AB 120 - An Act to Amend Sections 809, 809.2, and 809.3 Of, and to Add Sections 809.04, 809.07, and 809.08 To, the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Healing Arts.

Healing arts: peer review. 2009-2010 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
Existing law provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as defined.

This bill would encourage a peer review body to obtain external peer review, as defined, for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilegeholder, or member of the medical staff in specified circumstances.More
Existing law provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as defined.

This bill would encourage a peer review body to obtain external peer review, as defined, for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilegeholder, or member of the medical staff in specified circumstances.

This bill would require a peer review body to respond to the request of another peer review body and produce the records reasonably requested concerning a licentiate under review, as specified. The bill would specify that the records produced pursuant to this provision are not subject to discovery, as specified, and may only be used for peer review purposes.

Existing law requires the governing body of acute care hospitals to give great weight to the actions of peer review bodies and authorizes the governing body to direct the peer review body to investigate in specified instances. Where the peer review body fails to take action in response to that direction, existing law authorizes the governing body to take action against a licentiate.

This bill would prohibit a member of a medical or professional staff from being required to alter or surrender staff privileges, status, or membership solely due to the termination of a contract between that member and a health care facility, except as specified. The bill would specify that a peer review body is entitled to review and make timely recommendations to the governing body of a health care facility, and its designee, if applicable, regarding quality considerations relating to clinical services when the selection, performance evaluation, or any change in the retention or replacement of licensees with whom the facility has a contract occurs. The bill would require the governing body to give great weight to those recommendations.

Existing law provides various due process rights for licentiates who are the subject of a final proposed disciplinary action of a peer review body, including authorizing a licensee to request a hearing concerning that action. Under existing law, the hearing must be held before either an arbitrator selected by a process mutually acceptable to the licensee and the peer review body or a panel of unbiased individuals, as specified. Existing law prohibits a hearing officer presiding at a hearing held before a panel from, among other things, gaining direct financial benefit from the outcome.

This bill would additionally require the hearing officer to be an attorney licensed in California, except as specified, and to disclose all actual and potential conflicts of interest, as specified. The bill would specify that the hearing officer is entitled to determine the procedure for presenting evidence and argument and would give the hearing officer authority to make all rulings pertaining to law, procedure, or the admissibility of evidence. The bill would authorize the hearing officer to recommend termination of the hearing in certain circumstances.

Existing law gives parties at the hearing certain rights, including the right to present and rebut evidence. Existing law requires the peer review body to adopt written provisions governing whether a licensee may be represented by an attorney and prohibits a peer review body from being represented by an attorney where a licensee is not so represented, except as specified.

This bill would give both parties the right to be represented by an attorney but would prohibit a peer review body from being represented if the licensee notifies the peer review body within a specified period of time that he or she has elected to not be represented, except as specified.

The bill would also provide that it shall become operative only if SB 820 is also enacted and becomes operative. Hide
 
Status:
This bill was passed by both houses and vetoed by the Governor. It did not become law
Assembly Vote: On Passage

PASSED on September 11, 2009.

voted YES: 78 voted NO: 0
1 voted present/not voting

An Act to Amend Sections 809, 809.2, and 809.3 Of, and to Add Sections 809.04, 809.07, and 809.08 To, the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Healing Arts.

AB 120 — 2009-2010 Legislature

Summary
Existing law provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as defined.

This bill would encourage a peer review body to obtain external peer review, as defined, for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilegeholder, or member of the medical staff in specified circumstances.

This bill would require a peer review body to respond to the request of another peer review body and produce the records reasonably requested concerning a licentiate under review, as specified. The bill would specify that the records produced pursuant to this provision are not subject to discovery, as specified, and may only be used for peer review purposes.

Existing law requires the governing body of acute care hospitals to give great weight to the actions of peer review bodies and authorizes the governing body to direct the peer review body to investigate in specified instances. Where the peer review body fails to take action in response to that direction, existing law authorizes the governing body to take action against a licentiate.

This bill would prohibit a… More
Existing law provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as defined.

This bill would encourage a peer review body to obtain external peer review, as defined, for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilegeholder, or member of the medical staff in specified circumstances.

This bill would require a peer review body to respond to the request of another peer review body and produce the records reasonably requested concerning a licentiate under review, as specified. The bill would specify that the records produced pursuant to this provision are not subject to discovery, as specified, and may only be used for peer review purposes.

