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 676 - An Act to Add Division 24 (Commencing with Section 81000) to the Food and Agricultural Code, and to Amend Section 11018 Of, and to Add Section 11018.5 To, the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Industrial Hemp.

Industrial hemp. 2011-2012 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
Existing law makes it a crime to engage in any of various transactions relating to marijuana, as defined, except as otherwise authorized by law, such as the Medical Marijuana Program. For the purposes of these provisions, marijuana is defined as not including the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound,… More
Existing law makes it a crime to engage in any of various transactions relating to marijuana, as defined, except as otherwise authorized by law, such as the Medical Marijuana Program. For the purposes of these provisions, marijuana is defined as not including the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted therefrom, and fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.

This bill would revise the definition of “marijuana” so that the term would exclude industrial hemp, as defined, except where the plant is cultivated or processed for purposes not expressly allowed. The bill would define industrial hemp as a fiber or oilseed crop, or both, that is limited to the nonpsychoactive types of the plant Cannabis sativa L. and the seed produced therefrom, having no more than 310 of 1% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the dried flowering tops, and that is cultivated and processed exclusively for the purpose of producing the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin or flowering tops extracted therefrom, fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.

The bill would enact certain provisions relating to growing industrial hemp which would apply only in Imperial, Kern, Kings, and San Joaquin Counties, except when grown by an established agricultural institution, and which would be operative only until January 1, 2020. The bill would require industrial hemp to be cultivated only from seeds imported in accordance with laws of the United States or from seeds grown in California from industrial hemp plants or grown from industrial hemp plants grown by an established agricultural research institution. The bill would require, except as specified, the person growing the industrial hemp to obtain, prior to the harvest of each crop, a laboratory test of a random sample of the crop to determine the amount of THC in the crop. The bill would require that samples to perform the testing be taken in the presence of, and be collected and transported only by, an employee or agent of a laboratory that is registered with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration. The bill would require that the test report contain specified language, that the testing laboratory provide not less than 10 original signed copies to the cultivator, and that the testing laboratory and cultivator retain an original signed copy for a minimum of 2 years. The report would be required to be made available to law enforcement officials and provided to purchasers, as specified. The bill would require all industrial hemp seed sold for planting in California to be from a crop having no more than 310 of 1% THC contained in a random sampling of the dried flowering tops and tested under these provisions, and would require the destruction of crops exceeding that content, as specified.

The bill would provide that growing industrial hemp shall not be construed to authorize the possession, outside of a field of lawful cultivation, of resin, flowering tops, or leaves that have been removed from the hemp plant, except to perform required testing by an employee or agent of the testing laboratory or any cultivation of the industrial hemp plant that is not grown by an established agricultural research institution. This bill would require the Attorney General and the Hemp Industries Association to submit reports to the Legislature by January 1, 2018, regarding the economic and law enforcement impacts of industrial hemp cultivation.

The bill would state the findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to industrial hemp.

By revising the scope of application of existing crimes relating to marijuana, this bill would impose a state‑mandated local program.

By specifying the conditions of cultivation, the violation of which would be a misdemeanor pursuant to other provisions of existing law, this 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:
This bill was passed by both houses and vetoed by the Governor. It did not become law
Senate Vote: On Passage

PASSED on September 8, 2011.

voted YES: 26 voted NO: 13
1 voted present/not voting

An Act to Add Division 24 (Commencing with Section 81000) to the Food and Agricultural Code, and to Amend Section 11018 Of, and to Add Section 11018.5 To, the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Industrial Hemp.

SB 676 — 2011-2012 Legislature

Summary
Existing law makes it a crime to engage in any of various transactions relating to marijuana, as defined, except as otherwise authorized by law, such as the Medical Marijuana Program. For the purposes of these provisions, marijuana is defined as not including the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted therefrom, and fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.

This bill would revise the definition of “marijuana” so that the term would exclude industrial hemp, as defined, except where the plant is cultivated or processed for purposes not expressly allowed. The bill would define industrial hemp as a fiber or oilseed crop, or both, that is limited to the nonpsychoactive types of the plant Cannabis sativa L. and the seed produced therefrom, having no more than 310 of 1% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the dried flowering tops, and that is cultivated and processed exclusively for the purpose of producing the mature stalks of the… More
Existing law makes it a crime to engage in any of various transactions relating to marijuana, as defined, except as otherwise authorized by law, such as the Medical Marijuana Program. For the purposes of these provisions, marijuana is defined as not including the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted therefrom, and fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.

