Despite facing a $12 billion deficit this year, California\u2019s Legislature still managed to spend at least $415 million for local projects to help lawmakers win their next elections.<\/p>\n
CalMatters found close to 100 earmarks inserted into just one<\/a> of the state\u2019s budget bills for local projects and programs that had little apparent benefit to anyone outside the lawmakers\u2019 districts.<\/p>\n Some of the earmarks raise concerns about legislative priorities in a difficult budget year, such as lawmakers spending millions from the general fund on museums, trails, parks and other amenities in wealthy communities.<\/p>\n The spending includes $5 million in general fund money for a LGBTQ+ venue in high-cost San Francisco, $2.5 million for a private day school in Southern California and $250,000 for a private farm-animal rescue on the North Coast.<\/p>\n Around $250 million of the local-project earmarks were funds taken from the $10 billion Proposition 4 climate bond California voters approved last year.<\/p>\n Some of the Prop. 4 earmarks included:<\/p>\n $26 million to programs paying farmers for private land conservation.<\/p>\n The earmarks were approved at the same time Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers left state worker positions unfilled, suspended some health care benefits, forewent raises for firefighters, filled budget holes with high-interest bond money and took billions of dollars from the state\u2019s \u201crainy day\u201d emergency fund.<\/p>\n Kristen Cox, executive director of the Long Beach Community Table<\/a> foodbank, said the money lawmakers spent this year to enhance communities in their districts \u2014 often for projects that some would consider frills \u2014 isn\u2019t going to the neediest Californians.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s misprioritization,\u201d she said. \u201cMy priorities are to help the people that need it the most. Their priorities seem to be \u2018Let\u2019s make this city look gentrified and pretty and beautiful.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n A secret process that benefits lawmakers<\/p>\n Many of the earmarks \u2014 one-time allotments of cash for a specific purpose or project \u2014 are fairly benign and went to local infrastructure needs such as fire stations, parks, public schools and environmental projects.<\/p>\n They also represent just a small portion of the state\u2019s $321 billion budget<\/a>, which pays for programs and services that typically are intended to help all of California.<\/p>\n But inside the notoriously secretive<\/a> budget negotiation process, lawmakers also have the ability to set aside sizable chunks of money to benefit their districts through an even more opaque earmark system.<\/p>\n It allows them to direct money to their pet projects without leaving a fingerprint \u2014 at least until they issue a press release touting a new community perk or show up for ribbon-cutting and check-passing ceremonies.<\/p>\n Such spending, disparagingly called \u201cpork-barrel spending\u201d or \u201cpork\u201d for short, is hardly new or unique to California, said Thad Kousser, a former legislative staffer and political science professor at UC San Diego. He has extensively studied<\/a> equity in how politicians divide up budgets for local needs.<\/p>\n There\u2019s a reason it\u2019s pervasive: When politicians keep the cash flowing back home, it helps them get re-elected, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cPoliticians across generations \u2014 and in every country \u2014 try to use some portion of the budget on these clear signals that they\u2019re directing the flow of government dollars to real people and real organizations right at home in their district,\u201d he said. \u201cVoters reward that.\u201d<\/p>\n Eyeing higher office? Send pork home<\/p>\n The biggest recipient of the earmarks in Senate Bill 105<\/a> appears to be the North Coast Senate district of Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire<\/a>. After losing his legislative leadership seat this year, he seems to be positioning himself for a congressional bid, according to The Santa Rosa Press Democrat<\/a>. If he does run, he\u2019ll be able to tout all the cash he brought to his Senate district this year.<\/p>\n His district was the recipient of more than two dozen earmarks totalling more than $100 million, accounting for a quarter of the earmark funds CalMatters identified. They went to fund a regional hospital, harbors, habitat projects, schools and fire stations. His district also received $250,000 for the farm-animal rescue.<\/p>\n His largest earmarks included $50 million in Prop. 4 funds for a redwood trail<\/a> that\u2019s to run 320 miles across his district.<\/p>\n McGuire\u2019s office didn\u2019t make him available for an interview. McGuire instead sent an emailed statement defending the earmarks.<\/p>\n \u201cOur state\u2019s budget includes smart, one-time investments across California,\u201d McGuire said. \u201cMany in our state have been working on these projects for years to make California safer, stronger and more resilient.\u201d<\/p>\n Sen. Scott Wiener<\/a>, the powerful Senate Budget Committee chairperson from San Francisco, is definitely running for higher office. Wiener announced last month<\/a> he\u2019s running for Nancy Pelosi\u2019s congressional seat.