Existing law requires the governing body of acute care hospitals to give great weight to the actions of peer review bodies and authorizes the governing body to direct the peer review body to investigate in specified instances. Where the peer review body fails to take action in response to that direction, existing law authorizes the governing body to take action against a licentiate.

This bill would prohibit a member of a medical or professional staff from being required to alter or surrender staff privileges, status, or membership solely due to the termination of a contract between that member and a health care facility, except as specified. The bill would specify that a peer review body is entitled to review and make timely recommendations to the governing body of a health care facility, and its designee, if applicable, regarding quality considerations relating to clinical services when the selection, performance evaluation, or any change in the retention or replacement of licensees with whom the facility has a contract occurs. The bill would require the governing body to give great weight to those recommendations.

Existing law provides various due process rights for licentiates who are the subject of a final proposed disciplinary action of a peer review body, including authorizing a licensee to request a hearing concerning that action. Under existing law, the hearing must be held before either an arbitrator selected by a process mutually acceptable to the licensee and the peer review body or a panel of unbiased individuals, as specified. Existing law prohibits a hearing officer presiding at a hearing held before a panel from, among other things, gaining direct financial benefit from the outcome.

This bill would additionally require the hearing officer to be an attorney licensed in California, except as specified, and to disclose all actual and potential conflicts of interest, as specified. The bill would specify that the hearing officer is entitled to determine the procedure for presenting evidence and argument and would give the hearing officer authority to make all rulings pertaining to law, procedure, or the admissibility of evidence. The bill would authorize the hearing officer to recommend termination of the hearing in certain circumstances.

Existing law gives parties at the hearing certain rights, including the right to present and rebut evidence. Existing law requires the peer review body to adopt written provisions governing whether a licensee may be represented by an attorney and prohibits a peer review body from being represented by an attorney where a licensee is not so represented, except as specified.

This bill would give both parties the right to be represented by an attorney but would prohibit a peer review body from being represented if the licensee notifies the peer review body within a specified period of time that he or she has elected to not be represented, except as specified.

The bill would also provide that it shall become operative only if SB 820 is also enacted and becomes operative. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Sections 809, 809.2, and 809.3 Of, and to Add Sections 809.04, 809.07, and 809.08 To, the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Healing Arts.
Author(s)
Mary Hayashi
Co-Authors
Subjects
  • Healing arts: peer review
Major Actions
Introduced1/15/2009
Referred to Committee
Passed Assembly Committee on Business, Professions and Consumer Protection5/12/2009
Passed Assembly6/03/2009
Passed Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development7/06/2009
Passed Senate8/17/2009
Passed Assembly9/11/2009
Presented to the governor (enrolled)9/28/2009
Vetoed by Governor10/11/2009
Vetoed by Governor10/11/2009
Bill History
Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
select this voteAssembly Committee on Business, Professions and Consumer ProtectionDo pass as amended.5/12/2009This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Business, Professions and Consumer Protection
11 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssemblyAB 120 HAYASHI Assembly Third Reading6/03/2009This bill PASSED the Assembly
78 voted YES 0 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic DevelopmentDo pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Rules.7/06/2009This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development
9 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenateSpecial Consent #14 AB120 Hayashi By Aanestad8/17/2009This bill PASSED the Senate
35 voted YES 0 voted NO 5 voted present/not voting
currently selectedAssemblyAB 120 HAYASHI Concurrence in Senate Amendments9/11/2009This bill PASSED the Assembly
78 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
ActionDateDescription
Introduced1/15/2009
1/15/2009Read first time. To print.
1/16/2009From printer. May be heard in committee February 15.
3/26/2009Referred to Coms. on B. & P. and JUD. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & P. Read second time and amended.
3/27/2009Re-referred to Com. on B. & P.
4/13/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & P. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on B. & P.
4/14/2009In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
5/07/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & P. Read second time and amended.
5/11/2009Re-referred to Com. on B. & P.
select this voteVote5/12/2009Do pass as amended.
5/14/2009From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (May 12).
5/18/2009Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
5/19/2009Read second time. To third reading.
6/01/2009Read third time, amended, and returned to third reading. (Page 1819.).
6/03/2009Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 2018.)
select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage6/03/2009AB 120 HAYASHI Assembly Third Reading
6/04/2009In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
6/18/2009Referred to Coms. on B., P. & E.D. and RLS.
6/22/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.
6/29/2009In committee: Testimony taken. Hearing postponed by committee. In committee: Further hearing to be set.
select this voteVote7/06/2009Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Rules.
7/07/2009From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 6).
7/08/2009Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.
7/13/2009Withdrawn from committee. Ordered placed on second reading file.
7/14/2009Read second time. To third reading.
7/15/2009Ordered to Special Consent Calendar.
8/17/2009Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 35. Noes 0. Page 1842.)
8/17/2009In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 19 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
select this voteSenate Vote on Passage8/17/2009Special Consent #14 AB120 Hayashi By Aanestad
8/20/2009To inactive file on motion of Assembly Member Hayashi.
9/09/2009From inactive file. To unfinished business file.
9/11/2009Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 3357.)
currently selectedAssembly Vote on Passage9/11/2009AB 120 HAYASHI Concurrence in Senate Amendments
9/28/2009Enrolled and to the Governor at 11:30 a.m.
Vetoed10/11/2009Vetoed by Governor.
10/26/2009Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
1/14/2010Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.

