Hidden Forces Behind California Laws | Melissa Melendez

People don't understand just the outsized influence that a lot of these special interest groups have. I have been in committee hearings where I have watched labor union leaders standing at the back of the committee hearing room, nodding yes or no to the members on that committee when it came time to vote on certain bills. That is no joke. It's like the mafia in there sometimes, you know? Why would the legislatures listen to? Money. If I don't do what they want me to do, they're going to fund my opponent or they're going to spend against me. So a lot of times it's a political calculation. My guest today is Melissa Melendez, former California State Senator. Today, she'll give us her insights on how California's legislature works, why the lobbyists are so impactful in shaping our legislative system, and why it matters to us Californians. The average Californian, I think their voice is getting lost. If you're not a lobbyist, it seems like legislators are less inclined to listen. I don't think California, you're going to see this big sweeping change overnight, but I think it can go back to the way it used to be where people, you know, had hope. I'm Siamak Khorrami. Welcome to California Insider. Melissa, it's great to have you back. Welcome back. Thank you so much for having me. We want to talk to you about lobbying. We had a lobbyist on the show, current lobbyist, and he explained to us how it works in Sacramento. You saw this episode and you have seen different things in Sacramento. I have seen different things, yes. You know, so I watched the interview and I thought it was fascinating. But, you know, I took issue with a few of the things that were said, particularly when there was the discussion about how a bill author has complete control over their bill and they're the ones who ultimately decide what's in it and how it goes through the process. That's somewhat the case, but not always. I'll give you an example. A bill that I saw go through committees and then ultimately ended up in the Appropriations Committee which is where most bills end up if they cost any, you know, certain amount of money. The Appropriations Chair can change that bill. I mean, not wholesale completely change everything in the bill, but they can make changes to the bill. So in a committee, they can change the bill. Yes, and that's without the author's consent. So we had another bill that had to do with the gas tax and what happened was the committee chairman and the consultants really did completely rewrite the bill. They made some amendments to it and it ended up being the bill did something completely different, actually adding taxes to California. So they took a bill that was supposed to reduce taxes and turned it into something that increased them. So it's not- How does that work? Well, I mean, that's the power of the majority. You know, if you are the majority party, you can do these sorts of things. So, and then the author would change? Well, what happens typically is if they make changes that the author completely disagrees with, which in this case he did, then the author just drops the bill and says, well, I'm just not going to move forward with it. And so the bill dies. Sometimes that's the point, right? To kill the bill, they see it's getting through, they don't like it. And so in order to punish the author for even bringing it forward and to kill the issue, they'll make changes. So it's kind of an inside baseball political thing when they do something like that, because really the reality is, if you want to kill a bill, it's very easy to do that when you're the majority party. You just vote it down in committee. You don't have to make any changes to it whatsoever. So it's a little bit of inside baseball. Sometimes though, it's because their backs have been pushed against the wall, and so they're kind of boxed in now, and this is really the only way out of it is to just change the bill completely and claim that this new form of the bill is much more helpful to Californians than the original form. But either way, it's tinkering with the intent of the bill and without the author's permission. So it does happen. So their backs are pushed against the wall by who, by how? Well, sometimes an issue gets a lot of media attention that they don't want it to get, and oftentimes it's unexpected. So they don't want to kill the bill, okay. Right, right. So now you're like, oh, I don't want to be seen as the one who's killing this idea, and it can get a little tricky. I mean, really what usually happens in cases like that is if it gets through committee, they just kill it in the Appropriations Committee. I mean, that's typically what happens. They have, at the end of the session, they have their Appropriations Committee, and that committee decides which bills get out and which bills get put on the suspense file, never to see the light of day again. That's usually how they deal with it. But sometimes, I suppose there's a lesson to be taught, and that's why they do it that way. But it does happen. So I would say in the broader context of what you discussed as far as lobbying, largely, much of it was true, but people don't understand just the outsized influence that a lot of these special interest groups have. And I've seen, I have seen lobbyists, let's say on a Monday, they're lobbying against a bill that helps nurses. Then the next week, I will see that same lobbyist in a committee lobbying in