BILL ANALYSIS
SB 657
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
SB 657 (Steinberg) - As Amended: June 23, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 24-13
SUBJECT : THE CALIFORNIA TRANSPARENCY IN SUPPLY CHAINS ACT OF
2010: NEW INFORMATION TO AID CONSUMER PURCHASING DECISIONS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD CONSUMERS BE EMPOWERED WITH EASILY ACCESSIBLE
INFORMATION ABOUT THE EFFORTS, IF ANY, THAT THE STATE'S LARGEST
BUSINESSES (LESS THAN 5% OF ALL BUSINESSES IN CALIFORNIA) ARE
VOLUNTARILY UNDERTAKING TO ELIMINATE SLAVERY AND TRAFFICKING IN
THEIR PRODUCT SUPPLY CHAINS?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This consumer empowerment measure bill, entitled the California
Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010, is part of a
continuing effort by the author to fight the continuing
international tragedy of slavery and human trafficking. This
measure seeks to provide consumers with unprecedented new and
easily accessible information provided by the state's largest
retailers and manufacturers about these businesses' efforts to
eradicate slavery and human trafficking that could inadvertently
be in their product supply chains. Specifically, the bill
requires a relatively small number of the state's retail sellers
and manufacturers with the largest economic "fire power" to
disclose to consumers whatever efforts they have undertaken,
including none, to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from
their supply chains. This disclosure shall be posted on the
specified business' web site, and shall be made available in
writing upon request to assist consumers in their purchasing
decisions.
In October 2007, the California Department of Justice released a
report entitled "Human Trafficking in California" which
contained a comprehensive list of recommendations to combat
human trafficking. The report stated, "California bears a moral
responsibility to exert leadership, through government and
SB 657
Page 2
business purchasing practices, to implement and monitor codes of
conduct assuring fair and human labor practices throughout their
supply chain." This bill takes up this critical clarion call
for action by seeking to harness the substantial economic
leverage of California consumers to encourage the business
community to deter forced labor in their supply chains.
The bill is supported by a broad coalition of human rights, law
enforcement and employee rights organizations. It is opposed by
a coalition of business trade organizations that includes the
California Chamber of Commerce, California Grocers Association,
California Manufacturers and Technology Association, California
Retailers Association, and TechAmerica. Opponents argue that
the measure would "require companies to develop policies with
regard to its [sic] entire supply chain ? [these] policies would
need to address specific issues such as third-party verification
of product supply chain, independent unannounced audits and
certification of raw materials."
However the analysis notes that this is actually not the case.
To the contrary, the bill merely requires the specified large
business entities to make available to consumers information
about whatever these business' voluntary efforts are, including
none, to eradicate slavery and human trafficking that could
inadvertently be in their product supply chains, i.e, the bill
does not in fact require the specified large businesses to do
anything other than make available the facts about what if
anything they are doing to deter human trafficking and slavery
in their product supply chains. The bill leaves it to consumers
to decide whether and how, if at all, they wish to use such
information in their purchasing decisions.
SUMMARY : Seeks to provide consumers with new and easily
accessible information made available by specified large
retailers and manufacturers about these businesses' voluntary
efforts, whatever they may be, to try to eradicate slavery and
human trafficking that could inadvertently be in their product
supply chains. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes various legislative findings, including that (a) slavery
and human trafficking are crimes that are often hidden from
view and are difficult to uncover and track; (b) consumers and
businesses are inadvertently promoting and sanctioning these
crimes through the purchase of goods and products that have
been tainted in the supply chain; (c) absent publicly
SB 657
Page 3
available disclosures, consumers are at a disadvantage in
being able to distinguish companies on the merits of their
efforts to supply products free from the taint of slavery and
trafficking; and; (d) it is the policy of this state to ensure
large retailers and manufacturers provide consumers with
information regarding their efforts to eradicate slavery and
human trafficking from their supply chains, to educate
consumers on how to purchase goods produced by companies that
responsibly manage their supply chains, and, thereby, to
improve the lives of victims of slavery and human trafficking.
