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 586 - An Act to Add Sections 953.5 and 14409.5 to the Financial Code, and to Amend Section 368 of the Penal Code, Relating to Banks and Credit Unions.

Banks and credit unions: signature stamps. 2011-2012 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
Existing law, the Banking Law, regulates the organization and operations of state-organized banks, and the California Credit Union Law regulates the organization and operation of credit unions, the willful violation of which is a crime. Existing law does not regulate the issuance or use of a signature stamp in financial transactions.

This bill would define “signature stamp” and… More
Existing law, the Banking Law, regulates the organization and operations of state-organized banks, and the California Credit Union Law regulates the organization and operation of credit unions, the willful violation of which is a crime. Existing law does not regulate the issuance or use of a signature stamp in financial transactions.

This bill would define “signature stamp” and regulate the issuance of a signature stamp by a state-organized bank or credit union to an accountholder and the use of the signature stamp by the accountholder in financial transactions with a bank or credit union. The bill would require a stampholder to report a lost or stolen signature stamp to the bank or credit union, as specified.

Existing law prohibits various types of elder abuse, punishable by incarceration, fines, or both incarceration and fines, including imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed $1,000, for specified types of abuse involving theft, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, or identity theft.

This bill would increase the amount of each of the fines otherwise imposed for the existing law offenses, and would provide that the additional fine amount be allocated to the adult protective services agency, or equivalent elder abuse prevention agency, of the county prosecuting the offense. The bill would make changes to conform those provisions to changes made in AB 109 of the 2011–12 Regular Session. The bill would provide for restitution for a violation of these provisions committed through use of a signature stamp. The bill would additionally incorporate changes to Section 368 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 332, to be operative if both bills are enacted and become operative, as specified.Because this bill would create new crimes, the bill would create 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:
This bill was passed by both houses and vetoed by the Governor. It did not become law
Senate Vote: On Passage

PASSED on August 30, 2011.

voted YES: 25 voted NO: 13
2 voted present/not voting

An Act to Add Sections 953.5 and 14409.5 to the Financial Code, and to Amend Section 368 of the Penal Code, Relating to Banks and Credit Unions.

SB 586 — 2011-2012 Legislature

Summary
Existing law, the Banking Law, regulates the organization and operations of state-organized banks, and the California Credit Union Law regulates the organization and operation of credit unions, the willful violation of which is a crime. Existing law does not regulate the issuance or use of a signature stamp in financial transactions.

This bill would define “signature stamp” and regulate the issuance of a signature stamp by a state-organized bank or credit union to an accountholder and the use of the signature stamp by the accountholder in financial transactions with a bank or credit union. The bill would require a stampholder to report a lost or stolen signature stamp to the bank or credit union, as specified.

Existing law prohibits various types of elder abuse, punishable by incarceration, fines, or both incarceration and fines, including imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed $1,000, for specified types of abuse involving theft, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, or identity theft.

This bill would increase the amount of each of the fines otherwise imposed for the existing law offenses, and would provide… More
Existing law, the Banking Law, regulates the organization and operations of state-organized banks, and the California Credit Union Law regulates the organization and operation of credit unions, the willful violation of which is a crime. Existing law does not regulate the issuance or use of a signature stamp in financial transactions.

This bill would define “signature stamp” and regulate the issuance of a signature stamp by a state-organized bank or credit union to an accountholder and the use of the signature stamp by the accountholder in financial transactions with a bank or credit union. The bill would require a stampholder to report a lost or stolen signature stamp to the bank or credit union, as specified.

Existing law prohibits various types of elder abuse, punishable by incarceration, fines, or both incarceration and fines, including imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed $1,000, for specified types of abuse involving theft, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, or identity theft.

