AB 377 - An Act to Amend Sections 23001, 23027, and 23035 Of, and to Add Sections 23005.5, 23010.5, 23016.5, and 23036.5 To, the Financial Code, Relating to Deferred Deposit Transactions.

Deferred deposit transactions. 2009-2010 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
Existing law, the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, provides for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Corporations of persons engaged in the business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from making false, misleading, or deceptive advertisements regarding its business of making or negotiating deferred deposit… More
Existing law, the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, provides for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Corporations of persons engaged in the business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from making false, misleading, or deceptive advertisements regarding its business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from placing an advertisement disseminated primarily in this state for a deferred deposit transaction unless the licensee discloses that it is licensed by the Department of Corporations. Existing law authorizes the commissioner to require a licensee to maintain a file of its advertisements for a period of 90 days. Existing law provides that a customer who enters into a deferred deposit transaction shall not be subject to criminal penalties for failure to comply with the terms of a deferred deposit transaction agreement. Existing law authorizes a licensee to defer the deposit of a customer’s personal check for up to 31 days and provides that the face amount of the check shall not exceed $300. Existing law requires an agreement to enter into a deferred deposit transaction to be in writing and to include specified information and disclosures. Existing law authorizes a licensee to allow an extension of time, or a payment plan, for repayment of an existing deferred deposit transaction, as specified. A willful violation of the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law is a crime.

This bill would require specified applicants for licensure under the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, including, but not limited to, corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships, to include in their applications fingerprints and a completed statement of identity and questionnaire, as specified, for certain individuals, and other information, as specified. The bill would require a licensee to notify the department in writing of changes to the individuals named in the licensee’s original application for licensure or if the licensee or any of those individuals has been found to have violated the laws of another state relative to deferred deposit transactions. The bill would also require a licensee to notify the department in writing when offering a new product or service that will generate more than 5% of the revenues of an office. The bill would make advertisements on the Internet by a licensee subject to the provisions regulating deferred deposit transaction advertisements and would require a licensee to maintain a file of all advertising copy currently in use for a period of 2 years from the date of itsfinal use. The bill would authorize the face amount of a check for a deferred deposit transaction to be up to $500. The bill would prohibit a deferred deposit transaction customer from being threatened with criminal penalties for a failure to comply with the terms of an agreement and would prohibit a licensee from referring or delivering a check taken in a deferred deposit transaction to a prosecutor, district attorney’s diversion program, or other law enforcement official for purposes of collection or criminal prosecution unless that information is requested as part of an investigation. The bill would require a specified notice that is separate and distinct from the deferred deposit transaction agreement to be provided to and initialed by a customer before entering into the agreement. The bill would require the notice to inform the customer that he or she may rescind a deferred deposit transaction at no cost by notifying the licensee and returning the proceeds of the transaction within a specified time period. The bill would also require a licensee to make reasonable and accessible provisions for a customer to notify the licensee of his or her intent to rescind the transaction and return the loan proceeds and would require these provisions to be included with this notice. The bill would require that, if the deferred deposit transaction is conducted over the Internet, the customer shall agree in the written agreement to conduct the transaction and to receive notices and the agreement electronically. The bill would also require a licensee, when conducting deferred deposit transactions over the Internet, to make notices and the agreement available to a customer in a format that may be downloaded and printed or, if the customer is unable to download that information, to mail the documents to the customer within 24 hours of the transaction. The bill would require a licensee to annually pay a fee to the commissioner of 5 cents for each deferred deposit transaction paid in full in the previous calendar year and would require the money from these fees to be used by the commissioner to provide financial literacy education programs relative to deferred deposit transactions. The bill would authorize a customer who is unable to repay a deferred deposit transaction to elect, once in any 12-month period, to repay the deferred deposit transaction to the licensee pursuant to an extended payment plan, as specified. The bill would require a customer to be notified of his or her right to an extended payment plan. Because a willful violation of the bill’s provisions by a licensee would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide
 
Status:
The bill was voted on by a Senate committee on June 17, 2009. 
Assembly Vote: On Passage

PASSED on May 11, 2009.

voted YES: 53 voted NO: 8
19 voted present/not voting

Other Votes:

An Act to Amend Sections 23001, 23027, and 23035 Of, and to Add Sections 23005.5, 23010.5, 23016.5, and 23036.5 To, the Financial Code, Relating to Deferred Deposit Transactions.

