’ in the state’s future and a far cry from the deep spending cuts and red ink of recession-era proposals… Advocates for the poor cheered the repeal of the maximum family grant rule on CalWORKs participants, which for more than two decades has banned additional money for any child born into a family that had been receiving aid.

[California Legislature, SB 826, 6/15/2016; The Sacramento Bee, 6/15/2016]

FY 2016 California State Budget

Obernolte voted against FY16 budget bill. According to the California Legislative Information site, Obernolte voted against Senate Bill 101, the Budget Act of 2015, on September 11, 2015. Reportedly, “The Budget Act of 2015 made appropriations for the support of state government for the 2015–16 ﬁscal year.” The bill passed the California Assembly by a 50-29 vote. [California Legislative Information, Senate Bill 101, 9/11/2015]

One Republican voted for FY 2016 budget, claimed he was ‘distracted’ by Facebook and mistak- enly voted for the bill. In June 2015, the CBS San Francisco reported that “a Republican lawmaker in Sacramento became the only lawmaker from his party to vote for this year’s budget, saying he was distracted by checking Facebook.” Reportedly, “Assemblyman Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita voted in favor of the spending plan” but later elected to change his vote. Will was “later allowed to change his vote.” [CBS San Francisco, 6/16/2015]

$117B FY16 budget included $14B in education funding, $380M to ‘lift approximately 50,000 families out of poverty,’ and $40M for Medi-Cal services. In June 2015, the State Capital Newsfeed reported that the $117 billion balanced budget included “more than $14 billion in new funding over last year’s budget for our schools and community colleges” and “$500 million for a one-time teacher effectiveness block grant to help improve performance in the classroom.” Additionally,

The 2015-16 budget increases funding for CSU, expands the number of Competitive Cal Grants by almost 15%, and will lower tuition at CSU and UC for Middle Income

129 Families by 20%. The budget includes $380 million for a state Earned Income Tax Credit that will beneﬁt over two million Californians and lift approximately 50,000 families out of poverty and another 50,000 out of deep poverty. Early education is vital for a child’s development; the California budget includes $265 million to fund 7,000 additional preschool slots and 6,800 child care slots, plus a rate increase for all providers. The budget provides $40 million to fund Medi-Cal services for children regardless of immigration status, effective May 1, 2016 ($132 million when fully implemented). More Clean Water for Santa Clara County Language in the 2015-16 California State budget helps over one million residents by removing barriers for the implementation of water recycling programs for Santa Clara County.

[State Capital Newsfeed, 6/19/2015]

+++

130 California State Assembly Budgets

California State Assembly Budgets Highlights

• During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, the State Assembly budget increased by 25.13 percent and total spending on Assembly Members’ salaries increased by 47.25 percent. • Obernolte and state legislators received a 4 percent raise in 2019 despite the Legislature’s “slipping” public approval ratings. Two years before, they were granted a 3 percent raise and were criticized by tax groups for being rewarded after voting to raise gas taxes and vehicle fees “by $5.2 billion annually.” • Obernolte collected $512 in “taxpayer-funded living expenses” in 2016 despite being absent for work. • During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, total spending on Assembly Members’ travel increased by 29.5 percent. • During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, total contributions to the Legislators’ Retirement System decreased by 5.05 percent.

California State Assembly Expenditures

During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, the State Assembly budget increased by 5.02 percent. During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, the State Assembly’s total expenditures increased by 25.13 percent, from $153,170,000 in 2014 to $191,660,000 in 2019. Obernolte was elected to the California State Assembly in 2014 representing the state’s 33rd Assembly District.

California State Assembly Year to Year Change Fiscal Year Ofﬁce Expenditures Change %

2014-2015 NotinOfﬁce $153,170,000 N/A N/A (Actual) 2015-2016 California $160,139,000 $6,969,000 4.55% (Actual) Assembly 2016-2017 California $169,683,000 $9,544,000 5.96% (Actual) Assembly 2017-2018 California $176,843,000 $7,160,000 4.22% (Actual) Assembly 2018-2019 California $183,970,000 $7,127,000 4.03% (Actual) Assembly

131 California State Assembly Year to Year Change Fiscal Year Ofﬁce Expenditures Change %

2019-2020 California $191,660,000 $7,690,000 4.18% (Actual) Assembly 2020-2021 California $199,768,000 $8,108,000 4.23% (Proposed) Assembly Change $38,490,000 25.13% 2014-2019

[California Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Budget, 2016-2017; 2017-2018; 2018-2019; 2019-2020; 2020-2021; Daily Press, 3/3/2020]

California State Assembly Salary Expenditure

During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, total spending on Assembly Members’ salaries increased by 47.25 percent. During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, the total spending on the salaries of State Assembly Members increased by 47.25 percent, from $8,353,000 in 2014 to $12,300,000 in 2019. Obernolte was elected to the California State Assembly in 2014 representing the state’s 33rd Assembly District.

California State Assembly Year to Year Change Fiscal Year Ofﬁce Salaries Change %

2014-2015 NotinOfﬁce $8,353,000 N/A N/A (Actual) 2015-2016 California $9,858,000 $1,505,000 18.02% (Actual) Assembly 2016-2017 California $10,686,000 $828,000 8.40% (Actual) Assembly 2017-2018 California $11,376,000 $690,000 6.46% (Actual) Assembly 2018-2019 California $11,500,000 $124,000 1.09% (Actual) Assembly 2019-2020 California $12,300,000 $800,000 6.96% (Actual) Assembly

132 California State Assembly Year to Year Change Fiscal Year Ofﬁce Salaries Change %

2020-2021 California $12,816,000 $516,000 4.20% (Proposed) Assembly Change $3,947,000 47.25% 2014-2019

[California Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Budget, 2016-2017; 2017-2018; 2018-2019; 2019-2020; 2020-2021; Daily Press, 3/3/2020]

In 2019, Obernolte and state legislators granted 4 percent raise despite ‘slipping’ public approval ratings of the Legislature. In June 2019, the Los Angeles Times reported that “A state panel granted a 4% pay raise to Gov. Gavin Newsom, legislators and other elected officials Friday, citing the booming California economy and big budget surplus.” Reportedly, “The raises will bump the base pay of California legislators to $114,877.” Additionally, “while raises drew criticism from taxpayer groups, others said they were justified and noted that state officials are underpaid compared with counterparts on city councils and county boards of supervisors.” According to the Los Angeles Times,

The commission’s action represented the seventh year in a row that raises were given, following 3% increases last year and the year before. The raises were granted this year even as the public approval rating of the Legislature is slipping. In January, 49% of the public surveyed approved of the way that the state Legislature is handling its job, according to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. In May, the approval rating dropped to 39%, the institute found.

[Los Angeles Times, 6/21/2019]

In 2017, Obernolte and state legislators granted 3 percent raise; legislature criticized by tax groups for being rewarded after voting to raise gas taxes and vehicle fees ‘by $5.2B annually.’ In June 2017, the Los Angeles Times reported that “Gov. Jerry Brown, state legislators and other state elected ofﬁcials were granted 3% raises by a state panel this week that noted the increases are slightly less than the salary increase recently given to rank-and-ﬁle state workers.” Reportedly,

The raises, which take effect in December, follow a 4% raise for elected ofﬁcials last year, and a total of 10% in raises spread out over the previous three years. California’s legislators will see their salaries increase to $107,238 from $104,115. They also get $183 per day in tax-free per diem payments to cover expenses for each day they are in session in Sacramento.

133 However, Lew Uhler, “head of the California-based National Tax Limitation Committee,” questioned the “timing of the raises for lawmakers, coming two months after legislators voted to raise gas taxes and vehicle fees by $5.2 billion annually.” He said, “They raised our taxes and spent our money and they seek a reward for that? Come on.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/20/2017]

KPBS in 2016: Obernolte collected $512 in ‘taxpayer-funded living expenses’ despite being absent for work. In September 2016, KPBS reported that “In addition to their six-ﬁgure salaries and beneﬁts, California’s 120 lawmakers are compensated for their cost of living and meals when they leave home and travel to Sacramento to write and pass bills.” Reportedly,

Unlike in many other states, however, California lawmakers have over time crafted loosely worded rules for themselves that allow them to collect those payments regardless of whether they even show up to work. It’s a perk unlike anything typically available to workers in the private sector, allowing lawmakers such as Assemblyman Roger Hernandez to take unlimited time off and continue collecting a tax-free, daily al- lowance of $176. California lawmakers took 325 days off during the legislative session that recently ended to stay home sick, be with their families or other reasons unrelated to their jobs, but chose to receive about $56,000 collectively in taxpayer-funded living expenses, a review by The Associated Press found.

According to KPBS, Jay Obernolte, R-Hesperia, had three absences for which he collected $512 in per diem payments. [KPBS, 9/21/2016]

California State Assembly Travel Spending

During Obernolte’s tenure on California State Assembly, total spending on Assembly Members’ travel increased by 29.5 percent. During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, the total spending on “travel and per diem” increased by 29.5 percent, from $2,085,000 in 2014 to $2,700,000 in 2019. Obernolte was elected to the California State Assembly in 2014 representing the state’s 33rd Assembly District.

