Latest news with #SB420
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
California Senate advances AI regulation bills despite federal pushback
SAN DIEGO (FOX 5/KUSI) — Two California bills aimed at tightening regulation of artificial intelligence cleared a major hurdle this week, passing the state Senate amid growing tension between state and federal lawmakers over how — and who — should govern the fast-evolving technology. The bills, both authored by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego), take direct aim at the mental health risks of AI tools and the lack of transparency in automated decision-making systems. But they may soon run up against a proposed federal moratorium that would block states from enacting AI regulations for the next decade, as reported by the Associated Press. First, there's SB 243. It targets the growing use of AI chatbots marketed as companions for mental health support and emotional wellbeing. The bill would ban the use of addictive engagement tactics and require developers to notify users regularly that the chatbot is not human. 'Tech companies are creating these AI products in a regulatory vacuum,' Padilla stated on the issue. 'But, they have proven they cannot be trusted to minimize the risks they pose to the public on their own. The stakes are too high to allow vulnerable users to continue to access this technology without proper guardrails in place to ensure transparency, safety, and accountability.' California senator slams ICE raid at San Diego restaurants: 'weaponized hate' Meanwhile, SB 420 takes a broader approach, seeking to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework around AI use in both public and private decision-making systems. The legislation would mandate that individuals be informed when AI tools are used to make decisions about them, explain how the systems function, and provide a process for human appeal in some cases. It also calls for impact assessments to measure potential data misuse or algorithmic bias. The two bills now move to the State Assembly and, if approved, could be on Governor Gavin Newsom's desk later this year. The legislative momentum in Sacramento stands in sharp contrast to efforts in Washington, D.C., where a House Republican-backed reconciliation bill would impose a 10-year freeze on state or local AI regulations. Critics argue the federal proposal could stall crucial oversight during a pivotal time for AI development. Padilla has strongly opposed the federal moratorium, stating, 'California has a proud heritage as a home for technological vision while enforcing ethical, safe standards in concert with those values, not in opposition. However, federal mismanagement has left the public vulnerable to the dangers AI poses. California must step in to provide guiderails that create common sense consumer protections while still fostering innovation.' The state's push for AI accountability comes on the heels of a March report from a working group appointed by Gov. Newsom, offering policy guidance on responsible AI governance. This week, 260 lawmakers from all 50 states — Democrats and Republicans alike — signed a joint letter to Congress urging them to reject the proposed moratorium, highlighting a growing bipartisan consensus around the need for state-level action. As AI tools become more integrated into daily life, California appears determined to lead the charge — even if it means challenging federal authority. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Axios
7 days ago
- Business
- Axios
California AI bills advance as Congress considers state-level regulation ban
Two California bills aiming to regulate artificial intelligence passed the state Senate this week. Why it matters: Those bills — both authored by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego) are clashing with efforts in D.C. to stop state-level AI legislation. House Republicans' reconciliation bill would prohibit states or localities from regulating AI for a decade. State of play: One bill, SB 243, aims to counter tech marketing of chatbots as an alleviation to loneliness and mental health struggles. It would prohibit operators from relying on addictive practices to boost engagement, require notifications and reminders the bot is not human. Between the lines: The other bill, SB 420, seeks to create a regulatory framework for AI systems. It would require for individuals to be notified when a public or private automated system is used to make decisions about them, how the tool works and in some cases to appeal for review by a person. The bill would also force an impact assessment on the purpose, use of data and potential for bias present in those automated systems. What they're saying: "Tech companies would have us believe any regulation at all would be disastrous," Padilla said in a statement. "The truth is it would be disastrous to allow tech titans to operate AI without oversight, accountability, or restraint." What's next: Both bills now move to the Assembly before a potential trip to the governor's desk. The big picture: All over the country, states are advancing and implementing AI safeguards while Congress considers a national moratorium in the reconciliation bill. Padilla told Axios he "can't think of a more irresponsible or stupid thing to do at this juncture" than for Congress to pass the AI moratorium and stop state lawmakers from regulating the tech. Threat level: The proposed federal moratorium could hinder California's broader efforts to develop a framework for governing AI models. In March, a working group appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom released a report outlining guidance for policymakers on how to regulate the burgeoning industry, which Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said strikes "a thoughtful balance between the need for safeguards and the need to support innovation." "AI presents tremendous opportunities to transform our world for the better. At the same rapid pace of technological advancement in AI means policymakers must act with haste to impose reasonable guardrails to mitigate foreseeable risks," Wiener, who introduced AI whistleblower bill SB 53 in February, said in a statement . The bottom line: California has historically led on tech regulation while Congress gets stuck in debate mode — first on privacy and now on AI. The state has enacted a wide range of bills addressing everything from digital replicas of individuals to election ads, and has more legislation in the works. Today, 260 state lawmakers from both sides of the aisle across all 50 states sent a letter to Congress urging lawmakers to oppose the moratorium.
