Individual legislator voting records for this vote are not currently available. Includes all politicians who were in office at any point during the 2011-2012 Legislature.

SB 1216 - An Act to Amend Sections 922.2, 922.4, 922.5, 922.8, and 12121 Of, to Add Sections 717.5, 922.31, 922.42, 922.43, and 922.85 To, to Add and Repeal Section 922.41 Of, and to Repeal and Add Section 922.6 Of, the Insurance Code, Relating to Reinsurance.

Reinsurance: professional reinsurers. 2011-2012 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
(1)Existing law prohibits the transaction of any class of insurance in this state without first being admitted for that class of insurance, and admission is secured by procuring a certificate of authority from the Insurance Commissioner. Before granting a certificate of authority to any applicant, the commissioner is required to consider the qualifications of the applicant, including, but not… More
(1)Existing law prohibits the transaction of any class of insurance in this state without first being admitted for that class of insurance, and admission is secured by procuring a certificate of authority from the Insurance Commissioner. Before granting a certificate of authority to any applicant, the commissioner is required to consider the qualifications of the applicant, including, but not limited to, capital and surplus and lawfulness and quality of investments.

This bill would authorize the commissioner to designate an insurer as a professional reinsurer when an insurer admitted and domiciled in this state, or an insurer applying to become admitted and domiciled in this state, is determined by the commissioner to be qualified, as specified, which includes, but is not limited to, the commissioner determining that the insurer is principally engaged in the business of reinsurance, that the insurer does not conduct significant amounts of direct insurance as a percentage of its net premiums, and is not engaged, on an ongoing basis, in the business of soliciting direct insurance.

(2)Existing law requires insurers doing business in this state to annually make and file with the commissioner financial statements.

Existing law requires that credit for reinsurance as an asset or deduction from liability be allowed a domestic ceding insurer only if the reinsurance contract includes certain provisions, including, in the event of insolvency and the appointment of a conservator, liquidator, or statutory successor of the ceding company, that the reinsurance will be payable, as specified, without diminution because of the insolvency.

This bill would revise that requirement to additionally apply in the event of a change in status of the ceding company, as specified, including when the commissioner finds that the conditions for the appointment of a conservator, liquidator, or statutory successor has occurred with respect to the ceding company.

The bill would also require a ceding insurer to take steps to manage its reinsurance recoverables proportionate to its own book of business and to diversify its reinsurance program. The bill would also require a domestic ceding insurer to notify the commissioner within 30 days after reinsurance recoverables from any single assuming insurer, or group of affiliated assuming insurers, exceed 50% of the domestic ceding insurer’s last reported surplus to policyholders, or after it is determined that the reinsurance recoverables are likely to exceed that limit, as specified. The bill would also require a domestic ceding insurer to notify the commissioner within 30 days after ceding to any single assuming insurer, or group of affiliated assuming insurers, more than 20% of the ceding insurer’s gross written premium in the prior calendar year, or after it has determined that the reinsurance ceded is likely to exceed this limit, as specified.

(3)Existing law also allows credit for reinsurance when the reinsurance is ceded to an assuming insurer that is accredited as a reinsurer in this state, except as specified. Existing law describes an accredited reinsurer for purposes of this provision as one that, among other criteria, maintains a surplus as regards to policyholders in an amount that is either not less than $20,000,000, and whose accreditation has not been denied by the commissioner within the last 90 days, or maintains a surplus that is less than $20,000,000 and whose accreditation has been approved by the commissioner.

This bill would instead require that the reinsurer demonstrate to the satisfaction of the commissioner that it has adequate financial capacity to meet its reinsurance obligations and is otherwise qualified to assume reinsurance from domestic insurers, and would delete the provision authorizing a reinsurer whose accreditation has been approved to maintain a surplus of less than $20,000,000. The bill would instead provide that an assuming insurer who maintains a surplus of not less than $20,000,000 and whose accreditation has not been denied by the commissioner within the last 90 days shall be deemed to meet that requirement and would require that an assuming insurer who is not deemed to meet this requirement obtain the affirmative approval of the commissioner. The bill would require that the approval of the commissioner be based upon a finding that the assuming insurer has adequate financial capacity to meet its reinsurance obligations and is otherwise qualified to assume reinsurance from domestic insurers.

(4)Existing law also provides that credit is allowed when reinsurance is ceded to an assuming insurer that maintains a trust fund, as specified.