Total contributions given to Assemblymembers within 30 days of the vote "AB 120 HAYASHI Concurrence in Senate Amendments" from interest groups that…

supported this bill

Physicians
HMOs

opposed this bill

Date Range of Contributions
Within days of the vote "AB 120 HAYASHI Concurrence in Senate Amendments"
ContributorInterest groupAmountDatesort iconAssembly memberPartyDistrictVote
California Medical AssociationPhysicians$4,3008/14/09Curt HagmanRCA-60Yes
Miller, KenPhysicians$1008/16/09Wesley ChesbroDCA-1Yes
Health Net IncHMOs$1,0008/19/09Bill BerryhillRCA-26Yes
Mohlenbrock, William CPhysicians$1008/19/09Martin GarrickRCA-74Yes
California Medical AssociationPhysicians$1,0008/21/09Martin GarrickRCA-74Yes
California Association of Health PlansHMOs$2,0008/24/09John PerezDCA-46Yes
California Association of Health PlansHMOs$9008/29/09Ted GainesRCA-4Yes
Pao, BingPhysicians$1008/31/09Nathan FletcherRCA-75Yes
California Association of Health PlansHMOs$1,0009/1/09Jose SolorioDCA-69Not Voting
Potts, CharlesHMOs$509/2/09Dave JonesDCA-9Yes
California Medical AssociationPhysicians$1,0009/9/09Wesley ChesbroDCA-1Yes
Mizroch, StephenHMOs$1009/9/09Jared HuffmanDCA-6Yes
California Medical AssociationPhysicians$1,0009/10/09Jim SilvaRCA-67Yes
Los Angeles County Medical AssociationPhysicians$1,0009/12/09Ed HernandezDCA-57Yes
Grandbois, Carol aHMOs$1259/13/09Tom TorlaksonDCA-11Yes
California Association of Health PlansHMOs$9009/15/09Nathan FletcherRCA-75Yes
California Association of Health PlansHMOs$1,0009/16/09Alberto TorricoDCA-20Yes
Health Net IncHMOs$2,0009/16/09John PerezDCA-46Yes
Health Net IncHMOs$1,0009/16/09Jose SolorioDCA-69Not Voting
Zachary, James HHMOs$2509/16/09Hector De La TorreDCA-50Yes
Coursey, DonaldPhysicians$1009/17/09Wesley ChesbroDCA-1Yes
Yamaguchi, KentPhysicians$1009/17/09Mariko YamadaDCA-8Yes
Chan, Dennis YPhysicians$1,5009/18/09Mike EngDCA-49Yes
Health Net IncHMOs$1,0009/18/09Diane HarkeyRCA-73Yes
Paler, RonaldPhysicians$1009/18/09Anthony PortantinoDCA-44Yes
Health Net IncHMOs$1,5009/21/09Curt HagmanRCA-60Yes
Macnaughton, LorraineHMOs$1009/21/09Pedro NavaDCA-35Yes
Tichenor, Carol JoHMOs$1009/21/09Pedro NavaDCA-35Yes
Lunny, PeterPhysicians$1009/22/09Manuel PerezDCA-80Yes
Garcia, JaimeHMOs$2509/28/09Hector De La TorreDCA-50Yes
California Medical AssociationPhysicians$1,0009/30/09Jeff MillerRCA-71Yes
Kirz, PaulPhysicians$1009/30/09Felipe FuentesDCA-39Yes
Los Angeles County Medical AssociationPhysicians$3,9009/30/09Felipe FuentesDCA-39Yes
California Medical AssociationPhysicians$5,80010/5/09Felipe FuentesDCA-39Yes
Chibras, JosePhysicians$10010/5/09Bill MonningDCA-27Yes
Scillian, JamesHMOs$15010/5/09Bill BerryhillRCA-26Yes
Chiu, PeterHMOs$15010/8/09Paul FongDCA-22Yes
Berman, RonaldPhysicians$10010/11/09Nancy SkinnerDCA-14Yes
Sullivan, RobertPhysicians$10010/11/09Tom AmmianoDCA-13Yes
2 Organizations Supported and 0 Opposed; See Which Ones