2)Requires, after a one year "phase in" period, beginning
January 1, 2012 every retail seller and manufacturer doing
business in this state and having annual gross receipts that
exceed one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) to disclose
its voluntary efforts, including none, to eradicate slavery
and human trafficking from its supply chain.
3)Requires this consumer disclosure to be posted on the retail
seller's or manufacturer's web site, and for it also to be
available in writing upon request by a consumer. In the event
the retail seller or manufacturer does not have a web site,
consumers must be provided the written disclosure within 30
days that the business receives the consumer request.
4)Requires the disclosure, at a minimum, to disclose to what
extent, including none, that the retail seller or manufacturer
does each of the following: (a) engages in third-party
verification of product supply chains to evaluate and address
risks of human trafficking and slavery; (b) conducts
independent, unannounced audits of suppliers to evaluate
supplier compliance with company standards for trafficking and
slavery in supply chains; (c) requires suppliers to certify
that raw materials incorporated into the product comply with
the laws regarding slavery and human trafficking of the
country or countries in which they are doing business; (d)
maintains internal accountability standards and procedures for
employees or contractors failing to meet company standards
regarding slavery and trafficking; and (d) provides company
employees and management training on human trafficking and
slavery, particularly with respect to mitigating risks within
the supply chains of products.
5)Provides that the exclusive remedy for a violation of this
measure shall be an action brought by the Attorney General for
SB 657
Page 4
injunctive relief, and that nothing in the bill shall limit
remedies available for a violation of any other state or
federal law.
6)Provides that the bill's provisions shall not take effect
until January 1, 2012, to provide the designated retail
sellers and manufacturers substantial time to comply with the
bill's disclosure requirements.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes, under federal law, the crimes of kidnapping in
interstate or foreign commerce, peonage, slavery and
trafficking in persons, and provides for criminal and civil
penalties. (18 U.S.C. Secs. 1201, 1581-1595.)
2)Provides, under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act of 2000, the crime of human trafficking, and
delineates various federal actions to combat trafficking,
punish perpetrators, and provide services to victims of
trafficking. (22 U.S.C. Sec. 7100 et seq.)
3)Makes human trafficking a crime under California law. (Penal
Code Section 236.1.)
4)Allows, under the California Trafficking Victims Protection
Act, a victim of human trafficking to bring a civil action for
actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
injunctive relief, or any other appropriate relief. (Civil
Code Section 52.5.)
COMMENTS : This important consumer empowerment bill is part of a
continuing effort by the author to fight the continuing
international tragedy of slavery and human trafficking. Through
this measure the author seeks to harness the immense economic
power of the purchasing decisions of California consumers to
help tackle this complex and challenging problem. The bill
simply seeks to ensure interested California consumers have
reasonable access to basic information to aid their purchasing
decisions. It does so by requiring designated major retailers
and manufacturers to disclose their efforts to eradicate slavery
and human trafficking that could inadvertently be in their
product supply chains. The disclosure must be conspicuously
posted on a large retailer's or manufacturer's web site, and
also be made available in writing upon request.
SB 657
Page 5
In support of the measure, the author states:
The purpose of this bill is simple: to help consumers
better distinguish companies based on the merits of
efforts to manufacture and supply products that are
free from the taint of slavery and trafficking. With
better information, consumers will be more equipped to
help eradicate trafficking and slavery from product
supply chains through their purchasing decisions.
Backdrop on the Scourge of Human Trafficking : As shocking as it
is to note in the 21st century, human trafficking involves the
modern-day recruitment, transportation, or sale of people for
forced labor. Through violence, threats, and coercion, these
victims are forced to work in, among other things, the sex
trade, domestic labor, factories, hotels, and agriculture.
According to the January 2005 U.S. Department of State's Human
Smuggling and Trafficking Center report, "Fact Sheet:
Distinctions Between Human Smuggling and Human Trafficking,"
there are an estimated 600,000-800,000 men, women, and children
trafficked across international borders each year. Of these,
approximately 80% are women and girls, and perhaps most
disturbing of all, up to 50% of the victims of human trafficking
are children.