This bill would revise the definition of “marijuana” so that the term would exclude industrial hemp, as defined, except where the plant is cultivated or processed for purposes not expressly allowed. The bill would define industrial hemp as a fiber or oilseed crop, or both, that is limited to the nonpsychoactive types of the plant Cannabis sativa L. and the seed produced therefrom, having no more than 310 of 1% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the dried flowering tops, and that is cultivated and processed exclusively for the purpose of producing the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin or flowering tops extracted therefrom, fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.

The bill would enact certain provisions relating to growing industrial hemp which would apply only in Imperial, Kern, Kings, and San Joaquin Counties, except when grown by an established agricultural institution, and which would be operative only until January 1, 2020. The bill would require industrial hemp to be cultivated only from seeds imported in accordance with laws of the United States or from seeds grown in California from industrial hemp plants or grown from industrial hemp plants grown by an established agricultural research institution. The bill would require, except as specified, the person growing the industrial hemp to obtain, prior to the harvest of each crop, a laboratory test of a random sample of the crop to determine the amount of THC in the crop. The bill would require that samples to perform the testing be taken in the presence of, and be collected and transported only by, an employee or agent of a laboratory that is registered with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration. The bill would require that the test report contain specified language, that the testing laboratory provide not less than 10 original signed copies to the cultivator, and that the testing laboratory and cultivator retain an original signed copy for a minimum of 2 years. The report would be required to be made available to law enforcement officials and provided to purchasers, as specified. The bill would require all industrial hemp seed sold for planting in California to be from a crop having no more than 310 of 1% THC contained in a random sampling of the dried flowering tops and tested under these provisions, and would require the destruction of crops exceeding that content, as specified.

The bill would provide that growing industrial hemp shall not be construed to authorize the possession, outside of a field of lawful cultivation, of resin, flowering tops, or leaves that have been removed from the hemp plant, except to perform required testing by an employee or agent of the testing laboratory or any cultivation of the industrial hemp plant that is not grown by an established agricultural research institution. This bill would require the Attorney General and the Hemp Industries Association to submit reports to the Legislature by January 1, 2018, regarding the economic and law enforcement impacts of industrial hemp cultivation.

The bill would state the findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to industrial hemp.

By revising the scope of application of existing crimes relating to marijuana, this bill would impose a state‑mandated local program.

By specifying the conditions of cultivation, the violation of which would be a misdemeanor pursuant to other provisions of existing law, this 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 Add Division 24 (Commencing with Section 81000) to the Food and Agricultural Code, and to Amend Section 11018 Of, and to Add Section 11018.5 To, the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Industrial Hemp.
Author(s)
Mark Leno
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • Industrial hemp
    Major Actions
    Introduced2/18/2011
    Referred to Committee
    Passed Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture4/05/2011
    Passed Senate Committee on Public Safety4/26/2011
    Passed Senate Committee on Appropriations5/16/2011
    Passed Senate5/31/2011
    Passed Assembly Committee on Public Safety6/21/2011
    Passed Assembly Committee on Agriculture6/29/2011
    Passed Assembly Committee on Appropriations8/17/2011
    Passed Assembly9/07/2011
    Passed Senate9/08/2011
    Presented to the governor (enrolled)9/14/2011
    Vetoed by Governor10/09/2011
    Vetoed by Governor10/09/2011
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    select this voteSenate Committee on Food and AgricultureDo pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Public Safety.4/05/2011This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture
    5 voted YES 1 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on Public SafetyDo pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.4/26/2011This 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.5/16/2011This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Appropriations
    6 voted YES 3 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenateSenate 3rd Reading SB676 Leno5/31/2011This bill PASSED the Senate
    22 voted YES 14 voted NO 4 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssembly Committee on Public SafetyDo pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Agriculture.6/21/2011This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Public Safety
    5 voted YES 2 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssembly Committee on AgricultureDo pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.6/29/2011This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Agriculture
    6 voted YES 0 voted NO 3 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssembly Committee on AppropriationsDo pass.8/17/2011This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Appropriations
    11 voted YES 3 voted NO 3 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssemblySB 676 Leno Senate Third Reading By HILL9/07/2011This bill PASSED the Assembly
    49 voted YES 22 voted NO 9 voted present/not voting
    currently selectedSenateUnfinished Business SB676 Leno Concurrence9/08/2011This bill PASSED the Senate
    26 voted YES 13 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced2/18/2011
    2/18/2011Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
    2/20/2011From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 22.
    3/03/2011Referred to Coms. on AGRI. and PUB. S.
    3/15/2011Set for hearing April 5.
    3/31/2011From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on AGRI.
    4/05/2011From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 540.) (April 5). Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
    select this voteVote4/05/2011Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Public Safety.
    4/08/2011Set for hearing April 26.
    select this voteVote4/26/2011Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
    4/27/2011From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 742.) (April 26).
    4/28/2011Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
    5/03/2011Set for hearing May 9.
    5/05/2011Hearing postponed by committee.
    5/06/2011Set for hearing May 16.
    select this voteVote5/16/2011Do pass.
    5/17/2011From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 3. Page 1014.) (May 16).
    5/18/2011Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
    5/31/2011Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 22. Noes 14. Page 1178.) Ordered to the Assembly.
    select this voteSenate Vote on Passage5/31/2011Senate 3rd Reading SB676 Leno
    6/01/2011In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
    6/09/2011Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and AGRI.
    6/15/2011From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
    select this voteVote6/21/2011Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
    6/22/2011From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on AGRI. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (June 21). Re-referred to Com. on AGRI.
    select this voteVote6/29/2011Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
    6/30/2011From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
    7/13/2011Hearing postponed by committee.
    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 11. Noes 3.) (August 17).
    8/22/2011Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
    8/30/2011Read third time and amended. (Page 2690.) Ordered to third reading.
    9/07/2011Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 49. Noes 22. Page 2989.) Ordered to the Senate.
    9/07/2011In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
    select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage9/07/2011SB 676 Leno Senate Third Reading By HILL
    9/08/2011Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 26. Noes 13. Page 2415.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
    currently selectedSenate Vote on Passage9/08/2011Unfinished Business SB676 Leno Concurrence
    9/14/2011Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 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…