support of a bill that helps the same nurses. So it depends on who their client list is. I mean, some of these lobbying firms have three, four pages of clients, and their ideals don't all align. I mean, you could have Chevron as a client, and then you could have the Sierra Club as a, you know, something like, I mean, it's unusual, but it does happen, especially for some of these larger firms. And their job as a lobbyist, it doesn't matter how they feel about the issue. That's not why they were hired. Their job is to either get bills passed or get bills killed that their clients, you know, agree with or disagree with. That's their job as a lobbyist. It doesn't matter, you see a mock, if you think, you know, all fossil fueled cars should be off the road. If your client is Chevron and Chevron says, I need you to kill this bill because it hurts our industry. You're going to go in there and argue robustly for a bill that helps Chevron because that's what you're getting paid for. Not your opinion. Wow. Now, do they have influence in writing the bills? Because we have heard from some people that the lobbyists are writing some of the laws. They are. Now, you can have what's called a sponsored bill. So for instance, a group, maybe the American Heart Association, just by way of example, they would come to a legislator and say, you know, we would like this bill to be passed. Here's what it does. We will do, you know, all the work. We will draft it. We'll get the witnesses. We'll do everything, but we need you to introduce the bill. Now, that doesn't mean that the author can't put their own tweaks on it and changes to it, but that does happen and that's a sponsored bill. But sometimes there are bills that aren't sponsored bills where it is clearly defined for the public to see, you know, who is behind this bill. That isn't always the case. But what happens is behind the scenes, of course, you have these groups, whatever group it is, whether it's a labor union or, you know, who, pick a group out there. There's millions of them in California. They are working behind the scenes with that author to have the bill written the way they want it written. And I will tell you that not every legislator is a subject matter expert in all of these areas. So very often, these groups pick a legislator purposely because they know that author doesn't know anything about that particular issue. And so that author, that legislator, is not going to push back and say, well, wait a minute, I, you know, I think that eliminating fossil fuels entirely might not be such a great idea and here's why. They don't want someone like that. They want someone who's just going to do kind of what they ask and move it along and hopefully get the bill through. So they do have a lot of influence. So they strategically find lawmakers. Oh yes, oh yes. And how much influence do they have in pushing these bills? Have you witnessed it? Depends on the group. You know, labor unions have a really, really big influence in California. I have been in committee hearings where I have watched labor union leaders standing at the back of the committee hearing room, nodding yes or no to the members on that committee when it came time to vote on certain bills. That is no joke. I mean, it's like the mafia in there sometimes, you know? But they do really have a big influence. And again, it depends on the group. I mean, the teacher's union spends millions, millions of dollars to get certain legislators elected. And they tell them very clearly, you carry our water, you do our bidding, or we will replace you with someone who will. It's that simple. So when that union leader is standing in their room nodding, why would the legislatures listen to? Money, money. You know, you have to remember the teacher's union, like I said, spends millions of dollars to get people elected, spends millions of dollars to get them reelected. And believe me, they will come calling when it comes time for some of these bills to pass or fail. And they will remind those legislators. And sometimes, you know, for instance, if you're a Democrat and you're in a purple district, so maybe you're going to have a challenge from a Republican, maybe you're gonna have a challenge from a center-left Democrat. And so you might have some difficulty getting reelected for that matter. And so they're kind of trying to walk that tightrope and they realize, well, if I don't do what they want me to do, they're gonna fund my opponent or they're gonna spend against me. So a lot of times it's a political calculation. And that's not to say that everybody votes that way. You know, obviously that's not the case. It just depends on the group because there are some groups out there, like I said, who spend millions. They are not shy about it. They are not shy about letting people know they are perfectly willing to do that. And that really spooks some of these legislators into thinking, well, you know, I could be vulnerable. Because remember, there's campaign donations and then there are what's called independent expenditures. And there are no limits on that. So if you're running for office and I decide, you know what, I don't like how you voted CMOC, so I'm gonna do an independent expenditure and we're gonna send out pieces of mail and we're gonna do radio ads and we're gonna do television ads and we're gonna make phone calls, all of these things. And we can spend unlimited money to do so to get you out of office and there's nothing to stop