This bill would authorize the commissioner to authorize a reduction in the required trustee surplus after an assuming insurer has permanently discontinued underwriting new business secured by the trust for at least 3 full years, as specified.

The bill would also enact, only until January 1, 2016, provisions governing the certification and rating of assuming insurers by the commissioner and specify additional circumstances under which credit shall be allowed to a domestic insurer when the reinsurance is ceded to an assuming insurer that has been certified. The bill would require, among other things, that the assuming insurer be domiciled and licensed to transact insurance or reinsurance in a qualified jurisdiction and would require the commissioner to create and publish a list of qualified jurisdictions, as specified. The bill would also require the assuming insurer to maintain minimum capital and surplus, or its equivalent, in an amount determined by the commissioner, and to maintain financial strength ratings from 2 or more rating agencies, as specified. The bill would impose various filing requirements on certified reinsurers, including notification within 10 days of any regulatory actions taken against the certified reinsurer and annual audited financial statements. The bill would also require the commissioner to assign a rating to each certified reinsurer based on specified criteria, such as the certified insurer’s financial strength rating from an acceptable rating agency and the certified insurer’s reputation for prompt payment of claims. The bill would also authorize the commissioner to suspend or revoke an accredited or certified reinsurer’s accreditation or certification after notice and opportunity for hearing, as specified.

The bill would make other related changes.

(5)Existing law provides that credit for reinsurance as an asset or a deduction from liability is allowed a foreign ceding insurer, with exceptions, to the extent the credit has been allowed by the ceding insurer’s state of domicile if the state of domicile is accredited by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), or the credit or deduction from liability would be allowed if the foreign ceding insurer were domiciled in this state. Credit for reinsurance as an asset or a deduction from liability may be disallowed if the commissioner finds that the financial condition of the reinsurer, or the collateral or other security provided by the reinsurer, does not satisfy the credit for reinsurance requirements applicable to a ceding insurer domiciled in this state.

This bill would instead require that credit for reinsurance not be denied a foreign ceding insurer to the extent that credit is recognized by the ceding insurer’s domestic state regulator, provided that the domestic state is accredited by the NAIC, or the domestic state regulator has financial solvency requirements similar to the requirements necessary for NAIC accreditation. Hide
 
Status:
The bill has become law (chaptered). 
Assembly Vote: On Passage

PASSED on August 20, 2012.

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

An Act to Amend Sections 922.2, 922.4, 922.5, 922.8, and 12121 Of, to Add Sections 717.5, 922.31, 922.42, 922.43, and 922.85 To, to Add and Repeal Section 922.41 Of, and to Repeal and Add Section 922.6 Of, the Insurance Code, Relating to Reinsurance.

SB 1216 — 2011-2012 Legislature

Summary
(1)Existing law prohibits the transaction of any class of insurance in this state without first being admitted for that class of insurance, and admission is secured by procuring a certificate of authority from the Insurance Commissioner. Before granting a certificate of authority to any applicant, the commissioner is required to consider the qualifications of the applicant, including, but not limited to, capital and surplus and lawfulness and quality of investments.

This bill would authorize the commissioner to designate an insurer as a professional reinsurer when an insurer admitted and domiciled in this state, or an insurer applying to become admitted and domiciled in this state, is determined by the commissioner to be qualified, as specified, which includes, but is not limited to, the commissioner determining that the insurer is principally engaged in the business of reinsurance, that the insurer does not conduct significant amounts of direct insurance as a percentage of its net premiums, and is not engaged, on an ongoing basis, in the business of soliciting direct insurance.

(2)Existing law requires insurers doing business in this state to annually… More
(1)Existing law prohibits the transaction of any class of insurance in this state without first being admitted for that class of insurance, and admission is secured by procuring a certificate of authority from the Insurance Commissioner. Before granting a certificate of authority to any applicant, the commissioner is required to consider the qualifications of the applicant, including, but not limited to, capital and surplus and lawfulness and quality of investments.

This bill would authorize the commissioner to designate an insurer as a professional reinsurer when an insurer admitted and domiciled in this state, or an insurer applying to become admitted and domiciled in this state, is determined by the commissioner to be qualified, as specified, which includes, but is not limited to, the commissioner determining that the insurer is principally engaged in the business of reinsurance, that the insurer does not conduct significant amounts of direct insurance as a percentage of its net premiums, and is not engaged, on an ongoing basis, in the business of soliciting direct insurance.

