Tomorrow on So, Does It Matter? Live!:

Join Jon Fleischman and Katy Grimes, Editor in Chief of the California Globe, tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. for a live discussion of the latest in California politics.

(1) The California governor’s race is heating up. We’ll talk about where things stand after the latest debate, who helped themselves, who missed their moment, and what voters should actually take away from it.

(2) The billionaire wealth tax is moving forward — and it deserves a closer look. We’ll break down what it would do, who is behind it, and why it matters far beyond just “the billionaires.”

(3) High-speed rail is back in the news. There are new cost estimates and more. You will not believe it!

(4) Newsom Watch: With so many eyes on the race to succeed Gavin Newsom, what has the current governor been up to? We’ll take a look at what he’s doing, what he’s saying, and where he’s trying to position himself.

Time permitting, we’ll cover some other topics and Q&A.

You can just watch or listen in. Or join the chat with your questions and comments.

Tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m.

The link should go live around 9:55.

The Link

I will send out a final reminder tomorrow morning, but here is the link. And yes, if you miss it, we’ll send it around afterward to watch, but it’s a lot more interesting to take it in as it’s actually happening!

You can listen to this post on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It’s available on your favorite podcasting app, or you can find it here. Our afternoon content is typically either paywalled for our premium subscribers or has paywalled bonus content.

For our paid subscribers, below this column is a video where I talk about what I think might be the best format for the next debate…

Subscribe now

⏱️ 7 min read

The Debate Finally Had A Pulse

The problem was obvious before the debate began: eight candidates on one stage is not really a debate. It is political speed dating with better lighting.

That turned out to be exactly right. Tuesday night’s California governor’s debate at Pomona College was louder, sharper, and more entertaining than last week’s bloodless affair. Candidates interrupted each other, moderators jumped in aggressively, and at times the whole thing felt less like a forum for California’s next governor and more like a family dinner after everyone had read the latest poll.

Katie Porter said it best after one especially messy stretch: “This is worse than my teenagers at dinner.”

She was not wrong.

There were real exchanges. Xavier Becerra called Donald Trump “Steve Hilton’s daddy,” trying to tie Hilton as tightly as possible to the president. Hilton turned the attack around, arguing that Democrats have run California for years and still want to blame Trump for everything wrong with the state. Chad Bianco called the debate “the hour and a half that you’re never going to get back.” One student in the audience reportedly summed up the evening with: “Wow, that was a bit of a mess.”

That was the debate in miniature. It was a mess. But it was not a boring mess.

The debate mattered, but not because it produced a winner. It mattered because it exposed the central weakness of the race: California has a stage full of candidates who can describe the state’s problems, blame someone else for them, and generate the occasional clip. What remains less clear is who has the seriousness, discipline, and governing imagination to fix any of it.

The moderators became part of the story, too. CBS’s Julie Watts pressed Becerra hard over whether he could legally declare a state of emergency and freeze insurance rates. When Becerra pushed back, he quipped that he would “like to go to court with you on that.” Watts also threatened to ban mentions of Trump and warned Tom Steyer that she might cut his microphone if he was “not respectful” during a testy exchange over oil prices.

That is not exactly Lincoln-Douglas.

But it mattered more than last week’s debate because the candidates finally acted like there was something at stake. With ballots about to arrive in mailboxes, they could not afford another sleepy evening. They needed moments, contrasts, and reminders to voters that this race is actually happening.

They delivered some of that. But they did not make the race meaningfully clearer.

Becerra And Steyer Became The Main Targets

The central political development of the night was that Xavier Becerra and Tom Steyer became the two main targets. That tells us where the race is right now. Candidates do not waste precious debate time attacking people who do not matter.

Becerra entered the debate with momentum, and the stage reflected it. Steve Hilton challenged him over whether he would actually have the legal authority to declare a state of emergency and freeze home insurance rates. Matt Mahan hit him over his record as Health and Human Services secretary, including COVID, mpox, and the handling of unaccompanied minors. Even the moderators pressed him hard.

The sharpest policy challenge came from Hilton.

“We can’t have a governor who doesn’t understand how the government works,” Hilton said.

Becerra fired back: “We don’t need a talking head from Fox News to tell us how the government works.”

That was a good television exchange. It also exposed the weakness of Becerra’s candidacy. He has a long résumé — attorney general, congressman, cabinet secretary — but when pressed on what he would actually do as governor, he still often sounds more like a bureaucrat defending his credentials than a candidate offering a clear break from the status quo.

Mahan landed the best Democratic punch on Becerra. He accused him of having “never met a crisis that he couldn’t ignore,” pointing to COVID, mpox, and the border crisis during Becerra’s time at HHS.

Becerra’s response was combative, but not especially reassuring. “You’re not wearing a mask, are you, Matt? You’re not worried about catching monkeypox, right?” he said.

That was zesty. It was not necessarily gubernatorial.

Still, Becerra did not collapse. That may have been enough for him. His victory was not that he persuaded anyone that he is the future of California. It is that his rivals treated him like the future of the Democratic field. In politics, being attacked is often a form of promotion.

Steyer had a different problem. He came in as the billionaire self-funder and therefore the easiest target on the stage. Porter landed the cleanest blow when Steyer talked about making polluters pay.

“How about profiteers pay?” Porter asked.

That was probably the best Democratic attack line of the night. It was pointed, personal, and easy to understand. Porter accused Steyer of making billions from fossil fuel investments and then using that fortune to fund his campaign while paying the lowest tax rate on the stage.

Steyer answered by casting himself as a “change agent” opposed by special interests. That is his best defense: if the establishment is attacking him, he must be doing something right.

But Steyer still has a deeper problem. He wants voters to see his money as proof he cannot be bought. But in a state where ordinary people are being crushed by costs, billionaire self-funding can also read as proof that he lives in a different political and economic universe.

His money gives him reach. It also makes every answer sound like it comes from a man who has never had to persuade anyone he could not outspend.

Hilton Had An Argument. Bianco Had A Mood.

Steve Hilton had a straightforward job: keep the focus on Democratic control of California and avoid getting sucked into a Republican-on-Republican fight with Chad Bianco.

He largely did that.

Becerra tried to tie Hilton to Trump with the “Steve Hilton’s daddy” line. It probably pleased some Democratic viewers. But Hilton’s answer was more strategically useful. He joked that his actual father, the former goalie for the Hungarian national ice hockey team, had not weighed in on the race. Then he pivoted to his central argument: California’s problems were made in California.

“All these big things that affect us on a daily basis, these are decisions made here in California by our politicians,” Hilton said. “And we’ve had the same people in charge for 16 years now.”

That is Hilton’s campaign in one sentence.

His strongest debate frame was simple: Democrats run the state, California is too expensive and badly governed, and they still want to blame Trump. That is easy for voters to understand. Whether it is enough to overcome California’s deep-blue electorate in November is a separate question. But in a top-two primary, it is a coherent message.

Hilton’s problem is not message clarity. His problem is whether California has enough voters willing to hear that message from a Trump-endorsed Republican.

Hilton also avoided what could have been a mistake: spending the night fighting Bianco. The two Republicans are competing for many of the same voters, but neither benefits from turning the debate into a GOP family feud, while six Democrats are on stage defending, or trying to explain away, the condition of California.

Bianco remained Bianco: angry, blunt, and contemptuous of Sacramento. At one point, frustrated by Democrats blaming Trump, he said: “We have a group of 20-ish-year-old kids, and we’re just sitting here lying to them about broken Democrat policies in California for the last 20 years, and we’re going to sit here and blame a president who’s been president for a year. This is absolutely ridiculous.”

That was a real Bianco moment. It was blunt. It was populist. It is probably connected with voters who believe California’s ruling class has been lying to them for years.

But there is a difference between Hilton and Bianco. Hilton gives voters an argument. Bianco gives them a mood.

That mood is not meaningless. Anger at Sacramento is rational. Frustration with crime, homelessness, taxes, regulation, schools, and the cost of living is rational. A lot of Californians feel like the state’s ruling class has failed upward for years while ordinary families pay the price.

But Bianco also reinforced his limitation. He is very good at expressing voter frustration. He is less effective at demonstrating how he would govern the entire state. He needed to show enough policy range to reassure persuadable voters that he is more than a protest candidate. He reinforced his brand, but he did not obviously expand it.

The Rest Just Had Moments…

Katie Porter helped herself. The question is whether she helped herself enough.

Her “teenagers at dinner” line captured the absurdity of the format, and her “How about profiteers pay?” attack on Steyer reminded voters why she can be dangerous in a debate. That was Porter at her best: sharp, prosecutorial, and able to turn an opponent’s talking point against him in real time.

She also returned to her core reform message, saying, “I am not for sale.” That is the cleanest version of the Porter brand. She wants voters to see her as the candidate who cannot be bought, will not take corporate money, and is willing to confront wealthy interests.

But Porter needed more than a few good moments. She needed a reset. She showed she can still prosecute a case. What she did not fully show is why this race should become her case.

Matt Mahan also did what he needed to do, at least partially. The problem for Mahan has always been that he comes across as practical, sane, and results-oriented — admirable, but politically dull in an eight-candidate debate.

He needed to stop selling oatmeal.

Tuesday night, he added some hot sauce. His attack on Becerra’s record at HHS was probably the most effective Democratic attack on Becerra all night. He positioned himself as the accountability candidate — the mayor who actually runs a city and understands that voters want results, not excuses.

But Mahan still has a problem. He can diagnose the failures of both parties, but he often struggles to deliver a memorable alternative. When he tried to split the difference on health care, saying the answer was “incentivizing actual health,” it sounded more like a consultant’s phrase than a governing agenda.