me. Wow, so people have to be very careful. A lot of calculation. Well, I mean, what legislators need to remember is they were elected to represent their constituents, not special interest groups. And sometimes a special interest group wants you to vote a certain way and you happen to agree and your constituents happen to agree. And then that's fine, you know. It doesn't mean that because they contributed to you for your campaign that that's why you voted yes. It means because you're aligned. That's how it's supposed to be. And for the most part, that happens often. But also what happens very often is people are pressured to vote a certain way because it's self-preservation. They wanna keep their seat. If we could get a lot of this money out of politics, it would change how the legislature operates. In addition to we are a full-time legislature. So we're in session from January really to September. A lot of other states, they meet every other year for 60 days, 90 days, 45 days. They're not in session all year like we are. So the longer we are in session, I mean, that's why you see 2,000 bills coming out of Sacramento. It can't possibly be 2,000 things every year that we need to legislate. But they find them. Whereas in other states, they really have to focus. So they know, okay, we're in session for 60 days. We have limited amount of time to get our act together and refine what we wanna do because it's quick. To me, I would love if California went to a part-time legislature because I think it would really alleviate some of the pressures and the problems that we have and get back to representatives representing the people instead of all of these groups who have their hand in the pot. Now, some of these groups, do they represent big companies too? Because corporations have a lot of lobbyists too. Have you seen that where it's not just the unions, it's other groups? Oh yeah, I mean, everybody has a lobbyist. Everybody has a lobbyist out there. I mean, you name it, they've got a lobbyist. Now, sometimes it's a very small group. I've seen lobbyists who only have a few clients and then I've seen lobbying firms that are massive. I mean, they have a ton of lobbyists. They have three, four pages of client lists. So it depends. I mean, people spend a lot of money to get a good lobbyist because they want their bills passed. So if you're a lobbyist and you've racked up a lot of wins this year, of course, that's your selling point to potential clients. Well, look, I was able to get 25 bills passed on behalf of my clients this year and was able to kill 50. And so your potential clients look at that and say, okay, I want this guy because he knows how to get things done. So that's how you're building your clients. So then you become kind of the big elephant in the room where people just kind of go to you, right? And you're expected to perform in any way that gets you the result that your clients want. And how present are these guys in the lawmaking process? Have you seen them? They're everywhere. I mean, it used to be, so right now the Capitol is undergoing remodeling before all that. So now all of the legislators and their staff are across the street. But prior to that, you couldn't, it was like walking the gauntlet, especially during the end of the year when we were in our last few days of sessions. I mean, you got off the elevator and it was lined with lobbyists all trying to get your attention. So as you get off the elevator, it's Senator Melinda, Senator Melinda, can I talk to you for a minute? And I always used to think, you've had all year to talk to me. Now you want to talk in the hallway where it's loud. It's like being at a football game. I mean, it's craziness. So they are everywhere and they have a constant presence, not every day in the Capitol, but when there are committee hearings going on, for sure you're going to see a lot of them depending on the bills. Anytime there's committee hearings, you're definitely going to see the Capitol full of lobbyists. But at the end of session, oh boy, that's when it's chaos. Folks, you've probably been hearing me talk about WireEFI for a while now. WireEFI has been getting a ton of phone calls from you and I thank you for supporting an investment that actually helps people. A lot of people are talking about this investment and I like to review the basics with you. First off, yes, it's true. You can earn up to 10.25%. Fixed rate of return that's not correlated to the stock market or to the Fed. You can turn your income on or off, compound it, whatever you choose, and there are absolutely no fees. There are no restrictions on your principal if you ever need your money back and you'll get your monthly statement with no surprises. If you are not sure if you can trust this economy, this secure collateralized portfolio may be a very good option for you. Just go to investwirefi.com. That's invest, the letter Y, then refi.com. Folks, I take my endorsements very seriously. If you're looking for a solid investment that helps people, contact my friends at WireEFI and then tell them CMI Corami sent you. Now let's go back to the interview. Can you tell us about the example that you had? You don't have to say the name of the company, but if you can explain like how. So, you know, committee hearings have very specific roles and procedures and typically when an author presents a bill you get two witnesses to speak in support of it and they usually get about two minutes each to speak. The opposition