Council Members Call For More Openness in San Jose's Permit Process

Two San Jose council members say their city makes it too tough on small business owners who want to open shop or expand.

CPUC to File Revised PG&E Penalty

The California Public Utilities Commission is set to file a revised penalty proposal Monday for PG&E’s part in the fatal San Bruno gas line explosion.

Will the U.S. Supreme Court Reverse California Redistricting?

In 2010, California voters approved a new way of redrawing congressional districts as a way to combat partisan gerrymandering. The state took the power away from the Legislature and put it in the hands of a nonpartisan citizen commission. But California's system could be threatened by a case now pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday, the court heard arguments in a challenge to Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission, where Arizona legislative leaders argued that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures exclusive control of congressional elections.

Lawmaker Wants State To Collect Data on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity

State agencies already collect information about our sex and race. A bill introduced in Sacramento on Thursday would require them to start asking about our sexual orientation and gender identity.

PBS NewsHour

Why is a billionaire climate activist bothering with GOP primaries?


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

GWEN IFILL: The ever-growing cost of political warfare is now reaching into the stratosphere, with the 2016 election on track to possibly double the roughly $2 billion spent in 2012.

Part of the reason for all that spending has been the rise of millionaire and billionaire political activists on both sides of the political aisle. In the past, we have looked at the Koch brothers, who have pledged nearly a billion dollars to Republican and conservative causes this cycle. On the left, there is billionaire Tom Steyer, who has pledged millions on the issue of climate change.

And Tom Steyer joins me now.

Welcome to the NewsHour.

TOM STEYER, Founder, NextGen Climate: Nice to see you, Gwen.

GWEN IFILL: You spent, they say, $70 million in the 2014 midterm elections. Is money the key to this 2016 election?

TOM STEYER: I sure hope not, because, from what I can tell, the Democrats have a very good chance of being outspent.

I think the key to the election is going to be message and candidate, the way it usually is. And if the message is significant and meaningful to voters, and if the candidate connects as an authentic person who really cares about their concerns and wants to address them and can address them, I think that is going to carry the day.

GWEN IFILL: I do want to talk about the issues you support, but I’m also curious.

You have already decided to support Hillary Clinton. You have raised money for her, yet she has been on the campaign trail saying one of the first things she would do as president is repeal Citizens United. Wouldn’t that put you out of business as a super PAC runner?

TOM STEYER: It would be fantastic.

We felt from the beginning that Citizens United was a mistake, that the way that money is used in American campaigns isn’t good for democracy. It’s just been a situation where we felt as if there’s an immense amount of money on the other side, and as long as this is the system which the Supreme Court has put in place, there’s got to be somebody on our side.

And when you look at the relative dollars, it really is a David and Goliath situation, and we’re very definitely the small shepherd boy with five rocks and a sling.

GWEN IFILL: The small shepherd boy, really?

TOM STEYER: Absolutely.

GWEN IFILL: You’re David?

TOM STEYER: I don’t think there’s any question about it.

GWEN IFILL: Well, let’s talk about some of your David issues then.

The Keystone pipeline is something which you have — say shouldn’t be built. Hillary Clinton hasn’t exactly said, since she’s been a candidate, what. In fact, she has been kind of, some people think, suspiciously quiet, some people on your side of the argument, about it.

What would you do if she decided that, as she seemed like she was heading in the direction when she was secretary of state, that she was inclined to support its construction?

TOM STEYER: Well, we see Keystone as a significant decision about the future of American energy policy, that it’s a dirty — the tar sands are a dirty source of energy, and that developing them — and they’re absolutely immense — is a choice that’s going to play out over decades, whereas we think the correct thing for the United States to do is to follow a technology- and research-based clean energy policy that will create a lot of jobs.

So, when you think about Mrs. Clinton hypothetically determine what we do if she did something that she hasn’t done, what we have heard her do is talk about the importance of energy and climate, that it’s the most significant set of issues facing the American people. And I expect she will come out with a set of policies that’s really responsive.

So I actually don’t think we’re going to be faced by the question that you’re posing.

GWEN IFILL: Well, let’s listen — take a look at some of your very tough anti-Keystone video advertising, a little bit of it right here. So, this puts you potentially on the other side of President Obama as well. Are — you consider yourself to be kind of a single-issue supporter?

TOM STEYER: I actually don’t.

You know, I see energy and climate as a human issue. And, by the way, I expect that President Obama will turn down the pipeline, just to be clear.

GWEN IFILL: What do you base that on?

TOM STEYER: On the test that he set up as to whether he would approve it, was to say, will it increase carbon pollution, which it will. And if he follows the test that he himself set up, then he will turn it down.

GWEN IFILL: As an issue candidate, rather than necessarily a party candidate, can you see yourself ever supporting a Republican?