Mahan may appeal to editorial boards, good-government voters, and Democrats exhausted by ideological theater. But in a crowded top-two primary, respectability is not the same thing as momentum. Competence is a virtue. It is not a movement.

Antonio Villaraigosa and Tony Thurmond had the hardest task. Both needed something dramatic because low single digits do not give a candidate the luxury of subtlety.

Villaraigosa leaned on his record as Los Angeles mayor, arguing that graduation rates improved and crime declined during his tenure. He said voters should elect him because he wants to be “transformational.” Thurmond leaned heavily on biography and “lived experience,” talking about losing both parents by the time he was six and being raised by other family members.

Thurmond also went after Bianco hard over the Riverside County ballot controversy, accusing him of wasting public dollars to “steal ballots.” That gave him a moment. It did not appear to give him a path.

For Villaraigosa and Thurmond, the debate was not a missed opportunity so much as a reminder that airtime is not the same thing as viability.

So, Does It Matter?

The debate was louder, sharper, and more revealing than last week’s debate. But it did not reshape the race.

No one melted down. No one broke through. Becerra survived. Steyer absorbed fire. Hilton stayed on message. Bianco remained in his lane. Porter and Mahan helped themselves, but only around the edges.

And now the clock matters more than the candidates. The next major debate is the CNN California gubernatorial primary debate on Tuesday, May 5, at 6 p.m. Pacific. It will feature the same lineup, minus Tony Thurmond, who did not qualify.

By then, voters will have ballots in their hands.

That is the problem. The candidates finally acted as if the election were real, but the race still feels unresolved. This debate gave the campaign energy. It did not give voters clarity.

The candidates proved they could interrupt each other, land a few punches, and manufacture moments. What they did not prove is that California is any closer to finding the next governor it actually needs.

Below is a video in which I suggest a format I think would make the third debate more meaningful… If you aren’t a paid subscriber, you should think about it. The value proposition is simple — two points:
1) A big chunk of our content (like the video below) is for our paid subscribers, and for the relatively low cost, it means you pay like 10 cents to see extra stuff.
2) You should invest in the kind of journalism/commentary that you want, or it won’t be around. Support my efforts, and it means I can do more of it! I call balls and strikes in California politics - and not enough people do!

Read more

🕒 7 Minute Read

Welcome to another edition of California Patriot Profiles. These profiles are open to all subscribers and guests. You can listen to this post on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It’s available on your favorite podcasting app, or you can find it here.

My friend Doug LaMalfa passed away suddenly in early January following a medical emergency at his home in Richvale. He was 65. It was sudden. He didn’t get to say goodbye. And we, his family and friends, did not get to say goodbye either. I have sat down many times to try to write this — my “goodbye” — but I would get too emotional. But it was time, and here it is. Goodbye, Doug. I loved you in life, and I love you in heaven. And yes, I still drive a Ford (well, a Lincoln).

The Man From Richvale

Before he was a member of Congress, before he was a State Senator or Assemblyman, Doug LaMalfa was a fourth-generation rice farmer from Richvale, a small farming community in Butte County, just south of Chico.

And in many ways, that is exactly what he remained.

In an era when so many elected officials seem to evolve — or drift — once they arrive in Sacramento or Washington, Doug did not. He brought Richvale with him. The values, the perspective, the priorities. They did not change.

I first met Doug when he was an eager candidate for the California State Assembly. But we really got to know each other during his decade in the California Legislature, when I was making frequent trips to Sacramento as the publisher of the FlashReport Website on California Politics (which became this site last May). On virtually every visit, we would spend time together — and just as often, it was Doug reaching out to me. The bar between us was low.

Some of my fondest memories from those years were with Doug and many other legislators — but especially with Joel Anderson and Mark Wyland. Whenever Doug was involved, we somehow always ended up getting ice cream somewhere along the way.

I reached out to Joel, who also has an ache in his heart over the loss of a dear friend. He told me, “Doug was my roommate and my friend — a man with a stoic sense of humor, deep loyalty, and a genuine love of country. He worked long hours to make a real difference, always putting his family first.”

For Doug, it was never about status. It was about people. And you knew it. Because he treated all people the same, with dignity and respect.

A Different Kind Of Congressman

Doug LaMalfa was not a polished politician.

He was direct. Sometimes blunt. Always accessible.

Over the years, I had hundreds of conversations with him — and probably two or three times that number through texts or Facebook messages. The bar for Doug to reach out to Doug was very low. It did not matter whether the topic was politics, policy, or just something in the news — he engaged. And he was this way with many people.

That was not typical for a politician. Most people who spend years in elected office begin to build distance. Doug never did.

His chief of staff, my friend, Mark Spannagel, described him as deeply funny and the kind of person you would want to sit with over a glass of iced tea. I agree, plus ice cream!

He was the same guy in Congress that he was back home.

What He Fought For

Doug did not approach public policy as an abstract exercise.

The issues he focused on were the ones his constituents lived with every day.

Water policy was not theoretical — it was about whether farmers could plant their crops. Wildfire prevention was not a talking point — it was about protecting communities that faced real danger every year. Economic regulation was not ideological — it was about whether small businesses could survive.

He served on the House Agriculture Committee and became a leading voice on forestry and wildfire issues. He pushed for increased water storage, better forest management, and practical solutions rooted in the realities of rural California.

He was not trying to win arguments in Washington.

He was trying to solve problems back home.

The Details That Explain Everything

If you really wanted to understand Doug LaMalfa, you did not need to look at a legislative scorecard.

You needed to look at how he lived.

He loved classic American cars — especially Fords. He talked about them often. He worked on them himself. And more than once, he showed up to work with grease still on his hands.

When I bought my Lincoln Navigator in 2019, Doug had mixed feelings. He appreciated that it was built on a Ford chassis — “respectable,” he told me — but he made it clear that I should have bought a truck.

For a while after that, he called me “Limo Driver.”

Doug loved nicknames.

It was a small thing. But it told you everything you needed to know.

Perspective From Washington

I had the opportunity to visit Doug several times in Washington, D.C.

Every time, without fail, he would talk about the honor of serving in Congress. He understood the responsibility. He took it seriously.

But Doug’s patriotism was not shallow or ceremonial. He had a deep love of country, grounded in a clear understanding of America’s founding principles. He loved the Declaration of Independence, the history of our nation, and the idea that America was built on liberty, the consent of the governed, and strict limits on government power.

Doug’s conservatism was not a campaign slogan. It was central to who he was.

Looking out over Washington one evening from the Speaker’s patio overlooking Capitol Mall, he said to me:

“This will never be home. Home is my district. But this is where the fight is — for our freedoms.”

That was Doug.

Grounded in where he came from. Clear about what he believed. And fully aware of what was at stake.

Here’s a clip of the Congressman talking about High Speed Rail at a Press Conference last year…

So, Does It Matter?

In the end, you can often tell a great deal about a person by who shows up.

Doug LaMalfa’s memorial service in Chico drew thousands — a remarkable turnout that included Speaker Mike Johnson, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Governor Gavin Newsom, and Senator Adam Schiff.

Different parties. Different perspectives. The kind of group that rarely gathers in one place.

They showed up because Doug was respected — not because he changed who he was, but because he never did.

The day before he passed away, Doug commented on one of my Facebook posts — just as he had done countless times over the years. Always engaged. Always paying attention. Always part of the conversation.

He is survived by his wife, Jill, and their four children and their families, who were always at the center of his life. My prayers are with all of them.

Doug LaMalfa never stopped being the man from Richvale.

And that is exactly why he mattered.

If you are inclined you can search for some of the remarks from Doug’s funeral on YouTube. I don’t want to put them here. This profile is to celebrate the life of a great man, not to talk his passing, except as necessary context.

Check Out Our Library Dozens of Other California Patriot Profiles!

Periodically we profile an exemplary California conservative. Previous profiles have been of San Diego County Supervisor Joel Anderson Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes, Political Law Attorney Chuck Bell, Federal Judge Roger Benitez, the late Andrew Breitbart, actor and comedian Adam Carolla, HJTA President Jon Coupal, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow, conservative activist Steve Frank, actor Kelsey Grammer, investigative journalist Katy Grimes, pro-liberty attorney Julie Hamill, historian Victor Davis Hanson, Dr. Charles Kesler, longtime Nixon and Reagan speechwriter Ken Khachigian, Editor of the Claremont Review of Books, Congressman Kevin Kiley, talk radio host John Kobylt, Former San Diego County GOP Chairman Tony Krvaric, Pastor Rob McCoy of Turning Point Faith, Former CAGOP Chairman Ron Nehring, the late Second Amendment champion Sam Paredes, talk radio hosts John Phillips and Dennis Prager, actor Gary Sinise, economist and author Thomas Sowell, actor James Woods, and constitutional scholar John Yoo.

You can go here to see them all! If you have an idea for a profile of a patriot, let me know!

Jon

You can listen to this post on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It’s available on your favorite podcasting app, or you can find it here. Our afternoon content is typically for our paid subscribers. Certain columns, like this one, are made available to all of our readers.

Normally, I tuck “extra cartoons” under the paywall for my paid subscribers. This time, I am including them so that free subscribers can see what they are missing. Just one more plus for upgrading (there are a lot of upsides).

⏱️ 6.5 min read (This one’s a little longer!)

The “Debate Of The Week” Is Upon Us…

Tonight brings us the next installment of what is starting to feel like a weekly debate series in the race to become California’s next governor. This one is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. at Pomona College’s Bridges Auditorium in Claremont. It is being hosted in partnership with CBS California, APAPA, and Pomona College, and it should be available across CBS’s California stations and streaming platforms.