gets the same. Two witnesses to speak in opposition, they each get two minutes each. After that, anyone else who. So that's they're making their case. That's right. For or against the lobby. That's right, and you get two minutes and that's it. Now, everybody else in the audience who showed up, you and I could get in the line and say, you know, I am Melissa Melendez. I am here on behalf of all of the people who wear red blazers in California and I support this bill. That's all you get to say. You don't get to say why. You don't get to go into detail. You just get your name, who you represent and your position and that's it. What I witnessed, which was remarkable. So essentially it says, we don't, we can't say a lot. Like if the public wants to come and say something, they just can't say their name and their for or against it and who they represent and that's it, right? That's it, because I mean, you can imagine if you let everybody talk in detail, it would be, we'd never get anything done. Now, you know, people can send in, they can email their representative, they can email the committee members, they can do all those things. They just can't speak, you know, on and on. Even the witnesses who've been identified only get two minutes to speak. What I saw was a lobbyist from a big company. There was some discussion about this bill and the author couldn't really answer the question, likely because it was really drafted by this other organization. And so- So the lobbyist essentially had drafted the bill. Right, and the lobbyist was in the audience. He was not one of the people who was called on to testify, you know, in support of the bill. It was someone else. And he just started to saunter, you know, down to the front desk where the witnesses sit and said, you know, excuse me, if I could just add some clarity here. Was not invited, was not an official witness, and they let him do it as though it was his hearing, as though it was his show. That is unheard of. I mean, there is a process. And I was floored when I saw that. And that really, to me, opened up my eyes to just the enormous influence that some of these lobbyists have. Not all of them, but the ones who write big checks, you can bet that they definitely have more influence than the little guy. And I saw it with my own eyes. That should have never happened. No lobbyist should ever just insert themselves into a bill hearing. And the chairman or chairwoman should never have allowed that to happen, but they did. Why did they let that? Because they can get contribution from that company? Well, sure. This happened to be a lobbyist who had been around for years. I mean, a very, very long time. Was respected, was liked, but that doesn't change the fact that what he did was inappropriate. But his organization hands out a lot, I mean, a lot of checks, millions of dollars. And I'm sure that that's what the chair of the committee was thinking. Well, I don't want to offend him. You have to remember, too, that a lot of times we have legislators who have no executive level experience prior to getting into the legislature. They have no experience at all in that area. So they don't really know how to conduct themselves. And when a lobbyist like that, who is an institution himself in California, everybody knows it. Right, I mean, I think they get intimidated and think, well, I can't tell him no. But that's your job to say no. Because no member of the public, you know, if somebody from Southern California drove up there, they wouldn't have been able to just walk up and say, allow me to clarify for you because I work in this industry. That would have never happened, but they let a lobbyist do it. What is the impact of all of this, Melissa, on us, the average Californians? Well, I'll tell you this. The average Californian, I think their voice is getting lost. If you're not a lobbyist, it seems like legislators are less inclined to listen. And that's a generalization. I mean, I'm not saying that legislators aren't listening to their constituents. I just think that somehow the paradigm has shifted where these special interest groups and the lobbyists have more influence than they should. Certainly more influence than they do in other states where they are a part-time legislature, where they're not seeing them all the time. You have to remember, we also have what's called behested payments in California, meaning if you're a senator, CMOC, and you want to do a turkey giveaway in your community for Thanksgiving, you want to give out free turkeys, okay, you can get me. I work for the giant ABCDEF Corporation. I didn't want to say ABC because I'd actually call them beverage control. I don't want to drag them into this. I'll be getting a phone call if I do that. But I'm this big corporation and you come to me and say, you know, I want to give away turkeys for Thanksgiving, it's good for me, and re-election. So then I pay for all the turkeys and then you get to pass them out as senator. That's right, from you, from generous CMOC. Yes, that's right. Even though the money came from someone else. And that's another way to leverage influence with legislators. So that turkey will cost the taxpayer a lot more because that company's gonna make more out of it, right? I mean, it's a real sleight of hand, you know, if you think about it. And it always bothered me to see legislators doing things like that, you know, turkey giveaways, because if you're buying it with your own money, then good for