Human trafficking and forced labor have become alarmingly
prevalent with the rise of globalization. It is estimated that
nearly 12.3 million people - equal to nearly one-third of
California's total population - are working in some form of
forced labor worldwide. Trafficked individuals are moved from
one location to another, typically by coercion, deception, or
fraud, and find themselves subject to exploitation. Those who
ultimately arrive in forced labor conditions have not offered
themselves up for work voluntarily and are forced to work under
menace of penalty and injury.
The U.S. Department of State issued a comprehensive report on
human trafficking earlier this year which crystallized the
impact of human trafficking and slavery in consumers' everyday
lives, and diagnosed strategies to combat the problem. The
report states:
"With the majority of modern slaves in agriculture and
mining around the world - and forced labor prevalent in
SB 657
Page 6
cotton, chocolate, steel, rubber, tin, tungsten, coltan,
sugar, and seafood - it is impossible to get dressed, drive
to work, talk on the phone, or eat a meal without touching
products tainted by forced labor? Even reputable companies
can profit from abuse when they do not protect their supply
chain - whether at the level of raw materials, parts, or
final products - from modern slavery.
Consumer spending and corporate investment in business are
leverage points that can turn around a system that has for
too long allowed traffickers and economies to operate with
impunity. There is an increasing push for consumer
transparency, certification, and more rigorous regulation?
Research suggests companies investing in fair labor
practices and labeling their products accordingly improve
conditions on the ground and drive up the demand for, and
price of, their products."
The following table provides estimates of the national and
statewide distribution of known cases of forced labor across
various forms of exploitation:
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Profile of Trafficking Cases by Type of Exploitation, |
| Using Percentages |
-----------------------------------------------------------
|-----------------------+----------------+------------------|
| | U.S. | CA. |
|-----------------------+----------------+------------------|
| Prostitution | 46.4 | 47.4 |
|-----------------------+----------------+------------------|
| Domestic Servitude | 27.2 | 33.3 |
|-----------------------+----------------+------------------|
| Agriculture | 10.4 | 1.8 |
|-----------------------+----------------+------------------|
| Sweat Shop | 4.8 | 5.3 |
|-----------------------+----------------+------------------|
|Sexual Exploitation of | | |
| Children | 3.1 | 1.8 |
|-----------------------+----------------+------------------|
| Mail Order Bride | .8 | 5.3 |
|-----------------------+----------------+------------------|
| Other | 6.9 |5.3 |
-----------------------------------------------------------
SB 657
Page 7
California regrettably has been reported to be one of the top
four destination states for trafficking victims in the United
States. Over 500 victims from 18 countries were identified in
California between 1998 and 2003.
The following table contains estimates of the statewide
distribution of victims across various forms of exploitation as
well as the share of victims by gender and age group according
to the Human Rights Center at UC Berkeley and the California
Alliance to Combat Trafficking and Slavery Task Force:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Trafficking Victims by Type of Exploitation in California, Using |
| Percentages |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
| Source | UCB | CACTST | Median |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Sex Trafficking | 44.6 | 46 | 45.3 |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
| Domestic | 16.8 | 31 | 23.9 |
| Servitude | | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
| Agriculture | .4 | 9 | 4.7 |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
| Sweat Shop | 25.8 | 5 | 15.4 |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
| Other | 12.5 | 9 | 21.5 |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
| Women | 74 | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
| Children | 16 | | |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
| Men | 10 | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Trafficking victims in California reportedly tend to be
concentrated in three "industries": prostitution, sweat shops,
and domestic service. A 2005 analysis of over 500 victims found
that victims in these three sectors accounted for over 80% of
victims identified between 1998 and 2003. Many more are
believed to go unnoticed.
SB 657
Page 8
California's Past Efforts to Combat Human Trafficking and
Slavery - the State's "ACTS" Task Force : In 2005, the
Legislature enacted the California Trafficking Victims
Protection Act (AB 22 (Lieber), Ch. 240, Statutes of 2005).
