Jane Kim and Ben Allen squabble over state-run wildfire insurance

How do you distinguish between the two Democrats running for insurance commissioner? Well, one of them wants state-backed public insurance. We have more on that, as well as details on a move campaigns are using to dodge spending limits this fall.

But we have more than election news in your inbox today. California employers scored a big win in federal court against a new state law that would limit anti-union messaging in workplaces. More on that below.

Insurance commissioner candidates Jane Kim and state Sen. Ben Allen have attacked each other over their main plans to improve California’s property insurance market: A public option and broad wildfire mitigation, respectively. 

Their latest back-and-forth is around what Kim’s plan to create a public wildfire insurer — a proposal that critics say would shift big risks to the state — might cost homeowners.

Kim recently released a policy brief that lays out how such a plan could work. Funding the program would involve having a two-part wildfire premium, collected by private insurers and diverted to the state, which would be based on each home’s wildfire risk, plus a “small, capped share that every home in the state contributes to cover the bad wildfire seasons.”

Her brief cited a proposal included in a California Earthquake Authority report that could serve as a model. It estimated that such a program would need about $25 billion for a very bad wildfire year. The program would buy reinsurance for that risk, which would cost $2 billion to $3 billion a year, or about $150 to $230 a policy. Without reinsurance, a “once-in-a-century fire” would mean a charge of $1,900 to $2,000 per policy over several years, the report said. 

On social media and elsewhere, Allen’s campaign is using Kim’s brief to say her plan would cost policyholders “$230 a year added to every homeowner’s policy” and “$2,000 or more in assessments on every policyholder.”

That’s not the case, Kim told reporters this week.

• Kim: “Either he is being intellectually disingenuous, or he doesn’t know how to read a policy brief … we were referring to a study that if we do not buy reinsurance that it would cost homeowners, on average, $2,000 more.”

CalMatters contacted Allen’s campaign about Kim’s pushback. Allen spokesperson Joe Arellano repeated his campaign’s claim. 

The two Democratic candidates have also tussled over campaign finance, including their promises not to take money from the insurance industry.

For the record: The Oct. 8 WhatMatters newsletter contained an error about what the Public Interest Legal Foundation agreed to in a confidential 2019 settlement of a lawsuit by plaintiffs who claimed they were falsely accused of voting improprieties. 

The foundation’s president, J. Christian Adams, says the foundation did not admit to falsely accusing thousands of Virginia voters of being noncitizens, as an earlier version of this newsletter stated. The foundation apologized to the three plaintiffs for relying on what he said were inaccurate government records, when the foundation falsely labeled them as noncitizens in its reports. 

The newsletter and article have been updated to provide corrected and additional details about the settlement.

More would-be California lawmakers are employing a controversial tactic that sidesteps campaign finance laws to spread their influence on potential voters, write CalMatters’ Kate Wolffe and Nadia Lathan. 

Donors in state elections are only allowed to give candidates as much as $5,900 per election. But independent expenditure committees, which can run ads supporting or opposing candidates, do not have a spending limit. 

These groups cannot directly coordinate with campaigns. But over the past decade, candidates have been using a method known as “red boxing” to leave instructions on their campaign sites, typically outlined in a red box, for independent spenders to follow when creating ads.

Critics say the tactic can create the appearance of corruption. But the California Fair Political Practices Commission is unlikely to rein in the behavior soon. 

• Steven Maviglio, Democratic strategist: “Like it or not, the state watchdog doesn’t have the capacity to do their job.”

Read more.

A federal court handed California business groups a win Thursday in their fight to stop a pro-labor law limiting so-called captive audience meetings.

In 2024 the state passed a law banning employers from punishing workers who refuse to attend workplace meetings about political, anti-union or religious matters. Three major industry groups — California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association and the Western Growers Association — sued the state, arguing that the measure violated their First Amendment rights.

A district court issued a preliminary injunction last year preventing the law from taking effect. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling on free speech grounds, agreeing with the industry groups’ argument. 

• Judge Richard C. Tallman, in his opinion: “The potential for any employee to expose an employer to liability for damages (including punitive damages) based on the employee’s perception of the workplace’s history and culture surrounding meetings ‘creates its own chilling effect’ on the employer’s ability to speak on political matters in the workplace.”

In a joint statement, the industry groups praised the ruling, saying that “the state cannot limit the speech of any business owner simply because the contents of that speech might differ from the political viewpoint of elected officials or outside interest groups.”

The office of the California attorney general said it was reviewing the ruling but did not comment on whether it plans to appeal.

Opponents of Proposition 45, which would lift some restrictions on the state’s environmental review law, say the measure would make it easier for developers to build data centers. Data center backers say the proposal doesn’t do that, but that hasn’t stopped the beneficiaries of such centers from pouring millions of dollars into supporting the measure. Read more from CalMatters’ Katherine Ortiz.

California Voices

CalMatters columnist Dan Walters: Though there were plenty of chaotic events for political junkies to savor this California election season, candidates did not meaningfully address the many challenges facing California, including its budget deficits, homelessness or rising living costs.

Prop. 13 was sold in 1978 as a way to save families from unpredictable property tax bills, but it also became a permanent discount for wealthy, corporate property owners that has resulted in billions of dollars in lost tax revenue, writes John Kim, president and CEO of Catalyst California.

DOJ subpoenas CA election officials, despite judge’s order to stop threatening them // CalMatters (free)

Did Trump invest more money in rural CA health ahead of the election? // CalMatters (free)

For the record: Fresno man deported by ICE had previous illegal crossings // CalMatters (free)

Tech giants ramp up resistance to ICE in bid to avoid Democratic scrutiny // The Wall Street Journal (gift link)

Newsom to send election attorneys to counter federal poll watchers // The Sacramento Bee (paywall)

Despite concern from CA reps, Trump admin still sending pregnant migrant youth to South Texas // LAist (free)

As plastic law goes into effect, industry sets the numbers // Los Angeles Times (paywall)

Record-breaking high tides spark chaos — and kayak commutes — across CA // The Guardian (free)

Inside CA’s decadelong higher education expansion in prisons // EdSource (free)