you, and that's a noble cause. But they're not buying it with their own money. They're not being generous with their own, you know, worth and value. They're being generous with other people's money. And that money, those companies, they calculate how much they give and they want to get more, right? They have to report it, yep. I mean, it all has to be reported. Do they end up getting a lot more because the law passes that favors them? Depends, you know, it depends on the laws that pass. I mean, there are a lot of bills that get passed and sometimes people don't realize what the effect is going to be in the future until, you know, it happens. But it is not out of the question that a special interest group would push for a bill that's going to help their client make more money. I mean, you know, it's a business out there. I understand that part, most people do, but there has to be a very bright line in between how legislators are voting and the contributions that they are receiving. And that bright line is not so bright anymore in the legislature because there's all of this overlap in how legislators are voting and how lobbyists are affecting how they vote. And it's just very cloudy now. I wish that we could get a lot of this money out of this business. I wish that we could get legislators to pay more attention to the constituents that they represent who are hurting right now. I mean, it's, you know, the economy is the number one issue in California, people are hurting. And you know, when the AB5 law passed back in the day, the contractor law, there were some groups that had access, lobbyists, and they were excluded from it. That's right. And then the ones that didn't have. Got left out in the cold, that's right. That's why it had to go to a ballot measure, even though that ballot measure didn't cover everyone. But we have seen this time and time again. And it's, a lot of times it depends on the bill author because some bill authors are very stubborn and they just, they don't wanna make changes. They feel like, well, if I make one change to satisfy this group, then everybody else comes along and they want changes. So some of them are very hesitant to do that. But you have to think about how it's going to affect your constituents, not how it's going to affect the lobbying groups that are coming to you. I mean, it's a holistic approach, right? But again, it goes back to not listening to the people you represent. Because AB5, there were so many people who said, please don't do this. You're going to put me out of work in California. I'm not gonna be able to do my job in California. And of course it was, no, no, no, that's not going to happen. And it did. That's the reality, it did. And a lot of people were. That's right. And you can't go back now. Now, was it always like this? Because I doubt that it was like this back in the day. Can you explain to us how we've ended up here? I think it predates me. You know, the sort of downward spiral. You know, I hear stories about how things used to be back in the day. And I can tell you back in the day, no lobbyist would have ever walked in and inserted himself into a committee hearing that he wasn't invited to. I do know that. I'm not, I don't know. I'm not sure when it changed. You know, we had no term limits in California. And then we went to six year term limits. And then we went to 12 year term limits, which is where we are now. And I think 12 is a reasonable time for someone to be in office. I think go in, do your job, do your public service, and then go back home and go into the private sector and live under the rules that you created for everyone and see, you know, how's that working out for you. But I just think it's been this gradual thing over the years. And really what we've seen, it's the money. The money has just, the influence is incredible. And these, you know, different lobbying firms have figured that out. Oh, well, we gave, you know, Senator Smith here a max out check two cycles in a row, and he was very good to us, and he asked for more. So we think we can go back and ask for more from him, and then lo and behold, you know, he complies. Not every legislator is like that, but I just think they definitely learned that the money makes a big difference. So they give the money, and then they analyze how the legislature works for them. And then they will contribute more. Yeah, if you're not voting the way they want you to vote, obviously they're not going to be supporting you, you know, financially, but maybe someone else who's running against you, or, you know, some of your colleagues, they're supporting them more. And, you know, people talk, right? Legislators talk, and they, oh, well, you got how much from, you know, A, B, C, D, E, F company? And, well, I only got this, and I wonder why that is. And it's, again, a lot of it goes back to self-preservation, but that's the danger in having people in office who really need the job. Ideally, we would have a legislature full of people who don't need that job, who are doing it because they want to, because they want to serve, because they believe in the institution, and they want to serve their constituents. But too often, we have people who are in office who, you know, that's the best job they're ever going to have in their lives. That's the highest-paying job they're ever going to have in their lives. And so the motivation is different than someone who says, I just, I want to serve for however long the public will have