<\/p>\n The budget included at least $9 million in general fund earmarks benefiting the voters of San Francisco who will decide whether to send him to Washington, D.C. The money went for parks, restroom improvements and \u201cto support the preservation and revitalization of a historic LGBTQ+ venue\u201d in the city\u2019s Castro neighborhood, according to the budget bill which doesn\u2019t name the venue.<\/p>\n San Francisco is also slated to receive $1 million for a new oncology clinic and chemotherapy center for Chinese Hospital and $250,000 for \u201caccessibility improvements\u201d to Wah Mei child development center.<\/p>\n Wiener\u2019s office didn\u2019t respond to interview requests.<\/p>\n Lawmakers complained of earmarks<\/p>\n None of the earmarks have a lawmaker\u2019s name on them, making it extremely difficult for members of the public \u2014 or even other lawmakers \u2014 to decipher whose they are and which districts benefited. The governor\u2019s administration is responsible for some.<\/p>\n Legislative staff told CalMatters while reporting this story that earmark requests sent to budget committees aren\u2019t public records.<\/p>\n CalMatters instead used the Digital Democracy database<\/a>\u2019s \u2018Find your legislators\u2019 tool to triangulate which pork projects are in which lawmakers\u2019 districts from earmarks inserted into SB 105. That\u2019s one of 40 budget-related bills Newsom signed this year.<\/p>\n There are almost certainly more earmarks buried in the other budget measures.<\/p>\n The secretive nature of earmarks \u2014 and the number and size of them this year \u2014 became a source of contention in September at the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee.<\/p>\n Some Democratic lawmakers complained that so many last-minute earmarks had popped up in the spending bills. They questioned whether the earmarks were being fairly distributed to communities with the most need.<\/p>\n \u201cFor the climate bond money, the general fund money, the Medi-Cal money, the Department of Education money, across the transit money, in almost every one, there is at least one \u2014 sometimes 40 \u2014 specific allocations,\u201d Sacramento Sen. Christopher Cabaldon<\/a> told the committee<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThe broader concern about equity and balance in those earmarks is certainly a point really well taken,\u201d said<\/a> Sen. Ben Allen<\/a>, a Democrat representing the El Segundo area.<\/p>\n Nonetheless, none of the 90 Democrats who control the Legislature voted against the budget this year, according to Digital Democracy.<\/p>\n Newsom also signed it into law. His office didn\u2019t respond to an interview request.<\/p>\n Susan Shelley of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association blasted the pork-project spending as hypocritical, especially as some liberal groups and lawmakers support raising taxes or turning to voters to pass new bonds to prop up the state\u2019s shaky finances.<\/p>\n Politicians, she said, like to say, \u201c\u2018We need money for everything in California.\u2019 And what are they spending the money on now? Basically gifts to the districts that make the elected representatives look good and that are not essential or not as essential.\u201d<\/p>\n Pork in Prop. 4\u00a0<\/p>\n About $275 million in Prop. 4 funds also went to backfill the state\u2019s general fund budget covering existing environmental, fire and energy programs and for expenses such as deferred maintenance at state parks.<\/p>\n Using bond funds to pay for existing expenses in the general fund means there\u2019s less bond money available to pay for the new expenditures voters thought they were supporting. The separate bond earmarks from lawmakers reflect their priorities and may not necessarily be what voters wanted either.<\/p>\n Some of the lawmakers\u2019 earmarks include:<\/p>\n $40 million to secure public access to a beach blocked off by the wealthy gated Hollister Ranch<\/a> community in Santa Barbara County and for a separate dam-removal project. Both projects are in the district of Sen. Monique Lim\u00f3n<\/a>, who is replacing McGuire as the Senate Democratic leader next year. She shares a district with a handful of assemblymembers who may have sought the earmarks.<\/p>\n Lim\u00f3n\u2019s district also received $1 million for a museum<\/a> in Santa Barbara \u201cfor an interactive water exhibit.\u201d Lim\u00f3n replied to an interview request with an email from her spokesperson, Christina Montoya. \u201cWhile the senator was not involved in Prop. 4 allocations,\u201d Montoya said, \u201cshe is glad to see projects funded that advance the goals of the state.\u201d<\/p>\n An aerial photo of Hollister Ranch, located west of Santa Barbara along the Gaviota Coast, on June 16, 2021. Photo by George Rose, Getty Images<\/p>\n The $15 million earmark \u201cfor geologic heritage sites\u201d including the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles was from Democratic Assemblymember Isaac Bryan<\/a>. His office didn\u2019t make him available for an interview.<\/p>\n Taxpayers will pay at least $6 billion in interest and other expenses to finance Prop. 4 over the next four decades.<\/p>\n Using Prop. 4 to pay farmers\u00a0<\/p>\n An example of how earmarks lock up Prop. 4 funds can be found in this year\u2019s budget for the Wildlife Conservation Board<\/a>. The $10 billion bond is supposed to provide $1 billion for the board to give out as grants in the coming years. The board uses a competitive process that prioritizes habitat project proposals to provide the most ecological benefits for California.