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 900 - An Act to Amend and Add Sections 2923.5 and 2923.6 Of, to Amend and Repeal Section 2924 Of, to Add Sections 2920.5, 2923.4, 2923.7, 2924.17, and 2924.20 To, to Add and Repeal Sections 2923.55, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.18, and 2924.19 Of, and to Add, Repeal, and Add Sections 2924.11, 2924.12, and 2924.15 Of, the Civil Code, Relating to Mortgages.

Mortgages and deeds of trust: foreclosure. 2011-2012 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
(1)Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent to contact the borrower prior to filing a notice of default to explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure, as specified. Existing law requires a notice of default or, in certain circumstances, a notice of sale, to include a declaration stating that the mortgagee, trustee,… More
(1)Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent to contact the borrower prior to filing a notice of default to explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure, as specified. Existing law requires a notice of default or, in certain circumstances, a notice of sale, to include a declaration stating that the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has contacted the borrower, has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower, or that no contact was required for a specified reason.

This bill would add mortgage servicers, as defined, to these provisions and would extend the operation of these provisions indefinitely, except that it would delete the requirement with respect to a notice of sale. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, additionally require the borrower, as defined, to be provided with specified information in writing prior to recordation of a notice of default and, in certain circumstances, within 5 business days after recordation. The bill would prohibit a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent from recording a notice of default or, until January 1, 2018, recording a notice of sale or conducting a trustee’s sale while a complete first lien loan modification application is pending, under specified conditions. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, establish additional procedures to be followed regarding a first lien loan modification application, the denial of an application, and a borrower’s right to appeal a denial.

(2)Existing law imposes various requirements that must be satisfied prior to exercising a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust, including, among other things, recording a notice of default and a notice of sale.

The bill would, until January 1, 2018, require a written notice to the borrower after the postponement of a foreclosure sale in order to advise the borrower of any new sale date and time, as specified. The bill would provide that an entity shall not record a notice of default or otherwise initiate the foreclosure process unless it is the holder of the beneficial interest under the deed of trust, the original or substituted trustee, or the designated agent of the holder of the beneficial interest, as specified.

The bill would prohibit recordation of a notice of default or a notice of sale or the conduct of a trustee’s sale if a foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved and certain conditions exist and would, until January 1, 2018, require recordation of a rescission of those notices upon execution of a permanent foreclosure prevention alternative. The bill would until January 1, 2018, prohibit the collection of application fees and the collection of late fees while a foreclosure prevention alternative is being considered, if certain criteria are met, and would require a subsequent mortgage servicer to honor any previously approved foreclosure prevention alternative.

The bill would authorize a borrower to seek an injunction and damages for violations of certain of the provisions described above, except as specified. The bill would authorize the greater of treble actual damages or $50,000 in statutory damages if a violation of certain provisions is found to be intentional or reckless or resulted from willful misconduct, as specified. The bill would authorize the awarding of attorneys’ fees for prevailing borrowers, as specified. Violations of these provisions by licensees of the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate would also be violations of those respective licensing laws. Because a violation of certain of those licensing laws is a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would provide that the requirements imposed on mortgage servicers, and mortgagees, trustees, beneficiaries, and authorized agents, described above are applicable only to mortgages or deeds of trust secured by residential real property not exceeding 4 dwelling units that is owner-occupied, as defined, and, until January 1, 2018, only to those entities who conduct more than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting period, except as specified.

The bill would require, upon request from a borrower who requests a foreclosure prevention alternative, a mortgage servicer who conducts more than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting period to establish a single point of contact and provide the borrower with one or more direct means of communication with the single point of contact. The bill would specify various responsibilities of the single point of contact. The bill would define single point of contact for these purposes.

(3)Existing law prescribes documents that may be recorded or filed in court.

This bill would require that a specified declaration, notice of default, notice of sale, deed of trust, assignment of a deed of trust, substitution of trustee, or declaration or affidavit filed in any court relative to a foreclosure proceeding or recorded by or on behalf of a mortgage servicer shall be accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence. The bill would require that, before recording or filing any of those documents, a mortgage servicer shall ensure that it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower’s default and the right to foreclose, including the borrower’s loan status and loan information. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, provide that any mortgage servicer that engages in multiple and repeated violations of these requirements shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to $7,500 per mortgage or deed of trust, in an action brought by specified state and local government entities, and would also authorize administrative enforcement against licensees of the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate.