(2)Existing law requires insurers doing business in this state to annually make and file with the commissioner financial statements.

Existing law requires that credit for reinsurance as an asset or deduction from liability be allowed a domestic ceding insurer only if the reinsurance contract includes certain provisions, including, in the event of insolvency and the appointment of a conservator, liquidator, or statutory successor of the ceding company, that the reinsurance will be payable, as specified, without diminution because of the insolvency.

This bill would revise that requirement to additionally apply in the event of a change in status of the ceding company, as specified, including when the commissioner finds that the conditions for the appointment of a conservator, liquidator, or statutory successor has occurred with respect to the ceding company.

The bill would also require a ceding insurer to take steps to manage its reinsurance recoverables proportionate to its own book of business and to diversify its reinsurance program. The bill would also require a domestic ceding insurer to notify the commissioner within 30 days after reinsurance recoverables from any single assuming insurer, or group of affiliated assuming insurers, exceed 50% of the domestic ceding insurer’s last reported surplus to policyholders, or after it is determined that the reinsurance recoverables are likely to exceed that limit, as specified. The bill would also require a domestic ceding insurer to notify the commissioner within 30 days after ceding to any single assuming insurer, or group of affiliated assuming insurers, more than 20% of the ceding insurer’s gross written premium in the prior calendar year, or after it has determined that the reinsurance ceded is likely to exceed this limit, as specified.

(3)Existing law also allows credit for reinsurance when the reinsurance is ceded to an assuming insurer that is accredited as a reinsurer in this state, except as specified. Existing law describes an accredited reinsurer for purposes of this provision as one that, among other criteria, maintains a surplus as regards to policyholders in an amount that is either not less than $20,000,000, and whose accreditation has not been denied by the commissioner within the last 90 days, or maintains a surplus that is less than $20,000,000 and whose accreditation has been approved by the commissioner.

This bill would instead require that the reinsurer demonstrate to the satisfaction of the commissioner that it has adequate financial capacity to meet its reinsurance obligations and is otherwise qualified to assume reinsurance from domestic insurers, and would delete the provision authorizing a reinsurer whose accreditation has been approved to maintain a surplus of less than $20,000,000. The bill would instead provide that an assuming insurer who maintains a surplus of not less than $20,000,000 and whose accreditation has not been denied by the commissioner within the last 90 days shall be deemed to meet that requirement and would require that an assuming insurer who is not deemed to meet this requirement obtain the affirmative approval of the commissioner. The bill would require that the approval of the commissioner be based upon a finding that the assuming insurer has adequate financial capacity to meet its reinsurance obligations and is otherwise qualified to assume reinsurance from domestic insurers.

(4)Existing law also provides that credit is allowed when reinsurance is ceded to an assuming insurer that maintains a trust fund, as specified.

This bill would authorize the commissioner to authorize a reduction in the required trustee surplus after an assuming insurer has permanently discontinued underwriting new business secured by the trust for at least 3 full years, as specified.

The bill would also enact, only until January 1, 2016, provisions governing the certification and rating of assuming insurers by the commissioner and specify additional circumstances under which credit shall be allowed to a domestic insurer when the reinsurance is ceded to an assuming insurer that has been certified. The bill would require, among other things, that the assuming insurer be domiciled and licensed to transact insurance or reinsurance in a qualified jurisdiction and would require the commissioner to create and publish a list of qualified jurisdictions, as specified. The bill would also require the assuming insurer to maintain minimum capital and surplus, or its equivalent, in an amount determined by the commissioner, and to maintain financial strength ratings from 2 or more rating agencies, as specified. The bill would impose various filing requirements on certified reinsurers, including notification within 10 days of any regulatory actions taken against the certified reinsurer and annual audited financial statements. The bill would also require the commissioner to assign a rating to each certified reinsurer based on specified criteria, such as the certified insurer’s financial strength rating from an acceptable rating agency and the certified insurer’s reputation for prompt payment of claims. The bill would also authorize the commissioner to suspend or revoke an accredited or certified reinsurer’s accreditation or certification after notice and opportunity for hearing, as specified.

The bill would make other related changes.