<\/p>\n This year, the Legislature gave the board $339 million in Prop. 4 money to spend. But about a quarter of it \u2014 $88 million \u2014 is going to projects the board must now fund because of\u00a0 lawmakers\u2019 earmarks.<\/p>\n Gregg Hart<\/a>, a Santa Barbara Democratic assemblymember, got one of the biggest earmarks from the board\u2019s funds \u2014 $16 million for a conservation easement on Rancho San Julian<\/a>, a 13,000-acre private ranch<\/a> in his district. Conservation easements are legal agreements that ensure private lands don\u2019t get sold and turned into environmentally unfriendly developments.<\/p>\n In an interview, Hart said preserving the ranch\u2019s habitat in perpetuity is in line with what voters intended when they voted for Prop. 4.<\/p>\n Assemblymember Gregg Hart speaks during a committee hearing on petroleum and gasoline supply on Sept. 18, 2024. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters<\/p>\n \u201cIn my district, this is a signature ranch that is an environmental gem,\u201d Hart said. \u201cAnd preserving that is a very high-value project.\u201d<\/p>\n The conservation board also must allocate $10 million in Prop. 4 earmarks to programs<\/a> that will pay farmers and private wetland landowners in the Central Valley to flood their fields to provide habitat for waterbirds.<\/p>\n Central Valley farmers already have received hundreds of millions<\/a> of dollars in federal crop subsidies over the decades.<\/p>\n The flooded-field earmarks came from Democratic Sen. Jerry McNerney<\/a>, who represents the Stockton area, and Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry<\/a> representing the Davis area.<\/p>\n In an emailed statement, McNerney called the $10 million expenditure a \u201cwin-win for farmers and for wetlands \u2026 ensuring that migratory birds have places to rest and refuel on their long journey on the Pacific Flyway.\u201d<\/p>\n The total number of earmarks relying on Prop. 4 funds has Senate Republican Leader Brian Jones<\/a> of San Diego saying, \u201cI told you so.\u201d He urged voters to reject the bond last year.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was going to be pork,\u201d he said. \u201cIt was going to be earmarked projects that the legislators are going to be able to move \u2026. into things that really didn\u2019t have anything to do with the story that was being told to the voters when they voted.\u201d<\/p>\n Jones\u2019 district was the recipient of some pork, though he said he made no requests for Prop. 4 money. His earmarks were from the general fund. They include $1.4 million for San Diego County dam repairs and $615,000 to the San Diego Mountain Biking Association \u201cfor building and maintaining public trails for mountain biking.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2018What did we get?\u2019 from the general fund<\/p>\n Other notable earmarks from general fund dollars, separate from the climate bond, include large one-time allocations for projects to benefit the state\u2019s Jewish community. The Legislature has an\u00a0 18-member Jewish Caucus<\/a>.<\/p>\n The funds include $15 million for the Museum of Tolerance<\/a> and the Holocaust Memorial in Los Angeles as well as $5.4 million for the Jewish Community Center of the East Bay.<\/p>\n The Los Angeles Jewish community and interfaith leaders hold a candle lighting ceremony marking the exact moment of the first anniversary since Hamas spearheaded attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, at a ceremony at The Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles on Oct. 6, 2024. Photo by Damian Dovarganes, AP Photo<\/p>\n An earmark for $2.5 million also went \u201cfor security and other infrastructure\u201d at Milken Community School East Campus, a private Los Angeles Jewish school with annual tuition of nearly $55,000<\/a>.<\/p>\n The school is in Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel<\/a>\u2019s and Sen. Henry Stern<\/a>\u2019s districts. Stern\u2019s office said the earmark for the private school wasn\u2019t his. Gabriel co-chairs the Legislative Jewish Caucus with Wiener. Gabriel also oversees the Assembly Budget Committee. He didn\u2019t return messages. Neither did the school.<\/p>\n Gabriel this week attended a check-passing ceremony at the Discovery Cube in Los Angeles<\/a>. He and two other local lawmakers touted getting the children\u2019s museum a $5 million earmark from Prop. 4 funds.<\/p>\n Other earmarks using general fund money included at least $1.7 million for trail improvements and an urban garden in Democratic Sen. Catherine Blakespear<\/a>\u2019s wealthy coastal district, as well as $3.6 million for the Oceanside Museum of Art.<\/p>\n Blakespear responded to an interview request with an emailed statement.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m grateful that these impactful community projects were funded through the state\u2019s general fund,\u201d she said. \u201cI know they will provide immense value to these communities and their residents and are deserving of funding.\u201d<\/p>\n She announced this week she would be appearing at a check-passing ceremony for one of her earmarks: $1.2 million to the city of Mission Viejo for the Oso Creek Trail Improvement Project.<\/p>\n