Bills: SB37 , SJR84 , SJR87 , SJR27 , SB8 , SB10 , SB227 , SB261 , SB15 , SB12 , SB25 , SB57 , SB127 , SB293 , SB441 , SB3059 , SB512 , SB241 , SB1718 , SB140 , SB2055 , SB2075 , SB2018 , SB1534 , SB1567 , SB785 , SB1233 , SB1580 , SB1663 , SB413 , SB447 , SB519 , SB467 , SB1579 , SB1191 , SB1021 , SB1838 , SB2807 , SB2835 , SB546 , SB2121 , SB2167 , SB2035 , SB2024 , SB1032 , SB1049 , SB1266 , SB1400 , SB1302 , SB401 , SB1596 , SB1281 , SB1242 , SB1343 , SB310 , SB1346 , SB2753 , SB2703 , SB2221 , SB1719 , SB2177 , SB800 , SB790 , SB748 , SB571 , SB1957 , SB1923 , SB1896 , SB1760 , SB1335 , SB2368 , SB2477 , SB2587 , SB2972 , SB2986 , SB2965 , SB1563 , SB1467 , SB1164 , SB1137 , SB614 , SB705 , SB961 , SB918 , SB955 , SB869 , SB850 , SB863 , SB1610 , SB1055 , SB2206 , SB457 , SB2337 , SB1362 , SCR9 , SB2405 , SB2406 , SB2407 , SB2166 , SB2148 , SB535 , SB777 , SB827 , SB1141 , SB1330 , SB1352 , SB1664 , SB1862 , SB1936 , SB1453 , SB1448 , SB1398 , SB2137 , SB2111 , SB53 , SB226 , SB1677 , SB1723 , SB1839 , SB36 , SB38 , SB815 , SB1856 , SB552 , SB646 , SB37 , SJR84 , SJR87 , SJR27 , SB8 , SB10 , SB227 , SB261 , SB15 , SB12 , SB25 , SB57 , SB127 , SB293 , SB441 , SB3059 , SB512 , SB241 , SB1718 , SB140 , SB2055 , SB2075 , SB2018 , SB1534 , SB1567 , SB785 , SB1233 , SB1580 , SB1663 , SB413 , SB447 , SB519 , SB467 , SB1579 , SB1191 , SB1021 , SB1838 , SB2807 , SB2835 , SB546 , SB2121 , SB2167 , SB2035 , SB2024 , SB1032 , SB1049 , SB1266 , SB1400 , SB1302 , SB401 , SB1596 , SB1281 , SB1242 , SB1343 , SB310 , SB1346 , SB2753 , SB2703 , SB2221 , SB1719 , SB2177 , SB800 , SB790 , SB748 , SB571 , SB1957 , SB1923 , SB1896 , SB1760 , SB1335 , SB2368 , SB2477 , SB2587 , SB2972 , SB2986 , SB2965 , SB1563 , SB1467 , SB1164 , SB1137 , SB614 , SB705 , SB961 , SB918 , SB955 , SB869 , SB850 , SB863 , SB1610 , SB1055 , SB2206 , SB457 , SB2337 , SB1362 , SCR9 , HB5560 , HB762 , HB 107 , HB 114 , HB300 , HB138 , HB4386 , HB2495 , HB581 , HB3348 , HB5323

Keywords: higher education, curriculum review, governing board, faculty council, ombudsman, tax exemption, property tax, homestead, fire damage, constitutional amendment, bail reform, criminal justice, felony offenses, public safety, judicial conduct, state commission, judicial misconduct, commission membership, immigration enforcement, ICE agreements