The confirmed candidates are former Obama Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, former Fox News host Steve Hilton, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, former Congresswoman Katie Porter, billionaire former hedge fund poobah Tom Steyer, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and former Los Angeles Mayor and former Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa. That is a lot of candidates. And it raises the obvious question: Will tonight’s debate actually matter?

Last week’s debate did not. No one melted down. No one broke through. No one delivered the kind of moment that changes the trajectory of a campaign. Tonight could be different. But two things stand in the way: the format and whether anyone is actually paying attention.

The Format May Is The First Problem

Eight candidates on one stage is a lot. That is not really a debate so much as a political speed-dating exercise with better lighting. CBS says tonight’s forum will include opening statements, a moderated discussion, and closing remarks, with a focus on public safety, housing, immigration, and the economy. Those are the right subjects, but with eight candidates, multiple moderators, and the usual debate mechanics, the time available for any one candidate to actually make a sustained case becomes painfully limited.

That is the problem. California’s challenges do not lend themselves to 60-second slogan answers. Housing is broken. Homelessness is everywhere. Crime and disorder remain major public concerns. Energy costs are brutal. Insurance markets are collapsing in parts of the state. Schools are underperforming. The budget is a mess. A serious debate would force the candidates to explain what they would actually do with the powers of the governor’s office.

But crowded debates tend to reward performance over substance. They reward the interruption, the canned line, the artificial contrast, and the candidate who knows how to create a social media clip. They punish patience, detail, and seriousness. That is bad for voters, but it is reality. If a candidate wants to break through tonight, he or she cannot merely be informed. They have to be memorable.

The Bigger Problem Is That Voters May Not Be Watching

The more alarming problem is not the stage. It is the audience. Are Californians paying attention? They should be. Ballots start going out next week. Millions of Californians will soon have live ballots sitting on their kitchen counters. They can fill them out, mail them back, and move on with their lives long before most people have focused on the race.

That is a serious problem in a wide-open governor’s race. For months, this campaign has had a strange quality to it. It is important, but not urgent. It is consequential, but not dominant. Everyone in politics knows the race matters. The next governor will inherit a state with massive structural problems. But outside the political class, it still feels like much of the electorate has not locked in.

That creates risk. In a top-two primary, a fragmented field can produce strange outcomes. The winner does not need a majority. A candidate just needs enough voters, in the right lane, while everyone else splits the rest. That is why these debates matter. They are not just about who “wins” a night. They are about whether any candidate can become real to voters who are only now tuning in.

What Each Candidate Needs To Do Tonight

Start with the Republicans.

STEVE HILTON
Steve Hilton is the Republican frontrunner, and for him, the debate has to accomplish two things. First, he needs to remind voters that he is proud to be endorsed by President Trump. Yes, the president is generally unpopular in California, but he remains very popular among likely Republican voters who will be turning out in this June election. For Hilton, the endorsement is a key factor in the primary, even if it would become a challenging factor in the drive toward November if he makes the top two.

Second, Hilton needs to do what he is already capable of doing: demonstrate that he can govern on day one. He has policy chops, so this should be easy for him, but he still needs to show it. And more than anyone in the last debate, Hilton seemed willing to jab other candidates and press the debate format as much as the format allowed. He needs to keep doing that.

CHAD BIANCO
Sheriff Chad Bianco needs to continue impressing upon people his public safety background. That is a big issue for him and one of the clearest reasons voters might give him a serious look. But this is also a debate in which he probably needs to demonstrate some policy chops. Not a lot. Just enough so that voters do not feel like he is simply a one-line populist.

That matters because Bianco’s secret weapon may be independent voters. There are independents who could be very interested in his law enforcement background. But those voters are not necessarily populists. They will want to know that Bianco has enough going on to step in and start running the state on day one.

Then come the six Democrats.

XAVIER BECERRA
Xavier Becerra is now a top-tier candidate based on recent polling, and he needs to consolidate the experienced-candidate lane. That means he will have to restate his résumé if the moderators do not do it for him. But the résumé alone is not enough. Becerra needs to get specific about what he would actually do.

His problem is that he tends to be vague and bureaucratic. He needs sharp, memorable answers. He may also need to explain whether he is the continuation of Gavin Newsom or would make real changes from what Newsom is doing. I am not sure the format will let him get away with that, but it is the question sitting underneath his candidacy.

TOM STEYER
Tom Steyer needs to survive being the human piñata. He is rich, self-funded, and ideologically progressive, which makes him a big target. His task is to remind people that he cannot be bought and that he is not waiting for anyone's permission.

But Steyer also needs to demonstrate an ability to govern if he wants to drive up his polling numbers. That means figuring out how to stop being so hyperbolic in these debates and instead come across as clear-eyed about what he would actually do. Maybe he needs to talk about things he would do on day one that do not sound outrageous. Not “I am going to fund a ballot measure.” Not “I am going to do these extreme things.” He needs to show how he would be hands-on without coming across as a chaotic change agent.

KATIE PORTER
Katie Porter needs a breakout moment. She has basically hit the top of what she can get from her existing base, so if she is going to grow, she needs to do something more.

First, she has to demonstrate her policy chops. But the most important thing she needs to do is give Tom Steyer the whiteboard treatment. Even if she has to upset the moderators to do it, she needs to laser-focus on him and go after him. She needs to take on the billionaire and hit him hard in a way that causes people to say, “Whoa, now there is a fighter who understands what she is doing.” If she does not, she risks getting bogged down by her own negatives.

MATT MAHAN

Matt Mahan comes across as the practical, sane, results-oriented Democrat. In a word, a moderate. His lane is competence, local government, accountability, and the basic argument that he actually runs a city. But the problem is that there is a ceiling on that. With eight people on stage, Mahan cannot simply be the reasonable guy. There is not enough bandwidth for that. He is going to have to come out punching pretty hard. Temperamentally, he is going to have to try to be someone he is not, and he is really going to have to get aggressive.

That is a risk. But it is a risk he needs to take, because right now he is selling oatmeal, and nobody is buying oatmeal. Maybe that means getting aggressive against Trump, which he has not really done. Maybe it means getting aggressive against Steyer, which he has done a little bit. But he needs a breakout moment to show that he can get out of the single digits. That is not going to happen if he performs the way he did in the last debate.

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA AND TONY THURMOND
Finally, we have the also-rans: Antonio Villaraigosa and Tony Thurmond. Both have been polling so poorly that it is hard to see how a single debate could resuscitate their campaigns. But that is the reality they are facing. They are the candidates who probably need to do something unpredictable, and frankly outrageous, if they are going to get noticed.

That is the lousy part about being down in the doldrums. You do not get the luxury of playing it safe. You have to throw a Hail Mary. Thurmond is temperamentally equipped to go crazy tonight, I suppose, though I am not sure it will matter. Villaraigosa does not really have much craziness in him, so that will be a big challenge for him.

So, Does It Matter?

In the end, all of these candidates could do what they need to do tonight and still produce a status quo outcome. That is the strange reality of this race. Ever since former Vice President Kamala Harris and U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (and Attorney General Bonta, to a lesser extent) decided not to run, the campaign has been stuck with a field of B-level candidates. Some are accomplished. Some are interesting. Some have real constituencies. But none has broken through in a truly dominant way.

Eventually, this will sort itself out. Someone will win. Two candidates will advance. California will get a new governor. But for now, the race still feels oddly underdeveloped for something this consequential. Maybe tonight at Pomona College, in front of the CBS cameras, someone finally creates a real moment. Or maybe it is another ho-hum evening, and we just keep plodding along.

Our morning content is free for all subscribers and guests! For my paid subscribers, there is additional video commentary just below the paywall. If you are not yet a paid subscriber, consider upgrading — you are missing a significant portion of what we produce each week, and your support makes it possible.

Subscribe now

You can also listen to this post — along with my California Post column — on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It is available on your favorite podcast app. And here.

It Is Not About Billionaires

The pitch is simple: tax billionaires, fix California’s problems, and assure voters it will not affect them. That framing is politically effective because most Californians are not billionaires and do not know any. It makes the proposal feel distant, targeted, and harmless. But that is not what voters are actually being asked to approve.

Buried beneath the headline promise is something far more consequential — a structural change in how California can tax wealth going forward. Once that structure exists, the debate changes fundamentally. It is no longer about whether the state can impose this kind of tax, but how broadly Sacramento chooses to apply it. That shift is where the real stakes are.

This is not about whether billionaires can afford to pay more. It is about whether voters are being asked to hand Sacramento a new tool — one that does not stay neatly confined to its original target. In California, tax policy rarely stops where it starts, and history shows that once the machinery is built, it tends to expand.

That is why this moment matters. The fine print is not incidental to the proposal; it is the entire story. What sounds narrow and limited at the outset has the potential to evolve into something far broader over time, especially in a state where the demand for new revenue never seems to shrink.

👉 Read the full column in the California Post HERE.

More reading…

Video Commentary

Below I take off the gloves… And I get “real” about this measure… If you haven’t already, you can try a free trial upgrade. But I am asking you to step up a chip in. Not only is it a value (we have a LOT of content reserved for our paid subscribers), but you should support the type of journalism you want to see! It’s also not much!

Read more

You can listen to this post on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It’s available on your favorite podcasting app, or you can find it here. Our afternoon content is typically for our paid subscribers. Certain columns, like this one, are made available to all of our readers.

⏱️ 6 min read

From Fringe Lifestyle To Cultural Warning Sign

Polyamory is defined as: The practice or condition of participating simultaneously in more than one serious romantic or sexual relationship with the knowledge and consent of all partners.