(5)Existing law provides that credit for reinsurance as an asset or a deduction from liability is allowed a foreign ceding insurer, with exceptions, to the extent the credit has been allowed by the ceding insurer’s state of domicile if the state of domicile is accredited by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), or the credit or deduction from liability would be allowed if the foreign ceding insurer were domiciled in this state. Credit for reinsurance as an asset or a deduction from liability may be disallowed if the commissioner finds that the financial condition of the reinsurer, or the collateral or other security provided by the reinsurer, does not satisfy the credit for reinsurance requirements applicable to a ceding insurer domiciled in this state.

This bill would instead require that credit for reinsurance not be denied a foreign ceding insurer to the extent that credit is recognized by the ceding insurer’s domestic state regulator, provided that the domestic state is accredited by the NAIC, or the domestic state regulator has financial solvency requirements similar to the requirements necessary for NAIC accreditation. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Sections 922.2, 922.4, 922.5, 922.8, and 12121 Of, to Add Sections 717.5, 922.31, 922.42, 922.43, and 922.85 To, to Add and Repeal Section 922.41 Of, and to Repeal and Add Section 922.6 Of, the Insurance Code, Relating to Reinsurance.
Author(s)
Alan Lowenthal
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • Reinsurance: professional reinsurers
    Major Actions
    Introduced2/22/2012
    Referred to Committee
    Passed Senate Committee on Insurance4/25/2012
    Passed Senate Committee on Appropriations5/14/2012
    Passed Senate5/21/2012
    Passed Assembly Committee on Insurance6/20/2012
    Passed Assembly Committee on Appropriations8/08/2012
    Passed Assembly8/20/2012
    Presented to the governor (enrolled)8/24/2012
    Became law (chaptered).9/07/2012
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    select this voteSenate Committee on InsuranceDo pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.4/25/2012This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Insurance
    8 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on AppropriationsDo pass.5/14/2012This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Appropriations
    7 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenateSenate 3rd Reading SB1216 Lowenthal5/21/2012This bill PASSED the Senate
    37 voted YES 0 voted NO 3 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssembly Committee on InsuranceDo pass and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations with recommendation: To Consent Calendar.6/20/2012This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Insurance
    13 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssembly Committee on AppropriationsDo pass.8/08/2012This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Appropriations
    17 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    currently selectedAssemblySB 1216 Lowenthal Senate Third Reading By SOLORIO8/20/2012This bill PASSED the Assembly
    78 voted YES 0 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced2/22/2012
    2/22/2012Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
    2/23/2012From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 24.
    3/01/2012Referred to Com. on INS.
    3/23/2012Set for hearing April 11.
    3/29/2012From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on INS.
    4/04/2012Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
    4/05/2012Set for hearing April 25.
    4/17/2012From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on INS.
    select this voteVote4/25/2012Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
    4/26/2012From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0. Page 3308.) (April 25).
    4/30/2012Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
    5/04/2012Set for hearing May 14.
    5/07/2012From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
    select this voteVote5/14/2012Do pass.
    5/15/2012From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3514.) (May 14).
    5/16/2012Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
    5/21/2012Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 3551.) Ordered to the Assembly.
    5/21/2012In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
    select this voteSenate Vote on Passage5/21/2012Senate 3rd Reading SB1216 Lowenthal
    6/04/2012Referred to Com. on INS.
    select this voteVote6/20/2012Do pass and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations with recommendation: To Consent Calendar.
    6/20/2012From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (June 20). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
    select this voteVote8/08/2012Do pass.
    8/09/2012From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (August 8).
    8/13/2012Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
    8/20/2012Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 6018.) Ordered to the Senate.
    currently selectedAssembly Vote on Passage8/20/2012SB 1216 Lowenthal Senate Third Reading By SOLORIO
    8/21/2012In Senate. Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
    8/24/2012Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.
    9/07/2012Approved by the Governor.
    9/07/2012Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 277, Statutes of 2012.