This bill would increase the amount of each of the fines otherwise imposed for the existing law offenses, and would provide that the additional fine amount be allocated to the adult protective services agency, or equivalent elder abuse prevention agency, of the county prosecuting the offense. The bill would make changes to conform those provisions to changes made in AB 109 of the 2011–12 Regular Session. The bill would provide for restitution for a violation of these provisions committed through use of a signature stamp. The bill would additionally incorporate changes to Section 368 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 332, to be operative if both bills are enacted and become operative, as specified.Because this bill would create new crimes, the bill would create 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 Add Sections 953.5 and 14409.5 to the Financial Code, and to Amend Section 368 of the Penal Code, Relating to Banks and Credit Unions.
Author(s)
Fran Pavley
Co-Authors
Subjects
  • Banks and credit unions: signature stamps
Major Actions
Introduced2/17/2011
Referred to Committee
Passed Senate Committee on Banking, Finance and Insurance4/06/2011
Passed Senate Committee on Public Safety5/03/2011
Passed Senate Committee on Appropriations5/23/2011
Passed Senate6/01/2011
Passed Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance6/27/2011
Passed Assembly Committee on Public Safety7/05/2011
Passed Assembly Committee on Appropriations8/17/2011
Passed Assembly8/25/2011
Passed Senate8/30/2011
Presented to the governor (enrolled)9/07/2011
Vetoed by Governor10/09/2011
Vetoed by Governor10/09/2011
Bill History
Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
select this voteSenate Committee on Banking, Finance and InsuranceDo pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Public Safety.4/06/2011This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Banking, Finance and Insurance
5 voted YES 2 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenate Committee on Public SafetyDo pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.5/03/2011This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Public Safety
5 voted YES 2 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenate Committee on AppropriationsDo pass as amended.5/23/2011This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Appropriations
6 voted YES 3 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenateSenate 3rd Reading SB586 Pavley6/01/2011This bill PASSED the Senate
25 voted YES 14 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on Banking and FinanceDo pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Public Safety.6/27/2011This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance
7 voted YES 3 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on Public SafetyDo pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.7/05/2011This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Public Safety
5 voted YES 2 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on AppropriationsDo pass.8/17/2011This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Appropriations
12 voted YES 5 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssemblySB 586 Pavley Senate Third Reading By TORRES8/25/2011This bill PASSED the Assembly
48 voted YES 27 voted NO 5 voted present/not voting
currently selectedSenateUnfinished Business SB586 Pavley Concurrence8/30/2011This bill PASSED the Senate
25 voted YES 13 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
ActionDateDescription
Introduced2/17/2011
2/17/2011Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
2/18/2011From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 20.
3/03/2011Referred to Coms. on B. & F.I. and PUB. S.
3/08/2011Set for hearing April 6.
3/21/2011From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.I.
select this voteVote4/06/2011Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Public Safety.
4/12/2011From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 579.) (April 6).
4/13/2011Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
4/21/2011Set for hearing May 3.
4/25/2011From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
select this voteVote5/03/2011Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
5/09/2011From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 862.) (May 3).
5/10/2011Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
5/13/2011Set for hearing May 23.
select this voteVote5/23/2011Do pass as amended.
5/26/2011From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 3. Page 1086.) (May 23).
5/27/2011Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
6/01/2011Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 25. Noes 14. Page 1217.) Ordered to the Assembly.
select this voteSenate Vote on Passage6/01/2011Senate 3rd Reading SB586 Pavley
6/02/2011In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
6/09/2011Referred to Coms. on B. & F. and PUB. S.
select this voteVote6/27/2011Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Public Safety.
6/28/2011From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. (Ayes 7. Noes 3.) (June 27). Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
6/29/2011From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
select this voteVote7/05/2011Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
7/06/2011From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (July 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
8/15/2011From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
select this voteVote8/17/2011Do pass.
8/18/2011From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (August 17).
8/22/2011Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
8/25/2011Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 48. Noes 27. Page 2594.) Ordered to the Senate.
8/25/2011In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage8/25/2011SB 586 Pavley Senate Third Reading By TORRES
8/30/2011Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 25. Noes 13. Page 2150.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
currently selectedSenate Vote on Passage8/30/2011Unfinished Business SB586 Pavley Concurrence
9/07/2011Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.
Vetoed10/09/2011Vetoed by the Governor.
10/09/2011In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
3/01/2012Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file. Veto sustained.

Total contributions given to Senators from interest groups that…

18 Organizations Supported and 2 Opposed; See Which Ones

Organizations that took a position on
An Act to Add Sections 953.5 and 14409.5 to the Financial Code, and to Amend Section 368 of the Penal Code, Relating to Banks and Credit Unions.: Unfinished Business SB586 Pavley Concurrence

18 organizations supported this bill

AARP
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Alzheimer's Association
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
American Association of University Women
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Area Agency On Aging For San Luis Obispo And Santa Barbara Counties
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Alliance for Retired Americans
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California School Employees Association
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Senior Legislature
California Senior Legislature (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
City And County Of San Francisco, Department Of Aging & Adult Services
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Congress of California Seniors
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Consumer Attorneys of California
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
County of Los Angeles
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
County of Ventura
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
County Welfare Directors Association of California
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Disability Rights California
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
San Joaquin County Commission on Aging
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy in California
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.