That used to be a fringe concept. Now, according to a recent Los Angeles Times story, California cities are exploring ways to recognize and protect multi-partner relationships under the law. In Oakland and West Hollywood, policymakers are considering changes that would extend legal protections to these arrangements.

Supporters frame this as practical: hospital visitation, housing rules, workplace benefits, and medical emergencies. But those are administrative symptoms. The deeper issue is cultural. America is losing confidence in marriage as a fixed, stabilizing institution.

Once marriage becomes merely one lifestyle choice among many, more radical alternatives inevitably ask for the same cultural and legal legitimacy.

Marriage Is Losing Its Cultural Centrality

This did not come from nowhere. It is unfolding against the backdrop of a long decline in marriage as a defining institution in American life. Today, fewer than half of U.S. households are married couples, down from roughly two-thirds in the 1970s, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

The more telling change is not only behavioral. It is attitudinal. According to the 2025 American Family Survey, only about 45 percent of Americans say society is better off when more people are married. Pew Research Center data show that 44% Americans—especially those who have never married—view marriage as very important to a fulfilling life.

That is the earthquake. Americans are not merely marrying less. They are increasingly unsure that marriage matters.

That matters because the legal push for polyamory is not happening in a strongly pro-marriage culture. It is happening in a culture already unsure why marriage should be privileged at all.

Marriage has not disappeared. It has been demoted. It is no longer widely treated as the expected framework for adulthood, family formation, sacrifice, and responsibility. It is now one option among many, competing with cohabitation, long-term singlehood, and increasingly fluid relationship arrangements.

Marriage Is More Than A Contract

The family is not a sentimental preference or a nostalgic artifact. It is one of civilization’s great ordering institutions. It teaches permanence, duty, restraint, sacrifice, and responsibility. It takes private desire and binds it to obligations beyond the self.

For those of us shaped by faith, marriage is not merely a private arrangement between consenting adults. It is a binding commitment, a stabilizing institution, and one of the ways society teaches men and women to build something larger than appetite or preference.

For generations, those expectations were reinforced not just by culture, but by religious traditions, including the Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage as a covenant rather than a convenience. As those influences have weakened, so too has the sense that marriage carries obligations beyond personal fulfillment.

As C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, “Love in this second sense—love as distinct from ‘being in love’—is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit.” That understanding of marriage as a disciplined, enduring bond stands in sharp contrast to relationship models built on fluidity and expansion.

Dennis Prager has long argued that once a society begins redefining marriage, it should not be surprised when the institution continues to evolve beyond its original structure. Earlier debates focused on who could enter marriage. What is now emerging goes further, challenging whether marriage is even limited to two people.

This is not a hypothetical slippery slope. It is the next application of the same logic.

The problem is not simply that polyamory is unusual. The problem is that it reflects a culture increasingly uncomfortable with limits, permanence, and exclusive commitment. When every boundary becomes negotiable, every institution eventually becomes unstable.

This has always been the tension at the heart of a free society: we prize individual liberty, but we rely on strong institutions, especially the family, to sustain that liberty. When those institutions weaken or fail, government inevitably moves to fill the gap, often at the expense of individual freedom.

So, Does It Matter?

It is easy to dismiss practices like polyamory, or even polygamy, a more formalized and historically controversial form of multi-partner relationships, as marginal behavior. Most Americans will never seriously consider them. But fringe ideas matter when they reveal where the culture is drifting.

When fewer people believe marriage matters, alternative relationship models do not merely emerge. They seek recognition. Then normalization. Then protection. What begins as private experimentation becomes public policy.

A society cannot endlessly weaken its core institutions and expect no consequences. When the family deteriorates, the damage does not remain private. Children, schools, neighborhoods, churches, synagogues, courts, employers, and government all absorb the cost.

So yes, this matters. Not because every household in California is about to become a “throuple,” but because this is another sign that marriage is being pushed from the center of American life to the margins.

Marriage is not just one relationship model among many. It is the institution that helps keep private life ordered enough for public liberty to survive.

Paid subscribers get our exclusive “One More Thing” extra segment with the Congressman — he shares his takeaways from last week’s California gubernatorial debate…

Subscribe now

🎙️ This Week on the So, Does It Matter? The Podcast… United States Representative Jay Obernolte

Congressman Jay Obernolte is not just another California Republican in Congress. He is one of the few members with serious technical fluency in artificial intelligence, and he now holds a senior policy role within the House Republican leadership.

In this week’s One-On-One Podcast, Jon sits down with Obernolte for a wide-ranging conversation that starts with life in Congress and quickly moves into some of the biggest policy fights now unfolding in Washington.

They begin with the difference between Sacramento and Washington, including what surprised Obernolte most after moving from the California State Assembly to Congress.

From there, the conversation turns to his new role as chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee. Obernolte explains what the committee does, why the position matters, and why serious policy development still has to compete with the gravitational pull of politics.

Then the discussion moves into artificial intelligence, where Obernolte brings unusual credibility. Jon and Obernolte discuss the House AI Task Force, the push for federal legislation, and the difficult balance between national standards and the traditional role of states.

They also touch on children’s online safety, chatbot risks, parental control, consumer protection, and the danger of federal preemption without a real federal policy to replace it.

The conversation closes with California politics, especially the aftermath of Proposition 50 and what the new congressional map means for Republican representation, competitive seats, and conservative communities now drawn into very different districts.

If you want a serious conversation about where AI policy is headed, how Republican policy is shaped in Congress, and what California’s redistricting fight means for conservatives, this is a conversation worth watching.

RUN OF SHOW (In case you want to go to a particular segment)
0:00 — Introduction to Congressman Jay Obernolte
3:17 — Sacramento vs. Washington, D.C.
5:15 — Chairing the House Republican Policy Committee
8:48 — Rebuilding the GOP’s policy operation
10:57 — Inside House Republican leadership
12:18 — Obernolte’s background in AI
14:02 — The House AI Task Force report
15:20 — Federal vs. state AI regulation
18:41 — Why preemption needs real policy
20:02 — Bipartisan AI legislation
22:29 — AI research, workforce, and innovation
24:49 — Children, chatbots, and online safety
26:27 — Consumer protection and parental control
28:34 — Prop. 50 and California Republicans
30:10 — California’s shrinking GOP delegation
31:23 — Mid-cycle redistricting and trust
32:11 — Which GOP seats remain competitive
34:03 — The real impact of Prop. 50
34:39 — Yorba Linda and the new map
35:41 — Closing thoughts

🎥 Watch the full conversation video above — and see the various audio options below.

Listen here:

If you’d like to listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or other platforms, click here.

You can find this video on YouTube here. Spread the word — share it.

Useful Links

See the Congressman’s Press Releases here.
Sign up for the Congressman’s Newsletter here.
Here is the House Artificial Intelligence Task Force Report.
Here is President Trump’s Executive Order on AI.
Website for the House Republican Policy Committee.
Congressman Obernolte on X.
Jon Fleischman on X.

If you’re reading this as a free subscriber, you’re getting part of the picture — but not all of it.

Paid subscribers get full access to every post, every analysis, and every extra segment like “One More Thing.” That’s where the most candid insights and conversations live.

If you value independent political coverage that isn’t filtered or watered down, this is where you step up. Join now — and get access immediately.

EXCLUSIVE “ONE MORE THING” EXTRA VIDEO BELOW… It’s a thank you to our paid subscribers!

Read more

On Last Night’s Shooting Incident At The White House Correspondents Dinner…

(Since I recorded this we found out the shooter Is from Torrance, and teaches at C2. That’s not a “school” - C2 Is a for-profit outfit that provides tutoring, test prep, and college counseling services.)

I recalled that mid-last year I saw some Pew Research on public opinion about political violence, so I sought it out (it’s here). Below is a chart of interest, and there is more interesting data if this is something that interests you.

This Sunday ICYMI edition is always free for all subscribers and visitors to this Substack page! Thanks for being a part of this look at CA politics!

THIS IS A GREAT E-MAIL TO FORWARD TO PEOPLE YOU THINK MIGHT ENJOY OUR CONTENT!

BELOW ARE SIX STORIES FROM THIS WEEK THAT YOU MAY HAVE MISSED!

FOMO? There are half a dozen other items that aren’t highlighted above. But you can read them here.

One Video…

My Substack Live analysis of the Governor’s debate! Check it out…

On This Date In 1986…

CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR REACTOR EXPLOSION

On this date in 1986, one of the nuclear reactors at the Chernobyl power plant in the then-Soviet Union—now Ukraine—exploded in what remains the worst nuclear disaster in history.

In the early hours of April 26, Reactor No. 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant suffered a catastrophic failure during a late-night safety test gone wrong. A flawed reactor design, combined with operator error and a culture that discouraged questioning authority, created the conditions for disaster. The explosion blew the roof off the reactor building and exposed the core, releasing massive amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere.

What followed was a slow-moving crisis compounded by denial and delay. Soviet authorities initially downplayed the incident, even as radiation spread across Europe. It was only after elevated radiation levels were detected in Sweden that the world began to grasp the scale of the catastrophe.

The human toll was immediate and long-term. Two workers were killed in the explosion, and dozens of first responders died within weeks from acute radiation sickness. Thousands more have suffered lasting health effects. Entire towns, including the nearby city of Pripyat, were evacuated and remain abandoned to this day.

Chernobyl stands as a stark reminder of what happens when technological risk meets bureaucratic secrecy and political control. It reshaped global attitudes toward nuclear energy and remains a cautionary tale about transparency, accountability, and the cost of institutional failure.