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Arkansas governor signs legislation investing in state's water resources
ARKANSAS — Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed three new bills for larger investments into Arkansas's water infrastructure. 'If our state is going to continue to grow and thrive, then every Arkansan needs access to safe and reliable water infrastructure,' said Governor Sanders. 'I was proud to work with the legislature to support this legislation and invest more than half a billion dollars in Arkansas' water issues, and I will work closely with the Department of Agriculture to ensure we provide assistance to the communities that need it most.' SB420, now Act 736, allows more private entities to convert to public water authorities, allowing them to apply for additional state funding. HB1681, now Act 812, establishes the Water and Sewer Treatment Facilities Grant Program, providing $25 million from interest earnings per year over the next three years to water and sewer facilities, with 20% earmarked for rural systems serving 1,200 people or fewer. SB421, now Act 578, creates a ballot initiative for the 2026 election that, if approved, provides $500 million in water and wastewater project funding through 2043 that's paid for through loan repayments. Arkansas' existing bond authority is set to expire in the summer of 2027. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Private governments coming to an area near you
Lake Tahoe on April 22, 2024. (Photo: Jeff Anderson/ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service) Imagine you want to create and control a large pool of capital predominantly financed by grants and other people's money. Simply define a geographic boundary, let's call it a 'district,' and get a few business colleagues to decide what mandatory fee or compulsory assessment you're going to collect to benefit your private business agendas. Next, petition a state senator and county commissioner; most are eager to curry favor with deep-pocketed business donors. Create a nonprofit to which you will funnel the dollars. Small business owners will be required to collect the fee at the point of sale in your district. You hold the cards because you've engineered the framework and set the fee percentage. Sounds a bit Sopranos-like, doesn't it? Schemes like this – blandly called Business Improvement Districts or BIDs – are undemocratic but legal ways to levy fees (effectively a sales tax when businesses pass the cost of the fees on to consumers) that benefit the few over the many. BIDs first appeared in the 1970s, but have become a controversial power grab for business interests and developers in recent years to finance tourism destination dreams and pet projects outside of public control or view. BIDs represent a particular risk for unincorporated areas because there are no elected mayors or city councils to hold public meetings or be answerable. All citizens and small business owners should be concerned. A few influential businesses or developers can band together and force new recurring costs on an entire community – tacked on at the point of sale. Worse still, the International Journal of Public Administration noted: 'BIDs have arisen as a new form of 'private government.' As they expand their menus of services, often including land-use planning, and approaching more general-purpose government status, BIDs have begun to raise issues of accountability.' Where might you begin such a monetary diversion maneuver in Nevada? Follow the play book of Nevada Democratic state Sen. Skip Daly, who, at the behest of unelected people – such as Julie Regan, executive director of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), tourism executive Andy Chapman, now Chair of the Tahoe Transportation District, and TRPA government affairs manager Devin Middlebrook along with legal consulting firm Civitas Advisers – successfully advanced a BID proposal to a panel of his fellow legislators during an interim meeting last year. Put forward by TRPA (a bi-state agency with lots of political sway), their business cronies who will determine BID details — such as where to draw geographic boundaries, how much to levy and where to spend funds — also promoted the bill. If this is the first time you've heard about this fast-moving state legislation, Senate bill 420, that's by design. Tax-like enabling legislation that will negatively impact constituent wallets is best kept under wraps. SB420 needs state-level approval because there's no existing legal path to create a BID in unincorporated portions of a Nevada county. Existing Nevada law (like NRS 271A for Tourism Improvement Districts) focuses on cities and municipal projects. As called out in the Lake Tahoe Destination Stewardship plan (p. 38), 'legislation would need to be pursued' as 'there is currently no statute enabling this sort of improvement district in Nevada,' Hence, testimony from Chapman, President and CEO of Travel North Tahoe Nevada, on April 4: 'Senate Bill 420 will create the ability for local businesses within the Nevada portion of the Tahoe Basin to petition the relevant county to create a Business Improvement District (known as a BID), which could only be created with the support of the business community AND approval by the County Commission.' The goal for this improvement district mechanism is to create a long-term funding solution for issues in Nevada's Lake Tahoe area. This type of improvement district legislation exists already in California. As written SB420's BID model is funded through the levy of assessments on business. However, it's not clear what businesses this bill will encompass or exempt. Section 6.1 defines 'business' as all types of businesses, including, without limitations financial institutions and professions.' That means if a business license address lies inside the proposed