California State Assembly Year to Year Change Fiscal Year Ofﬁce Travel Spending Change %

2014-2015 Not in Ofﬁce $2,085,000 N/A N/A (Actual) 2015-2016 California $2,294,000 $209,000 10.02% (Actual) Assembly

134 California State Assembly Year to Year Change Fiscal Year Ofﬁce Travel Spending Change %

2016-2017 California $2,430,000 $136,000 5.93% (Actual) Assembly 2017-2018 California $2,620,000 $190,000 7.82% (Actual) Assembly 2018-2019 California $2,625,000 $5,000 0.19% (Actual) Assembly 2019-2020 California $2,700,000 $75,000 2.86% (Actual) Assembly 2020-2021 California $2,814,000 $114,000 4.22% (Proposed) Assembly Change $615,000 29.50% 2014-2019

[California Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Budget, 2016-2017; 2017-2018; 2018-2019; 2019-2020; 2020-2021; Daily Press, 3/3/2020]

California State Legislators’ Retirement System

During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, total contributions to the Legislators’ Retirement System decreased by 5.05 percent. During Obernolte’s tenure in the California State Assembly, the total contributions to the Legislators’ Retirement System decreased by 5.05 percent, from $7,393,000 in 2014 to $7,020,000 in 2019. Obernolte was elected to the California State Assembly in 2014 representing the state’s 33rd Assembly District. Reportedly, “Established in 1947, the Legislators’ Retirement System provides retirement and death benefits for legislators, constitutional officers, and legislative statutory officers.”

California State Legislators’ Year to Year Change Fiscal Year Ofﬁce Retirement System Change %

2014-2015 NotinOfﬁce $7,393,000 N/A N/A (Actual) 2015-2016 California $7,506,000 $113,000 1.53% (Actual) Assembly

135 California State Legislators’ Year to Year Change Fiscal Year Ofﬁce Retirement System Change %

2016-2017 California $7,925,000 $419,000 5.58% (Actual) Assembly 2017-2018 California $7,453,000 -$472,000 -5.96% (Actual) Assembly 2018-2019 California $6,945,000 -$508,000 -6.82% (Actual) Assembly 2019-2020 California $7,020,000 $75,000 1.08% (Actual) Assembly 2020-2021 California $7,111,000 $91,000 1.30% (Proposed) Assembly Change -$373,000 -5.05% 2014-2019

[California Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Budget, 2016-2017; 2017-2018; 2018-2019; 2019-2020; 2020-2021; Daily Press, 3/3/2020]

+++

136 City of Big Bear Lake Budgets

City of Big Bear Lake Budgets Highlights

City of Big Bear Lake Expenses

During Obernolte’s tenure as Big Bear Lake City’s Mayor, the city’s total expenses decreased by 4.96 percent. During Obernolte’s tenure as Big Bear Lake City’s Mayor, the city’s total expenses decreased by 4.96 percent, from $36,540,632 in 2011 to $34,727,306 in 2014. Obernolte served as the Mayor of the City of Big Bear Lake from 2010 to 2014.

City of Big Bear Lake Year to Year Change FiscalYear Ofﬁce Expenses Change %

2011-2012 BigBearLakeCity $36,540,632 N/A N/A Mayor 2012-2013 BigBearLakeCity $34,331,054 -$2,209,578 -6.05% Mayor 2013-2014 BigBearLakeCity $34,268,480 -$62,574 -0.18% Mayor 2014-2015 BigBearLakeCity $34,727,306 $396,252 1.15% Mayor Change -$1,813,326 -4.96% 2010-2014

[City of Big Bear Lake Financial Statement, 2012; 2013; 2014; 2015; City of Big Bear Lake, Accessed 4/14/2020]

137 City of Big Bear Lake Revenue

During Obernolte’s tenure as Big Bear Lake City’s Mayor, the city’s total revenue increased by 7.72 percent. During Obernolte’s tenure as Big Bear Lake City’s Mayor, the city’s total revenue increased by 7.72 percent, from $39,232,035 in 2011 to $42,262,162 in 2014. Obernolte served as the Mayor of the City of Big Bear Lake from 2010 to 2014.

City of Big Bear Lake Year to Year Change FiscalYear Ofﬁce Revenue Change %

2011-2012 BigBearLakeCity $39,232,035 N/A N/A Mayor 2012-2013 BigBearLakeCity $41,134,257 $1,902,222 4.85% Mayor 2013-2014 BigBearLakeCity $40,924,081 -$210,176 -0.51% Mayor 2014-2015 BigBearLakeCity $42,262,162 $1,127,905 2.74% Mayor Change $3,030,127 7.72% 2010-2014

[City of Big Bear Lake Financial Statement, 2012; 2013; 2014; 2015; City of Big Bear Lake, Accessed 4/14/2020]

Big Bear Lake Mayor Salary

In 2011, Obernolte received $19k in total pay and benefits as Big Bear Lake City’s Mayor. According to Transparent California, Obernolte received $19,004 in total pay and benefits in his role as Big Bear Lake City’s Mayor in 2011. Reportedly, he received $2,028 in “regular pay,” $1,290 in “other pay,” and $15,686 in benefits. [Transparent California, Accessed 4/14/2020]

In 2012, Obernolte received $19.8k in total pay and benefits as Big Bear Lake City’s Mayor. Ac- cording to Transparent California, Obernolte received $19,750 in total pay and benefits in his role as Big Bear Lake City’s Mayor in 2012. Reportedly, he received $1,457 in “regular pay,” $930 in “other pay,” and $17,363 in benefits. [Transparent California, Accessed 4/14/2020]

In 2013, Obernolte received $21.6k in total pay and beneﬁts as Big Bear Lake City’s Mayor. Ac- cording to Transparent California, Obernolte received $21,569.34 in total pay and beneﬁts in his role as

138 Big Bear Lake City’s Mayor in 2013. Reportedly, he received $1,513.64 in “regular pay,” $1,800.00 in “other pay,” and $18,255.70 in beneﬁts. [Transparent California, Accessed 4/14/2020]

In 2014, Obernolte received $24.4k in total pay and benefits as Big Bear Lake City’s Mayor. Ac- cording to Transparent California, Obernolte received $24,278 in total pay and benefits in his role as Big Bear Lake City’s Mayor in 2014. Reportedly, he received $3,462 in “regular pay,” $1,750 in “other pay,” and $19,066 in benefits. [Transparent California, Accessed 4/14/2020]

+++

139 Professional History

Professional History Highlights

FarSight Studios

FarSight Studios registered in the State of California in 1998. According to the Secretary of State of California, Jay Obernolte ﬁled Articles of Incorporation for FarSight Studios in October 1998. Obernolte appointed himself as director of FarSight Studios. [California Secretary of State, Articles of Incorporation, 10/23/1998]

Obernolte founded FarSight Studios, took a step back when elected Mayor of Big Bear. According to The Sacramento Bee in May 2015, Obernolte began developing video games while an undergrad and eventually “left his graduate program in artiﬁcial intelligence at UCLA to focus full-time on what would become Farsight Studios.” The Bee wrote:

Obernolte’s ﬁrst platinum seller was NFL ‘95, for Sega Genesis, one in a string of successful games that sustained a passion for computer science interrupted by his becoming mayor of Big Bear Lake. ’Right up until that time I was writing code every day, and I had to hang it up,’ Obernolte said. ‘I had to take the big creative step away from the business.’

[The Sacramento Bee, 5/10/2015]

FarSight Studios website provides no information regarding salary and beneﬁts. The “Jobs” section of the FarSight studios website lists no information about salaries and beneﬁts for employees and prospective employees. [FarSight Studios, Accessed 6/12/2020]

FarSight studios allegedly offers health insurance plans without dental coverage. In September 2019, a Glassdoor user who claimed to be an employee at FarSight Studios claimed that the “biggest con” of the employee beneﬁts package was that there was “no dental insurance.” The user wrote, “besides that everything is pretty standard for beneﬁts.”

140 [Glassdoor, 9/11/2019]

FarSight studios offers ‘horrible’ and ‘abysmal’ pay to employees. According to a February 2015 Glassdoor review, FarSight Studios offered its employees ‘abysmal’ pay:

141 [Glassdoor, 2/27/2015]

FarSight Technologies

FarSight Technologies registered in the State of California in 2005. According to the Secretary of State of California, Obernolte filed a statement and designation by foreign corporation for FarSight Technologies in December 2005. [California Secretary of State, Statement and Designation by Foreign Corporation, 12/22/2005] FarSight Technologies named as creditor in MidWay Games bankruptcy case. According to the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, in February 2009 FarSight Technologies, Inc. was listed as a creditor in MidWay Games’ bankruptcy filing. According to the filing, MidWay Games owed FarSight $1,279,151. [United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, Case #09-10465-KG, 2/12/2009]

PUMA Karate

Obernolte owned PUMA Karate before election. According to his campaign website, Obernolte owned PUMA Karate until he was elected to the California State Legislature. [Elect Jay Obernolte, Accessed

142 4/20/2020; Accessed 4/20/2020]

PUMA Karate was incorporated in 1996. According to the California Secretary of State, Jerry Fisher incorporated PUMA Karate on March 15, 1996. [California Secretary of State, Articles of Incorporation, 3/15/1996]

Embraer Jet Operators Association, Inc

Obernolte listed as a board member of Embraer Jet Operators Association on IRS ﬁlings from at least 2016 to 2018. According to Internal Revenue Service ﬁlings obtained by ProPublica, Obernolte was listed as a Director of Embraer Jet Operators Association, Inc. in 2016, 2017, and 2018. According to its website, Embraer Jet Operators is an organization and association which provides a range of services to members, who are jet owners. Reportedly,

many resources are available to Embraer Jet Operators Association members including annual conventions, product and service discounts, a professionally-produced newsletter, and a dedicated website. Two membership classes are available.