Here’s a quick video explainer:

If you want to go deep on this I have two fabulous recommendations:

The first is a six part podcast (on the fabulous Journey Through Time podcast show) - Chernobyl, The Worst Nuclear Disaster In History
Here is an Apple Podcast link to episode one…

And of course you can’t go wrong watching the actual mini-series Chernobyl, which has cycled out of Netflix for now (it will come back) but you can catch it now on HBO Max if you subscribe, or rent it on Amazon Prime (so worth it). You will binge watch it.

Trailer:

A Quick Video From Jon Fleischman!

This Saturday feature, which is a labor of love for me, is packed with amazing content. It’s very popular. For those of you who subscribe ($70/year, $7/month), this column is a thank you for your support of my independent work. There are a couple of items above the paywall worth reading/watching. But that is the tip of the iceberg. SO MUCH more under the paywall.

THANK YOU for being part of this project and for putting a spotlight on California politics!

Oh yes, what happened on this date just four years ago (seems like an eternity, though!)? Don’t miss out on our “On This Date In History” feature at the bottom of this e-mail!

Subscribe now

Reading/Watching Recommendations!

VOTER ID ON CA BALLOT: WHAT’S NEXT?

In this California Post column, Assemblyman Carl DeMaio lays out the stakes now that a voter ID initiative has qualified for the 2026 ballot. He argues that the measure represents a long-overdue push to restore confidence in California’s elections, shifting the issue directly from Sacramento gridlock to voters. DeMaio frames the coming fight as a clear contrast between election integrity and a political establishment that has resisted basic verification requirements despite broad public support.

HOW GAVIN NEWSOM SUBSIDIZED THE MIGRANT INVASION

In this investigative Substack piece, Christopher Rufo and Susan Crabtree argue that Governor Gavin Newsom has directed roughly $1 billion in state funding to a network of nonprofits that assist migrants with legal services, housing, and advocacy. They contend that many of these groups go beyond humanitarian aid, actively opposing immigration enforcement and promoting policies like abolishing ICE. The article frames this spending as part of a broader political ecosystem that uses taxpayer resources to encourage migration while advancing ideological goals.

Christopher F. Rufo

How Gavin Newsom Subsidized the Migrant Invasion

Former President Joe Biden’s administration oversaw an unprecedented wave of migration across the southwestern border of the United States. Migrants convoyed in “caravans” in hopes of overwhelming border authorities. Cartels trafficked drugs and people…

Read more

8 days ago · 281 likes · 68 comments · Christopher F. Rufo and Susan Crabtree

Want More?

OK, this column is like an iceberg. You can see 10% of it above the water line. Below the paywall is SO MUCH MORE. I curate a BUNCH of articles, a great chart, great videos, a great long-form story, and much more.

There’s a free trial - try it out, and read all kinds of stuff, curated as a special thank you to our hundreds of paid subscribers!

If you appreciate my work here, support me. That’s how you keep voices like mine around!

Read more

Do you know about So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN? That’s Podcast Channel, available on your favorite podcasting app, to listen to these posts on the go! Find this column, spoken, here. You can also sign up for So, Does It Matter? THE PODCAST (here) to get all of our video content is available in audio form! Two channels to get all of our content anywhere!

⏱️ 4 min read

California voters will decide this November whether to put voter ID directly into the state Constitution.

The California Voter ID Initiative has officially qualified for the November 2026 ballot, after state election officials verified enough signatures to place the measure before voters. This is the same measure whose supporters turned in more than 1.35 million signatures earlier this year during a two-day statewide show of force that stretched from Southern California to Northern California. At the time, it was clear the campaign had built a serious statewide operation. Now the verification process is complete, and the measure is on the ballot.

The measure’s lead advocates are State Senator Tony Strickland, Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, and Orange County Lincoln Club leader Julie Luckey.

What The Measure Does

The initiative would amend the California Constitution to create new statewide election requirements. The measure requires voter ID when casting a ballot, requires election officials to verify the citizenship of registered voters, and requires regular maintenance of accurate voter rolls.

For in-person voting, voters would provide government-issued identification. For vote-by-mail voting, voters would provide the last four digits of a government ID number. The measure also requires citizenship verification and voter-roll maintenance.

In practical terms, it says California elections should meet the same basic standards people already deal with in everyday life: prove you are who you say you are, ensure only citizens are registered to vote, and keep the voter rolls clean. That should not be controversial. In a sane political environment, it would not be. But this is California.

The Campaign Just Moved Into A New Phase

Back in March, when the signatures were turned in, the visual was hard to miss. There were boxes of petitions. There were signature submission rallies. Regional leaders were showing up across major media markets. This was not a quiet paperwork filing. It was a statement.

The message was simple: this was not a regional protest or a symbolic exercise. It was an organized statewide campaign to put election integrity before California voters. Now the campaign has crossed the first major threshold.

Qualification changes everything. The debate is no longer about whether voter ID can make the ballot. It has made the ballot. The question now is whether common sense can survive the full force of California’s political machine. That machine will fight hard. It always does when the voters are asked to impose accountability on Sacramento.

But voter ID is not some fringe idea. It is normal. You need ID to board a plane, cash a check, rent a car, enter secure government buildings, open financial accounts, pick up prescriptions, and do countless other routine things in modern life. Yet California still does not require identification to cast a ballot in person. That disconnect is exactly why this measure has political power.

Common Sense Is Now On The Ballot

Strip away the politics, and this comes down to common sense. There is not a single public opinion poll I have seen that does not show voter ID as a strong, often overwhelming, winner with voters. Democrats, Republicans, and independents all understand the same basic point: showing identification to vote is reasonable.

It is hard to explain why this would be a bad idea, because it is not a bad idea. It is basic. It is mainstream. It is normal. And after more than 1.35 million Californians signed petitions demanding it, Sacramento can no longer pretend this debate is not happening.

That is the key development today. The people forced this onto the ballot. Not the Legislature. Not the Governor. Not the political establishment. The people.

A Statement from Assemblyman Carl DeMaio

Initiative Co-Author Assemblyman Carl DeMaio had this to say about today’s announced qualification…

“The California Voter ID Initiative is a common-sense and bipartisan way to restore the trust and confidence all voters should have in our election system.

Our measure simply holds government officials accountable to maintain accurate voter lists and verify the identity of individuals casting ballots in our elections. Other states that have implemented Voter ID programs have seen an increase in participation in their elections, including an increase in minority voting.

Divisive politicians with partisan agendas will try to politicize this effort, but the fact remains that over 70 percent of voters, including a majority of Democrat voters, support the initiative, and nearly half of the 1.35 million signatures we collected to put this common-sense reform on the ballot came from Democrats and Independents.

We look forward to expanding this bipartisan reform movement as we enter the passage phase of the campaign.”

So, Does It Matter?

This measure is now one of the biggest ballot-measure fights of 2026. California voters will be asked a straightforward question: Should the state require voter ID, verify citizenship, and keep voter rolls accurate?

That is not radical. That is not complicated. That is not voter suppression. That is basic election integrity.

For years, Sacramento Democrats have treated voter ID as something to block, dismiss, or demonize. But there is a reason the idea keeps coming back. Voters want confidence in elections. They want basic guardrails. They want the system to be clean, credible, and verifiable.

More than 1.35 million Californians signed petitions to force that question onto the November ballot. Now they will get to vote on it.

And Sacramento should clearly understand this: the people are paying attention now.

Common sense is on the offense this November with this measure qualifying for the ballot the same week as the Save Prop. 13 measure!

Below is our Top Ten List of Winners and Losers for the Week. This feature is available to all of our subscribers, free and paid. At the bottom of this post is our “Worst Week In California Politics” special feature. It's me, in rare form, on video, going on why someone’s week sucked. It is below the paywall for our paid subscribers, though. Please support my independent calling of balls and strikes, and unlock lots of content by upgrading today! It’s only $7 a month (or $70 for an entire year).

Subscribe now

Do you know about So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN? That’s Podcast Channel, available on your favorite podcasting app, to listen to these posts on the go! Find this column, spoken, here. You can also sign up for So, Does It Matter? THE PODCAST (here) to get all of our video content is available in audio form! Two channels to get all of our content anywhere!

⏱️ 5-minute read

This is where we examine state and local politics (or national issues with a California angle) and highlight individuals (or groups) who have achieved notable success or had a particularly challenging week. I strive to call balls and strikes fairly and objectively, which sometimes makes assembling this list difficult.

Top Winners & Losers This Week in California Politics

⬇️ LOSERS: ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA AND TONY THURMOND, GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES

Getting left off a high-profile debate stage is not some procedural hiccup; it is a public signal that your campaign is not making the cut. Debates are where candidates prove they belong, draw contrasts, and get seen by voters who are not already paying attention. Missing that stage tells donors, media, and voters the same thing: this is not a top-tier operation. It usually means weak polling, thin momentum, or both, and here it is both. While others are making their case, they are reduced to watching from the sidelines, hoping for relevance to somehow circle back.

⬇️ LOSER: KATIE PORTER, GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE, FORMER CONGRESSWOMAN

Instead of using this stretch to define a forward-looking case for governor, she is tied up responding to a series of resurfaced viral clips that cast her as combative and out of step with a broader electorate. That is forcing her campaign into damage control just as rivals are introducing themselves on their own terms. In a Democratic primary where tone and coalition-building matter, repeatedly explaining past moments is not just a distraction; it reinforces the very image she needs to move past. Hint: When you have to release testimonials from a bunch of current and former staff members defending you, you are off message.