Summary: The House convened, established a quorum, heard an invocation and pledges, and approved several routine motions, including excuses for absent members, permission for committees to meet while the House was in session, and postponements of some bills. The chamber also received a Senate message listing measures passed by the Senate and adopted a memorial resolution honoring the 21 victims of the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, with remarks entered into the House Journal after a moment of silence. The House then took up a long third-reading calendar and passed a series of Senate bills on topics including criminal justice and corrections sunset provisions (SB 2405, 2406, 2407), election equipment testing (SB 2166), electric grid reliability and attack-preparedness exercises (SB 2148), firefighter collective bargaining (SB 777), DFPS and foster care procedures (SB 1141 and SB 1398), Medicare durable medical equipment billing (SB 1330), property tax administration (SB 1453), probate cleanup and record transfers (SB 1448 and SB 1839), mental health filing procedures (SB 53), school residency for children in safety placements (SB 226), diabetes-related amputation study (SB 1677), rapid DNA analysis (SB 1723), utility rate transparency and capacity cost recovery (SB 1664 and SB 1856), community supervision eligibility (SB 552 postponed), and other measures. Several bills passed with broad support, while others drew notable opposition and narrower margins, including SB 777, SB 2137, SB 2111, SB 1677, SB 1936, SB 1453, and SB 38. Two bills drew especially extensive debate. SB 2148, dealing with electricity supply chain reliability and tabletop exercises for critical facilities, was discussed as a grid-security measure aimed at coordinating utilities, law enforcement, ERCOT, and the PUC in the event of physical attacks; it passed unanimously. SB 1936, changing how LSD is measured for criminal prosecution from dosage-based to weight-based calculations, prompted extended discussion about lab consistency, carrier mediums, and fairness in charging, with supporters saying it would help crime labs and law enforcement and opponents warning it could distort penalties depending on the medium used; it passed 108-26. The House also passed SB 36, creating a Homeland Security Division within DPS, after questions about overlap with TDEM and the cost of adding personnel. Late in the day, the House debated SB 38 on eviction procedures, with supporters saying it targeted squatters and streamlined removal of unauthorized occupants, and opponents arguing it would make evictions too easy and worsen homelessness; it passed 85-44. The chamber also began debate on SB 37, a major higher-education governance bill that would expand governing-board oversight of curriculum, hiring, and faculty senates; members raised concerns about academic freedom, faculty governance, and the impact on humanities programs, and debate was still underway at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• He founded Oklahoma's first baking nonprofit called Bake it Forward.
• Senate Bill 44 allows nonprofits to extend their sales tax exemption to their contractors so that they

Bills: SB1543 , HB1933 , HJR1088 , HJR1090 , HJR1091 , HJR1092 , HJR1093 , HJR1095 , SB1859 , HB2988 , HB3016 , SB237 , SB2065 , HB3418 , HCR1027 , SB1641 , SB1589 , SB44 , SB563 , SB1403 , HB1979 , HB3075 , SB2045 , SB1653 , SB1655 , SB2030 , HB2951 , SB2028 , SB2071 , SB206 , SB1849 , HB3755 , SB1509 , SB1314 , SB1561 , SB1217 , SB1618 , HJR1096 , HJR1099 , HJR1100

Keywords: driving under the influence, felony offense, ignition interlock device, community service, criminal assessment, nitrous oxide, Maddix Bias Act, intoxication, underage sale, misdemeanor, drug paraphernalia, enforcement, education rules, administrative rules, joint resolution, Oklahoma State Department of Education, higher education, State Regents for Higher Education, Teachers' Retirement System, charter schools

Bills: SB683 , SB1579 , SB1389 , SB1387 , SB1390 , SB1391 , SB2063 , SB1829 , SB2060 , SB1842 , SB1398 , SB1212 , SB2158 , SB102 , SB1772 , SB1958 , SB2010 , SB1595 , SB1687 , SB1684 , SB2049 , SB1966 , SB1989 , SB1191 , SB1258 , SB1920 , SB1936 , SB2143 , SB2122 , SB330 , SB2071 , SB2169 , SB2069 , SB2095 , SB2157 , SB1806 , SB1430 , SB206 , SB1547 , SB1849 , SB1428 , SB1653 , SB1984 , SB1644 , SB1561 , SB1813 , SB1570 , SB1796

Keywords: education, tax credit, student support, private school, Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit, financial assistance, homeschooling, qualified expenses, property tax, valuation increase, taxpayer rights, homestead, protest process, school choice, tuition assistance, income limits, parental choice, accreditation, sales tax, motor vehicles

Transcript Highlights:

• leads to improved physical and mental health and well-being, and whereas the YMCA is the largest nonprofit
• provider... ...physical and mental health and well-being, and whereas the YMCA is the largest nonprofit