The bill would authorize the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate to adopt regulations applicable to persons and entities under their respective jurisdictions for purposes of the provisions described above. The bill would provide that a violation of those regulations would be enforceable only by the regulating agency.

(4)The bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature in relation to foreclosures in the state generally, and would state the purposes of the bill.

(5)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 has become law (chaptered). 

An Act to Amend and Add Sections 2923.5 and 2923.6 Of, to Amend and Repeal Section 2924 Of, to Add Sections 2920.5, 2923.4, 2923.7, 2924.17, and 2924.20 To, to Add and Repeal Sections 2923.55, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.18, and 2924.19 Of, and to Add, Repeal, and Add Sections 2924.11, 2924.12, and 2924.15 Of, the Civil Code, Relating to Mortgages.

SB 900 — 2011-2012 Legislature

Summary
(1)Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent to contact the borrower prior to filing a notice of default to explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure, as specified. Existing law requires a notice of default or, in certain circumstances, a notice of sale, to include a declaration stating that the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has contacted the borrower, has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower, or that no contact was required for a specified reason.

This bill would add mortgage servicers, as defined, to these provisions and would extend the operation of these provisions indefinitely, except that it would delete the requirement with respect to a notice of sale. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, additionally require the borrower, as defined, to be provided with specified information in writing prior to recordation of a notice of default and, in certain circumstances, within 5 business days after recordation. The bill would prohibit a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent from recording a notice of default or, until January 1,… More
(1)Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent to contact the borrower prior to filing a notice of default to explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure, as specified. Existing law requires a notice of default or, in certain circumstances, a notice of sale, to include a declaration stating that the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has contacted the borrower, has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower, or that no contact was required for a specified reason.

This bill would add mortgage servicers, as defined, to these provisions and would extend the operation of these provisions indefinitely, except that it would delete the requirement with respect to a notice of sale. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, additionally require the borrower, as defined, to be provided with specified information in writing prior to recordation of a notice of default and, in certain circumstances, within 5 business days after recordation. The bill would prohibit a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent from recording a notice of default or, until January 1, 2018, recording a notice of sale or conducting a trustee’s sale while a complete first lien loan modification application is pending, under specified conditions. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, establish additional procedures to be followed regarding a first lien loan modification application, the denial of an application, and a borrower’s right to appeal a denial.

(2)Existing law imposes various requirements that must be satisfied prior to exercising a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust, including, among other things, recording a notice of default and a notice of sale.

The bill would, until January 1, 2018, require a written notice to the borrower after the postponement of a foreclosure sale in order to advise the borrower of any new sale date and time, as specified. The bill would provide that an entity shall not record a notice of default or otherwise initiate the foreclosure process unless it is the holder of the beneficial interest under the deed of trust, the original or substituted trustee, or the designated agent of the holder of the beneficial interest, as specified.

The bill would prohibit recordation of a notice of default or a notice of sale or the conduct of a trustee’s sale if a foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved and certain conditions exist and would, until January 1, 2018, require recordation of a rescission of those notices upon execution of a permanent foreclosure prevention alternative. The bill would until January 1, 2018, prohibit the collection of application fees and the collection of late fees while a foreclosure prevention alternative is being considered, if certain criteria are met, and would require a subsequent mortgage servicer to honor any previously approved foreclosure prevention alternative.

The bill would authorize a borrower to seek an injunction and damages for violations of certain of the provisions described above, except as specified. The bill would authorize the greater of treble actual damages or $50,000 in statutory damages if a violation of certain provisions is found to be intentional or reckless or resulted from willful misconduct, as specified. The bill would authorize the awarding of attorneys’ fees for prevailing borrowers, as specified. Violations of these provisions by licensees of the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate would also be violations of those respective licensing laws. Because a violation of certain of those licensing laws is a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would provide that the requirements imposed on mortgage servicers, and mortgagees, trustees, beneficiaries, and authorized agents, described above are applicable only to mortgages or deeds of trust secured by residential real property not exceeding 4 dwelling units that is owner-occupied, as defined, and, until January 1, 2018, only to those entities who conduct more than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting period, except as specified.

The bill would require, upon request from a borrower who requests a foreclosure prevention alternative, a mortgage servicer who conducts more than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting period to establish a single point of contact and provide the borrower with one or more direct means of communication with the single point of contact. The bill would specify various responsibilities of the single point of contact. The bill would define single point of contact for these purposes.