⬇️ LOSER: NEXTSTAR MEDIA GROUP FOR THE GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE FORMAT/QUESTIONS

The debate fell flat largely because of the quick-hit, short-answer format that reduced serious issues to sound bites and prevented any real depth. Candidates cycled through rehearsed lines without being pressed, and there was little sustained back-and-forth to test their ideas. Perhaps more problematic, moderators skipped over major issues a governor will face, including the state’s chronic budget deficits, water supply, homelessness, the insurance crisis, housing costs, and broader economic pressures. The result was a debate that generated heat, but very little clarity for voters.

⬇️ LOSER: ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Another swing, another miss. The 9th Circuit stepping in to block California’s attempt to regulate federal immigration agents, trying to mandate that they do not wear masks, among other things, is not just a technical loss; it is a fundamental reminder of constitutional limits that should have been obvious from the start. The court made clear that the state cannot dictate how federal operations are conducted, citing the Supremacy Clause to side against California’s position. For Rob Bonta, California’s Attorney General, this kind of Trump Derangement Syndrome-driven lawfare, where you litigate in every instance, even when a first-year law school student could tell you that you are going to lose, is unbecoming of our state’s top law enforcement official.

⬇️ LOSERS: TERRA LAWSON-REMER, PALOMA AGUIRRE, AND MONICA MONTGOMERY STEPPE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPERVISORS

Nothing says “reform” quite like rewriting the rules to benefit yourself. These three self-dealers are advancing a November ballot package dressed up as a good-government cleanup that just happens to include blowing up the existing two-term limit so they can stick around longer. It is the kind of Sacramento-style maneuver voters claim to hate: wrap self-interest in lofty language and hope no one reads the fine print. If your best idea for reform conveniently extends your own political shelf life, voters are right to be skeptical about whose interests are really being served.

⬆️ WINNERS: HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION AND THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE

For years, taxpayer groups have mostly played defense, trying to stop the next tax hike or legal workaround. Here, they flipped the script and went on offense, qualifying a major constitutional amendment for the ballot with a strong showing of signatures. That is not just symbolic; it is a demonstration of organization, funding, and grassroots reach. More importantly, it forces the entire political conversation onto their terrain, putting local tax limits directly before voters and daring opponents to defend the status quo.

⬇️ LOSER: BETTY YEE, FORMER STATE CONTROLLER, FORMER GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE

When a campaign never gains traction, the ending is usually quiet, and that is exactly how this played out. Despite statewide name ID and years in office, there was no real polling movement, no fundraising surge, and no sense of momentum at any point. In a crowded Democratic field, that is fatal. Dropping out is the formal step, but in reality, the campaign had effectively ended long before the announcement. The race moved on without her, and voters never really engaged.

⬇️ LOSERS: PASADENA CITY COLLEGE TRUSTEES AND DR. JOSÉ A. GÓMEZ, SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT

Nothing says “academic priorities” like a bureaucracy built around a “Division of Equity,” only to spin up a job explicitly described as an “Undocumented Student Success Specialist.” Not subtle. Not even disguised. This is a taxpayer-funded institution creating a role expressly held by illegal aliens while layering it into an already bloated DEI structure. Instead of focusing on broad student outcomes, leadership is carving out niche positions that double as political messaging. If this is their definition of equity, voters are right to question whether education is still the primary mission. This overt left-wing agenda doesn’t serve the interests of students or a balanced education.

⬇️ LOSER: GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA

No one has been a more consistent feature in this column, and this week delivers a two-fer. First, the revelation that his political operation helped drive roughly $1.5 million in book purchases tied to a product he personally profits from raises obvious optics problems about self-dealing. Then comes the report that he has spent roughly one-fifth of the year outside California (to be clear, his OWN book), reinforcing the impression that his focus is on a national campaign rather than governing the state he was elected to run. It is a pattern, not a one-off.

⬇️ LOSER: KAREN BASS, MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES

While Los Angeles struggles with homelessness, public safety concerns, and basic city services, it is rolling out sweeping and costly climate initiatives and positioning itself on the global stage. A city that cannot even fund a full police department that is focused on full “electrification” of city buses… That disconnect is exactly what critics are seizing on. When leadership appears more focused on saving the planet than fixing the city in front of them, voters notice. At a time when core services remain strained and visible problems persist, the optics are not just bad; they reinforce a growing perception of misaligned priorities.

THE WORST WEEK IN CALIFORNIA POLITICS “AWARD” GOES TO…

Below is my weekly pithy video about the person in California politics who has had the worst week! And we also hit the “runner-up” as well. Want to see these every week? Upgrade today!

Subscribe now

Read more

Our morning content is free for all subscribers and guests! You can also listen to this post — along with my California Post column — on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It’s available on your favorite podcasting app. You can listen directly here.⏱️ 4 min read

That said, if you appreciate this kind of “calling balls and strikes” deep-dive analysis on California politics, why don’t you upgrade? It helps me to do more! It’s not much!

We usually have extra content on posts for our paid subscribers. Below this column, under the paywall, I have about a five-minute video “rant” on this topic. “Must see TV,” as they say.

Subscribe now

Political Reporters Have Found A New Toy

Political reporters have found a new toy. More and more of them are pointing to political betting markets as if they are campaign indicators. A candidate is “up” on Kalshi. A governor’s race is “moving” on Polymarket. A long shot is “surging” because the odds changed overnight.

It makes for a great screenshot. It gives everyone something to talk about. And it creates the illusion that we are seeing real-time campaign intelligence. But these markets are not polls, voter surveys, or campaign field reports. They are betting lines produced by a small, self-selected group of people willing to bet on political outcomes.

Treating those odds as evidence that a race is moving does not make anyone look sophisticated. It makes them look lazy. It is clickbait journalism dressed up as analysis.

These Are Markets, Not Voters

A poll, at least in theory, is designed to measure public opinion. It asks voters what they think. It uses a sample, methodology, weighting, and margins of error. You can argue about whether a poll is good or bad, but you can at least examine how it was conducted.

A betting market is not that. It tells you where money is moving among people who have chosen to participate. Those participants are self-selected. They are not a representative cross-section of the electorate, and there is no reason to assume they are even voters, or even Americans.

Depending on the platform and its rules, the people moving these markets could include political obsessives, professional traders, campaign operatives, major donors, foreign interests, or people with no connection to the election at all. It could be a California voter, a candidate, a wealthy financial backer, someone overseas, or the Chinese government. The odds do not tell you who is behind the money. They only tell you where the money moved.

The Motives Are Not Clear Either

The average voter in Fresno, Riverside, Modesto, Orange County, or San Diego is not sitting around moving money into political prediction markets to register a view about the governor’s race. That is not how normal people participate in politics. They vote. They talk to friends. They donate sometimes. They answer polls occasionally. They do not usually treat elections like financial contracts.

We also do not know the motives of the people who do participate. Some may be trying to make money. But in political races, profit may not be the only motive. Some may be wagering to skew the odds, knowing that outfits like Kalshi and Polymarket have every incentive to promote dramatic charts and sudden market shifts to attract media attention.

The Magic Phrase Is Information Aggregation

The defense of these markets usually comes wrapped in a nice-sounding phrase: they “aggregate information.” That sounds impressive. Almost scientific. But slow down. What information? From whom? Obtained how? Weighted by what? And with what motive?

Once you pull that phrase apart, it is a lot less impressive. These markets do not aggregate voter sentiment. They aggregate the behavior of bettors. Those bettors may be reacting to public polling, rumors, herd behavior, private conversations, guesses, hedges, or a desire to profit from volatility. Or they may be trying to move the market.

If reporters, pundits, campaigns, and social media influencers treat betting-market odds as campaign news, the odds themselves become a target. Move the odds, and you may generate a headline, a viral post, a donor email, or a narrative that your candidate is suddenly gaining steam.

A Market Can Be Moved

These markets are based on money. A large enough player, or a coordinated group of players, can affect the price. That is not speculation. That is how markets work. If enough money moves in one direction, the odds move.

Now ask who might have an incentive to move them. A candidate. A campaign consultant. A donor. A super PAC. A foreign actor. A wealthy partisan. A trader who wants to create momentum and then profit from the reaction. A campaign that wants a screenshot showing its candidate “surging.” Lots of people could have an incentive.

That does not mean every movement is manipulated. It does mean the movement itself should not be treated as neutral evidence of what voters are thinking. The bigger danger is that once journalists and political analysts treat these betting lines as campaign indicators, campaigns and their allies have a reason to game them.

Political Journalism Should Know Better

These platforms have every incentive to make their odds seem newsworthy. Of course, they post charts, hype changes, and push out social media content every time a candidate rises or falls. That is marketing.

The more reporters cite the odds, the more legitimacy the platforms gain. The more legitimacy they gain, the more traffic they get. The more traffic they get, the more money flows into the markets. When political reporters turn these odds into clickbait, they are not merely reporting. They are helping promote the product.

The graphics also look authoritative. A chart with percentages moving up and down feels empirical. It looks like data. It looks like insight. But a clean graphic can still be built on a dirty premise. Putting a clean chart on speculative trading by a nonrepresentative group of bettors does not turn it into a voter signal.

So, Does It Matter?

This is how fake indicators become real campaign narratives. Nobody should be shocked when candidates promote betting odds that make them look strong. Campaigns spin. That is what campaigns do. If a poll helps, they use it. If a fundraising number helps, they use it. If a betting market screenshot helps, they will use it too.

But reporters, analysts, pundits, and serious political observers should know better. If you believe these betting markets have no reliable bearing on what is actually happening with voters, then stop using them as if they do. Stop posting the odds as campaign movement. Stop turning betting lines into clickbait. Stop giving free advertising to platforms whose business model depends on making their odds look politically meaningful.