IRS ﬁlings were obtained only for the years 2016 to 2018; the exact dates of Obernolte’s tenure could not be determined from available documentation. [ProPublica, Embraer Jet Operators, Form 990, Filed 11/15/2017; Filed 10/9/2018; Filed 3/13/2019]

Obernolte disclosed he was Director of Embraer Jet Operators Assoc Inc. in October 2019. Ac- cording to his personal ﬁnancial disclosures for his U.S. House race from October 2019, Obernolte was Director of Embraer Jet Operators Assoc Inc. in 2019. [Clerk of the House of Representatives, Financial Disclosure Report, 10/18/2019]

Obernolte has pilot’s license, volunteers with Veterans Airlift Command. According to his campaign website, Obernolte “has an airline transport pilot’s license” and has other experience ﬂying aircraft:

He is also a certified flight instructor and has flown light aircraft for 30 years. As a pilot Jay volunteers with the Veterans Airlift Command, providing transportation to wounded and disabled veterans.

[Jay Obernolte for Congress, Accessed 5/1/2020; Accessed 5/1/2020]

+++

143 Campaign Finance

Campaign Finance Highlights

• As of July 2020, Obernolte’s campaign had accepted $666K in contributions, spent $1.3 million, and retained $300K in cash on hand. Obernolte’s committee had over $530K in debt as of July 2020. • Obernolte for Congress accepted over $80K from PACs in 2020 • Obernolte has accepted $31,400 since 2014 from Big Tobacco donors Philip Morris and RAI Ser- vices Company. • Obernolte accepted $5,600 from military defense contractor Exquadrum Inc in 2020. • Since 2014, Obernolte has accepted $21,700 from utilities companies Sempra Energy and Edison International. • Obernolte accepted $2,800 from Dr. Prem Reddy in 2019. Since 2016, Reddy and his company Prime Healthcare have faced various criminal and civil suits related to defrauding medicare and a “sex scandal” within the company. • Obernolte for Congress has accepted over $10K from Edison International between 2014 and 2019, which settled wildfire allegations for $300 million in 2019. • Obernolte for Assembly 2018 and Obernolte for Assembly 2020 together accepted $11K from Sem- pra Energy, a California firm responsible for the ‘worst natural gas leak in U.S. history.’ • The Obernolte Campaign has paid Jamestown Associates over $180K in 2020. In 2018, Jamestown Associates faced allegations of trading services for endorsements from the Club for Growth. More- over, Jamestown Associates produced the “most racially charged national political ad in 30 years” for the Trump campaign. • Obernolte himself contributed $2,800 to Michelle Steel for Congress in 2020. Steel opposed the Affordable Care Act and “use[d] the powers of her office to curry favor with her corporate backers.” • Between 2012 and 2014, Obernolte contributed $3K to Paul Cook for Congress. Cook voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and VICE featured Cook on its 2017 list of “Climate Change Deniers.” • 13.5 percent of Obernolte’s contributions come from out of state. The top metro areas of contribution origin include Riverside-San Bernardino, CA, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Sacramento, CA.

Financial Summary as of 7/15/2020

Obernolte accepted $666,668.11 in contributions as of July 2020. According to the Federal Elec- tion Commission, Obernolte accepted $666,668.11 in contributions as of July 2020. [Federal Election Commission, Obernolte for Congress 2020, 7/15/2020]

144 Obernolte spent $1,316,957.12 in total expenditures as of July 2020. According to the Federal Elec- tion Commission, Obernolte spent $1,316,957.12 in total expenditures as of July 2020. [Federal Election Commission, Obernolte for Congress 2020, 7/15/2020]

Obernolte’s total cash on hand in July 2020 was $300,884.99. According to the Federal Election Committee, Obernolte’s total cash on hand in July 2020 was $300,884.99. [Federal Election Commission, Obernolte for Congress 2020, 7/15/2020]

Obernolte’s committee owed $531,522.14 in outstanding debts in July 2020. According to Federal Election Committee, Obernolte’s committee owed $531,522.14 in outstanding debts in July 2020. [Fed- eral Election Commission, Obernolte for Congress 2020, 7/15/2020]

Questionable Donors

PACs

Obernolte for Congress accepted over $99K in PAC contributions. According to ﬁlings with the Federal Election Commission, Jay Obernolte for Congress accepted at least $19,500 from Win Red PAC:

Committee Name Contributor Name Receipt Date Contribution Amount

JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 10/22/2019 $1,000 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 10/23/2019 $200 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 11/12/2019 $1,000 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 11/26/2019 $250 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 11/26/2019 $300 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 12/3/2019 $2,800 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 12/30/2019 $500 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 12/30/19 $100 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 1/13/20 $100 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 1/13/20 $500 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 1/13/20 $500 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 1/13/20 $300 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 1/27/20 $650

145 Committee Name Contributor Name Receipt Date Contribution Amount

JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 1/27/20 $500 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 1/27/20 $500 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 2/5/20 $500 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 2/5/20 $1,000 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 2/5/20 $100 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 2/17/20 $500 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 2/25/20 $500 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 3/3/20 $500 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 3/3/20 $100 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 3/4/20 $500 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 3/4/20 $2,800 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 3/4/20 $300 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 3/4/20 $1,000 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 3/11/20 $1,200 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 3/11/20 $800 JAY OBERNOLTE FOR CONGRESS 2020 WINRED PAC 3/11/20 $500

[Federal Election Commission, Accessed, 5/5/2020]

Obernolte for Congress accepted at least $61K from PACs other than Win Red PAC. According to ﬁlings with the Federal Election Commission, Obernolte for Congress has accepted at least $61K from PACs other than Win Red PAC, including metals and healthcare PACs:

Receipt Contribution Committee Name Contributor Name Date Amount

JAY OBERNOLTE COMMERICAL METALS COMPANY PAC 12/10/19 $500 FOR CONGRESS 2020 JAY OBERNOLTE ANESTHESIA SERVICE MEDICAL GROUP ADV. 12/10/19 $5,000 FOR CONGRESS FUND PAC 2020

146 Receipt Contribution Committee Name Contributor Name Date Amount

JAY OBERNOLTE CALPORTLAND COMPANY PAC 12/29/19 $5,000 FOR CONGRESS 2020 JAY OBERNOLTE CULAC - CREDIT UNION LEGISLATIVE ACTION 12/29/19 $5,000 FOR CONGRESS COUNCIL PAC OF CREDIT UNION NATIONAL 2020 ASSOCIATION JAY OBERNOLTE MAJORITY COMMITTEE PAC 12/29/19 $5,000 FOR CONGRESS 2020 JAY OBERNOLTE MAJORITY COMMITTEE PAC 12/29/19 $5,000 FOR CONGRESS 2020 JAY OBERNOLTE NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALERS 2/21/20 $2,500 FOR CONGRESS ASSOCIATION PAC 2020 JAY OBERNOLTE AMERICAN PISTACHIO GROWERS PAC 2/26/20 $1,000 FOR CONGRESS 2020 JAY OBERNOLTE ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. PAC 2/26/20 $3,000 FOR CONGRESS 2020 JAY OBERNOLTE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS 2/27/20 $5,000 FOR CONGRESS PAC 2020 JAY OBERNOLTE EUREKA PAC 3/2/20 $5,000 FOR CONGRESS 2020 JAY OBERNOLTE THE DOCTORS COMPANY PAC 3/2/20 $1,500 FOR CONGRESS 2020 JAY OBERNOLTE BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA PAC 3/3/20 $2,500 FOR CONGRESS 2020

147 Receipt Contribution Committee Name Contributor Name Date Amount

JAY OBERNOLTE EYE OF THE TIGER PAC 3/5/20 $5,000 FOR CONGRESS 2020 JAY OBERNOLTE EUREKA PAC 3/21/20 $5,000 FOR CONGRESS 2020 JAY OBERNOLTE EYE OF THE TIGER PAC 3/24/20 $5,000 FOR CONGRESS 2020

[Federal Election Commission, Accessed, 5/5/2020]

Shawn Steel

RNC member and former California Republican Party chair Shawn Steel contributed $2,800 to Obernolte in 2020. According to ﬁlings with the Federal Election Commission, Shawn Steel contributed $2,800 to Jay Obernolte for Congress in January 2020. According to Politico, Steel is a “former state party chair” and “Republican National Committee member.” [Federal Election Commission, Jay Obernolte for Congress, Form 3, Covering Period 1/1/2020 to 2/17/2020, Filed 2/17/2020; Politico, 9/16/2019]

Steel supported Trump Super PAC in 2016. In May 2016, the Washington Post reported that “A group of veteran Republican party leaders and wealthy allies of Donald Trump are launching a new super PAC to bolster his efforts to win the White House.” Reportedly, “The new group, called the Committee for American Sovereignty, was started by a group of Trump supporters in California.” Reportedly, “the organization has attracted a list of major donors and party fundraisers” including “former California GOP chairman Shawn Steel.” [The Washington Post, 5/12/2016]

Prem Reddy

Cardiologist Prem Reddy contributed $2,800 to Obernolte for Congress. According to ﬁlings with the Federal Election Commission, Prem Reddy contributed $2,800 to Jay Obernolte for Congress on December 15, 2019. When making his contribution, Reddy listed himself as a “cardiologist” working for “Prime Healthcare Services.” [Federal Election Commission, Jay Obernolte for Congress, Form 3, Covering Period 10/1/2019 to 12/31/2019, Filed 1/31/2020]

148 Obernolte awarded Reddy with ‘Nonproﬁt of the Year’ award in 2018. In July 2018, the Daily Press, a news outlet in Victorville, California, reported that “Assemblyman Jay Obernolte has recognized the Dr. Prem Reddy Family Foundation as the 2018 Nonproﬁt of the Year for the 33rd Assembly District.” Reportedly, “Through Prime Healthcare Services facilities and many foundation donations, Dr. Reddy and the Dr. Prem Reddy Family Foundation strive to meet the health care needs of the community, Obernolte said.” [Daily Press, 7/1/2018]

Reddy paid $1 million in damages related to wrongful termination, ‘sex scandal’ lawsuit in 2015. In October 2015, the Los Angeles times reported that, “Dr. Prem Reddy has frequently been criticized over his tough management, cost-cutting and reduced medical services” as the CEO of “Prime Healthcare Services Inc., his fast-growing Ontario-based hospital chain.” Reportedly, Reddy “[found] himself at the center of a very different type of controversy — a sex scandal that quietly led to sweeping management changes at an Encino hospital and a $1-million wrongful-termination verdict”:

A Los Angeles jury awarded the money Wednesday to the former chief nursing ofﬁcer of Encino Hospital Medical Center after concluding that she was laid off in 2012 because she had complained about an affair between the hospital’s chief medical ofﬁcer and a female supervisor

The controversy began in 2011, when [nursing officer Vilma] Dinham complained that the hospital’s director of respiratory services, Hershee Cajigal, had boasted to coworkers that she was having an affair with Dr. Muhammad Anwar, the chief medical officer. She told them she had the power to get them fired, according to the lawsuit Dinham filed in 2013.