TOM STEYER: I think, if we are trying to monitor all the Republican candidates for president, hope — we’re seeing the Republicans move. And we’d be thrilled to be faced with a Republican who was more progressive on energy and climate than his Democratic…

GWEN IFILL: Do you see any out there?


GWEN IFILL: So, what’s the point in getting involved in any way in the Republican primaries if it’s six of one and half-dozen of the other for you on your issues?

TOM STEYER: Well, from our point of view, not in terms of giving money, but in terms of trying to make sure that there is someone getting candidates on the record, keeping an honest record of that, giving them encouragement when they do the — what we think of as the right thing to do, trying to expose them when they — we don’t think they’re facing up to the issue fairly, that’s a job that we think it’s important for somebody in America to do, because we think American citizens have a right to know where the candidates stand on what is one of the key issues facing us.

GWEN IFILL: Aside from the fact that you disagree about some of the basic issues, and maybe the order of magnitude, how are you different from the Koch brothers?

TOM STEYER: I would put — there’s a lot of differences.

First of all, anything — there’s no way you can show, because it’s not true, that anything we’re doing is self-interested. The Koch brothers say that they’re acting out of conviction, but whatever they’re doing also definitely benefits their bottom line. You can’t say that about us.

Second of all, we’re — we — I’m very suspicious and scared about the way money’s used in politics. And to try to ameliorate that, we try to be as transparent as possible. You have said, here are the records of exactly what you spent.

Yes, that’s true. We made those available. We try and do everything in a way so that people can see exactly what we’re doing. I’m actually on your show, obviously, Gwen. Did the Koch brothers come on your show?

GWEN IFILL: We’re waiting on them.


TOM STEYER: OK. I’m sure you are.

But my only point is, A, it’s not in our self-interest to do what we’re doing. We think it’s in the public interest. Second of all, we’re trying to be as transparent as possible.

And, third of all, it’s absolutely true, if you look at the numbers, whatever it is, we’re going to be a fraction of what they are, so we’re going to have to rely on message and the facts being on our side.

GWEN IFILL: So, assuming that you’re putting your money where your mouth is, $70 million in 2014, how much this time, do you think, in 2016?

TOM STEYER: I don’t know.

GWEN IFILL: Of course you’re not going to tell me that, right?

TOM STEYER: Because I honestly don’t know.

What of the things I have found in politics is, anyone who thinks they can plan how a campaign is going to go, I think, is foolish, because it’s one of those interactive things. If I do something, you do something. So you really don’t understand before it starts how it’s going to play out.

GWEN IFILL: There’s another way of putting your money where your mouth is. And that could have been running for the U.S. Senate from California for Barbara Boxer’s seat. Why did you decide against that?

TOM STEYER: Honestly, we felt like the way that we could have the most impact in 2015 and 2016 wasn’t by running, but actually to try and keep going on the voter-to-voter contact that we had been pushing in 2014, which was going out and registering voters, having people go door to door and talk to voters, trying to get people to understand the issues that we think are most significant.

GWEN IFILL: Don’t you have to have a face in order to make that case most effectively?

TOM STEYER: I think, ultimately, someone has got to take the lead.

I think that, obviously, there are people who are running on the Democratic side who want to be that face. But I think, in 2015 and 2016, we really felt like what we could do was support what was going on and basically try and rely on old-fashioned American democracy, which is Americans talking to Americans about the most important issues of the day.

GWEN IFILL: Tom Steyer is running a group called NextGen Climate Action.

Thank you very much.

TOM STEYER: Thank you, Gwen.

The post Why is a billionaire climate activist bothering with GOP primaries? appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

President Obama lobbies Senate to extend Patriot Act provision that allows phone record monitoring

U.S. President Barack Obama has asked the Senate to extend a provision of the Patriot Act that would allow the government
         to continue to search Americans' phone records. Photo by Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama has asked the Senate to extend a provision of the Patriot Act that would allow the government to continue to search Americans’ phone records. Photo by Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama called on the Senate Tuesday to extend key Patriot Act provisions before they expire five days from now, including the government’s ability to search Americans’ phone records.

“This needs to get done,” he told reporters in the Oval Office. “It’s necessary to keep the American people safe and secure.”

But with the May 31 deadline approaching, there was scant evidence of a search for a deal on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. The House and Senate stood in recess for the week, and a House GOP leadership aide said there were no talks happening between the two chambers. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the aide was not authorized to discuss the issue on the record.

The Senate adjourned for its recess early Saturday after a chaotic late-night session during which senators failed to pass a White House-backed House bill reforming the phone collection program. Attempts by GOP leaders to extend current law also fell short, amid objections and stalling techniques by presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and others.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is calling the Senate back into session on Sunday, May 31, just hours before the midnight deadline, but it’s not clear lawmakers will have any new solution. And with the House bill, which passed by a wide bipartisan margin, just a few votes short in the Senate, House Republicans appear content to hold off on a search for compromise in hopes that pressure will increase on McConnell to accept their bill or see the Patriot Act programs lapse.