    $0
    $500
    $0
    $0
    $0
    $91,000
    $7,500
    $41,716
    $0
    $0
    $17,000
    $0
    $72,913
    $14,000
    $116,600
    $0
    $118,754
    $1,675,503
    $67,178
    $44,713
    $0
    $2,267,377
    $0

    opposed this bill

    Municipal & county government organizations (split) [About]
    Police & fire fighters unions and associations (split) [About]
    Public official (elected or appointed) (split) [About]
    37 Organizations Supported and 7 Opposed; See Which Ones

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Add Division 24 (Commencing with Section 81000) to the Food and Agricultural Code, and to Amend Section 11018 Of, and to Add Section 11018.5 To, the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Industrial Hemp.: Unfinished Business SB676 Leno Concurrence

    37 organizations supported this bill

    American Hemp Inc.
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Asher Hemp Gelato
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Azida, Inc.
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Business Alliance For Commerce In Hemp
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    California Certified Organic Farmers
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    California Conference of Machinists
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    California Grange
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Calyx Clothing
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Colorganics Inc.
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Community Alliance with Family Farmers
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Dash Hemp
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Drug Policy Alliance
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Green Field Paper Company
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Hemp House
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Hemp Industries Association
    Fletcher, Ryan and Patrick Goggin (2011, February 28). Leading Hemp Advocacy Groups Applaud Introduction of California Hemp Farming Bill SB 676. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from HIA.
    Hemp Shield
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Hemp Technologies
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Hemp Traders
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Hemp.com
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    High Grade Distribution
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Imperial County Farm Bureau
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Instituto Laboral De La Raza
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from .
    International Brotherhood of Teamsters
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Jungmaven Ltd.
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Kern County Sheriff
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Kings County Board of Supervisors
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Kings County Sheriff
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Living Harvest Foods
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Nutiva
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Santa Barbara Hemp
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Sartori Movement
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Skin and Coat Supplement
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    UFCW Local 5
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    UFCW Western States Council
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Vote Hemp
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.

    7 organizations opposed this bill

    Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    California Narcotic Officers' Association
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    California Peace Officers' Association
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    California Police Chiefs Association
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.
    Imperial County District Attorneys
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    League of California Cities
    Senate Rules Committee (2012, January 4). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
    Riverside Sheriffs' Association
    Assembly Committee on Agriculture (2011, June 28). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Leg. Info.