Dinham said she complained to Anwar about Cajigal’s comments but they did not stop. So she and other nurses took their concerns to the hospital’s chief executive, Robert C. ‘Bob’ Bills. According to a transcript of Bills’ testimony reviewed by The Times, Bills said that he cautioned Cajigal about the inappropriate comments and what he said was her unprofessional work attire, which included low-cut tops, short skirts and 6- to 8-inch heels. ‘It was totally inappropriate,’ Bills said during the two-week jury trial. Bills said Anwar scolded him for confronting Cajigal. ‘He said, ‘Why would you ever do that? You should have talked with me ﬁrst,” Bills said.

In a hospital, the chief executive and chief medical ofﬁcer oversee different functions and typically are at parallel levels of management. Bills said Anwar also repeatedly advised him to ﬁre Dinham, which he refused to do. ‘The exact quotes on a number of occasions were, ‘If you don’t get rid of her, they are going to get rid of you,’ Bills said.

Bills said he made the decision to keep Dinham even though Anwar boasted about

149 having a ‘very close’ personal relationship with Reddy, the company’s owner. Anwar said ‘he and his girlfriend would go out with Dr. Reddy and I guess the best way to put it would be womanizing that would be going on,’ Bills recalled. Anwar, in his testimony, denied making those statements. Reddy, through a spokeswoman, also denied allegations he was close to Anwar.

[Los Angeles Times, 10/24/2015]

Prime Healthcare upcoding investigation began as early as 2016. In May 2016, Reveal News reported that the Department of Justice was “backing a whistleblower who claims that hospital chain Prime Healthcare Services inappropriately urged doctors to transfer emergency room patients into hospital beds.” Reportedly:

In a lawsuit, a former hospital executive alleges that the chain overlooked medical need and whisked emergency room patients to the inpatient wings of the hospital if they were covered by Medicare or private insurance. Nonpaying customers, the case alleges, were shown the door after a cursory stay.

Berntsen’s lawsuit describes multiple instances when chain Chief Executive Prem Reddy asked staff to improperly admit patients from the emergency room into the hospital instead of observing them on an outpatient basis. Medicare reimburses hospitals more for patients who are admitted, compared to those who are observed on an outpatient basis and released. Berntsen recounted a January 2011 meeting where Reddy allegedly told doctors that ‘you can always ﬁnd a reason to make the (emergency room) patient an inpatient.’

[Reveal News, 5/25/2016]

Increase in hospital stay by one day increases patient risk of infection by 1.37 percent. A 2010 study published in the International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing found that extending a patient’s length of stay in the hospital by one day “increases the probability of catching an infection by 1.37 percent.” Simultaneously, onset of infection increases patients’ average length of stay in a hospital by 9.32 days. [International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 10/23/2010]

In 2019 Reddy and Prime Healthcare settled allegations of ‘upcoding,’ violating False Claims Act. In February 2019, Health Leaders Media reported, that “Prime Healthcare Services Inc. and founder and CEO Prem Reddy, MD, have reached an upcoding settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice,” making it “the second time in less than one year” that the organization settled. Reportedly,

Reddy and the for-proﬁt health system, based in Ontario, California, this week agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle additional whistleblower allegations that two Prime hos-

150 pitals in Pennsylvania—Roxborough Memorial Hospital in Philadelphia and Lower Bucks Hospital in Bristol—knowingly submitted false claims to Medicare, a violation of the False Claims Act.

Prosecutors said the hospitals allegedly admitted patients for overnight stays who needed only less costly, outpatient care. The hospitals also allegedly up-coded for more expensive patient diagnoses than needed. Prosecutors allege that from the time Prime acquired the two hospitals in 2012 through September 30, 2013, the hospitals admitted emergency room Medicare patients for costly and medically unnecessary one- and two-day overnight hospital stays, instead of treating the patients in less costly outpatient service or keeping them under observation.

In addition, from 2012 through Dec. 31, 2014, the hospitals up-coded inpatient diagnoses to increase Medicare payments. In August 2018, Prime and Reddy paid $65 million to resolve whistleblower allegations that 14 Prime hospitals in California systematically

[Health Leaders Media, 2/15/2019]

Defense Industry

Exquadrum Inc. partner and president contributed $5,600 to Obernolte’s campaign in June 2020. According to his FEC ﬁling in July 2020, employees from Exquadrum Inc contributed $5,600 to Obernolte’s campaign on June 30, 2020. Senior partner Kevin Mahaffy and president Eric Schmidt each contributed $2,800 to Obernolte’s campaign. [Federal Election Commission, 7/15/2020]

Exquadrum Inc. is a private military technology company. According to their website, Exquadrum Inc. is a private military technology company founded by former Department of Defense employees. Exquadrum Inc. is contracted with the US Air Force, the Missile Defense Agency, and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. [Exquadrum Inc., Accessed 7/15/2020]

Department of Defense awarded $15 million contract to Exquadrum Inc. in 2018. According to the Daily Press, in September 2018, the Department of Defense awarded Exquadrum Inc. a $15 million contract to develop a rocket-propelled weapons system that will “blast weapons into space at more than ﬁve times the speed of sound.” [Daily Press, 1/14/2019]

Big Tobacco

Obernolte has accepted over $17K from Philip Morris since 2014. According to ﬁlings with the Cal- ifornia Secretary of State, Obernolte accepted $13,500 from Philip Morris between 2017 and 2019. In

151 April 2019, Philip Morris USA Inc. and its Affiliates contributed $4,700 to Obernolte’s 2020 State As- sembly campaign. In March 2018, Philip Morris USA Inc. and its Affiliates contributed $4,400 to Ober- nolte’s 2018 State Assembly campaign. In June 2017, Philip Morris USA Inc. and its Affiliates contributed $4,400 to Obernolte’s 2018 State Assembly campaign. In April 2014, Philip Morris USA Inc. contributed $4,400 to Obernolte’s 2014 State Assembly campaign. [California Secretary of State, Form 460, Filed, 7/31/2019] Philip Morris settled smoking lawsuits for over $42 million in 2015. In February 2015, CNBC reported that “Three major U.S. tobacco companies including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard, and Altria’s Philip Morris USA will pay $100 million to settle hundreds of federal lawsuits over smoking.” Reportedly, “Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds will each pay $42.5 million.” [CNBC, 2/25/2015] Philip Morris was the subject of a 2002 lawsuit producing ‘the largest [ever] tobacco damages award.’ In October 2019, Reuters reported “today in 2002” a “California jury award[ed] $28 billion in damages against Phillip Morris.” Reportedly, this resulted in the “largest tobacco damages award that had ever been issued in an individual case” and was “the largest ever awarded to an individual plaintiff.” [Reuters, 10/4/2002] Obernolte accepted over $8K from RAI Services Company in 2019. According to filings with the Cal- ifornia Secretary of State, Obernolte for Assembly 2020 accepted $4,700 from RAI Services company in 2019. In 2019, RAI Services company contributed $4,700 to Obernolte’s 2014 State Assembly campaign. [Obernolte for Assembly 2014, Accessed 4/21/2020; Obernolte for Assembly 2020, Accessed 4/21/2020] Reynolds American, subsidiary of RAI Services Company, ‘face[d] $113 million’ in lawsuit damages in 2018. In August 2018, the Winston Salem Journal reported that “R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. has been tagged with jury verdicts worth a combined $113.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages for lawsuits involving Newport cigarettes in the U.S. Virgin Islands.” Reportedly, RJ Reynolds “inherited the liability for both lawsuits as part of its $29.25 billion purchase of Lorillard Inc. in July 2015.” [Winston Salem Journal, 8/24/2018] RJ Reynolds settled smoking lawsuits for over $42 million in 2015. In February 2015, CNBC reported that “Three major U.S. tobacco companies including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco…will pay $100 million to settle hundreds of federal lawsuits over smoking.” Reportedly, “R.J. Reynolds will..pay $42.5 million.” The settlement involved a “former class action brought by Florida residents over injuries or deaths they said were caused by tobacco-related medical conditions.” [CNBC, 2/25/2015]