me, and then I'm going to go back to my normal life and just continue on. There will be no devastation in my life if I don't continue to remain in office. So back in the day, people, is it fair to say people would not get swayed by this lobbyist as much, or would they give them appointments? Yeah, I wouldn't say that. I mean, I think lobbyists have always had an influence to varying degrees. I just question whether it was the same as it is today, because I, obviously, there's always been money, you know, in politics, but it has grown. And not just in California, I mean, I'm talking nationwide. Just the amount of money in politics has grown and grown. In fact, I just, one of our sons is in a political science class, and he had an assignment in class about this very issue and called me to talk to me about it. And he was shocked, just, you know, about the independent expenditures. He didn't know that those existed. And he was like, wait, what do you mean they can just give unlimited money? And isn't that unfair? Yeah, a little bit, it is, but that's our system. I mean, it's not a perfect system, for sure. It's the best system in the world. However, I think getting that money out of the influential sphere in Sacramento, or whether it's D.C. or here, I think that's key to getting legislators to focus on what they're there for, instead of who their masters are. So, is it fair to say, back in the day, people wouldn't go against the public's interest? It depends on the issue. I mean, I think people were more inclined to do town halls in their district. I think people were more inclined to have more connection with their constituents. And, remember, they had fewer constituents, right? I mean, we're a state of 40 million now. We haven't always had 40 million people in California. So, you had fewer people, whereas now it's, I mean, each Senate district, it's a million people. You know, how can you connect with a million people? It's nearly impossible. So, I think, back in the day, there was probably more interaction, as opposed to now, where I think there's even less. Because I remember having a conversation with a Democrat legislator, and asking about town halls. I had mentioned, you know, I'm doing a town hall. And, you know, how often do you do town halls? And he said, I don't do town halls. Why would I do that? And I said, well, what do you mean you don't do town halls? He says, no, no, no. Because if I do a town hall, then the really, really lefties will say I'm not left enough. And the people in the middle will say I'm too far to the left. And the people on the right will say you're too far to the left. And so, I just don't do them. And I said, well, I mean, how do you know how your constituents feel about these issues, if you don't talk to them? He didn't seem concerned about it. And he got reelected year after year after year, without ever engaging with his constituents. So, sometimes it depends. Sometimes it's just a solid blue or red district, and nothing's going to change that anytime soon. And so, they have that sense of, you know, comfort and stability, where they say, I don't have to do this. I'll get reelected. And they're right. It's a shame. They should feel compelled. They should feel a sense of obligation to go talk to their constituents, but they don't have to, and so they don't. Before we continue, we would like to thank Shen Yun for sponsoring this channel. I lived in China for two years and experienced two different Chinas. One is the China we know now, unfortunately with communism. And the other is ancient Chinese culture with 5,000 years of history, strong values, ethics, and morality that has been lost. Shen Yun Performing Arts is reviving this 5,000 years of Chinese traditional culture. It takes you back in time to magical world of ancient China with a unique blend of brilliant dancing, beautiful costumes, and legends coming to life. Go to Shenyun.com to find out the schedule and theater information. It's a lifetime experience you don't want to miss. Book your tickets today. Now let's go back to the interview. Now, Melissa, is there a way to fix what we have? Yes. Let's start with, I mean, I really believe in this. I think a part-time legislature would be enormously helpful to California. The less time you have legislators up there cooking up ideas of how to run your life and how to take more money out of your pocket, the better it is for everyone. It would be great if we had a part-time legislature. Do I think that's going to happen anytime soon? Absolutely not. Because I have heard Republicans and Democrats alike complain about this particular issue, saying, oh, it's a terrible idea. And then, of course, the lobbying corps would lose their minds because, well, what are they going to do all year, right? It's this whole cottage industry. So, I mean, everybody would stand to lose money. The only people who would stand to perhaps gain any money would be Californians, who might actually be able to keep more money in their pocket. I firmly believe that. The less time legislators are in session, the safer we are. Do you have any other suggestions besides doing the part-time legislature? Because that doesn't seem possible. Yeah, I know. That's unfortunate. You know what would be great and would be helpful for, because I'm looking at this as what would help Californians. I'm not looking at how it's going to help legislators or lobbyists. That's none of my concern. My concern is people of California. And I