Stop laundering market prices into political analysis. And stop pretending that a number moved by gamblers, insiders, whales, partisans, and possible manipulators tells us where voters are headed. It does not. It tells us where the money moved. That is not democracy. That is speculation with a scoreboard.

Video Rant

Below the paywall, I have a short but energetic video on this whole issue. Enjoy!

Read more

Today’s Substack Live was a fast-moving rundown of last night’s California gubernatorial debate, the state of the 2026 race, and two major ballot measures that just moved toward the November ballot.

I started with the debate, which may have been important politically even if it was not especially dramatic. The field is still unsettled, voters are still tuning in, and the real question is whether anyone on that stage actually changed the trajectory of the race. I walked through the Republicans, the Democrats, the format, the missed opportunities, and the moments that mattered.

Then I turned to two ballot measures headed to voters: one that puts taxpayers on the offensive in a serious way, and another that could saddle California with billions more in debt while doing very little to fix the housing crisis.

We also got into the broader problem underneath all of this: Sacramento keeps creating problems, then asks voters for more money to “solve” the problems the government helped create.

Want To Watch A Particular Part?

00:00 — Welcome And Opening Setup
01:22 — Why The Governor’s Race Still Feels Unsettled
05:54 — First Takeaway From The Debate
07:13 — Why The Debate Format Fell Short
08:46 — The One Thing Top Two Got Right
11:22 — Hilton And Bianco On The Same Stage
17:03 — The Democratic Status Quo Problem
17:51 — The Gavin Newsom “Grade” Moment
19:45 — Xavier Becerra’s Debate Performance
20:46 — Katie Porter’s Missed Opportunity
22:01 — Tom Steyer’s Night
24:44 — Matt Mahan’s Challenge
27:32 — Steve Hilton’s Debate Strategy
28:12 — Chad Bianco’s Debate Lane
28:38 — What The Polling Shows Now
30:44 — Two Big Ballot Measures Move Forward
31:05 — Save Prop. 13 And The Taxpayer Fight
36:00 — The $25 Billion Housing Bond
38:43 — Why The Housing Plan Could Backfire
41:36 — The Bigger Debt Problem
44:20 — Wrap-Up

Listen To This On Your Favorite Podcasting App!

You can also listen to this post — along with my California Our morning content is free for all subscribers and guests! You can also listen to this post — along with my California Post column — on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It’s available on your favorite podcasting app. You can listen directly here.

Oh, here’s this episode of Substack Live on YouTube!

You can listen to this post on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It’s available on your favorite podcasting app, or you can find it here. Our afternoon content is typically for our paid subscribers. Certain columns, like this one, are made available to all of our readers.

⏱️ 4 min read

A Familiar Sacramento Scam

A massive housing bond has now qualified for the ballot, and California voters should be very wary of what is being sold here. The basic idea is simple: for certain Californians who want to buy a home, instead of coming up with the traditional 20 percent down payment themselves, almost all of that upfront equity would effectively be supplied for them through government-issued revenue bond funds. This is the same failed governing formula Californians have seen over and over again. Politicians create a problem through bad policy, refuse to fix it, and then come back asking voters to authorize billions of dollars for a brand-new government program that supposedly will clean up the mess.

That is exactly what is happening here. California has spent years making it harder, slower, and more expensive to build housing. Now, instead of fixing the policies that made housing scarce in the first place, Sacramento wants to borrow billions to subsidize homebuying for a select group of people. Delegates to the California Republican Party convention voted unanimously to oppose this measure, and they got it exactly right. This proposal is not a real housing fix. It is a $25 billion big-government gamble designed to paper over the consequences of California’s own failed housing policies.

Top 5 Reasons To Vote No

1. It does not fix the real problem

California’s housing crisis is not being driven by a lack of creative mortgage programs. It is being driven by a lack of housing supply. The state has piled on regulations, lawsuits, delays, fees, mandates, zoning restrictions, and ideological nonsense, making it incredibly difficult to build enough homes. This measure does not touch any of that. It leaves the actual disease in place and offers a taxpayer-backed painkiller.

2. It will pump more money into a broken market

When there are too few homes, giving more buyers more purchasing power does not make housing cheaper. It makes competition for scarce housing even more intense. That is basic economics. In a state where buyers already bid against each other for too few homes, injecting billions of dollars in subsidized buying power risks driving prices even higher. Sacramento is pretending to make housing affordable when it may simply make the next house more expensive.

3. It is a giant debt-funded government program

This is a $25 billion bond measure tied to a government-run intervention in the housing market. Sacramento has a terrible habit of acting like borrowed money is free money. It is not. Voters should be skeptical any time the people who helped create a crisis show up demanding authorization for billions more in debt to supposedly solve it.

4. It picks winners and losers

One of the ugliest parts of this proposal is that it puts the government in the position of deciding who gets special help buying a home and who does not. Some Californians will get subsidized access to capital. Others will not. Taxpayers will be expected to underwrite the program whether they benefit from it or not. That is not broad-based housing reform. That is a political allocation of advantage inside a broken system.

5. It gives politicians an excuse not to do the hard work

This may be the most important reason to oppose the measure. If voters approve this, Sacramento politicians will claim they “did something” on housing while continuing to duck the real reforms that would actually matter. Why confront the environmental litigation racket, the permitting bottlenecks, the anti-growth local rules, and the cost-driving mandates when you can just throw bond money at the problem and stage a press conference? A yes vote lets them keep avoiding accountability. A no vote forces the issue back where it belongs.

So, Does It Matter?

It does, because this is about more than just one housing measure. It is about whether Californians are going to keep rewarding a governing model that fails, then doubles down.

The people running this state helped create a housing market defined by scarcity, delay, cost, and frustration. Now they want voters to believe the answer is not less government distortion but a brand-new $25 billion government-backed workaround. That is not serious reform.

California does not need another giant housing bond. It needs to make it possible to build housing again. Until that happens, measures like this are not solutions. They are just expensive distractions.

Do Not Be Fooled By The “These Are A Different Kind Of Bonds” Argument

Do not be fooled by proponents trying to make this proposal sound acceptable just because it would be financed through a different kind of bond — “revenue bonds.” This is not risk-free financing. It is risk-shifting. The repayment risk is pushed down into the program itself, where it depends on payments from the participating homeowners and the value of the collateral behind those loans. If a homeowner stops paying, the state can try to collect and enforce its second mortgage — but before the state-created fund gets repaid, the bank holding the primary mortgage gets paid first. That means the government-backed piece is standing behind the main lender in the recovery order when things go bad, which can sharply limit recovery if the home is sold after default. Calling these “revenue bonds” does not make this proposal safe, harmless, or acceptable. It just means the risk has been repackaged, not removed.

A Bonus For Paid Subscribers

Below the paywall are three more amazing cartoons that you NEED to see.

If you aren’t a paid subscriber yet, please consider it! It’s a great way to support my work, and every week I get lots of great extra content!

Read more

So, Does It Matter? Live!

This is just a quick reminder. Jon be talking about the debate and more! Join us!

The Link

So here is the link. And yes, if you miss it, we’ll send it around afterward to watch, but it’s a lot more interesting to take it in as it’s actually happening!

I think this crazy Substack system will also ping you right as I go live with a very short blurb and link. That’s some sort of automatic thing.

⏱️ 5 min read

The Hole Keeps Getting Deeper

Washington has many bad habits, but one of the worst is pretending the national debt is somebody else’s problem.

Republicans talk about fiscal restraint until real spending discipline becomes politically inconvenient. Democrats talk about fairness and “investment” while treating trillion-dollar deficits like background noise. Both parties campaign as though arithmetic is negotiable. It is not.

That is why Jessica Riedl’s annual chart book matters. Riedl, a budget and tax fellow at the Brookings Institution, has built a reputation for doing something too few people in Washington are willing to do: laying out the fiscal truth plainly, directly, and with receipts. The 2026 edition, Spending, Taxes, and Deficits: A Book of Charts, is another year’s worth of truth-telling about a government that keeps borrowing, deferring, and pretending the bill will never come due.

The chart book’s own highlights tell the story fast enough. It points to annual budget deficits approaching $4.4 trillion within a decade, interest consuming 31% of revenues, and Social Security and Medicare shortfalls driving the long-term red ink. This is not a marginal warning. It is a direct challenge to the excuses both parties keep making.

Start with the most basic point. The chart on page 7 shows deficits under current policies climbing toward $4.364 trillion by 2036. That is not a normal number, and it should not be treated like one. But Washington has grown so comfortable with trillion-dollar deficits that even projections like this barely seem to disturb the people responsible for them.

This Is A Spending Problem

One of the most dishonest habits in budget politics is acting as though the federal government’s long-term problem is simply that taxpayers are not sending enough money to Washington. That is politically convenient, but it is not what the numbers show.

The chart on page 27 cuts right through the spin. It shows federal spending rising to 32.2% of GDP by 2056, while tax revenues also rise to 18% of GDP. In plain English, Washington is not suffering from a mysterious revenue collapse. It is committing itself to spending far beyond what even a growing stream of tax receipts can sustain.

That distinction matters because a bad diagnosis leads to bad policy. If this were mainly a revenue problem, politicians could plausibly promise that a handful of tax hikes would close the gap. But if the real problem is spending growth, then the usual slogans about taxing the rich, cutting a few unpopular programs, or chasing “waste” at the margins are not a solution. They are an evasion.

And that is where both parties keep hiding. Republicans would rather speak in vague generalities about restraint than level with voters about the scale of reform required. Democrats would rather imply that a politically satisfying tax agenda can finance promises that have grown far beyond historical norms. Neither side wants to fully admit how large the fiscal hole has become.