Bills: SB5223 , SB5993 , SB5831 , SB5928 , SB6183 , SB6071 , SB5995 , SB5966 , SB5841 , SB5840 , SB6061 , SB6058 , SB5931 , SB5944 , SB5520 , SB6011 , SB6087 , SB6076 , SB5916 , SB6016 , SB5936 , SB6137 , SB5185 , SB5956 , SB6025 , SB6009 , SB5833 , SB6161 , SB6188 , SB5890 , SB5917 , SB5820 , SB5973 , SJM8015 , SB5816 , SB6136 , SB6091 , SB6024 , SB5223 , SB6178 , SB5892 , SB5177 , SB6039 , SB5941 , SB5993 , SB5831 , SB5928 , SB5912 , SB6183 , SB6071 , SB5995 , SB5966 , SB5841 , SB5840 , SB6061 , SB6058 , SB5931 , SB5944 , SB5520 , SB6011 , SB6087 , SB6076 , SB5916 , SB6016 , SB5936 , SB6137 , SB5185 , SB5956 , SB6025 , SB6009 , SB5833 , SB6161 , SB6188 , SB5890 , SB5917 , SB5820 , SB5973 , SJM8015 , SB5816 , SB6136 , SB6091 , SB6024

Keywords: criminal offense, fingerprinting, law enforcement, state regulations, public safety, medical debt, interest charges, consumer protection, healthcare, financial burden, mortgage modification, uniform regulations, homeowners, financial stability, foreclosure prevention, wildfire risk, disclosure, safety, environmental policy, risk assessment

Bills: HB29 , HB 125 , HB145 , HB171 , HB255 , HB50 , HB796 , HB363 , HB 116 , HB491 , HB589 , HB1495 , HB368 , HB 1285 , HB1905 , HB1360 , HB2002 , HB917 , HB2723 , HB2067 , HB 1238 , HB2337 , HB745 , HB 1188 , HB1606 , HB2003 , HB2147 , HB2391 , HB2355 , HB2546 , HB2495 , HB2818 , HB2249 , HB1749 , HB3109 , HB3228 , HB3240 , HB1507 , HB658 , HB1748 , HB1851 , HB1922 , HB2001 , HB2798 , HB 107 , HCR29 , SB5 , SB262 , HB 11 , HJR72 , HB 106 , HB18 , HB48 , HB27 , HB37 , HB1481 , HB581 , HB1696 , HB2216 , HB 1035 , HB1633 , HB742 , HB754 , HB1689 , HB1690 , HB2669 , HB391 , HB517 , HB 1024 , HB1607 , HB252 , HB1716 , HB1562 , HB4116 , HB1866 , HB1741 , HB2103 , HB2637 , HB2884 , HB503 , HB 1089 , HB2986 , HB972 , HB502 , HB29 , HB 125 , HB145 , HB171 , HB255 , HB50 , HB796 , HB363 , HB 116 , HB491 , HB589 , HB1495 , HB368 , HB 1285 , HB1905 , HB1360 , HB2002 , HB917 , HB2723 , HB2067 , HB 1238 , HB2337 , HB745 , HB 1188 , HB1606 , HB2003 , HB2147 , HB2391 , HB2355 , HB2546 , HB2495 , HB2818 , HB2249 , HB1749 , HB3109 , HB3228 , HB3240 , HB1507 , HB658 , HB1748 , HB1851 , HB1922 , HB2001 , HB2798 , HB 107 , HCR29

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• as a celebration of this shared success and vision and brings together more than 80 businesses, nonprofits
• House Bill 821 by Representative McFarland, Schools and Nonprofit Security, to establish the Louisiana
• creating the Empower Louisiana Food Purchase Program, providing for duties of the Department of Health, nonprofit