This act established civil and criminal penalties for human
trafficking and allowed for forfeiture of assets derived from
human trafficking. The measure, along with SB 180 (Kuehl, Ch.
239, Statutes of 2005) also established the California Alliance
to Combat Trafficking and Slavery (California ACTS) Task Force.
The Task Force was charged with conducting a thorough review of
California's response to human trafficking and to report its
findings to the Governor, Attorney General, and the Legislature.
In October 2007, the California Department of Justice released
the final report produced by the California ACTS Task Force
entitled "Human Trafficking in California," which contained a
comprehensive list of findings and recommendations to combat
human trafficking. The report stated, "California bears a moral
responsibility to exert leadership, through government and
business purchasing practices, to implement and monitor codes of
conduct assuring fair and human labor practices throughout their
supply chain." Indeed, California has had stringent procurement
policies in place since 2000 which prohibit state agencies from
purchasing goods or services produced by or with the benefit of
exploitative forms of labor. The statute was amended in 2003 to
establish a "sweat-free" procurement policy and code of conduct
that ensures apparel, garments, and corresponding materials
purchased by the state are produced in workplaces free of
sweatshop conditions. In amending the state's procurement
policies, the Legislature recognized a public interest in
avoiding subsidies to bidders and contractors whose workplaces
represent sweatshop conditions, including violation of
recognized standards of wages, workplace health and safety,
child labor, nondiscrimination and nonharassment, and the rights
of workers to assemble and choose to bargain collectively.
This measure now before the Committee seeks to encourage large
businesses to voluntarily take reasonable steps, knowing how
important such efforts may be to some consumers, through the use
of these large businesses' substantial economic leverage to
deter forced labor from being used in their supply chains.
"A Natural Place To Redouble Our Efforts ": As the author has
noted, California, with its large manufacturing and
SB 657
Page 9
service-sector industries, global and economic strength, and
large presence of human trafficking, is a natural place for
especially strong anti-slavery efforts. Available data clearly
shows that California is a significant economic presence in
today's increasingly global marketplace. It is home to the
world's top 10 largest economies with the state's GDP exceeding
that of many developed countries of the world. With more than
twice the GDP of nearly all other states, California accounts
for $1.8 trillion of the nation's total economic activity.
California consumers and businesses occupy a particularly
central place among these statistics as they are significant
contributors to the sheer volume and nature of the state's
economy. California's wholesale trade sales in 2002 were more
than $655 billion, retail sales totaled $359 billion, and
accommodation and food services totaled more than $55 billion.
According to RAND statistics, California imported nearly $200
billion in merchandise from abroad in the first three quarters
of 2009 alone-nearly 18 percent of all imports into the United
States.
These numbers demonstrate the magnitude of California's consumer
base and indicate the significant role California's economy
plays in serving as a market for products, whether produced by
exploitative labor practices or not. California consumers and
businesses appear to be uniquely positioned to drive human
rights violations out of the supply chains of products sold
within California borders by virtue of their ability to
translate the values pronounced by the U.S. Department of Labor
into demonstrable impact by virtue of their choice and simple
purchasing power.
The Measure's Small Business Exemption : In consideration of the
reduced ability of the state's smaller manufacturers and
retailers to influence human trafficking, the author prudently
has included an exemption in the bill for a retail seller or
manufacturer having less than $100,000,000 in annual sales.
While this exemption naturally does not alleviate small
businesses from actually complying with federal and state law on
human trafficking, it appropriately recognizes that they may not
have the same type of ability or resources to exert economic
influence on their suppliers as do the state's largest
businesses.