    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$4,000$0
    Joel AndersonRCA-36$17,589$0
    Tom BerryhillRCA-14$45,750$0
    Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
    Ron CalderonDCA-30$52,700$0
    Anthony CannellaRCA-12$35,153$0
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$62,800$0
    Lou CorreaDCA-34$102,663$0
    Kevin De LeonDCA-22$158,700$0
    Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$136,800$0
    Bob DuttonRCA-31$9,000$0
    Bill EmmersonRCA-37$19,600$0
    Noreen EvansDCA-2$97,650$0
    Jean FullerRCA-18$35,150$0
    Ted GainesRCA-1$10,500$0
    Loni HancockDCA-9$97,450$0
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$2,000$0
    Ed HernandezDCA-24$127,000$0
    Bob HuffRCA-29$24,800$0
    Christine KehoeDCA-39$8,550$0
    Doug La MalfaRCA-4$18,400$0
    Mark LenoDCA-3$99,500$0
    Ted LieuDCA-28$135,250$0
    Carol LiuDCA-21$80,650$0
    Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
    Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$43,150$0
    Alex PadillaDCA-20$82,650$0
    Fran PavleyDCA-23$119,600$0
    Curren PriceDCA-26$58,350$0
    Michael RubioDCA-16$168,663$0
    Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$0
    Joe SimitianDCA-11$15,500$0
    Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$96,132$0
    Tony StricklandRCA-19$19,890$0
    Juan VargasDCA-40$53,800$0
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$21,700$0
    Lois WolkDCA-5$71,442$0
    Rod WrightDCA-25$79,293$0
    Mark WylandRCA-38$7,350$0
    Leland YeeDCA-8$48,203$0

    Add Data Filters:

    Legislator Filters
    Legislator Filters
    Show All
    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Elaine AlquistDCA-13$4,000$0
    Joel AndersonRCA-36$17,589$0
    Tom BerryhillRCA-14$45,750$0
    Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
    Ron CalderonDCA-30$52,700$0
    Anthony CannellaRCA-12$35,153$0
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$62,800$0
    Lou CorreaDCA-34$102,663$0
    Kevin De LeonDCA-22$158,700$0
    Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$136,800$0
    Bob DuttonRCA-31$9,000$0
    Bill EmmersonRCA-37$19,600$0
    Noreen EvansDCA-2$97,650$0
    Jean FullerRCA-18$35,150$0
    Ted GainesRCA-1$10,500$0
    Loni HancockDCA-9$97,450$0
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$2,000$0
    Ed HernandezDCA-24$127,000$0
    Bob HuffRCA-29$24,800$0
    Christine KehoeDCA-39$8,550$0
    Doug La MalfaRCA-4$18,400$0
    Mark LenoDCA-3$99,500$0
    Ted LieuDCA-28$135,250$0
    Carol LiuDCA-21$80,650$0
    Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
    Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$43,150$0
    Alex PadillaDCA-20$82,650$0
    Fran PavleyDCA-23$119,600$0
    Curren PriceDCA-26$58,350$0
    Michael RubioDCA-16$168,663$0
    Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$0
    Joe SimitianDCA-11$15,500$0
    Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$96,132$0
    Tony StricklandRCA-19$19,890$0
    Juan VargasDCA-40$53,800$0
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$21,700$0
    Lois WolkDCA-5$71,442$0
    Rod WrightDCA-25$79,293$0
    Mark WylandRCA-38$7,350$0
    Leland YeeDCA-8$48,203$0

    Interest Groups that supported this bill

    $ Donated
    Construction unions$1,675,503
    Police & fire fighters unions and associations$1,108,000
    Food & beverage products and services$118,754
    Food & kindred products manufacturing$116,600
    Teamsters unions$91,000
    Farm Bureau/affiliated organizations & PACs$72,913
    Farm organizations & cooperatives$67,178
    Agricultural services & related industries$44,713
    Health & welfare policy$41,716
    Municipal & county government organizations$21,900
    Building materials$17,000
    Minority & ethnic groups$14,000
    Apparel & accessory stores$7,500
    Public official (elected or appointed)$4,100
    Farmers, crop unspecified$500
    Sporting goods sales & manufacturing$0
    Food service & related unions$0
    Clothing & accessories$0
    Manufacturing unions$0
    Consumer groups$0
    Toiletries & cosmetics$0
    Miscellaneous retail stores$0
    Paints, solvents & coatings$0
    Catalog & mail order houses$0

    Interest Groups that opposed this bill

    $ Donated
    Police & fire fighters unions and associations$1,108,000
    Municipal & county government organizations$21,900
    Public official (elected or appointed)$4,100
    Loading…
    Date Range of Contributions
    Enter a custom date range