think if it could be done, and I think it could, every legislator should be required to do one town hall. If they can't do it once a month, do it one every other month. Meet your constituents where they are and listen to what they have to say. Tell them about the bills that you're working on. Tell them about, you know, and they can ask questions. Why did you vote yes on this? Why did you vote no on that? There has to be a dialogue. Constituents are completely shut out of the process. And we saw this, particularly with COVID, when they started changing how hearings were being done. So it used to be, I mean, hearings went on for as long as they needed to go on. They didn't, you know, nobody gaveled down and said, okay, well, we're over our time limit. That did not happen. I remember the hearing for the mandatory vaccine. This was pre, not the COVID vaccine, the other list of vaccines. And I remember that hearing went on for hours, into the night. But every last person who wanted to speak was heard, even if it was just, hi, my name is Melissa Melendez and I oppose this bill. They got their chance to speak. COVID came along and they changed the rules and said, well, we only have the phone lines for, you know, two hours. We only have this committee room for two hours. So we're gonna limit testimony to 15 minutes for opposition, 15 minutes for support, and that's it. So if you didn't make it into that 15 minute window, you didn't get heard. That's not representative government. It should never be that way. Legislators should sit there in an uncomfortable chair for as long as they need to, to hear every last person who took time out of their day, their work schedule. To travel up there. That's right, to go and say, I mean, Sacramento is out of the way, you know, for most people in California. If they're gonna make the time to go up there, they should be heard. And it's not okay to say, well, you know, you can send an email, you can make a phone call. That's not the same. And that is our right as Americans, as Californians, to be heard by our representatives. And I would love to see that policy change, where we go back to every last person who wants to get heard, gets heard. Now, being in your shoes, are you concerned about the future of California? I am. I mean, I don't see things getting better. I don't see, you know, housing prices coming down. I don't see an abundance of new homes being built. I don't see gas prices coming down or electricity prices. I don't see reservoirs being built, so we can store more water. All of the things that are causing the cost to increase in California, I don't see any changes. I mean, we have insurance companies now, big ones, leaving California. That's not a good sign. And I wonder, what is it going to take to get people in California to say, you know, I'm not happy with where things are going, and then maybe I need to change who I'm sending to represent me. Because it is getting more expensive. We've seen homelessness increase. It hasn't gotten better. It's getting worse. People still can't afford homes. The school, our schools are failing, you know, our kids. And what we see California, the legislature do, instead of doing things to make the schools better, we see them just clamping down on the parents, speaking out against what's going on in the schools, kind of, you know, cutting them out. That's why you see an increase in students who are being homeschooled now, because parents said, I can't subject my children to this. So I think California can be saved, for sure, because California wasn't always like this, right? But it is going to take, really, the people of California to kind of rise up and demand it and force things to change, because it's not going to come out of Sacramento. They're very comfortable there. And, you know, if you're allowed to move freely and do whatever you want without any resistance, of course you're going to continue doing that. Until people start to say, hold it right there, I put you in office and I would like to see you do things differently, do things that benefit me as your constituent. Until people start to do that, I don't know that things are going to change. And now you have a role to study the issues that California is facing. I do. How do you do that when you see what you see? So I am now the State Executive Director for the America First Policy Institute here in California, and we are a nonprofit. And so what we do is we're looking at these issues and studying them, doing the research, the academic research, pulling the data to show, look, here's where we are when it comes to homelessness. Here's what we can do to improve it, to get more people into a home, off drugs, mental health issues, all of these things. Here are the things that we need to do to improve the situation, instead of just talking about it. Here are the things we can do to improve the energy situation, the housing situation, all of these things. That's our role. And then, you know, it's out of our hands once we provide all of this information to legislators, but it is hard to refute cold hard facts when they're put in front of you. What they do with them is one thing, but our job is to make sure we're highlighting this and making sure Californians know, look, it actually can be better, and here's how. Maybe you should talk to your representative and say, you know what, there's some solutions here coming from this organization that we'd like to see you try. So Melissa, you're