Organizations that took a position on
An Act to Amend Sections 809, 809.2, and 809.3 Of, and to Add Sections 809.04, 809.07, and 809.08 To, the Business and Professions Code, Relating to Healing Arts.: AB 120 HAYASHI Concurrence in Senate Amendments

2 organizations supported this bill

California Medical Association
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE (2009, July 14). AB 120 7.14.2009. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from Leg Info.
Kaiser Permanente
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE (2009, July 14). AB 120 7.14.2009. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from Leg Info.

0 organizations opposed this bill

Need proof?

View citations of support and opposition

Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Assemblymembers in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, August 12, 2009 – October 11, 2009.
Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

Contributions by Legislator

Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Anthony AdamsRCA-59$0$0Yes
Tom AmmianoDCA-13$100$0Yes
Joel AndersonRCA-77$0$0Yes
Juan ArambulaICA-31$0$0Yes
Karen BassDCA-47$0$0Yes
Jim BeallDCA-24$0$0Yes
Bill BerryhillRCA-26$1,150$0Yes
Tom BerryhillRCA-25$0$0Yes
Sam BlakesleeRCA-33$0$0Yes
Marty BlockDCA-78$0$0Yes
Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$0$0Yes
Steven BradfordDCA-51$0$0Yes
Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$0Yes
Joan BuchananDCA-15$0$0Yes
Anna CaballeroDCA-28$0$0Yes
Charles CalderonDCA-58$0$0Yes
Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$0$0Yes
Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$1,200$0Yes
Connie ConwayRCA-34$0$0Yes
Paul CookRCA-65$0$0Yes
Joe CotoDCA-23$0$0Yes
Mike DavisDCA-48$0$0Yes
Hector De La TorreDCA-50$500$0Yes
Kevin De LeonDCA-45$0$0Yes
Chuck DeVoreRCA-70$0$0Yes
Bill EmmersonRCA-63$0$0Yes
Mike EngDCA-49$5,660$0Yes
Noreen EvansDCA-7$0$0Yes
Mike FeuerDCA-42$0$0Yes
Nathan FletcherRCA-75$100$0Yes
Paul FongDCA-22$150$0Yes
Felipe FuentesDCA-39$9,800$0Yes
Jean FullerRCA-32$0$0Yes
Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$0Yes
Ted GainesRCA-4$0$0Yes
Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$0$0Yes
Martin GarrickRCA-74$1,100$0Yes
Danny GilmoreRCA-30$0$0Yes
Curt HagmanRCA-60$5,800$0Yes
Isadore HallDCA-52$0$0Yes
Diane HarkeyRCA-73$1,075$0Yes
Mary HayashiDCA-18$0$0Yes
Ed HernandezDCA-57$1,000$0Yes
Jerry HillDCA-19$0$0Yes
Alyson HuberDCA-10$0$0Yes
Jared HuffmanDCA-6$100$0Yes
Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$0$0Yes
Dave JonesDCA-9$50$0Yes
Steve KnightRCA-36$0$0Yes
Paul KrekorianDCA-43$0$0Yes
Ted LieuDCA-53$0$0Yes
Dan LogueRCA-3$0$0Yes
Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$0$0Yes
Fiona MaDCA-12$0$0Yes
Tony MendozaDCA-56$0$0Yes
Jeff MillerRCA-71$1,000$0Yes
Bill MonningDCA-27$100$0Yes
Pedro NavaDCA-35$200$0Yes
Brian NestandeRCA-64$0$0Yes
Roger NielloRCA-5$0$0Yes
Jim NielsenRCA-2$0$0Yes
John PerezDCA-46$2,000$0Yes
Manuel PerezDCA-80$100$0Yes
Anthony PortantinoDCA-44$100$0Yes
Ira RuskinDCA-21$0$0Yes
Mary SalasDCA-79$0$0Yes
Lori SaldanaDCA-76$0$0Yes
Jim SilvaRCA-67$1,000$0Yes
Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$100$0Yes
Cameron SmythRCA-38$0$0Yes
Jose SolorioDCA-69$1,000$0Not Voting
Audra StricklandRCA-37$0$0Yes
Sandre SwansonDCA-16$0$0Yes
Tom TorlaksonDCA-11$125$0Yes
Norma TorresDCA-61$0$0Yes
Alberto TorricoDCA-20$0$0Yes
Van TranRCA-68$0$0Yes
Mike VillinesRCA-29$0$0Yes
Mariko YamadaDCA-8$100$0Yes