(3)Existing law prescribes documents that may be recorded or filed in court.

This bill would require that a specified declaration, notice of default, notice of sale, deed of trust, assignment of a deed of trust, substitution of trustee, or declaration or affidavit filed in any court relative to a foreclosure proceeding or recorded by or on behalf of a mortgage servicer shall be accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence. The bill would require that, before recording or filing any of those documents, a mortgage servicer shall ensure that it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower’s default and the right to foreclose, including the borrower’s loan status and loan information. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, provide that any mortgage servicer that engages in multiple and repeated violations of these requirements shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to $7,500 per mortgage or deed of trust, in an action brought by specified state and local government entities, and would also authorize administrative enforcement against licensees of the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate.

The bill would authorize the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate to adopt regulations applicable to persons and entities under their respective jurisdictions for purposes of the provisions described above. The bill would provide that a violation of those regulations would be enforceable only by the regulating agency.

(4)The bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature in relation to foreclosures in the state generally, and would state the purposes of the bill.

(5)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 and Add Sections 2923.5 and 2923.6 Of, to Amend and Repeal Section 2924 Of, to Add Sections 2920.5, 2923.4, 2923.7, 2924.17, and 2924.20 To, to Add and Repeal Sections 2923.55, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.18, and 2924.19 Of, and to Add, Repeal, and Add Sections 2924.11, 2924.12, and 2924.15 Of, the Civil Code, Relating to Mortgages.
Author(s)
Mark Leno, Noreen Evans, Ellen Corbett, Mark DeSaulnier, Fran Pavley, Darrell Steinberg
Co-Authors
Subjects
  • Mortgages and deeds of trust: foreclosure
Major Actions
Introduced2/18/2011
Referred to Committee
Passed Senate Committee on Environmental Quality5/02/2011
Passed Senate5/19/2011
Passed Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials6/28/2011
Passed Assembly4/26/2012
Passed Assembly4/26/2012
Failed passage in Senate4/30/2012
Passed Assembly7/02/2012
Passed Senate7/02/2012
Passed Senate7/02/2012
Passed Senate7/02/2012
Presented to the governor (enrolled)7/05/2012
Became law (chaptered).7/11/2012
Bill History
Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
select this voteSenate Committee on Environmental QualityDo pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.5/02/2011This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality
5 voted YES 0 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenateSenate 3rd Reading SB900 Steinberg5/19/2011This bill PASSED the Senate
34 voted YES 0 voted NO 6 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic MaterialsDo pass.6/28/2011This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials
9 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssemblySB 900 Steinberg Senate Third Reading By ENG Amend By ENG Set #14/26/2012This bill PASSED the Assembly
50 voted YES 24 voted NO 6 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssemblySB 900 Leno Senate Third Reading By ENG4/26/2012This bill PASSED the Assembly
47 voted YES 24 voted NO 9 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenateUnfinished Business SB900 Leno Concurrence4/30/2012This bill DID NOT PASS the Senate
1 voted YES 26 voted NO 13 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssemblySB 900 Leno Conference Report7/02/2012This bill PASSED the Assembly
54 voted YES 26 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenateConference Reports SB900 Leno7/02/2012This bill PASSED the Senate
24 voted YES 13 voted NO 3 voted present/not voting
select this voteSenateConference Reports SB900 Leno Reconsider7/02/2012This bill PASSED the Senate
24 voted YES 12 voted NO 4 voted present/not voting
currently selectedSenateConference Reports SB900 Leno7/02/2012This bill PASSED the Senate
25 voted YES 13 voted NO 2 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.
3/10/2011Referred to Com. on RLS.
4/06/2011From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
4/14/2011Re-referred to Com. on E.Q.
4/15/2011Set for hearing May 2.
select this voteVote5/02/2011Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
5/05/2011From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 856.) (May 2).
5/09/2011Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
5/10/2011Withdrawn from committee. Ordered to second reading.
5/11/2011Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
5/19/2011Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 34. Noes 0. Page 1038.) Ordered to the Assembly.
5/19/2011In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
select this voteSenate Vote on Passage5/19/2011Senate 3rd Reading SB900 Steinberg
6/16/2011Referred to Com. on E.S. & T.M.
select this voteVote6/28/2011Do pass.
6/29/2011From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (June 28).
6/30/2011Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
7/01/2011Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Charles Calderon.
4/19/2012Notice of intention to remove from inactive file given by Assembly Member Charles Calderon.
4/23/2012From inactive file. Ordered to third reading.
4/26/2012Read third time and amended. (Ayes 50. Noes 24. Page 4565.) Ordered to third reading. Assembly Rule 69(d) suspended. (Ayes 50. Noes 24. Page 4566.) Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 47. Noes 24. Page 4567.) Ordered to the Senate.
4/26/2012In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage4/26/2012SB 900 Steinberg Senate Third Reading By ENG Amend By ENG Set #1
select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage4/26/2012SB 900 Leno Senate Third Reading By ENG
4/30/2012Senate refused to concur in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 1. Noes 26. Page 3331.) Ordered to Conference Committee. Senators Vargas, Evans, and Blakeslee appointed to Conference Committee. Assembly Members Eng, Feuer, and Wagner appointed to Conference Committee.
select this voteSenate Vote on Passage4/30/2012Unfinished Business SB900 Leno Concurrence
5/02/2012Senators Evans, Calderon, and Blakeslee appointed to Conference Committee.
5/14/2012Joint Rule 29.5(a) suspended in the Assembly. (Ayes 72. Noes 0. Page 4808.) Joint Rule 29.5(a) suspended in the Senate. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 3498.)
6/27/2012From Conference Committee: Be adopted. (Ayes 4: Senators Evans and Calderon, Assembly Members Feuer and Eng. Noes 1: Assembly Member Wagner. Page 4161.) (June 26.) (Corrected June 28.) (Corrected June 29.)
7/02/2012Assembly adopted Conference Committee report. (Ayes 54. Noes 26. Page 5550.)
7/02/2012Senate adopted Conference Committee report. (Ayes 25. Noes 13. Page 4221.) Senate adopted Conference Committee report. (Ayes 24. Noes 13. Page 4220.) Motion to reconsider made by Senator Vargas. Reconsideration granted. (Ayes 24. Noes 12. Page 4221.)
select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage7/02/2012SB 900 Leno Conference Report
select this voteSenate Vote on Passage7/02/2012Conference Reports SB900 Leno
select this voteSenate Vote on Passage7/02/2012Conference Reports SB900 Leno Reconsider
currently selectedSenate Vote on Passage7/02/2012Conference Reports SB900 Leno
7/05/2012Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 5 p.m.
7/11/2012Approved by the Governor.
7/11/2012Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 87, Statutes of 2012.