Utilities

Obernolte accepted over $10K from Edison International and afﬁliates between 2014 and 2018. According to ﬁlings with the California Secretary of State, Obernolte accepted $10,300 from Edison Inter-

152 national and its afﬁliates between 2014 and 2018:

Contribution Contribution Contributor Name Date Amount Source

Southern California 8/18/2014 $1,500.00 [California Secretary of State, Jay Obernolte for Edison Assembly 2014, Form 460 Filed 12/16/2014] Southern California 6/22/2015 $1,500.00 [California Secretary of State, Jay Obernolte for Edison Assembly 2016, Form 460 Filed 9/24/2015] Southern California 7/24/2015 $2,700.00 [California Secretary of State, Jay Obernolte for Edison Assembly 2016, Form 460 Filed 2/1/2016] Edison International 4/28/2016 $4,200.00 [California Secretary of State, Jay Obernolte for and Affiliated Entities Assembly 2016, Form 460 Filed 5/26/2016] Edison International 8/28/2017 $1,500.00 [California Secretary of State, Jay Obernolte for and Affiliated Entities Assembly 2018, Form 460 Filed 1/31/2018] Edison International 10/2/2017 $2,900.00 [California Secretary of State, Jay Obernolte for and Affiliated Entities Assembly 2018, Form 460 Filed 1/31/2018] Edison International 3/26/2018 $4,400.00 [California Secretary of State, Jay Obernolte for and Affiliated Entities Assembly 2018, Form 460 Filed 4/26/2018]

Edison settled California Wildfire claims for over $300 million in 2019. In November 2019, CNN reported that “utility giant Southern California Edison has agreed to pay $360 million to settle claims with 23 cities and counties impacted by three recent wildfires and a mudflow.” The fires killed three people and injured three firefighters, and the “blaze destroyed more than 1,600 buildings over several weeks.” Reportedly, the company “also acknowledged that its equipment was responsible for the 2017 Thomas Fire, which burned through 281,893 acres in parts of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.” [CNN, 12/13/2019]

Obernolte accepted over $11K from Sempra Energy between 2017 and 2018. According to ﬁlings with the California Secretary of State, Obernolte accepted $11,400 from Sempra Energy between 2017 and 2019.

NAME OF DATE OF CONTRIBUTION RECIPIENT COMMITTEE CONTRIBUTOR CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT

OBERNOLTE FOR SEMPRA ENERGY 5/15/17 $1,500 ASSEMBLY 2018

153 NAME OF DATE OF CONTRIBUTION RECIPIENT COMMITTEE CONTRIBUTOR CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT

OBERNOLTE FOR SEMPRA ENERGY 6/19/17 $1,500 ASSEMBLY 2018 OBERNOLTE FOR SEMPRA ENERGY 3/19/18 $1,000 ASSEMBLY 2018 OBERNOLTE FOR SEMPRA ENERGY 5/8/18 $4,400 ASSEMBLY 2018 OBERNOLTE FOR SEMPRA ENERGY 3/27/19 $1,500 ASSEMBLY 2020 OBERNOLTE FOR SEMPRA ENERGY 9/20/19 $1,500 ASSEMBLY 2020

[California Secretary of State, Jay Obernolte for Assembly 2018, Form 460, Filed, 8/24/2017; Filed 4/26/2018; Filed 5/24/2018; Jay Obernolte for Assembly 2020, Form 460, Filed 7/31/2019; Filed, 9/20/2019]

Sempra energy’s Los Angeles facility was site of ‘worst natural gas leak in U.S. history.’ In May 2019, Bloomberg reported that “the worst natural gas leak in U.S. history, which broke out at a Sempra Energy storage ﬁeld near Los Angeles almost four years ago, was caused by corrosion.” A report on the leak found reportedly “concluded there had been more than 60 leaks in the ﬁeld dating back to the 1970s, and Sempra didn’t carry out detailed inspections after they occurred.” The record breaking October 2015 gas “spewed the equivalent of a year’s worth of greenhouse-gas emissions from more than 500,000 cars.” [Bloomberg, 5/17/2019]

Sempra officials lobbied San Diego officials to offer alternative to city utilities. According to the San Diego Union Tribune in February 2017, Sempra Energy lobbied elected officials “for months concerning an increasingly popular electricity program that would give residents and businesses an alternative to San Diego Gas & Electric.” Officials from the California Public Utilities Commission claimed that Sempra “had not received final clearance to lobby” for the new energy program. However, they refused to make a judgment on “whether the division’s activities in recent months have run afoul of state rules.” [San Diego Union Tribune, 2/16/2017]

Sempra’s dominance in Mexico ‘dogged by corruption allegations.’ According to Voice of San Diego in February 2015, Sempra and Marathon oil fought for oil dominance in Mexico. The Governor of Baja California, Eugenio Elorduy Walther, “condemned Marathon’s land, saying the government needed the property to provide housing for low-income families. The next day, Marathon announced its project was

154 dead.” Following his decision, Sempra “sprinted ahead of the pack,” but “few people knew that… Elorduy had a ﬁnancial relationship with Sempra’s business partners.” The FBI investigated the company “dogged by corruption allegations,” but “despite ﬁnding able evidence Sempra executives might have broken the law, federal authorities didn’t charge the company.” [Voice of San Diego, 2/10/2015]

Questionable Disbursements

Obernolte campaign paid Jamestown Associates over $180K for advertising consulting in 2020. According to ﬁlings with the Federal Election Commission, the Jay Obernolte for Congress campaign made three disbursements totaling $189,664 to Jamestown Associates LLC in 2020 for “Advertising-TV” and “Video Production” services:

COMMITTEE RECIPIENT DISBURSEMENT DISBURSEMENTDISBURSEMENT NAME NAME DESCRIPTION DATE AMOUNT

JAY JAMESTOWN ADVERTISING-TV 1/13/20 $105,364 OBERNOLTE ASSOCIATES, FOR LLC CONGRESS 2020 JAY JAMESTOWN VIDEO 1/29/20 $10,519 OBERNOLTE ASSOCIATES, PRODUCTION FOR LLC CONGRESS 2020 JAY JAMESTOWN ADVERTISING-TV 1/30/20 $73,781 OBERNOLTE ASSOCIATES, FOR LLC CONGRESS 2020

[Federal Election Commission, Jay Obernolte for Congress, Form 3, Covering Period 1/1/2020 to 2/12/2020, Filed 2/17/2020]

Jamestown Associates accused of trading services for endorsement from Club for Growth in 2018. In June 2018, Politico reported that, “anti-tax group Club for Growth has split with the prominent Republican advertising ﬁrm Jamestown Associates.” Reportedly, Club for Growth “split with the prominent Republican advertising ﬁrm Jamestown Associates.” A memo announcing the Club for Growth’s split from

155 Jamestown Associates “alleged that Jamestown Associates had promised prospective clients that hiring the ﬁrm would put them in line to receive an endorsement from the Club for Growth.” The President of Club for growth stated:

If Jamestown Associates is telling or implying to candidates they can ensure the Club PAC’s endorsement, then that would raise signiﬁcant ethical questions about their veracity and business practices.

[Politico, 6/21/2018]

Jamestown Associates produced ‘most racially charged national political ad in 30 years’ for Trump campaign. In November 2018, CNN reported that the Jamestown Associates produced a web advertisement for the 2018 midterms which was “designed to fit into Trump’s broader immigration push and to change the argument from ‘family unification to invasion.’” CNN deemed the ad “the most racially charged national political ad in 30 years.” Reportedly, in the ad, “President Donald Trump and the Repub- lican Party accuse Democrats of plotting to help people they depict as Central American invaders overrun the nation with cop killers.” The advertisement, which Trump tweeted five days before the midterm election, “feature[d] Luis Bracamontes, a Mexican man who had previously been deported but returned to the United States and was convicted in February in the slaying of two California deputies.” The ad then showed Bracamonte stating “I’m going to kill more cops soon” and further stated, “Democrats let him into our country. Democrats let him stay.” Reportedly,

The Trump ad also flashes to footage of the migrant caravan of Central American asy- lum seekers that is currently in Mexico, which Trump says is preparing an invasion of the United States, implying that everyone in the column of people fleeing repres- sion, poverty and economic blight is bent on murder and serious crime on US soil. ‘Who else would Democrats let in?’ a caption asks. The ad recalls the notorious “Willie Horton” campaign ad financed by supporters of the George H.W. Bush campaign in the 1988 presidential election. Horton was a convicted murderer who committed rape while furloughed under a program in Massachusetts where Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis was governor. The ad has since come to be seen as one of the most racially problematic in modern political history since it played into white fear and African-American stereotypes. It was regarded at the time as devastating to the Dukakis campaign.