“The Senate did not act and the problem we have now is that those authorities run out at midnight Sunday. I strongly urge the Senate to work through this recess to make sure they identify a way to get things done,” Obama said after meeting with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

Obama noted that the controversial bulk phone collections program, which was exposed by National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, is reformed in the House bill, which does away with it and instead gives phone companies the responsibility of maintaining phone records that the government can search.

But the legislation also includes other tools used by the FBI, including one that makes it easier to track “lone wolf” terrorism suspects who have no connection to a foreign power, and another allows the government to eavesdrop on suspects who continuously discard their cellphones.

“Those also are at risk of lapsing, so this needs to get done,” Obama said.

The post President Obama lobbies Senate to extend Patriot Act provision that allows phone record monitoring appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Supreme Court to hear Texas case involving redrawing of electoral districts

The Supreme Court is pictured
         in Washington March 9, 2015. Few GOP members of congress or governors have expressed support for same-sex marriage in the
         upcoming March 28 Supreme Court case. Photo by Joshua Roberts/Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear an important case about whether states must count only those who are eligible to vote, rather than the total population, when drawing electoral districts for their legislatures.

The case from Texas could be significant for states with large immigrant populations, including Latinos who are children or not citizens. The plaintiffs claim that redrawing electoral districts based on the population of citizens and non-citizens alike violates the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote.

The challengers claim that taking account of total population can lead to vast differences in the number of voters in particular districts, along with corresponding differences in the power of those voters.

The Project on Fair Representation is funding the lawsuit filed by two Texas residents. The group opposes racial and ethnic classifications and has been behind Supreme Court challenges to affirmative action and the federal Voting Rights Act.

The court’s 1964 ruling in Reynolds v. Sims established the one person, one vote principle and means that a state’s legislative districts must have roughly the same number of people. But the court has never determined whether the state must count everyone or just eligible voters — or have some leeway to choose.

A ruling for the challengers would shift power to rural areas and away from urban districts in which there are large populations of immigrants who are not eligible to vote because they are children or not citizens.

The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, 14-940, will be argued in the fall.

The post Supreme Court to hear Texas case involving redrawing of electoral districts appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Can lawmakers come up with a deal for U.S. surveillance rules?

TRADE DEAL  monitor capitol dome

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: And now we look at what’s next for the rules governing U.S. surveillance.

Over the weekend, the Senate failed to extend three key provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire in a week. They headed out of town for a recess, leaving little time left to come to consensus.

To help us understand what lies ahead, NewsHour political director Lisa Desjardins joins us.

So, Lisa, what happened? They were there into the wee hours Saturday morning, and this — is the Patriot Act hanging by a thread?

LISA DESJARDINS: This was a test for new Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He took a very strategic risk here, Judy, something that has worked in the past for both sides, and he set a high-stakes vote on a deadline when Congress was going out of town.

That worked with things like the debt limit, the fiscal cliff. Did not work this time. It was blocked by Rand Paul and some Democrats, notably Ron Wyden of Oregon, some other conservatives as well. It came to that midnight vote and they could not get 60 votes for any one kind of agreement, though it is important to note that on the major votes that happened in that midnight session, one vote did turn out better than the other.

That’s the vote for the revised version of the surveillance powers, one that would limit what the NSA could do. That’s called the USA Freedom Act. That was just three votes short, vs. a straight extension with 15 votes short.

And one thing I noticed, real quickly, Judy, is that that — the division in the Republican Party on these votes was on geographic lines. You looked at Southern senators, Midwestern senators, they all wanted a straight extension. If you have looked at senators, say, in the Southwest, they were willing to revise.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Clearly, Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, didn’t want this to happen. What went wrong?

LISA DESJARDINS: I think that it was really just a showdown over how the Senate works.

Rand Paul was able to use the power of a single senator and a few other senators. And the truth is, a single senator can hold up the Senate for three or four days. Mitch McConnell could have kept the Senate going for three or four days and run the clock, but he didn’t.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, just quickly, Lisa, they come back Sunday, an unusual Sunday session at the end of the Memorial week break.


JUDY WOODRUFF: What needs to happen then? And, meantime, the government has to start planning to cut back on surveillance.

LISA DESJARDINS: First of all, senators need to buy their plane tickets. A lot of these Western senators, to come back by Sunday at 4:00, have got to start planning now.

But, meanwhile, we’re going to have very serious talks over the phone, probably starting Wednesday, Thursday, to see if they can come up with a deal. And, Judy, really, there’s no known solution right now. It’s possible we could see these provisions expire at least for a short time. Completely unknown right now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we will be watching it all week.

Lisa Desjardins, thank you.


The post Can lawmakers come up with a deal for U.S. surveillance rules? appeared first on PBS NewsHour.