Total contributions given to Senators from interest groups that…

supported this bill

Construction unions [About]
Police & fire fighters unions and associations [About]
State & local government employee unions [About]
Electrical workers/IBEW [About]
Teachers unions [About]
Wine & distilled spirits manufacturing [About]
Health worker unions [About]
Waste management [About]
Building operators & managers [About]
Vegetables, fruits & tree nuts [About]
Engineering, architecture & construction management services [About]
Farmers, in general [About]
Dairy farmers & wholesale and retail milk, cheese and ice cream dealers [About]
Food & beverage products and services [About]
Poultry & eggs [About]
Water utilities [About]
Teamsters unions [About]
Timber companies, sawmills, & others engaged in cutting down trees [About]
Chambers of commerce [About]
Other commodities (including rice, peanuts, honey) [About]
Farm Bureau/affiliated organizations & PACs [About]
Labor unions [About]
Chemicals [About]
Farm organizations & cooperatives [About]
Merchant marine & longshoremen unions [About]
Trucking [About]
Manufacturing [About]
Transportation unions [About]
Agricultural services & related industries [About]
Feedlots & related livestock services [About]
Industrial & commercial equipment and materials [About]
Municipal & county government organizations [About]
Florists & nursery services [About]
Cotton growers, cotton ginners [About]
Warehousing [About]
Nonprofit foundations (split) [About]
Miscellaneous agriculture [About]
Wheat, corn, soybeans & cash grain [About]
General business associations [About]
Energy-related unions (non-mining) [About]
General commercial unions [About]
Food service & related unions [About]
Manufacturing unions [About]
11 times as much
$128,000
$142,397
$0
$195,011
$176,650
$170,832
$8,000
$88,900
$27,800
$89,757
$118,754
$48,366
$27,500
$0
$77,700
$44,713
$13,650
$53,700
$6,500
$0
$70,300
$108,196
$72,913
$131,851
$118,500
$287,250
$21,900
$67,178
$72,150
$47,900
$0
$344,330
$279,500
$1,108,000
$707,723
$1,675,503
$454,350
$54,950
$0
$0
$0
$91,000
$7,131,724
$0
$35,409
$102,916
$60,100
$136,900
$31,102
$0
$268,058
$634,485
61 Organizations Supported and 14 Opposed; See Which Ones