[CNN, 11/1/2018]

Jamestown Associates ‘blacklisted’ by Republicans in 2014 for working with ‘anti-incumbent’ conservative group. In June 2018, Politico reported that Jamestown Associates worked for the Sen- ate Conservatives fund in 2014, which “helped to lead an unsuccessful effort to unseat Senate Majority

156 Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican incumbents.” Reportedly, this decision led House and Sen- ate GOP campaign committees to take the “extraordinary step” of “blacklisting Jamestown Associates as punishment for its anti-incumbent approach.” [Politico, 6/21/2018]

Contributions Made by Candidate

Obernolte contributed $2,800 to Michelle Steel for Congress in 2020. According to ﬁlings with the Federal Election Commission, Jay Obernolte contributed $2,800 to Michelle Steel for Congress on Jan- uary 28, 2020. [Federal Election Commission, Form 3, Covering Period 1/1/2020 to 2/12/2020, Filed 2/20/2020]

Michelle Steel opposed Affordable Care Act, ‘use[d] the powers of her office to curry favor with her corporate backers.’ In March 2020, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee issued a press release titled “The Case Against Michelle Steel.” Reportedly, Michelle Steel was running for Congress in California’s 48th Congressional District. According to the press release, Steel “argued that the Affordable Care Act was ‘growing the ranks of the uninsured’ in California, when in fact the ACA reduced the number of uninsured Californians by millions.” Steel also “doubled-down on her opposition to the ACA” by “saying the Orange County Board of Supervisors ‘did the right thing by blocking Obamacare implementation in the county for as long as they could.’” Moreover, Steel allegedly “use[d] the powers of her office to curry favor with her corporate backers” by “allow[ing] for a wildly unpopular proposal to expand private flights at John Wayne Airport to move forward” in 2019. This proposal “would have benefited ACI Jet – which has donated $26,500 to Steel through its lobbyist and executives.” Moreover, “Steel voted in favor of a lucrative general aviation contract for the same company – despite it ranking fifth out of six in a county evaluation –prompting a FAA investigation.” [Democratic Congressional Campaign Commission, 3/4/2020]

Obernolte contributed $3K to Paul Cook for Congress between 2012 and 2014. According to ﬁl- ings with the Federal Election Commission, Obernolte made three separate $1,000 contributions to Paul Cook for Congress between 2012 and 2014: one contribution in April 2012, a second contribution in September 2013, and a third contribution in February 2014. Together, these three contributions amount to $3,000. [Federal Election Commission, Form 3, Covering Period 4/1/2012 to 5/26/2012, Filed 5/24/2012; Covering Period 7/1/2013 to 9/20/2013, Filed 10/15/2013; Covering Period 1/1/2014 to 3/31/2014, Filed 4/15/2014]

Cook named in VICE’s list of ‘California’s Climate Change Deniers’ in 2017. In April 2017, VICE released its list of “California’s Climate Change Deniers.” Included in the list was Congressman Paul Cook, who reportedly “voted in support of S.J. Res. 24,” a “key climate change policy” that would “nullify the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan—the ﬁrst nation-wide limit on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.” [VICE, 4/25/2017]

157 Paul Cook voted to repeal Affordable Care Act, estimated to lead to 24 million fewer insured Amer- icans. In May 2017, the Los Angeles Times reported that Representative Paul Cook voted for the Amer- ican Healthcare Act, which act as a “GOP rollback of the Affordable Care Act.” Reportedly, “government estimates” at the time of the show showed that the bill “could lead to 24 million fewer Americans with health insurance.” [Los Angeles Times, 5/4/2017]

Obernolte contributed over $6K to local Republican committees between 2014 and 2020. Accord- ing to ﬁlings with the Federal Election Commission, Obernolte contributed $6,251.36 to various local Republican committees in California between 2014 and 2020:

CONTRIBUTOR CONTRIBUTOR DATE OF CONTRIBUTION RECIPIENT COMMITTEE FIRST NAME LAST NAME CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT

CALIFORNIA JAY OBERNOLTE 9/15/14 $470 REPUBLICAN PARTY CALIFORNIA JAY OBERNOLTE 6/22/16 $900 REPUBLICAN PARTY FEDERAL ACCT CALIFORNIA JAY OBERNOLTE 10/13/16 $2,566 REPUBLICAN PARTY FEDERAL ACCT RIVERSIDE COUNTY JAY OBERNOLTE 6/10/17 $1,500 REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE (FED) SONOMA COUNTY JAY OBERNOLTE 2/27/19 $300 REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE (FEDERAL) CALIFORNIA JAY OBERNOLTE 2/20/20 $515 REPUBLICAN PARTY FEDERAL ACCT.

[Federal Election Commission, FEC Form 3, California Republican Party, Covering Period 9/1/2014 to 9/30/2014, Filed, 1/8/2015; Covering Period 6/1/2016 to 6/30/2016, Filed 10/10/2016; Covering Period 10/1/2016 to 10/19/2016, Filed 3/20/2017; Riverside County Republican Central Committee, Covering Period 6/1/2017 to 6/30/2017, Filed 12/20/2017; Sonoma Country Republican Central Committee, Cov- ering Period 1/1/2019 to 6/30/2019, Filed, 7/25/2019; California Republican Committee, Covering Period 2/1/2020 to 2/29/2020, Filed 3/20/2020]

158 Geography

13.5 percent of Obernolte’s contributions came from out of state. According to the Center for Re- sponsive Politics, 13.5 percent of Obernolte’s contributions for the 2020 cycle came from out of state. The statistics developed from by the Center for Responsive Politics are “calculated from contributions of more than $200 from individuals” and “PAC dollars are not included.” [Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 4/27/2020]

Top metro areas contributing to Obernolte include Riverside-San Bernardino, Cincinnati, Sacra- mento. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area contributed the most to Obernolte. Residents of the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area reportedly contributed $30,081 to Obernolte’s campaign. The metro area with the second largest cumulative contributions was the Cincinnati, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana area, with $5,600 in contributions. Ranking third in contributions was the Sacramento, California area, with $5,315 in contributions. [Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 4/27/2020]

Top zip codes contributing to Obernolte include Big Bear Lake’s 92315, Cincinnati’s 45226, and Victorville’s 92395. The Center for Responsive Politics reported that the zip code contributing most to Obernolte’s 2020 campaign was Big Bear Lake, California’s 92315. The 92315 zip code contributed $7,359 to Obernolte’s campaign. Cincinnati, Ohio’s 45226 zip code ranked second, contributing $5,600. Victorville, California’s 92395 zip code ranked third, with $5,391 in reported contributions. [Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 4/27/2020]

+++

159 Personal Finance

Personal Finance Highlights

Assets and Unearned Income

In 2019, Obernolte reported between $17,617,018 and $122,530,000 in assets. According to his personal ﬁnance disclosures for his U.S. House race in October 2019, Obernolte reported between $17,617,018 and $122,530,000 in assets. [Clerk of the House of Representatives, Financial Disclosure Report, 10/18/2019]

Obernolte reported between $103,214 and $361,200 in unearned income in 2019. According to his personal ﬁnance disclosures for his U.S. House race in October 2019, Obernolte reported between $103,214 and $361,200 in unearned income from January to October 2019. [Clerk of the House of Representatives, Financial Disclosure Report, 10/18/2019]

Obernolte reported between $259,514 and $2,235,200 in unearned income in 2018. According to his personal ﬁnance disclosures for his U.S. House race in October 2019, Obernolte reported between $259,514 and $2,235,200 in unearned income in 2018. [Clerk of the House of Representatives, Financial Disclosure Report, 10/18/2019]

Questionable Holdings

Apple Inc

Olbernolte reported $100,001-250,000 in holdings in Apple Inc. According to his personal ﬁnance disclosures in October 2019, Olbernolte reported between $100,001 and $250,000 in holdings in Apple

160 Inc. [Clerk of the House of Representatives, Financial Disclosure Report, 10/18/2019]

‘Half of world’s iPhones’ made in Chinese sweatshop Foxconn. According to Business Insider in May 2018, “half of the world’s iPhones” are made in a Chinese sweatshop called Foxconn, otherwise known as “iPhone city.” The factory complex “employs as many as 350,000 people,” who are subjected to “low pay and long hours.” Employees reported working six days a week, seeing their spouses “once weekly if they are lucky, and frequently working”dozens of hours of overtime.” [Business Insider, 5/7/2018]

Apple settled for $500 million after lawsuit accused intentionally slowed phones. According to Tech Crunch in March 2020, Apple agreed to settle a class action lawsuit for $500 million. The lawsuit alleged that Apple was “intentionally slowing down the performance of older phones to encourage customers to buy newer models or fresh batteries.” Tech Crunch reported that in February “Apple was ﬁned $27 million by the French government for the same issue.” [Tech Crunch, 3/2/2020]

Spotify accused Apple of non-competitive practices due to App Store regulations. According to The Washington Post in March 2019, Spotify complained to the European Commission, accusing Apple of “abusing its control over its App Store and unfairly ‘taxing’ apps like Spotify that compete with Apple’s own streaming service.” Spotify reported that Apple made them “pay a 30 percent tax on purchases made through Apple’s payment system.” Spotify was then pushed

to inﬂate its prices above the cost for a subscription to Apple Music, Apple’s music streaming service. If Spotify chooses not to use the payment system and avoid the 30 percent charge… Apple can complicate matters for Spotify, such as limiting its ability to communicate with customers or blocking upgrades.