Add Data Filters:

Legislator Filters
Legislator Filters
Show All
NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Anthony AdamsRCA-59$0$0Yes
Tom AmmianoDCA-13$100$0Yes
Joel AndersonRCA-77$0$0Yes
Juan ArambulaICA-31$0$0Yes
Karen BassDCA-47$0$0Yes
Jim BeallDCA-24$0$0Yes
Bill BerryhillRCA-26$1,150$0Yes
Tom BerryhillRCA-25$0$0Yes
Sam BlakesleeRCA-33$0$0Yes
Marty BlockDCA-78$0$0Yes
Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$0$0Yes
Steven BradfordDCA-51$0$0Yes
Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$0Yes
Joan BuchananDCA-15$0$0Yes
Anna CaballeroDCA-28$0$0Yes
Charles CalderonDCA-58$0$0Yes
Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$0$0Yes
Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$1,200$0Yes
Connie ConwayRCA-34$0$0Yes
Paul CookRCA-65$0$0Yes
Joe CotoDCA-23$0$0Yes
Mike DavisDCA-48$0$0Yes
Hector De La TorreDCA-50$500$0Yes
Kevin De LeonDCA-45$0$0Yes
Chuck DeVoreRCA-70$0$0Yes
Bill EmmersonRCA-63$0$0Yes
Mike EngDCA-49$5,660$0Yes
Noreen EvansDCA-7$0$0Yes
Mike FeuerDCA-42$0$0Yes
Nathan FletcherRCA-75$100$0Yes
Paul FongDCA-22$150$0Yes
Felipe FuentesDCA-39$9,800$0Yes
Jean FullerRCA-32$0$0Yes
Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$0Yes
Ted GainesRCA-4$0$0Yes
Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$0$0Yes
Martin GarrickRCA-74$1,100$0Yes
Danny GilmoreRCA-30$0$0Yes
Curt HagmanRCA-60$5,800$0Yes
Isadore HallDCA-52$0$0Yes
Diane HarkeyRCA-73$1,075$0Yes
Mary HayashiDCA-18$0$0Yes
Ed HernandezDCA-57$1,000$0Yes
Jerry HillDCA-19$0$0Yes
Alyson HuberDCA-10$0$0Yes
Jared HuffmanDCA-6$100$0Yes
Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$0$0Yes
Dave JonesDCA-9$50$0Yes
Steve KnightRCA-36$0$0Yes
Paul KrekorianDCA-43$0$0Yes
Ted LieuDCA-53$0$0Yes
Dan LogueRCA-3$0$0Yes
Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$0$0Yes
Fiona MaDCA-12$0$0Yes
Tony MendozaDCA-56$0$0Yes
Jeff MillerRCA-71$1,000$0Yes
Bill MonningDCA-27$100$0Yes
Pedro NavaDCA-35$200$0Yes
Brian NestandeRCA-64$0$0Yes
Roger NielloRCA-5$0$0Yes
Jim NielsenRCA-2$0$0Yes
John PerezDCA-46$2,000$0Yes
Manuel PerezDCA-80$100$0Yes
Anthony PortantinoDCA-44$100$0Yes
Ira RuskinDCA-21$0$0Yes
Mary SalasDCA-79$0$0Yes
Lori SaldanaDCA-76$0$0Yes
Jim SilvaRCA-67$1,000$0Yes
Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$100$0Yes
Cameron SmythRCA-38$0$0Yes
Jose SolorioDCA-69$1,000$0Not Voting
Audra StricklandRCA-37$0$0Yes
Sandre SwansonDCA-16$0$0Yes
Tom TorlaksonDCA-11$125$0Yes
Norma TorresDCA-61$0$0Yes
Alberto TorricoDCA-20$0$0Yes
Van TranRCA-68$0$0Yes
Mike VillinesRCA-29$0$0Yes
Mariko YamadaDCA-8$100$0Yes

Interest Groups that supported this bill

$ Donated
Physicians$25,835
HMOs$7,775

Interest Groups that opposed this bill

$ Donated
Loading…
Date Range of Contributions
Enter a custom date range