The Real Drivers Are Politically Untouchable

If you want to understand why Washington keeps drifting toward fiscal danger while pretending a few cosmetic cuts can fix it, the most important part of the chart book is where it identifies the actual drivers.

The chart on page 47 shows that the worsening deficit over that period is driven overwhelmingly by the growing cost of financing Social Security and Medicare shortfalls. That is the debate Washington hates most, because it forces elected officials to confront the parts of the budget they are most afraid to touch.

Of course, there is waste in government. Of course, there are dumb line items that deserve to be cut. But serious people should stop pretending that the long-term debt crisis lives in foreign aid, some consulting contract, or a few tiny programs politicians like to use as props. The core problem lies in the largest automatic spending commitments and the mounting interest costs from endless borrowing.

That is one reason Riedl works so hard to put out this chart book every year. This is not just another policy pamphlet. It is a running public record of the gap between what Washington says and what the numbers actually show. And year after year, that gap keeps getting wider.

So, Does It Matter?

What makes this chart book useful is that it strips away the excuses. It does not let Republicans hide behind anti-spending rhetoric while avoiding structural reform (to be fair, there are some GOPers who are deficit hawks, but not enough to matter, apparently). It does not let Democrats pretend that higher taxes on a politically convenient slice of earners will magically stabilize the debt. It leaves both parties exposed.

If Washington were serious, a chart book like this would be treated as a call to action. Instead, it is more likely to be treated as an inconvenience, because it refuses to flatter either party’s preferred myths. It shows the country drifting deeper into debt, deeper into interest costs, and deeper into a fiscal trap that gets harder to escape with every passing year.

Before I finish, I really do need to praise Jessica here. Until you actually go through the document, you cannot really appreciate its depth and thoroughness. While a sobering read, it is necessary.

If you are tired of budget spin, read it. If you want to understand why the debt keeps climbing no matter who wins elections, read it. If you want to see your Member of Congress squirm, bring them this booklet and ask them what they are doing about it. And watch them try to blame anyone and everyone except themselves.

Three Charts Above, Three More Below The Paywall

The three charts above show the scale of the deficit problem, the real spending driver behind it, and the politically protected programs making it worse. Below the paywall, curated for paid subscribers, I have included three more charts on interest costs, taxes, and the limits of Washington’s usual excuses.

And if this issue matters to you, spend time with the full chart book. It is worth it.

Read more

Tomorrow on So, Does It Matter? Live!:

(1) Tonight is the gubernatorial debate. Tomorrow, I will give you my unfiltered take on who won, who lost, who dodged, and what actually mattered.

(2) Two more ballot measures have qualified for the November ballot. One is a real win for taxpayers. The other is a giant big-government power grab. We will break down both.

Time permitting, we’ll cover some other topics and Q&A!

You can just watch or listen in. Or join the chat with your questions and comments.

Tomorrow at 1:00 p.m.!

The link should go live around 12:55.

The Link

I will send out a final reminder tomorrow morning, but here is the link. And yes, if you miss it, we’ll send it around afterward to watch, but it’s a lot more interesting to take it in as it’s actually happening!

Tonight Is Debate Night

Tonight’s gubernatorial debate may be the first real chance for this race to break out of its sleepy, unsettled pattern. In the video above, I walk through what each major candidate needs to do to have a successful night, where the pressure points are, and which campaigns have the most at stake. If you are watching the debate, this will tell you what to look for. If you are too busy to watch, this will give you the broad outline of why it matters.

Brief points are below, but you want to hear me go through each candidate and what they need to do tonight…

• The race still feels oddly flat, with no candidate yet fully breaking through.

• Several candidates come into tonight needing very different things: some need to look steady, some need to break out, and some simply need to prove they belong on the stage.

• The two Republicans face different tests, while the Democrats are under pressure to distance themselves from one another and from Gavin Newsom’s record.

• Matt Mahan remains the most interesting wild card because he is trying to run in a different lane without fully leaving the state's dominant political framework.

• For some lower-visibility candidates, not even making the stage may be as telling as anything that happens during the debate itself.

Takeaway…

My basic view is simple: this debate is not just about who lands the best line. It is about who can give voters a reason to see this race differently tomorrow than they did yesterday. In the video, I break down the candidate-by-candidate stakes and explain what I will be watching for as the night unfolds.

Timestamped List

0:07 — The core question shaping tonight’s debate.
0:23 — Why this governor’s race has felt so strange and flat.
1:13 — The big-picture problem facing the field.
2:01 — Which candidates need steadiness, which need contrast, and which need a breakout.
5:49 — Why missing the debate stage matters.
6:16 — My bottom-line take on what is really at stake tonight.

Just go to any computer search engine to find out where to find this debate online, on your local TV station, etc.

You can listen to this post on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It’s available on your favorite podcasting app, or you can find it here. Our afternoon content is typically for our paid subscribers. Certain columns, like this one, are made available to all of our readers.

⏱️ 4 min read

A Major Tax Fight Heads To The Ballot

The Save Prop. 13 measure, formally known as the Local Taxpayer Protection Act, is now officially eligible for the November 2026 statewide ballot. It sets up what may prove to be one of the most consequential taxpayer battles in California in years.

The Upland Loophole And The Fight Over Voter Control

At its core, the measure restores the two-thirds vote requirement for local special taxes and closes legal loopholes that have made it easier for governments and their allies to raise taxes.

“This is a major milestone for taxpayers across California,” said Rob Lapsley, President of the California Business Roundtable. “Special interest groups have exploited the court-created Upland loophole to pass new and higher special taxes that have driven costs higher for residents and harmed small and local businesses throughout the state.”

The so-called Upland loophole is not a technical curiosity. It is the mechanism by which local governments have pushed through higher taxes while sidestepping the voter approval thresholds Californians believed were secured under Proposition 13 and Proposition 218.

This measure would close that loophole.

A Major Target Is The Explosion Of Transfer Taxes

There is, however, a second front in this fight, and it may prove even more consequential.

The measure places strict limits on real estate transfer taxes, effectively blocking new “mansion tax” policies such as Los Angeles’ Measure ULA and forcing existing high-rate versions to be scaled back.

This is not incidental. It is central.

The initiative is aimed squarely at a rapidly expanding category of local tax increases that has begun to spread beyond Los Angeles.

“This measure reinforces the intent of Proposition 13 and Proposition 218 by ensuring that government cannot sidestep voter approval thresholds through legal loopholes,” said Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “It’s about restoring the integrity of taxpayer protections that Californians have repeatedly supported at the ballot box.”

Measure ULA provides the clearest example of what is at stake.

It has distorted housing markets, discouraged investment, and introduced new uncertainty, all while being promoted as a solution to affordability.

“Uncertainty and lack of transparency in local tax policy make it harder to invest, grow, and create jobs in California,” said Matthew Hargrove, President of the California Business Properties Association. “Measure ULA is a perfect example of what happens when special interests exploit court-created loopholes and drive taxes higher, pushing critically needed investments out of a community.”

What Happens Next And Why This Fight Matters

If enacted, the measure would have effects well beyond Los Angeles.

It would reshape how local governments pursue new taxes across California by tightening voter approval requirements and limiting one of the most aggressive revenue tools to emerge in recent years.

“This measure is about protecting taxpayers and restoring the rights they have given themselves through the ballot process,” said Rob Gutierrez, President of the California Taxpayers Association. “Now, more than ever, Californians deserve full transparency and a clear voice when it comes to taxes that impact their cost of living.”

The campaign now begins in earnest.

Supporters will argue that the measure restores voter control and prevents backdoor tax increases. Opponents will contend that it will make it more difficult to fund local services.

The underlying question, however, is straightforward: Should it be easier for governments to raise taxes, or harder?

So, Does It Matter?

If voters approve this measure, it closes off key pathways local governments have used to increase taxes without meeting traditional thresholds. It also curbs the spread of aggressive transfer taxes like Measure ULA and makes them far more difficult to replicate.

If voters reject it, those same pathways remain wide open, and expect more cities to follow Los Angeles’ lead.

So the question is not complicated. Do Californians want to make it harder to raise taxes, or easier?

And we already know the answer to that question in the state with the highest tax burden in the country.

Don’t Care About Baseball? You Can Just Skip This Read!

About once a month or so I write a column for the California Post on my other favorite past-time (besides politics) - Major League Baseball. If you like this topic, I hope you enjoy reading this. If it’s not your thing, it’s just one thing to delete each month! - Jon

A Record Price Does Not Guarantee A Winning Blueprint

Big sale prices get headlines.

But in baseball, the real question is what happens after the deal closes.

The Padres may be about to fetch a record $3.9 billion sale price. That is enough to invite obvious comparisons to the Dodgers. But paying near-Dodgers money does not mean you get the Dodgers model. It does not even mean you get Dodgers results.

You might get something much messier.

From Massive Check To Major Risk

The Dodgers did not become baseball’s gold standard just because a rich ownership group bought the franchise.

They became the Dodgers because that ownership group paired money with discipline, judgment, and the right baseball people. Mark Walter, Stan Kasten, Andrew Friedman, Brandon Gomes, and Dave Roberts helped build an operation that expects to contend every year.

That is not just wealth.

That is competent ownership.

Why Padres Fans Should Be Cautious

José Feliciano is expected to become the Padres’ controlling owner. That makes his track record matter.

And that is where this gets uncomfortable.

In my latest California Post column, I explain why this looming Padres sale is not just about valuation. It is about whether San Diego is getting a true championship blueprint — or a high-priced ownership gamble that could look a lot more like the Mets, or even Chelsea, than the Dodgers.

Read the full column here.