    Total contributions given to Assemblymembers from interest groups that…

    $3,500
    $1,051,599
    $136,400
    $38,750
    $1,230,249
    $0
    5 Organizations Supported and 0 Opposed; See Which Ones

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Amend Sections 922.2, 922.4, 922.5, 922.8, and 12121 Of, to Add Sections 717.5, 922.31, 922.42, 922.43, and 922.85 To, to Add and Repeal Section 922.41 Of, and to Repeal and Add Section 922.6 Of, the Insurance Code, Relating to Reinsurance.: SB 1216 Lowenthal Senate Third Reading By SOLORIO

    5 organizations supported this bill

    Allstate
    Assembly Committee on Insurance (2012, June 18). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    American Council of Life Insurers
    Assembly Committee on Insurance (2012, June 18). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Department of Insurance
    Assembly Committee on Insurance (2012, June 18). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Lloyd's Of London (lloyd's)
    Assembly Committee on Insurance (2012, June 18). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Personal Insurance Federation of California
    Assembly Committee on Insurance (2012, June 18). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.

    0 organizations opposed this bill

    Need proof?

    View citations of support and opposition

    Anything missing?

    Help your colleagues by suggesting an organization that took a position on this vote.
    How do you know they have this position? Please include a link to a newspaper article, organization's website, or other source.
    We will use it only to contact you about this form. Your address will never appear on this site.

    MapLight editors may add this organization after checking the sources you listed above. Thank you for helping to improve our site.

    Cancel
    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, 2011 – December 31, 2012.
    Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

    Contributions by Legislator

    Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Katcho AchadjianRCA-33$9,500$0
    Luis AlejoDCA-28$16,900$0
    Michael AllenDCA-7$1,800$0
    Tom AmmianoDCA-13$0$0
    Toni AtkinsDCA-76$33,250$0
    Jim BeallDCA-24$4,650$0
    Bill BerryhillRCA-26$20,210$0
    Marty BlockDCA-78$6,000$0
    Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$4,900$0
    Susan BonillaDCA-11$26,540$0
    Steven BradfordDCA-51$11,000$0
    Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$0
    Joan BuchananDCA-15$38,129$0
    Betsy ButlerDCA-53$2,000$0
    Charles CalderonDCA-58$0$0
    Nora CamposDCA-23$8,000$0
    Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$0$0
    Gilbert CedilloDCA-45$0$0
    Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$8,000$0
    Connie ConwayRCA-34$59,050$0
    Paul CookRCA-65$0$0
    Mike DavisDCA-48$0$0
    Roger DickinsonDCA-9$1,000$0
    Tim DonnellyRCA-59$9,750$0
    Mike EngDCA-49$0$0
    Mike FeuerDCA-42$0$0
    Nathan FletcherRCA-75$0$0
    Paul FongDCA-22$7,700$0
    Felipe FuentesDCA-39$0$0
    Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$0
    Beth GainesRCA-4$82,375$0
    Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$19,800$0
    Martin GarrickRCA-74$0$0
    Mike GattoDCA-43$36,300$0
    Rich GordonDCA-21$38,900$0
    Jeff GorellRCA-37$17,950$0
    Shannon GroveRCA-32$13,500$0
    Curt HagmanRCA-60$41,300$0
    Linda HaldermanRCA-29$0$0
    Isadore HallDCA-52$29,975$0
    Diane HarkeyRCA-73$18,400$0
    Mary HayashiDCA-18$0$0
    Roger HernandezDCA-57$22,200$0
    Jerry HillDCA-19$46,300$0
    Alyson HuberDCA-10$0$0
    Ben HuesoDCA-79$20,700$0
    Jared HuffmanDCA-6$0$0
    Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$0$0
    Brian JonesRCA-77$8,400$0
    Steve KnightRCA-36$8,900$0
    Ricardo LaraDCA-50$30,800$0
    Dan LogueRCA-3$21,400$0
    Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$0$0
    Fiona MaDCA-12$0$0
    Allan MansoorRCA-68$13,300$0
    Tony MendozaDCA-56$0$0
    Jeff MillerRCA-71$42,700$0
    Holly MitchellDCA-47$19,700$0
    Bill MonningDCA-27$10,900$0
    Mike MorrellRCA-63$10,900$0
    Brian NestandeRCA-64$20,700$0
    Jim NielsenRCA-2$12,800$0
    Chris NorbyRCA-72$26,150$0
    Kristin OlsenRCA-25$30,725$0
    Richard PanDCA-5$51,945$0
    Henry PereaDCA-31$62,200$0
    John PerezDCA-46$71,400$0
    Manuel PerezDCA-80$35,200$0
    Anthony PortantinoDCA-44$0$0
    Jim SilvaRCA-67$0$0
    Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$11,500$0
    Cameron SmythRCA-38$0$0
    Jose SolorioDCA-69$0$0
    Sandre SwansonDCA-16$0$0
    Norma TorresDCA-61$36,000$0
    David ValadaoRCA-30$0$0
    Don WagnerRCA-70$22,650$0
    Bob WieckowskiDCA-20$8,000$0
    Das WilliamsDCA-35$16,900$0
    Mariko YamadaDCA-8$1,000$0