Bills: HR188 , HR189 , HR190 , HR191 , HR179 , HR180 , HR181 , HR182 , HR183 , HR185 , HR186 , HR187 , HCR75 , HCR76 , HCR77 , HCR78 , HCR79 , SCR24 , SCR36 , SCR39 , SB64 , SB107 , SB152 , SB185 , SB217 , SB232 , SB278 , SB290 , SB294 , SB320 , SB321 , SB419 , SB424 , SB436 , SB440 , SB468 , SB470 , SB476 , SB482 , SB489 , HCR32 , SCR11 , HB12 , HB42 , HB205 , HB222 , HB267 , HB324 , HB325 , HB350 , HB478 , HB610 , HB617 , HB679 , HB745 , HB749 , HB797 , HB807 , HB821 , HB896 , HB979 , HB992 , HB1000 , HB1024 , HB1050 , HB1166 , HB1172 , HB1173 , HB1193 , HB1207 , HB1218 , HB1223 , SB256 , SB180 , HR1 , HR17 , HCR5 , HCR4 , HCR47 , HB59 , HB74 , HB159 , HB330 , HB364 , HB414 , HB458 , HB525 , HB568 , HB786 , HB1008 , HB1033 , HB1034 , HB1041 , HB1062 , HB1070 , HB1079 , HB1112 , HB1118 , HB1139 , HB1151 , HB1176 , HB1182 , HB1196 , HB1214 , HB1241 , HB87 , HB115 , HB162 , HB368 , HB433 , HB441 , HB447 , HB466 , HB481 , HB741 , HB1242 , HB362 , HB893 , HB990 , HB1007 , HB1153 , HB1243 , SB162 , SB349 , SB350 , SB382 , SB383 , SB127 , SB244 , HB615 , HB864 , HB1103 , HB1175 , HB31 , HB225 , HB608 , HB664 , HB897 , HB977 , HB1003 , HB1160 , HB1180 , HB911 , HB306 , HB366 , HB1161 , HB1230 , HB181 , HB901 , HR20 , HR74 , HB284 , HB393 , HB459 , HB577 , HB582 , HB605 , HB614 , HB682 , HB733 , HB772 , HB773 , HB996 , HB1035 , HB1058 , HB1082 , HB1113 , HB1189 , HB1234 , HB1240

Keywords: hunting dogs, field trials, working dogs, dog training, greyhound protection, Farm Bill, federal overreach, sportsmen, sportswomen, wildlife management, conservation, rural communities, Louisiana hunting, hunting tradition, animal welfare, dog breeders, dog owners, outdoor recreation, Kathy Taylor, musical achievements

Transcript Highlights:

• nonprofits can get to work.
• nonprofits can get to work.
• as Cal Nonprofits.
• So Cal Nonprofits is proposing that the state invest in this Office of Nonprofit Empowerment, and we
• NFF is a proud member of Cal Nonprofits and is one of the 550 nonprofit and community leaders across

Summary: The joint Senate and Assembly select committee hearing focused on the challenges facing California nonprofits in 2025 and possible state responses. Opening remarks emphasized the sector’s size and importance, the impact of federal funding disruptions and tax policy changes, and the need for stronger public-private partnerships, especially in disaster response and recovery. Witnesses from community foundations, food banks, Cal OES, long-term recovery groups, CalNonprofits, and nonprofit finance organizations described funding uncertainty, delayed reimbursements, reduced indirect cost coverage, staffing strain, and the effects of climate disasters and immigration-related fear on service delivery. Testimony highlighted several policy ideas, including advance payments for state grants and contracts, prompt payment standards, sustainable indirect cost rates, contract flexibility in emergencies, streamlined registration and reporting, and a possible new Office of Nonprofit Empowerment to serve as a central point of contact and coordination within state government. Speakers also described how nonprofits and VOAD networks support wildfire response and long-term recovery, but noted that recovery groups often lack stable operating funding even when they are recognized as best practice. A food bank leader described federal food aid cuts and disruptions to deliveries, while other witnesses stressed that nonprofits are increasingly forced to use reserves, loans, or service reductions to manage cash flow gaps. Committee members generally expressed support for the sector and asked how the state could better partner with nonprofits during both disasters and budget crises. Several members raised the possibility of incremental steps if full legislative changes are not immediately feasible, and witnesses suggested pilots, better sharing of best practices, and stronger state leadership on payment timelines. Public commenters echoed the need for better contracting practices, support for community-based organizations, and attention to nonprofit worker compensation and protections. No formal votes or committee actions were taken in the hearing, which concluded with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• nonprofits can get to work.
• nonprofits can get to work.
• nonprofits in state government, the inspirational idea of having an Office of Nonprofit Empowerment.
• as Cal Nonprofits.
• So Cal Nonprofits is proposing that the state invest in this Office of Nonprofit Empowerment, and we