Organizations that took a position on
An Act to Amend and Add Sections 2923.5 and 2923.6 Of, to Amend and Repeal Section 2924 Of, to Add Sections 2920.5, 2923.4, 2923.7, 2924.17, and 2924.20 To, to Add and Repeal Sections 2923.55, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.18, and 2924.19 Of, and to Add, Repeal, and Add Sections 2924.11, 2924.12, and 2924.15 Of, the Civil Code, Relating to Mortgages.: Conference Reports SB900 Leno

61 organizations supported this bill

AFL-CIO
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Alliance of Western Milk Producers
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Amalgamated Transit Union
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
American Council of Engineering Companies California
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Agricultural Irrigation Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Association of Wheat Growers
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Chamber of Commerce
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Citrus Mutual
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Conference of Machinists
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Cotton Ginners and Growers Associations
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Federation of Teachers
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Forestry Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Grain & Feed Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Grape & Tree Fruit League
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Labor Federation
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California League of Food Processors
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Metals Coalition
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Nurses Association
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Pear Growers Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Professional Firefighters
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Rice Commission
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Rice Industry Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California School Employees Association
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Seed Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California State Floral Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California State Pipe Trades Council
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Trucking Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Warehouse Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Center for Responsible Lending
(2012, June 28). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Chemical Industry Council of California
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
El Dorado Irrigation District
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Grower Shipper Association Of Santa Barbara And San Luis Obispo Counties
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Grower-Shipper Association of Central California
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
International Longshore and Warehouse Union
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Kings River Conservation District
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Kings River Water Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Monterey County Farm Bureau
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Nisei Farmers League
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Northern California Water Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Pacific Egg & Poultry Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Partnership For Sound Science In Environmental Policy
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Paso Robles Wine Country Alliance
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
SEIU Local 1000
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Service Employees International Union
(2012, June 28). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Southern San Joaquin Valley Water Quality Coalition
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
UNITE HERE!
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Utility Workers Union of America
(2012, July 2). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Western Growers
(2011, May 11). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved June 21, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Western Plant Health Association
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Wine Institute
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.

14 organizations opposed this bill

California Bankers Association
(2012, June 28). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Coastkeeper Alliance
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Financial Services Association
(2012, June 28). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Land Title Association
(2012, June 28). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Mortgage Association
(2012, June 28). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Mortgage Bankers Association
(2012, June 28). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Civil Justice Association of California
(2012, June 28). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Clean Water Action
Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials (2011, June 27). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Heal The Bay
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Natural Resources Defense Council
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
(2012, June 28). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Sierra Club California
Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (2011, April 29). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
United Trustees Association
(2012, June 28). Senate Floor Analysis. Retrieved July 19, 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$18,950$0
Joel AndersonRCA-36$86,957$24,700
Tom BerryhillRCA-14$222,834$11,750
Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
Ron CalderonDCA-30$143,029$17,580
Anthony CannellaRCA-12$220,858$13,000
Ellen CorbettDCA-10$146,854$2,000
Lou CorreaDCA-34$242,176$16,150
Kevin De LeonDCA-22$439,139$25,650
Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$319,604$8,000
Bob DuttonRCA-31$60,900$11,500
Bill EmmersonRCA-37$100,525$9,000
Noreen EvansDCA-2$281,612$9,509
Jean FullerRCA-18$140,565$11,000
Ted GainesRCA-1$65,746$45,100
Loni HancockDCA-9$294,205$3,900
Tom HarmanRCA-35$49,750$12,000
Ed HernandezDCA-24$325,282$32,650
Bob HuffRCA-29$213,861$30,452
Christine KehoeDCA-39$45,850$5,500
Doug La MalfaRCA-4$119,925$3,500
Mark LenoDCA-3$222,999$2,550
Ted LieuDCA-28$432,542$20,975
Carol LiuDCA-21$146,195$12,450
Alan LowenthalDCA-27$-3,100$0
Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$140,206$20,175
Alex PadillaDCA-20$255,918$20,380
Fran PavleyDCA-23$408,350$21,600
Curren PriceDCA-26$169,246$32,116
Michael RubioDCA-16$329,266$27,692
Sharon RunnerRCA-17$15,405$3,500
Joe SimitianDCA-11$63,312$2,000
Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$339,223$26,500
Tony StricklandRCA-19$101,497$15,300
Juan VargasDCA-40$204,041$34,079
Mimi WaltersRCA-33$71,149$43,700
Lois WolkDCA-5$186,875$4,000
Rod WrightDCA-25$285,176$30,027
Mark WylandRCA-38$46,750$9,000
Leland YeeDCA-8$178,053$15,500