studying the issues the state is facing, but at the same time, it seems like people in the state are not hearing what you guys are studying. How do you keep going? Yeah, so we started about summertime is when we came into being the America First Policy Institute for California. And so, you know, we're just getting started. There are other groups out there, certainly, who are focusing on these issues as well, but really the key is going to where people are. You know, it's one thing, you can write a research paper, great. Okay, how many people are going to read it? Some will, and of course, you want to put it in front of those people, but the average Californian doesn't have time for that. The average Californian isn't even reading a newspaper anymore. So the goal is, you know, go to where people are, go talk to them, do town halls, do events, write things in the paper that, you know, they will read, use social media to our advantage to educate people on what's going on, because people are starting to pick up on things. That's why we're seeing people move out of California. I mean, look at how many people we lost. Do we have some people moving from other states into California? Sure we do, but we're losing more people than are coming in because people are starting to see, and this is again, thanks to COVID, people are starting to see, you know, there are other states out there that don't take this much money out of my paycheck and don't try to run everything in my life and don't try to interfere with how I'm raising my children and all these other things. They woke up to that and went, you know what? I'm packing up the U-Haul and I'm out of here. And I think, I mean, I love this state. It's so beautiful. It's got, oh my gosh, we have so much to offer. I'm sorry, no other state compares to us. They really don't, but we have some problems. We have some issues, but I wanted to go back to the days where people were clamoring to move into California instead of clamoring to move out. And that's what we're seeing right now. And so our role is to educate people, to show them there is, look, there's hope and there is a better way to do things. It's not just, you know, we're not just complaining to complain saying, oh, well look what they're doing. There is an opposite side to what is taking place right now. And that's what we're trying to show people is that it doesn't have to be this way. Do you think California can go back to what it used to be, like being that space? Absolutely, oh, I do, absolutely. I mean, we are seeing a shift. Now it's going to take time. I don't think California, you're gonna see this big sweeping change overnight. If that were going to happen, we would have seen it by now. But I think it can go back to the way it used to be where people, you know, had hope and had a clear path to get to where they wanted to go as far as their financial situation and their family situation. If you worked hard in California, you could absolutely do that. There was a time where, I mean, there was a middle class in California, whereas now we see the middle class kind of get squeezed out. So we have the really wealthy people, all the poor people, and then some in between. But there was a time in California where you could absolutely raise your family comfortably on a middle class income. You know, you didn't have to have a college education. You didn't have to be a lobbyist. I mean, it was idyllic. And that's what I want to see us go back to. And so, yes, of course we can get back there, but we have to have the right people in place making the decisions to allow that to happen. Do you have any other thoughts for our audience? I would say people are starting to pay attention. I know it's hard. You know, I've got kids, I work. It's not always convenient to pay attention to these things. It's not always convenient to go to a school board meeting or a city council meeting or go to Sacramento. And I'm not asking people to do that. I mean, it would be great if they did, but I get that's not reality for everyone. But I think what people are seeing now, if they're not happy with the way things are now, it's not going to get better. And so, unless they stand up and demand to be counted, it is going to continue to decline. And then they are going to start looking at Zillow, saying, hmm, which state can I go to where things aren't like this here? And I mean, for me, and I know millions of others in California, we don't want to leave this state. I mean, it's magnificent. So we have to kind of take the responsibility. I think for a long time, we just sort of trusted, you know, the people in Sacramento to do what was right and make sure things were going along smoothly. And as we've seen, we took our eye off the ball and that's not happening now. And it's time for people to kind of get fired up now and say, you know what, hold it. This doesn't help me or my family and things have to change. Melissa Melendez, former California State Senator. It was great to have you on California Insider. Thank you, always a pleasure. If you haven't checked out CaliforniaInsider.com, we highly recommend you do that now because we're going to have a lot of news and videos there. And on top of what we have there right now, we are building a really big platform to cover what's happening in California. So you can be informed. We're going to have more shows, more videos from all aspects of life in California. Go to CaliforniaInsider.com and we'll see you there.