Summary: The joint Senate and Assembly Select Committee hearing focused on the nonprofit sector’s mounting challenges in 2025 and possible state responses. Opening remarks emphasized the sector’s size and importance in California, the impact of federal funding disruptions and new federal tax policy, and the need for stronger public-private coordination, especially during disasters. Witnesses and members repeatedly pointed to nonprofits as essential providers of food, housing, health, education, environmental, and emergency services, while warning that sudden funding losses are forcing layoffs, service cuts, and operational instability. Testimony from community foundations and food bank leaders described how federal cuts, delayed reimbursements, and disaster-related demand are straining nonprofits. Monica White of Food Share Ventura County said H.R. 1 and USDA food cancellations are worsening hunger needs, while immigration enforcement fears are keeping some families from seeking help. Abby Browning of Cal OES outlined how the state coordinates with nonprofits, philanthropy, and businesses through VOADs and long-term recovery groups in wildfire response. Bruce Yerman of the Camp Fire Collaborative said recovery groups are effective but lack dedicated funding, and urged flexible spending, sustainable support, and streamlined partnerships. The second half of the hearing focused on institutional reforms, including a proposed Office of Nonprofit Empowerment, advance payments, prompt payment, and higher indirect cost coverage. Jeff Green of CalNonprofits argued for a central state office to coordinate policy, technical assistance, and interagency alignment. Annie Chang of Nonprofit Finance Fund cited survey data showing widespread late payments, low cash reserves, and indirect cost rates below federal guidance. Alfredo Cruz Jr. of Community Resource Project described how reimbursement-only contracts, delayed payments, and underfunded overhead create cash-flow crises and staffing problems. Members discussed possible interim steps, including expanding advance pay, improving payment timeliness, modeling best practices, and using state leadership to spotlight nonprofit needs. The hearing ended with public comment from nonprofit, labor, and advocacy representatives, and no votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Nonprofit sector.
• Nonprofit compensation associates do an annual survey of compensation to try to make sure that nonprofits
• And that gets forgotten: nonprofits are businesses. Nonprofits are business entities.
• And then, of course, Cal Nonprofits, that is the leadership voice for California nonprofits.
• And then, of course, Cal Nonprofits, that is the leadership voice for California nonprofits.

Transcript Highlights:

• the nonprofit industry and partnerships.
• Nonprofit Compensation Associates does an annual survey of compensation to try to make sure that nonprofits
• We ask, and we ask regularly at Cal nonprofits, what this all means and what effect it's having on nonprofits
• We believe a nonprofit liaison could work with these less experienced nonprofits and help state agencies
• Again, prior to this role that I have at Nonprofit New York, I was leading a nonprofit in New York City