AB 377 — 2009-2010 Legislature

Summary
Existing law, the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, provides for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Corporations of persons engaged in the business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from making false, misleading, or deceptive advertisements regarding its business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from placing an advertisement disseminated primarily in this state for a deferred deposit transaction unless the licensee discloses that it is licensed by the Department of Corporations. Existing law authorizes the commissioner to require a licensee to maintain a file of its advertisements for a period of 90 days. Existing law provides that a customer who enters into a deferred deposit transaction shall not be subject to criminal penalties for failure to comply with the terms of a deferred deposit transaction agreement. Existing law authorizes a licensee to defer the deposit of a customer’s personal check for up to 31 days and provides that the face amount of the check shall not exceed $300. Existing law requires an agreement to enter into a… More
Existing law, the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, provides for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Corporations of persons engaged in the business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from making false, misleading, or deceptive advertisements regarding its business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from placing an advertisement disseminated primarily in this state for a deferred deposit transaction unless the licensee discloses that it is licensed by the Department of Corporations. Existing law authorizes the commissioner to require a licensee to maintain a file of its advertisements for a period of 90 days. Existing law provides that a customer who enters into a deferred deposit transaction shall not be subject to criminal penalties for failure to comply with the terms of a deferred deposit transaction agreement. Existing law authorizes a licensee to defer the deposit of a customer’s personal check for up to 31 days and provides that the face amount of the check shall not exceed $300. Existing law requires an agreement to enter into a deferred deposit transaction to be in writing and to include specified information and disclosures. Existing law authorizes a licensee to allow an extension of time, or a payment plan, for repayment of an existing deferred deposit transaction, as specified. A willful violation of the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law is a crime.

This bill would require specified applicants for licensure under the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, including, but not limited to, corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships, to include in their applications fingerprints and a completed statement of identity and questionnaire, as specified, for certain individuals, and other information, as specified. The bill would require a licensee to notify the department in writing of changes to the individuals named in the licensee’s original application for licensure or if the licensee or any of those individuals has been found to have violated the laws of another state relative to deferred deposit transactions. The bill would also require a licensee to notify the department in writing when offering a new product or service that will generate more than 5% of the revenues of an office. The bill would make advertisements on the Internet by a licensee subject to the provisions regulating deferred deposit transaction advertisements and would require a licensee to maintain a file of all advertising copy currently in use for a period of 2 years from the date of itsfinal use. The bill would authorize the face amount of a check for a deferred deposit transaction to be up to $500. The bill would prohibit a deferred deposit transaction customer from being threatened with criminal penalties for a failure to comply with the terms of an agreement and would prohibit a licensee from referring or delivering a check taken in a deferred deposit transaction to a prosecutor, district attorney’s diversion program, or other law enforcement official for purposes of collection or criminal prosecution unless that information is requested as part of an investigation. The bill would require a specified notice that is separate and distinct from the deferred deposit transaction agreement to be provided to and initialed by a customer before entering into the agreement. The bill would require the notice to inform the customer that he or she may rescind a deferred deposit transaction at no cost by notifying the licensee and returning the proceeds of the transaction within a specified time period. The bill would also require a licensee to make reasonable and accessible provisions for a customer to notify the licensee of his or her intent to rescind the transaction and return the loan proceeds and would require these provisions to be included with this notice. The bill would require that, if the deferred deposit transaction is conducted over the Internet, the customer shall agree in the written agreement to conduct the transaction and to receive notices and the agreement electronically. The bill would also require a licensee, when conducting deferred deposit transactions over the Internet, to make notices and the agreement available to a customer in a format that may be downloaded and printed or, if the customer is unable to download that information, to mail the documents to the customer within 24 hours of the transaction. The bill would require a licensee to annually pay a fee to the commissioner of 5 cents for each deferred deposit transaction paid in full in the previous calendar year and would require the money from these fees to be used by the commissioner to provide financial literacy education programs relative to deferred deposit transactions. The bill would authorize a customer who is unable to repay a deferred deposit transaction to elect, once in any 12-month period, to repay the deferred deposit transaction to the licensee pursuant to an extended payment plan, as specified. The bill would require a customer to be notified of his or her right to an extended payment plan. Because a willful violation of the bill’s provisions by a licensee would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Sections 23001, 23027, and 23035 Of, and to Add Sections 23005.5, 23010.5, 23016.5, and 23036.5 To, the Financial Code, Relating to Deferred Deposit Transactions.
Author(s)
Tony Mendoza
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • Deferred deposit transactions
    Major Actions
    Introduced2/23/2009
    Referred to Committee
    Passed Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance4/13/2009
    Passed Assembly Committee on Appropriations4/29/2009
    Passed Assembly5/11/2009
    Passed Senate Committee on Banking, Finance and Insurance6/17/2009
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    select this voteAssembly Committee on Banking and FinanceDo pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.4/13/2009This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance
    10 voted YES 1 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssembly Committee on AppropriationsDo pass.4/29/2009This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Appropriations
    9 voted YES 0 voted NO 8 voted present/not voting
    currently selectedAssemblyAB 377 MENDOZA Assembly Third Reading5/11/2009This bill PASSED the Assembly
    53 voted YES 8 voted NO 19 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on Banking, Finance and InsuranceDo pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.6/17/2009This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Banking, Finance and Insurance
    7 voted YES 1 voted NO 4 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced2/23/2009
    2/23/2009Read first time. To print.
    2/24/2009From printer. May be heard in committee March 26.
    3/09/2009Referred to Com. on B. & F.
    4/02/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & F. Read second time and amended.
    4/13/2009Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.
    select this voteVote4/13/2009Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
    4/14/2009From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 10. Noes 1.) (April 13).
    select this voteVote4/29/2009Do pass.
    4/30/2009From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 29).
    5/04/2009Read second time. To third reading.
    5/11/2009Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 53. Noes 8. Page 1355.)
    5/11/2009In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
    currently selectedAssembly Vote on Passage5/11/2009AB 377 MENDOZA Assembly Third Reading
    5/21/2009Referred to Coms. on B., F. & I. and JUD.
    6/09/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B., F. & I.
    select this voteVote6/17/2009Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.
    6/22/2009From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (June 17).
    6/23/2009Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
    7/06/2009In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
    7/14/2009In committee: Set, first hearing. Testimony taken. Further hearing to be set.
    11/30/2010From Senate committee without further action.