boundary, that business license holder could be assessed. SB420 includes a broad scope of what activities can be undertaken, but residents don't have a voice. If signed into law, SB420 could create a template in Nevada for future quasi-governmental taxation in counties, virtually unregulated by the legislature or department of taxation. If other broadly written BIDs elsewhere are any indication, more surprises lie ahead. Residents of Rochester, New York, characterized a proposed BID there 'as a shadow government.' While told that businesses would pay for the BID, reporters learned, as residents suspected, it would be mostly taxpayers who would fund the BID managed by 17 'movers and shakers in business and political circles' — members of a nonprofit established to control the Rochester BID. BIDs are hard to undo. When formed BIDs become legal special districts, in Nevada's case, under state law. Dissolving a BID, governed by a management plan written by consultants like Civitas who obtain multi-year contracts, usually requires approval from the same body that created it. Who likes to relinquish money and power? Businesses – particularly tourism outfits with multiple locations or headquartered elsewhere – can get away with charging added fees because of high-turnover visitors. BID members can even use money generated by the fees to market themselves. Self-dealing at its worst. Residents who shop, dine or recreate within a 'district' always pay the fee. Communities effectively subsidize private agendas. Residents in San Diego revealed how Civitas' founder has a history of creating legal loopholes (p. 14). Civitas Advisors as of March 2013 had pocketed $546,016 and counting from San Diego alone; lawsuits followed. The Sacramento-based firm has expanded overseas but now wants to make Nevada its newest client. SB420 took shape August 16 at the interim Legislative Committee for the Review and Oversight of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Marlette Lake Water System. None of Northern Nevadans' public concerns about public safety and the environment are mentioned or considered in the recommendations for legislation. Instead Daly, at the sixth and final meeting along with other legislators, agreed to advance TRPA's wish list, including the BID legislation. In the meeting (1:51:24 on the recording), Civitas – the legal firm that stands to profit handsomely to administer BIDs – testified, not surprisingly, in support of it. Senator Robin Titus (minutes, p.16), however, saw the scheme for what it is: 'I am going to be a 'no' on this when it comes to a vote. I truly cannot accept—I think [it's] a taxation.' Assemblymember Ken Gray shared the concerns: 'I want to echo Senator Titus' comments as well.' Citizens (not business owners) who participated in the April 4 Senate working session opposed the BID legislation and its lack of specificity. BID activities in SB420 include promotion of events, marketing and economic development, transportation and other services that confer 'benefit upon assessed businesses in the district.' If this isn't a tax why does the state legislature need to have a bill that involves the Department of Taxation to facilitate what businesses should be managing or funding on their own. Is SB420 really in the best interests of Nevada residents? This should be a red flag for other state legislatures who've been lobbied to create similar legislation. Transportation alone is a heavy lift. Even the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration agrees. Among BID disadvantages it lists: 'BIDs are not public agencies and cannot be directed to accomplish transportation goals, services or facilities desired by elected officials and agencies. 'BIDs, as private entities, will not fund public goods or services that provide benefits outside the BID boundaries. Also due to sunset provisions, they are not typically structured to facilitate the development of large infrastructure facilities that require financing.' Many residents first read the SB420 language amendments only after the bill was advanced out of committee as one of 48 bills reviewed by the Senate Government Affairs Committee April 11. No matter; public comment was reserved for the end of the meeting after voting had ended. Two senators, Lisa Rogich and Lisa Krasner, went on record to say they reserved the right to change their vote later. Rogich went further, 'I'm hoping the parties can continue to have conversations with the community and get the residents on board.'
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Senate committee approves bill to restrict local DEI policies
A proposal that would prevent local governments from setting policies related to 'diversity, equity and inclusion' was approved Monday by a Senate committee. The Republican-controlled Community Affairs Committee voted 5-3 to back the measure (SB 420), sponsored by Sen. Clay Yarborough, R-Jacksonville. The bill also would allow people to take legal action if the prohibition is violated. 'We need to focus on core essential services, maintain the roads, parks, public safety, economic development and the like,' Yarborough said. 'But we should always place a higher emphasis on those very important efforts … and not make it limited in the other categories that are outside individual qualifications, skills and performance.' One of several DEI-related bills going before lawmakers this week, the measure, for example, would affect such things as employment policies. Sen. Shevrin Jones, D-Miami Gardens, called the proposal 'authoritarianism' and said it wouldn't improve the lives of Floridians. Yarborough's bill would need to clear two more committees before it could go to the Senate floor. Rep. Dean Black, R-Jacksonville, has filed a House version (HB 1571), which has not been heard in committees. Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