Summary: The joint Senate and Assembly Select Committee on the nonprofit sector held a hearing focused on the importance of California’s nonprofit sector and how state systems can better support it. Chair and co-chair remarks emphasized that nonprofits are essential to the state’s economy and public services, especially as federal cuts and administrative burdens increase pressure on organizations that deliver health care, food assistance, homelessness services, disaster response, and other safety-net functions. CalNonprofits CEO Jeff Green described the sector’s size and complexity, citing roughly 110,000 nonprofits in California, about 1.4 to 1.5 million nonprofit workers, and major concerns about funding uncertainty, delayed reimbursements, and federal threats to nonprofit funding and nonpartisanship. He said many organizations are being forced to use reserves, reduce services, or take out loans while waiting for state payments. The Little Hoover Commission presented findings from its study of state grant and contract administration, arguing that nonprofits often subsidize state services because of late payments, insufficient advance funding, and inadequate reimbursement for overhead. The commission recommended requiring advance payments, expanding prompt-payment protections, matching federal indirect-cost rates, standardizing emergency contract amendments, creating an Office of Nonprofit Empowerment, reducing duplicative reporting, moving to electronic payments, improving feedback to unsuccessful applicants, and using longer grant periods. Committee members expressed support for these ideas and discussed shifting state contracting culture toward outcomes and better coordination. The commission also noted that SB 1240, which would create the Office of Nonprofit Empowerment, and SB 1366, related to payment delays, align with its recommendations. The Attorney General’s Charitable Trusts Section then outlined its rollout of a new online filing system for charities and charitable fundraisers. Elizabeth Kim said the system, launched in stages beginning in 2024, is intended to replace paper filings, reduce incomplete submissions and bounced checks, and speed processing; the final phase is expected to cover renewals, delinquency, raffles, professional fundraisers, dissolution, and complaints. Committee members asked about staffing impacts and complaint handling, and DOJ explained that complaints are reviewed based on allegations, public filings, and, when needed, requests for additional information. A final panel featured Matt Gonzalez of Nonprofit New York, who described New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Nonprofit Services as a model for reducing contract backlogs, increasing advance payments, and improving coordination through ombudsman-style support and chief nonprofit officers. Public commenters from the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, SEIU, and CalNonprofits urged support for stronger state-nonprofit partnerships, transparency, and modernization of contracting systems. No formal vote was taken; the hearing concluded after testimony and public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our—I come from a nonprofit background.
• Our—I come from a nonprofit background.
• Nonprofit?
• The other 4 cents of money that goes into nonprofits is donated, so I think most people think of nonprofits
• But this is how nonprofits are funded.

Committee: House A&B Finance Subcommittee

Summary: The committee heard an interim study on expanding or simplifying sales tax exemptions for Oklahoma nonprofits. Representatives Stark and Schreiber said the issue has been filed repeatedly over several sessions and framed it as a bipartisan effort to keep more charitable dollars in service of communities rather than paying sales tax. Schreiber also suggested broader tax reform or an omnibus approach rather than continuing to add individual exemptions. Marnie Taylor of the Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits gave an overview of the sector, describing nonprofits as a major part of the state economy and safety net, and argued that many organizations are highly regulated, under-resourced, and facing declining donations and funding. She said the current patchwork of exemptions is uneven and that a blanket or broader exemption would help organizations serving public needs. Committee members asked for sources behind some of the poverty, education, and health rankings cited in her presentation. Several nonprofit leaders testified about how sales tax affects their operations. RG Foods described the cost of opening neighborhood grocery markets in food deserts and said sales tax on a Tulsa project would divert about $85,000 from programming. Jubilee Partners, Skyline Urban Outreach, the Pencil Box, the Tulsa Police Foundation, Blue Rose Ranch, and Legacy Parenting Center each explained how exemption status or the lack of it affects food assistance, school supplies, public safety equipment, animal rescue, and diapers and family support. Members asked follow-up questions about food desert definitions, budgets, and how much sales tax savings would change operations. No vote was taken in the excerpt, but the study concluded with closing remarks emphasizing that the exemption would keep more money in direct services and support the nonprofit sector statewide.

Transcript Highlights:

• Many small nonprofits, and most nonprofits are small.
• Many small nonprofits and most nonprofits are small.
• You know, and most nonprofits are small.
• No, Cal Nonprofit.
• like fairly quickly, that's a win for nonprofits.

Summary: The Assembly held its first-ever outcome review hearing, focused on AB 488, Assemblymember Irwin’s 2021 law regulating charitable fundraising platforms and platform charities. Chair Bauer-Kahan and Irwin described the hearing as part of a new oversight process meant to evaluate whether enacted laws are working as intended and to identify implementation problems. Irwin reviewed the bill’s purpose: updating California’s charitable solicitation rules for online fundraising, requiring platform registration and reporting, setting disclosure and conduct rules, and creating protections for charities and donors. The Attorney General’s office said the implementing regulations took effect in stages in 2024 and 2025 after extensive rulemaking, and argued the law was needed because online fundraising had outgrown older solicitation laws. The office highlighted enforcement concerns, including unregistered platforms, delayed remittances, and unauthorized fundraising pages, and said the new online filing system should improve processing and compliance. Nonprofit representatives and platforms generally supported the law’s transparency goals but said implementation has created major burdens, especially around “good standing” determinations, slow registry response times, and disruptions to fundraising when charities are flagged as delinquent. PayPal Giving Fund and GoFundMe both said they complied with the law but urged changes to better fit platform operations, reduce delays, and ease requirements for small or micro-donations. Committee members pressed the witnesses on donor protection, due process, and whether California should shorten the time to resolve good-standing issues. Several members said the law has helped stop misleading or unauthorized fundraising practices, while also acknowledging unintended consequences for nonprofits. Irwin said she is preparing follow-up legislation to address implementation problems and balance the interests of charities, platforms, donors, and the Attorney General’s office. During public comment, Candid praised the review and the DOJ’s efforts to improve the process, and a PG&E representative described an unintended consequence in employee giving where donations were redirected because recipient charities were not in good standing.