    Total contributions given to Assemblymembers from interest groups that…

    supported this bill

    Payday/Title Loans [About]
    Minority & ethnic groups (split) [About]
    General business associations [About]
    $0
    $248,787
    $248,787
    5.0 times as much
    $0
    $9,620
    $111,771
    $191,615
    $178,988
    $0
    $455,364
    $95,450
    $10,250
    $180,100
    $1,233,157
    5 Organizations Supported and 15 Opposed; See Which Ones

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Amend Sections 23001, 23027, and 23035 Of, and to Add Sections 23005.5, 23010.5, 23016.5, and 23036.5 To, the Financial Code, Relating to Deferred Deposit Transactions.: AB 377 MENDOZA Assembly Third Reading

    5 organizations supported this bill

    Alameda Merchant's Association
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    California Financial Service Providers
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    California State Conference of the NAACP
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    Check into Cash
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    Check n' Go of California
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .

    15 organizations opposed this bill

    AARP
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    Amalgamated Transit Union
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    California Labor Federation
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    California Reinvestment Coalition
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    Center for Responsible Lending
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    Consumers Union
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    Engineers and Scientists of California
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    Greenlining Institute
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    International Brotherhood of Teamsters
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    International Longshore and Warehouse Union
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    UNITE HERE!
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .
    Veritec
    (2009, June 15). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from .