    Add Data Filters:

    Legislator Filters
    Legislator Filters
    Show All
    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Katcho AchadjianRCA-33$9,500$0
    Luis AlejoDCA-28$16,900$0
    Michael AllenDCA-7$1,800$0
    Tom AmmianoDCA-13$0$0
    Toni AtkinsDCA-76$33,250$0
    Jim BeallDCA-24$4,650$0
    Bill BerryhillRCA-26$20,210$0
    Marty BlockDCA-78$6,000$0
    Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$4,900$0
    Susan BonillaDCA-11$26,540$0
    Steven BradfordDCA-51$11,000$0
    Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$0
    Joan BuchananDCA-15$38,129$0
    Betsy ButlerDCA-53$2,000$0
    Charles CalderonDCA-58$0$0
    Nora CamposDCA-23$8,000$0
    Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$0$0
    Gilbert CedilloDCA-45$0$0
    Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$8,000$0
    Connie ConwayRCA-34$59,050$0
    Paul CookRCA-65$0$0
    Mike DavisDCA-48$0$0
    Roger DickinsonDCA-9$1,000$0
    Tim DonnellyRCA-59$9,750$0
    Mike EngDCA-49$0$0
    Mike FeuerDCA-42$0$0
    Nathan FletcherRCA-75$0$0
    Paul FongDCA-22$7,700$0
    Felipe FuentesDCA-39$0$0
    Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$0
    Beth GainesRCA-4$82,375$0
    Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$19,800$0
    Martin GarrickRCA-74$0$0
    Mike GattoDCA-43$36,300$0
    Rich GordonDCA-21$38,900$0
    Jeff GorellRCA-37$17,950$0
    Shannon GroveRCA-32$13,500$0
    Curt HagmanRCA-60$41,300$0
    Linda HaldermanRCA-29$0$0
    Isadore HallDCA-52$29,975$0
    Diane HarkeyRCA-73$18,400$0
    Mary HayashiDCA-18$0$0
    Roger HernandezDCA-57$22,200$0
    Jerry HillDCA-19$46,300$0
    Alyson HuberDCA-10$0$0
    Ben HuesoDCA-79$20,700$0
    Jared HuffmanDCA-6$0$0
    Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$0$0
    Brian JonesRCA-77$8,400$0
    Steve KnightRCA-36$8,900$0
    Ricardo LaraDCA-50$30,800$0
    Dan LogueRCA-3$21,400$0
    Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$0$0
    Fiona MaDCA-12$0$0
    Allan MansoorRCA-68$13,300$0
    Tony MendozaDCA-56$0$0
    Jeff MillerRCA-71$42,700$0
    Holly MitchellDCA-47$19,700$0
    Bill MonningDCA-27$10,900$0
    Mike MorrellRCA-63$10,900$0
    Brian NestandeRCA-64$20,700$0
    Jim NielsenRCA-2$12,800$0
    Chris NorbyRCA-72$26,150$0
    Kristin OlsenRCA-25$30,725$0
    Richard PanDCA-5$51,945$0
    Henry PereaDCA-31$62,200$0
    John PerezDCA-46$71,400$0
    Manuel PerezDCA-80$35,200$0
    Anthony PortantinoDCA-44$0$0
    Jim SilvaRCA-67$0$0
    Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$11,500$0
    Cameron SmythRCA-38$0$0
    Jose SolorioDCA-69$0$0
    Sandre SwansonDCA-16$0$0
    Norma TorresDCA-61$36,000$0
    David ValadaoRCA-30$0$0
    Don WagnerRCA-70$22,650$0
    Bob WieckowskiDCA-20$8,000$0
    Das WilliamsDCA-35$16,900$0
    Mariko YamadaDCA-8$1,000$0

    Interest Groups that supported this bill

    $ Donated
    Property & casualty insurance$1,051,599
    Life insurance$136,400
    Insurance companies, general$38,750
    Public official (elected or appointed)$3,500

    Interest Groups that opposed this bill

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