[The Washington Post, 3/13/2019]

Apple won’t allow Adobe on iPhones: Apple ‘enjoys exerting total dominance over its hardware and the software that runs on it.’ According to Wired in November 2008, Adobe Flash Player developed a mobile app for Apple. However, Wired told readers “don’t hold your breath waiting” for it, as “Apple is unlikely ever to permit it to appear in the… App Store.” While Flash is a “highly popular platform for displaying interactive graphics, animations and multimedia within a browser,” Wired claimed that “allowing Flash- which is a development platform of its own- would just be too dangerous for Apple, a company that enjoys exerting total dominance over its hardware and the software that runs on it.” [Wired, 11/17/2008]

Earned Income

Obernolte reported $92,049.10 in earned income from January to October 2019. According to his personal ﬁnance disclosures for his U.S. House race in October 2019, Obernolte reported $92,049.10 in earned income from January to October 2019. [Clerk of the House of Representatives, Financial Disclosure Report, 10/18/2019]

161 Obernolte reported $124,339.98 in earned income in 2018. According to his personal finance disclosures for his U.S. House race in October 2019, Obernolte reported $124,339.98 in earned income in 2018. [Clerk of the House of Representatives, Financial Disclosure Report, 10/18/2019] In 2018 and 2019, Obernolte reported earned income from the State of California. According to his personal finance disclosures for his U.S. House race from October 2019, Obernolte reported earned income from the State of California in 2018 and 2019. In 2018, Obernolte reported $102,939.98 and in 2019, he reported $92,049.10. This income came from his position as Representative in the California State Assembly. [Clerk of the House of Representatives, Financial Disclosure Report, 10/18/2019] In 2018, Obernolte reported earned income from FarSight Technologies, Inc. According to his personal finance disclosures for his U.S. House race from October 2019, Obernolte reported earned income from FarSight Technologies, Inc. in 2018. He reported earning $21,400.00. This income came from his position as President of Farsight Technologies, Inc. [Clerk of the House of Representatives, Financial Disclosure Report, 10/18/2019]

Liabilities

Obernolte disclosed no liabilities in 2019. According to his personal ﬁnance disclosures for his U.S. House race from October 2019, Obernolte reported no liabilities. [Clerk of the House of Representatives, Financial Disclosure Report, 10/18/2019]

Positions

Obernolte was President of FarSight Studios, Inc. and FarSight Technologies, Inc. in 2019. Ac- cording to his personal ﬁnancial disclosures for his U.S. House race from October 2019, Obernolte was President of FarSight Studios, Inc. and FarSight Technologies, Inc. in 2019. [Clerk of the House of Rep- resentatives, Financial Disclosure Report, 10/18/2019] Obernolte was Director of Embraer Jet Operators Assoc Inc. in 2019. According to his personal ﬁnancial disclosures for his U.S. House race from October 2019, Obernolte was Director of Embraer Jet Operators Assoc Inc. in 2019. [Clerk of the House of Representatives, Financial Disclosure Report, 10/18/2019]

Agreements

Obernolte disclosed no agreements in 2019. According to his personal ﬁnance disclosures for his U.S. House race from October 2019, Obernolte reported no agreements. [Clerk of the House of Representa- tives, Financial Disclosure Report, 10/18/2019]

162 Compensation in Excess of $5,000 Paid By One Source

Obernolte disclosed no compensation in excess of $5,000 paid by one source in 2019. According to his personal ﬁnance disclosures for his U.S. House race from October 2019, Obernolte reported no compensation in excess of $5,000 paid by one source. [Clerk of the House of Representatives, Financial Disclosure Report, 10/18/2019]

Benefits of Public Oﬀice

Assembly expenditures on beneﬁts in 2020 included social security, retirement pension, health, dental, and vision insurance. According to the 2020 Statement of Assembly Expenditures printed in the California Assembly Journal, employee beneﬁts in the Assembly include:

The Assembly’s contribution to the OASDI (social security) fund, thePublic Employ- ees’ Retirement System, various health, dental, vision, and life insurance premiums, the Compensation Insurance Fund, unemployment and disability insurance, and any other beneﬁts approved by the Assembly Rules Committee.

[Assembly Journal, 2/27/2020]

Public records reveal no information regarding whether Obernolte’s dependents utilize health insurance beneﬁts provided through Obernolte’s Assembly position. Public records and news searches do not reveal whether Obernolte utilizes the health insurance plan which the State of California provides. Moreover, public records and news searches do not reveal whether Obernolte’s dependents are on a health insurance program offered through Obernolte’s position as a member of the California State Assembly.

Obernolte received over $650K in pay and benefits for roles in public office from 2011 to 2019. According to Transparent California, Obernolte has received $657,907.18 in pay and benefits for various public office positions since 2011. Obernolte has received at least $139,944.70 in benefits since 2011:

Regular Total Pay and Job Title Year Pay OvertimePay OtherPay Beneﬁts Beneﬁts

Legislator 2019 $110,458.92 $0.00 $0.00 Not $110,458.92 Provided Legislator 2018 $102,939.98 $0.00 $0.00 $18,476.00 $121,415.98 Legislator 2017 $101,009.32 $0.00 $0.00 $17,965.00 $118,974.32 Legislator 2016 $97,043.30 $0.00 $0.00 $18,001.00 $115,044.30

163 Regular Total Pay and Job Title Year Pay OvertimePay OtherPay Beneﬁts Beneﬁts

Legislator 2015 $91,974.24 $0.00 $0.00 $15,132.00 $107,106.24 Mayor 2014 $3,462.00 $0.00 $1,750.00 19,066 $24,278.00 Mayor 2013 $1,513.64 $0.00 $1,800.00 $18,255.70 $21,569.34 City 2012 $1,457.00 $0.00 $930.00 $17,363.00 $19,750.00 Council Member Director 2012 $306.08 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $306.08 Mountain Area Regional Transit Authority City Coun- 2011 $2,028.00 $0.00 $1,290.00 $15,686.00 $19,004.00 cil/Improvement Agency Member TOTAL $512,194 $0.00 $5,770.00 $139,944.70

[Transparent California, Accessed 6/15/2020]

Obernolte has taken at least 3 days off since 2016, collected tax-free ‘per diems’ for days off. In September 2016, KPBS reported that “In addition to their six-ﬁgure salaries and beneﬁts, California’s 120 lawmakers are compensated for their cost of living and meals when they leave home and travel to Sacramento to write and pass bills.” Reportedly,

164 expenses, a review by The Associated Press found.

According to KPBS, Jay Obernolte, R-Hesperia, had three absences for which he collected $512 in per diem payments. [KPBS, 9/21/2016]

Private Jet

In 2014, Obernolte had a private jet. In March 2014, the Big Bear Grizzly reported that “Soroptimist International of Big Bear Valley kicked off its annual Man About Town fundraising campaign March 20 with an all-new cast of candidates to with an all-new cause.” Reportedly, “the special drawing is for a Las Vegas trip, including a ride in Big Bear Lake Mayor Jay Obernolte’s private jet for a design-your-own two- night getaway and a $500 Marriott gift certiﬁcate good for lodging, amenities or services at any Marriott property including the Cosmopolitan.” [Big Bear Grizzly, 3/20/2014]

Obernolte has two planes: one registered to Farsight Studios, and one registered to him person- ally. According to records with the Federal Aviation Administration, Farsight Studios and Jay Obernolte are both registered as owners of aircraft. Farsight Studios owns an Embraer 505 Fixed Wing Multi En- gine jet, also known as an Embraer Phenom 3000. The listed MFR year, or manufactured year, is 2011. Obernolte himself owns a Mooney M20R Fixed Wing Single-Engine aircraft. The listed MFR is 2007. [Federal Aviation Administration, FarSight Studios, 9/14/2011; Jay Obernolte, 2/25/2020]

Obernolte’s Embraer Phenom 3000 burns three times as much fuel per person than a Boeing 747. In September 2015, Sherpa Report reported that Embraer Phe- nom 3000 burns 1,112 pounds, or 166 gallons, of fuel per hour in the first hour of flight. Reportedly, the jet burns 770 pounds, or 115 gallons, of fuel per hour in the second hour of flight. According to Flight Deck Friend, a Boeing 747 burns approximately 3,600 gallons of fuel per hour. However, as the Boeing 747 carries 400 passengers, Boeing 747 flights use approximately nine gallons of fuel per hour per person. In con- trast, the Embraer Phenom 3000, which can seat six passengers, utilizes 27.7 gallons of fuel per person in the first hour of flight and uses 19.2 gallons of fuel per person in the second hour of flight. As such, Farsight Studios’ jet burns three times as much fuel per person than a Boeing 747. [Sherpa Report, 9/5/2015; [Flight Deck Friend, Accessed 6/19/2020; [Liberty Jet , Accessed 6/19/2020]

Annual cost of ownership of EMB-505 Phenom 300 was more than $1.5 million including depreciation in 2013. In 2013, Sherpa Report reported that “a new Embraer Phenom 300 has a list price of $8.76m.” Reportedly, “the cost of a used plane ranges between $7.0m and $8.7m.” Additionally, “the total cost of ownership

165 per year of the Phenom 300 is $1,505,487, including market depreciation of $350,200 or $2,030,787 including book depreciation of $875,500.” These “ﬁgures include ﬁxed costs per year of $343,380.” [Sherpa Report, 7/2/2013]

EMB-505 Phenom 300 jets on the market for up to $9.3 million, require additional flying budget up to $921K not including depreciation. According to Liberty Jet, a private jet and charter company, “the total annual budget for flying a Phenom 300 private jet 200 hours per year is approximately $631,683 or $921,408 for flying 400 hours per year.” Reportedly, “these budgets do not include the cost to purchase the jet, depreciation or the cost of capital (interest payments.)” Moreover, prices of 47 different EMB-5050 Phenom 300 jets range from $4,990,000 to $9,300,000. [Liberty Jet, Accessed 6/16/2020]

Obernolte’s Mooney M20R burns approximately ﬁve gallons of fuel per passenger per hour, less than the burn rate of Boeing 747. According to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Mooney M20R burns approximately 14.3 to 16 gallons per hour in normal ﬂying conditions. According to Plane PhD, the M20R seats three passengers, meaning that the M20R burns approximately 4.76 to 5.33 gallons of fuel per passenger per hour. According to Flight Deck Friend and Liberty Jet, a Boe- ing 747 burns 3,600 gallons of fuel per hour and carries 400 passengers, resulting in a burn rate of approximately nine gallons of fuel per person per hour. [Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Accessed 6/19/2020; Plane PhD, Accessed 6/19/2020; Flight Deck Friend, Accessed 6/19/2020; Liberty Jet, Accessed 6/19/2020]

2006 Mooney M20R on the market for $250K. Twelve M20R aircraft are on sale on Controller.com. While the majority of these aircraft were manufactured in the late 1990’s or in the last decade, one M20R manufactured in 2006 is currently listed for $249,000. [Controller, Accessed 6/16/2020]

+++

166 Land and Legal Records

Land and Legal Records Highlights

Criminal Records and Infractions

Searches of online databases covering federal, state, and local criminal court records for cases associated with Obernolte yielded no results.