    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, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2010.
    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$2,000$14,100Not Voting
    Joel AndersonRCA-77$1,000$11,400Yes
    Juan ArambulaICA-31$0$0Yes
    Karen BassDCA-47$0$18,750Yes
    Jim BeallDCA-24$2,000$18,800Yes
    Bill BerryhillRCA-26$500$2,000Yes
    Tom BerryhillRCA-25$1,500$2,000Yes
    Sam BlakesleeRCA-33$0$0Yes
    Marty BlockDCA-78$4,000$28,700Yes
    Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$2,000$18,500Not Voting
    Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$17,000Not Voting
    Joan BuchananDCA-15$0$27,300Yes
    Anna CaballeroDCA-28$1,000$29,000Not Voting
    Charles CalderonDCA-58$3,500$11,500Yes
    Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$1,000$5,120Yes
    Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$1,000$10,350No
    Connie ConwayRCA-34$3,000$3,500Yes
    Paul CookRCA-65$2,000$10,800Yes
    Joe CotoDCA-23$0$0Yes
    Mike DavisDCA-48$1,000$5,000Yes
    Hector De La TorreDCA-50$1,000$18,400Not Voting
    Kevin De LeonDCA-45$6,883$7,500Yes
    Chuck DeVoreRCA-70$0$0Yes
    Mike DuvallRCA-72$0$0Yes
    Bill EmmersonRCA-63$7,800$0Yes
    Mike EngDCA-49$3,000$18,600Not Voting
    Noreen EvansDCA-7$2,500$23,850Yes
    Mike FeuerDCA-42$500$8,000No
    Nathan FletcherRCA-75$4,500$2,000Yes
    Paul FongDCA-22$300$23,250Not Voting
    Felipe FuentesDCA-39$13,000$17,000Yes
    Jean FullerRCA-32$2,500$0Yes
    Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$38,100Not Voting
    Ted GainesRCA-4$15,400$0Yes
    Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$0$14,900Yes
    Martin GarrickRCA-74$5,000$8,500Yes
    Danny GilmoreRCA-30$0$0Yes
    Curt HagmanRCA-60$1,000$0Yes
    Isadore HallDCA-52$3,500$17,050Yes
    Diane HarkeyRCA-73$1,000$0Yes
    Mary HayashiDCA-18$7,300$29,900Yes
    Ed HernandezDCA-57$4,610$25,300Yes
    Jerry HillDCA-19$7,350$17,400No
    Alyson HuberDCA-10$3,500$20,865Yes
    Jared HuffmanDCA-6$2,500$25,800No
    Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$4,000$1,000Yes
    Dave JonesDCA-9$3,750$153,950No
    Steve KnightRCA-36$0$0Yes
    Paul KrekorianDCA-43$0$0Not Voting
    Ted LieuDCA-53$6,000$24,400Yes
    Dan LogueRCA-3$0$0Yes
    Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$4,500$41,300Yes
    Fiona MaDCA-12$9,000$16,500Yes
    Tony MendozaDCA-56$13,300$25,800Yes
    Jeff MillerRCA-71$3,000$5,000Yes
    Bill MonningDCA-27$0$16,950Not Voting
    Pedro NavaDCA-35$5,000$3,100Not Voting
    Brian NestandeRCA-64$0$10,800Yes
    Roger NielloRCA-5$4,000$5,100Yes
    Jim NielsenRCA-2$2,500$2,000Yes
    John PerezDCA-46$25,694$67,350Not Voting
    Manuel PerezDCA-80$4,900$31,900Not Voting
    Anthony PortantinoDCA-44$5,000$25,550Not Voting
    Curren PriceDCA-51$5,000$7,700Yes
    Ira RuskinDCA-21$0$0No
    Mary SalasDCA-79$1,000$25,043Not Voting
    Lori SaldanaDCA-76$0$0No
    Jim SilvaRCA-67$0$6,900Yes
    Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$0$31,100No
    Cameron SmythRCA-38$3,000$5,000Yes
    Jose SolorioDCA-69$8,500$22,000Yes
    Audra StricklandRCA-37$0$0Not Voting
    Sandre SwansonDCA-16$3,500$53,500Not Voting
    Tom TorlaksonDCA-11$0$48,600Yes
    Norma TorresDCA-61$9,000$12,000Yes
    Alberto TorricoDCA-20$8,500$15,179Not Voting
    Van TranRCA-68$0$0Yes
    Mike VillinesRCA-29$1,000$9,400Yes
    Mariko YamadaDCA-8$0$15,800Not Voting