2 organizations opposed this bill

California Bankers Association
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Independent Bankers
Senate Rules Committee (2011, August 26). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.

Need proof?

View citations of support and opposition

Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Senators in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2012.
Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

Contributions by Legislator

Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Elaine AlquistDCA-13$750$0
Joel AndersonRCA-36$15,125$9,000
Tom BerryhillRCA-14$0$8,250
Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
Ron CalderonDCA-30$9,400$7,030
Anthony CannellaRCA-12$0$11,000
Ellen CorbettDCA-10$14,800$0
Lou CorreaDCA-34$26,300$7,900
Kevin De LeonDCA-22$45,399$8,000
Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$24,380$4,000
Bob DuttonRCA-31$5,600$3,500
Bill EmmersonRCA-37$2,100$4,000
Noreen EvansDCA-2$20,820$4,900
Jean FullerRCA-18$3,000$8,500
Ted GainesRCA-1$8,900$27,700
Loni HancockDCA-9$63,600$0
Tom HarmanRCA-35$9,000$3,500
Ed HernandezDCA-24$31,249$10,400
Bob HuffRCA-29$1,500$16,402
Christine KehoeDCA-39$5,300$2,000
Doug La MalfaRCA-4$0$0
Mark LenoDCA-3$34,250$1,250
Ted LieuDCA-28$60,100$7,475
Carol LiuDCA-21$12,300$5,150
Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$9,900$9,100
Alex PadillaDCA-20$19,700$8,130
Fran PavleyDCA-23$86,800$0
Curren PriceDCA-26$15,200$14,500
Michael RubioDCA-16$21,100$10,292
Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$1,000
Joe SimitianDCA-11$5,500$1,000
Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$102,800$6,300
Tony StricklandRCA-19$6,500$8,800
Juan VargasDCA-40$59,200$16,779
Mimi WaltersRCA-33$1,000$18,200
Lois WolkDCA-5$17,266$1,500
Rod WrightDCA-25$20,000$11,800
Mark WylandRCA-38$1,000$3,000
Leland YeeDCA-8$40,200$7,700

Add Data Filters:

Legislator Filters
Legislator Filters
Show All
NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Elaine AlquistDCA-13$750$0
Joel AndersonRCA-36$15,125$9,000
Tom BerryhillRCA-14$0$8,250
Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
Ron CalderonDCA-30$9,400$7,030
Anthony CannellaRCA-12$0$11,000
Ellen CorbettDCA-10$14,800$0
Lou CorreaDCA-34$26,300$7,900
Kevin De LeonDCA-22$45,399$8,000
Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$24,380$4,000
Bob DuttonRCA-31$5,600$3,500
Bill EmmersonRCA-37$2,100$4,000
Noreen EvansDCA-2$20,820$4,900
Jean FullerRCA-18$3,000$8,500
Ted GainesRCA-1$8,900$27,700
Loni HancockDCA-9$63,600$0
Tom HarmanRCA-35$9,000$3,500
Ed HernandezDCA-24$31,249$10,400
Bob HuffRCA-29$1,500$16,402
Christine KehoeDCA-39$5,300$2,000
Doug La MalfaRCA-4$0$0
Mark LenoDCA-3$34,250$1,250
Ted LieuDCA-28$60,100$7,475
Carol LiuDCA-21$12,300$5,150
Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$9,900$9,100
Alex PadillaDCA-20$19,700$8,130
Fran PavleyDCA-23$86,800$0
Curren PriceDCA-26$15,200$14,500
Michael RubioDCA-16$21,100$10,292
Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$1,000
Joe SimitianDCA-11$5,500$1,000
Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$102,800$6,300
Tony StricklandRCA-19$6,500$8,800
Juan VargasDCA-40$59,200$16,779
Mimi WaltersRCA-33$1,000$18,200
Lois WolkDCA-5$17,266$1,500
Rod WrightDCA-25$20,000$11,800
Mark WylandRCA-38$1,000$3,000
Leland YeeDCA-8$40,200$7,700

Interest Groups that supported this bill

$ Donated
State & local government employee unions$707,723
Health & welfare policy$41,716
Women's issues$24,600
Municipal & county government organizations$21,900
Public official (elected or appointed)$4,100
Consumer groups$0
Elderly issues & Social Security$0
Human rights$0
Mental health services$0

Interest Groups that opposed this bill

$ Donated
Commercial banks & bank holding companies$268,058
Loading…
Date Range of Contributions
Enter a custom date range