Civil Lawsuits

Big Bear Lake citizen sued Obernolte for negligence in suicide following encounter with police. According to the United States District Court of the Central District of California, in September 2013, filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County and its mayor, Los Angeles police officers JohnandJaneDoe, andBigBearLakeandthen-MayorObernolte. allegedthatalldefendantscom- mitted criminal negligence because they “failed to properly arrest its ‘prisoner’ for suicidal ideations… as a result plaintiff’s decedent shooting himself in the head.” argued that officers had said a racial slur targeted at the deceased, , therefore committing “wrongful death.” The case was later dismissed because “lacked standing to bring the lawsuit” and “the Complaint failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” [United States District Court, Central District of California West- ern Division, Case #CV13-06128, 9/17/2013, United States District Court, Central District of California Western Division, Case #2:13-cv-06128-GW-FFM, 2/4/2014]

Land Records

167 Obernolte lists Big Bear Lake Property as mailing address. According to the FEC in September 2019, Obernolte listed . According to Zillow, the four bedroom four bathroom home is worth $2,389,891. According to records with the San Bernardino County Recorder, the property at made up of three parcels: . The total land is approximately 1.38 acres and its estimated total value is $1,665,233. [FEC, 9/19/2019; Zillow, Accessed 6/3/2020; San Bernardino County Recorder, 3/3/2008; San Bernardino County Assessor, 3/3/2008; San Bernardino County Assessor, 12/20/2012]

LLCtransferred toObernoltein2008. According to records with the San Bernardino County Recorder, , LLC transferred property at to Obernolte in 2008. [San Bernardino County Recorder, 3/3/2008]

Obernoltesold propertyin2008. According to ﬁlings with the San Bernardino County Assessor, in 2008 Obernolte granted the trustee of his trust the power of sale for the property [San Bernardino County Assessor, 3/3/2008; San Bernardino County Assessor, 3/3/2008; San Bernardino County Assessor, 1/30/2008]

Obernolte purchased lot in 2009. According to the San Bernardino County Assessor, in 2009 Ober- nolte purchases property in Big Bear Lake described as “ .” [San Bernardino County Assessor, 8/4/2009]

Obernolte purchased lot in 2012. According to ﬁlings with the San Bernardino County Assessor, in 2012 Obernolte purchased the property ” in Big Bear Lake, California. [San Bernardino County Assessor, 12/20/2012]

Obernolte made himself beneficiary in Deed of Trust for vacant land at . According to filings with the San Bernardino County Assessor, Obernolte filed a Long Form Deed of Trust and Assignment of Rents, making himself the beneficiary for , vacant land located at the intersection of . The assignment of rents was valued at $25,000. [San Bernardino County Assessor, 6/6/2008]

Obernolte accepted in lieu of foreclosure. According to ﬁlings with the San Bernardino County Recorder, in October 2016, Obernolte accepted in lieu of foreclosure. [San Bernardino County Recorder, 10/26/2016]

Obernolte sold five parcels of land to . According to filings with the San Bernardino County Recorder, in June 2019 Obernolte sold five parcels of land to a company . The

168 grant deed described the property with the legal description “ ” [San Bernardino County Recorder, 6/25/2019]

Victorville, California

Obernolte bought land in Victorville, California in 2016. According to ﬁlings with the San Bernardino County Assessor, Obernolte ﬁled a Deed of Trust and Assignment of Rents for property in Victorville, California. The property is located at According to Zillow, the three bedroom three bathroom house in Victorville is worth $251,336. The property is also in a seniors only community. [San Bernardino County Assessor, 11/3/2016; Zillow, Accessed 6/3/2020]

Las Vegas

Obernolte had two liens on property, released in July 2015. According to records with the San Bernardino County Assessor, Obernolte had two liens on the property as a result of delinquent property taxes. The ﬁrst lien, issued in June 2004, was for the value of $224.53. The second, issued in January 2014, for $452.40. The liens were released in July 2015. According to MapQuest, the property is a . Searches for the business in returned no results. [San Bernardino County Assessor, 7/26/2015; 7/28/2015; 1/6/2014; 11/18/2004; 12/6/2005; Mapquest, Accessed 6/3/2020]

Obernolte bought property in January 2000. According to records with the San Bernardino County Recorder, in January 2000, Obernolte purchased the property. The same day, Obernolte ﬁled a quitclaim deed to claim sole ownership of the property. In March 2000, ., trustee of the deed, ﬁled a reconveyance deed for the property, indicating the mortgage had been fully paid. According to Zillow, the property was sold in 2000 for $425,000, then sold in 2014 for $3,065,000. [San Bernardino County Recorder, 3/10/2000; 1/10/2000; Zillow, Accessed 6/1/2020]

Obernolte received a utility easement on . According to records with the San Bernardino County Recorder, Obernolte received a city utility easement and permit for encroachment on . The encroachment allowed Obernolte to build a deck at the home. [San Bernardino County Recorder, 11/1/2006]

169 Obernolte sold property at in 2014. According to ﬁlings with the San Bernardino County Assessor, in 2014 Obernolte sold the property otherwise known as . [San Bernardino County Assessor, 6/28/2018]

Fawnskin, California

Obernolte purchased Fawnskin property in 1994, sold in 2010. According to records with the San Bernardino County Recorder, Obernolte and his wife bought the home at in Fawnskin, California in 1994 for $188,000. Obernolte transferred the Fawnskin property from joint ownership with his wife to single ownership in 2002. In 2010 Obernolte sold the property. According to Zillow, the property was last sold in 2010 for $398,500 and is now worth $703,941. [San Bernardino County Assessor, 9/2/2010; San Bernardino County Recorder, 5/4/2002; San Bernardino County Recorder, 5/4/2002; Zil- low, Accessed 6/1/2020; San Bernardino County Recorder, 8/6/1996; San Bernardino County Assessor, 11/8/1994]

Obernolte named beneﬁciary in Assignment of Rents for property at in 2006. According to records with the San Bernardino County Recorder, in 2006 Obernolte was named the ben- eﬁciary in a deed of trust and assignment of rents for the property at According to Zillow, the property is worth $432,970 and was sold for $320,000 in 2006. [San Bernardino County Recorder, 5/23/2006; Zillow, Accessed 6/1/2020]

Obernolte entered subordination agreement on property in 2000. According to records with the San Bernardino County Recorder, in 2000 Obernolte entered a subordination agreement on the property at . The agreement claimed the owner, Obernolte, was going to execute a deed of trust and that would receive $150,000 of the money. According to Realtor.com, the property houses a large retail business with ofﬁce and living space and was last sold for $1.3 million. [San Bernardino County Recorder, 6/19/2000; Realtor.com, Accessed 6/3/2020]

Obernolte purchased property known as in 2009. According to the San Bernardino County Assessor, in 2009 Obernolte purchased property in Big Bear Lake known as

170 at . The Dock Club is located at 400 Pine Knot Avenue. [San Bernardino County Assessor, 11/8/2009]

Whitson Street

Obernolte granted three properties on in July 2008. According to ﬁlings with the Fresno County Recorder of Deeds, in July 2008 Obernolte and his wife were granted three properties in lieu of foreclosure on Whitson Street in Selma, California; the properties were . According to the same Recorder, in August 2019 Obernolte granted all three properties to . According to Redﬁn, is worth about $173,227. [Fresno County Recorder of Deeds, 7/11/2008]

Obernolte rented property at for $425k in May 2005. According to ﬁl- ings with the Fresno County Recorder of Deeds, in May 2005 Obernolte and his wife rented a house at in Coarsegold, California for $425,000. [Fresno County Recorder of Deeds, 5/16/2005]

Obernolte rented property at for $180k in June 2004. According to ﬁlings with the Fresno County Recorder of Deeds, in June 2004 Obernolte and his wife rented a house at in Fresno, California for $180,000. According to Zillow, the house is 2,156 square feet and worth about $371,746, where the median neighborhood home value is about $373,436. [Fresno County Recorder of Deeds, 6/25/2004; Zillow, accessed 4/28/2020]

Obernolte rented property at for $82k in January 2002. According to filings with the Fresno County Recorder of deeds, in January 2002 Obernolte and his wife rented property at in Squaw Valley, California for $82,000. According to Redfin, the house is 1,512 square feet with 4.67 acres of land and is worth about $173,002, where the median real estate value in Squaw Valley is about $315,000. [Fresno County Recorder of Deeds, 1/7/2002; [Redfin, accessed 4/28/2020]

171 Obernolte rented property at for $15k in August 2001. According to filings with the Fresno County Recorder of Deeds, in August 2001 Obernolte and his wife rented a house at in Fresno, California for $15,000. According to the Recorder, in that same month a request was made for notices of default on the property to be mailed to Obernolte instead of the property’s owner. According to Redfin, the house is 2,128 square feet and is worth about $264,356, where the median neighborhood real estate value is about $294,000. [Fresno County Recorder of Deeds, 8/2/2001, 8/2/2001; Redfin, Accessed 4/28/2020]

172