Transcript Highlights:

• , almost exclusively nonprofits.
• </c> nonprofits that helps to aim with that. nonprofits that helps to aim with that.
• , almost exclusively nonprofits. nonprofits. nonprofits.
• And there are a lot of good nonprofits out there. So I'm not attacking the nonprofit community.
• So I'm not nonprofits out there.

Transcript Highlights:

• Many small nonprofits, and most nonprofits are small.
• How long do they have to distribute to nonprofits?
• How long do they have to distribute to nonprofits?
• So then my question then is to the nonprofits.
• No, Cal Nonprofit.

Committee: House Privacy and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• money that you gave to that nonprofit.
• Senator, I don't—we did not create the nonprofit.
• When was the nonprofit established?
• You sent billing to the nonprofit?
• That's not sufficient records for any nonprofit.

Summary: The follow-up informational hearing focused on the State Library’s oversight of the statewide Imagination Library and the Strong Reader Partnership (SRP), including how the original $68.2 million state investment was spent, why funds were not redirected sooner to the Dollywood Foundation, and whether spending complied with AB 157 and later SB 105. Committee members repeatedly raised concerns that SRP and the State Library had been slow to provide documents, that quarterly reporting and other contract requirements were not met on time, and that the State Library did not escalate issues earlier. State Librarian Greg Lucas said the library sent one demand letter, relied on counsel’s view that SRP could continue spending its $4.8 million so long as it furthered the program, and later redirected about $55 million to the Dollywood Foundation after paperwork was submitted. He also acknowledged the library should have shared SRP’s final report with the committee sooner and said the materials eventually received appeared satisfactory, though the chair and Senator Grove remained concerned that there was still no clear accounting of books delivered by SRP. A major portion of the hearing examined SRP’s expenditures and vendor contracts, including Shipyard for marketing and web services, SAGE Strategies for management consulting, Lotus Financial Solutions and other financial vendors, and United Way California Capital Region for a small marketing grant. Committee members questioned whether some spending, especially Changecraft’s work during the AB 157 period, amounted to lobbying or attempts to influence legislation, which the grant agreement prohibited. SRP representatives said the work was communications and stakeholder outreach, not lobbying, and that invoices reflected the board’s oversight and the nonprofit’s startup and closeout phases. They also said some work continued during the rescission and closeout period to unwind contracts and return funds, and that any reporting delays were due to transition, lack of a reporting mechanism from the State Library, and the need to collect records after vendors were canceled. Members of SRP said the nonprofit was created to build the infrastructure for a self-sustaining statewide program, expand local partnerships, and support multilingual outreach in underserved counties. They described a working board that met regularly, selected vendors collectively, and used multiple financial and administrative contractors to maintain checks and balances. However, committee members pressed them on the lack of detailed invoices, the absence of clear metrics showing how many books SRP actually delivered, and the limited apparent return on spending such as the $581,708 Shipyard contract, the $125,000 website work, and the $5,000 United Way grant. No formal vote or legislative action was taken during the hearing; it was an oversight session aimed at obtaining explanations and additional documentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• not say that it applies exclusively to nonprofits.
• So this bill includes nonprofits, but it's not exclusive to nonprofits, which means it also covers corporations
• not say that it applies exclusively to nonprofits.
• So this bill includes nonprofits, but it's not exclusive to nonprofits, which means it also covers corporations
• So this bill includes nonprofits, but it's not exclusive to nonprofits, which means it also covers corporations

Transcript Highlights:

• It helps with the planning for local nonprofit organizations.
• It gives It helps with the planning for local nonprofit organizations.
• We have all these great nonprofits and organizations that do great work.
• And so it's come at the request of a nonprofit.
• As a nonprofit, how will the nonprofits that you're referencing and the bill handle the referenced connection

Committee: House Government Efficiency

Transcript Highlights:

• money that you gave to that nonprofit.
• When was the nonprofit established?
• What was the role of the nonprofit?
• You sent billing to the nonprofit?
• That’s not sufficient records for any nonprofit.