    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$2,000$14,100Not Voting
    Joel AndersonRCA-77$1,000$11,400Yes
    Juan ArambulaICA-31$0$0Yes
    Karen BassDCA-47$0$18,750Yes
    Jim BeallDCA-24$2,000$18,800Yes
    Bill BerryhillRCA-26$500$2,000Yes
    Tom BerryhillRCA-25$1,500$2,000Yes
    Sam BlakesleeRCA-33$0$0Yes
    Marty BlockDCA-78$4,000$28,700Yes
    Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$2,000$18,500Not Voting
    Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$17,000Not Voting
    Joan BuchananDCA-15$0$27,300Yes
    Anna CaballeroDCA-28$1,000$29,000Not Voting
    Charles CalderonDCA-58$3,500$11,500Yes
    Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$1,000$5,120Yes
    Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$1,000$10,350No
    Connie ConwayRCA-34$3,000$3,500Yes
    Paul CookRCA-65$2,000$10,800Yes
    Joe CotoDCA-23$0$0Yes
    Mike DavisDCA-48$1,000$5,000Yes
    Hector De La TorreDCA-50$1,000$18,400Not Voting
    Kevin De LeonDCA-45$6,883$7,500Yes
    Chuck DeVoreRCA-70$0$0Yes
    Mike DuvallRCA-72$0$0Yes
    Bill EmmersonRCA-63$7,800$0Yes
    Mike EngDCA-49$3,000$18,600Not Voting
    Noreen EvansDCA-7$2,500$23,850Yes
    Mike FeuerDCA-42$500$8,000No
    Nathan FletcherRCA-75$4,500$2,000Yes
    Paul FongDCA-22$300$23,250Not Voting
    Felipe FuentesDCA-39$13,000$17,000Yes
    Jean FullerRCA-32$2,500$0Yes
    Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$38,100Not Voting
    Ted GainesRCA-4$15,400$0Yes
    Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$0$14,900Yes
    Martin GarrickRCA-74$5,000$8,500Yes
    Danny GilmoreRCA-30$0$0Yes
    Curt HagmanRCA-60$1,000$0Yes
    Isadore HallDCA-52$3,500$17,050Yes
    Diane HarkeyRCA-73$1,000$0Yes
    Mary HayashiDCA-18$7,300$29,900Yes
    Ed HernandezDCA-57$4,610$25,300Yes
    Jerry HillDCA-19$7,350$17,400No
    Alyson HuberDCA-10$3,500$20,865Yes
    Jared HuffmanDCA-6$2,500$25,800No
    Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$4,000$1,000Yes
    Dave JonesDCA-9$3,750$153,950No
    Steve KnightRCA-36$0$0Yes
    Paul KrekorianDCA-43$0$0Not Voting
    Ted LieuDCA-53$6,000$24,400Yes
    Dan LogueRCA-3$0$0Yes
    Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$4,500$41,300Yes
    Fiona MaDCA-12$9,000$16,500Yes
    Tony MendozaDCA-56$13,300$25,800Yes
    Jeff MillerRCA-71$3,000$5,000Yes
    Bill MonningDCA-27$0$16,950Not Voting
    Pedro NavaDCA-35$5,000$3,100Not Voting
    Brian NestandeRCA-64$0$10,800Yes
    Roger NielloRCA-5$4,000$5,100Yes
    Jim NielsenRCA-2$2,500$2,000Yes
    John PerezDCA-46$25,694$67,350Not Voting
    Manuel PerezDCA-80$4,900$31,900Not Voting
    Anthony PortantinoDCA-44$5,000$25,550Not Voting
    Curren PriceDCA-51$5,000$7,700Yes
    Ira RuskinDCA-21$0$0No
    Mary SalasDCA-79$1,000$25,043Not Voting
    Lori SaldanaDCA-76$0$0No
    Jim SilvaRCA-67$0$6,900Yes
    Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$0$31,100No
    Cameron SmythRCA-38$3,000$5,000Yes
    Jose SolorioDCA-69$8,500$22,000Yes
    Audra StricklandRCA-37$0$0Not Voting
    Sandre SwansonDCA-16$3,500$53,500Not Voting
    Tom TorlaksonDCA-11$0$48,600Yes
    Norma TorresDCA-61$9,000$12,000Yes
    Alberto TorricoDCA-20$8,500$15,179Not Voting
    Van TranRCA-68$0$0Yes
    Mike VillinesRCA-29$1,000$9,400Yes
    Mariko YamadaDCA-8$0$15,800Not Voting

    Interest Groups that supported this bill

    $ Donated
    Payday/Title Loans$248,787
    Minority & ethnic groups$39,950
    General business associations$0

    Interest Groups that opposed this bill

    $ Donated
    Other unions$455,364
    Labor unions$191,615
    Computer software$180,100
    Teamsters unions$178,988
    Transportation unions$111,771
    Merchant marine & longshoremen unions$95,450
    Minority & ethnic groups$39,950
    Commercial service unions$10,250
    Democratic-based groups (but not official party committees) and generic liberal/progressive ones$9,620
    Consumer groups$0
    Elderly issues & Social Security$0
    Loading…
    Date Range of Contributions
    Enter a custom date range