Add Data Filters:

Legislator Filters
Legislator Filters
Show All
NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Elaine AlquistDCA-13$18,950$0
Joel AndersonRCA-36$86,957$24,700
Tom BerryhillRCA-14$222,834$11,750
Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
Ron CalderonDCA-30$143,029$17,580
Anthony CannellaRCA-12$220,858$13,000
Ellen CorbettDCA-10$146,854$2,000
Lou CorreaDCA-34$242,176$16,150
Kevin De LeonDCA-22$439,139$25,650
Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$319,604$8,000
Bob DuttonRCA-31$60,900$11,500
Bill EmmersonRCA-37$100,525$9,000
Noreen EvansDCA-2$281,612$9,509
Jean FullerRCA-18$140,565$11,000
Ted GainesRCA-1$65,746$45,100
Loni HancockDCA-9$294,205$3,900
Tom HarmanRCA-35$49,750$12,000
Ed HernandezDCA-24$325,282$32,650
Bob HuffRCA-29$213,861$30,452
Christine KehoeDCA-39$45,850$5,500
Doug La MalfaRCA-4$119,925$3,500
Mark LenoDCA-3$222,999$2,550
Ted LieuDCA-28$432,542$20,975
Carol LiuDCA-21$146,195$12,450
Alan LowenthalDCA-27$-3,100$0
Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$140,206$20,175
Alex PadillaDCA-20$255,918$20,380
Fran PavleyDCA-23$408,350$21,600
Curren PriceDCA-26$169,246$32,116
Michael RubioDCA-16$329,266$27,692
Sharon RunnerRCA-17$15,405$3,500
Joe SimitianDCA-11$63,312$2,000
Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$339,223$26,500
Tony StricklandRCA-19$101,497$15,300
Juan VargasDCA-40$204,041$34,079
Mimi WaltersRCA-33$71,149$43,700
Lois WolkDCA-5$186,875$4,000
Rod WrightDCA-25$285,176$30,027
Mark WylandRCA-38$46,750$9,000
Leland YeeDCA-8$178,053$15,500

Interest Groups that supported this bill

$ Donated
Construction unions$1,675,503
Police & fire fighters unions and associations$1,108,000
State & local government employee unions$707,723
Electrical workers/IBEW$454,350
Teachers unions$344,330
Wine & distilled spirits manufacturing$287,250
Health worker unions$279,500
Waste management$195,011
Building operators & managers$176,650
Vegetables, fruits & tree nuts$170,832
Engineering, architecture & construction management services$142,397
Farmers, in general$131,851
Dairy farmers & wholesale and retail milk, cheese and ice cream dealers$128,000
Food & beverage products and services$118,754
Poultry & eggs$118,500
Water utilities$108,196
Teamsters unions$91,000
Timber companies, sawmills, & others engaged in cutting down trees$89,757
Chambers of commerce$88,900
Other commodities (including rice, peanuts, honey)$77,700
Farm Bureau/affiliated organizations & PACs$72,913
Labor unions$72,150
Chemicals$70,300
Farm organizations & cooperatives$67,178
Merchant marine & longshoremen unions$54,950
Trucking$53,700
Manufacturing$48,366
Transportation unions$47,900
Agricultural services & related industries$44,713
Feedlots & related livestock services$27,800
Industrial & commercial equipment and materials$27,500
Municipal & county government organizations$21,900
Florists & nursery services$13,650
Cotton growers, cotton ginners$8,000
Warehousing$6,500
Nonprofit foundations$2,250
Energy-related unions (non-mining)$0
Manufacturing unions$0
General business associations$0
Wheat, corn, soybeans & cash grain$0
Miscellaneous agriculture$0
General commercial unions$0
Food service & related unions$0

Interest Groups that opposed this bill

$ Donated
Commercial banks & bank holding companies$268,058
Mortgage bankers & brokers$136,900
Financial services & consulting$102,916
Title insurance & title abstract offices$60,100
Environmental policy$35,409
Pro-business organizations$31,102
Nonprofit foundations$2,250
Security brokers & investment companies$0
Fisheries & wildlife$0
Loading…
Date Range of Contributions
Enter a custom date range