Transcript Highlights:

• It helps with the planning for local nonprofit organizations.
• It gives It helps with the planning for local nonprofit organizations.
• We have all these great nonprofits and organizations that do great work.
• And so it's come at the request of a nonprofit.
• As a nonprofit, how will the nonprofits that you're referencing and the bill handle the referenced connection

Committee: House Government Efficiency

Summary: The Committee on Government Efficiency held a public hearing on House Bill 1817, which would require the Department of Social Services to publish monthly public-assistance data at the municipal level for places with populations of 1,000 or more. The sponsor said the bill was intended to give local nonprofits, churches, and community leaders better information to target aid, measure whether their efforts are reducing dependency, and identify underserved areas, while avoiding identification of individuals in very small communities. Supporters echoed the transparency and planning benefits, saying the data could help nonprofits allocate resources, spot gaps, and coordinate more effectively. Several members questioned whether the bill was necessary, whether the data was already available through public records or existing reports, and whether it would create busy work or divert staff time. Others raised concerns about the 1,000-person threshold as arbitrary, the possibility of discouraging assistance applications, and whether the bill would really improve outcomes or reduce fraud. The sponsor responded that the data is already being collected, that the software had already been funded, and that the bill would simply make the information publicly available in a more useful format. Testimony in opposition was not presented, and the public hearing on HB 1817 was then closed. The committee then moved into executive session and took up House Bill 1641. A House Committee Substitute was offered and adopted after brief discussion. The substitute bill was then voted do pass by a roll call vote of 12 ayes, 1 no, and 4 present. Representative Burton stated a present vote was appropriate because of concerns with some language in the bill, while other members supported the measure’s intent.

Transcript Highlights:

• money that you gave to that nonprofit.
• Senator, I don't, we did not create the nonprofit.
• When was the nonprofit established?
• You sent billing to the nonprofit?
• I think the relationship with the local nonprofit.

Summary: The committee held a follow-up informational hearing on the State Library’s oversight of the statewide Imagination Library program, focusing on how state funds were used by the Strong Reader Partnership (SRP) and whether the program complied with statutory requirements. Chair and Senator Grove repeatedly questioned State Librarian Greg Lucas about delayed document production, the State Library’s decision to allow SRP to continue spending $4.8 million after the 2024 budget changes, and the lack of clear accounting for how many books were actually delivered to children. Lucas said the State Library had sent one demand letter, relied on counsel’s advice, and ultimately received bank statements, invoices, and narrative reports that he said were satisfactory, though he acknowledged the committee should have been given the documents sooner. A major issue was whether SRP and its vendors used state funds for lobbying or influence efforts related to AB 157/SB 157, despite contract language prohibiting lobbying. The committee highlighted invoices and emails involving ChangeCraft and SAGE Strategies that appeared to coincide with legislative activity, while SRP representatives said their work was communications, stakeholder outreach, and board-directed advocacy, not lobbying. Members of SRP also defended their vendor selections and invoicing practices, explaining that the organization was in startup and transition mode, had multiple financial vendors for checks and balances, and was working to build infrastructure, local partnerships, and multilingual outreach capacity rather than directly buying books. The hearing also scrutinized specific expenditures, including roughly $581,000 to Shipyard for marketing and web/digital work, $110,000 to Lotus Financial Solutions, and a $5,000 grant to United Way of the California Capital Region. Senators argued the invoices were vague and the deliverables were not evident, pointing to a simple website, limited social media presence, and no clear evidence that some advertised campaigns ever went live. SRP witnesses said the work was part of a phased plan to establish a statewide foundation and that some assets and documentation had not yet been provided to the committee. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with the chair emphasizing the need for tighter oversight, clearer documentation, and better accountability for taxpayer funds.