Indeed, according to materials developed by the state's
SB 657
Page 10
Franchise Tax Board (FTB) and provided by the author to the
Committee, based on total annual sales, this bill's disclosure
requirements will impact well less than 5% (only 3.2%) of
businesses operating within California's borders. Astonishingly
however, this 3.2% of the state's retail sellers and
manufacturers will "capture" an overwhelming majority of the
economic activity in California. Again astonishingly, according
to the FTB, these relatively few but giant major retailers and
manufacturers account for over 87% of the total receipts for
total income and cost of goods sold in California. Since these
businesses have such a disproportionate economic influence, this
bill appears to appropriately target only the state's largest
retailers and manufacturers in an effort to effect the most
significant impact on efforts to fight human trafficking and
slavery.
The Business Case for Human Rights : In addition to the ethical
obligation to combat trafficking and slavery, commentators have
noted there are also business benefits from efforts to combat
human rights violations. The emergence of the internet and
global 24-hour news coverage has revolutionized the environment
within which companies do business. Firms are obliged to
conduct their operations under constant public scrutiny and to
face degrees of consumer transparency that did not exist even a
generation ago. While this new business climate entails greater
commercial perils in cases where companies are found to be on
the wrong side of the law or of consumer expectations, it also
offers previously unforeseen opportunities for those that are
prepared to take the initiative and prove themselves champions
of good practice on human rights, environmental protections, and
other social concerns. The International Business Leaders Forum
has identified eight areas in which businesses will benefit by
acting on human rights: 1) safeguard reputation and brand
image; 2) gain competitive advantage; improve recruitment,
retention and staff loyalty; 3) foster greater productivity; 4)
secure and maintain a license to operate; 5) reduce cost
burdens; 6) ensure active stakeholder engagement; 7) meet
investor expectations; and 8) improve access to finance.
Indeed, according to the report issued by the California ACTS
Task Force noted above, some industries and business owners in
the state have taken the lead to adopt codes of conduct that set
out minimum labor standards for their suppliers and
sub-contractors, thereby voluntarily harnessing their
substantial economic leverage to influence labor and human
SB 657
Page 11
rights practices within their supply chains, which they contend
is appealing to consumers and good for business.
Injunctive Relief the Exclusive Remedy Provided in the Measure :
This bill provides that the exclusive remedy for a violation of
its consumer information provisions is an action brought by the
Attorney General for injunctive relief only.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Reflective of the many letters of support
for the bill, co-sponsor Consumer Federation of California
writes that "California's consumers should be entitled to
purchase products without fear of inadvertently supporting human
trafficking around the world. This bill will help ensure that
consumers receive critical information regarding the efforts of
businesses to eradicate human trafficking so that they can make
the most informed purchasing decisions possible."
Other proponents of the bill, including the Alliance to End
Slavery and Trafficking (ATEST), Not For Sale, Free the Slaves,
and the Polaris Project, state that the bill is a crucial step
in reducing the demand for slave-made products by providing a
tool for consumers, including businesses, to be better informed
as to how products are made. By instituting a mechanism for
concerned consumers to be able to compare company efforts on
forced labor and human trafficking in their "supply chains,"
people can, these organizations contend, make more informed
decisions to spend their hard-earned dollars with the more
responsible company. The proponents argue that the questions
asked by this bill are simple, and include whether or not a
company has their suppliers self-certify compliance with state
and federal laws regarding slavery, whether they encourage
employees and management to be trained on slavery and
trafficking, and whether they conduct unannounced audits of
suppliers. They state that these basic questions will help
provide transparency as to the company's anti-slavery practices
so that consumers can decide for themselves with whom they want
to do business. They contend that this transparency will also
benefit companies that are struggling to do the right thing
while competing against companies that are unfairly and
illegally using slave labor.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : In a joint letter, the California
Chamber of Commerce, California Grocers Association, California
Manufacturers and Technology Association,
California Retailers Association, and TechAmerica write in
SB 657
Page 12
opposition to the bill, making two principal contentions:
"SB 657 would require companies to develop
policies with regard to [sic] its entire supply
chain, which can include entities far outside
the borders of California or the United States.
The policies would need to address specific
issues such as third-party verification of
product supply chain, independent unannounced
audits and certification of raw materials."
However it should be noted that the measure does not in
fact require companies to develop any policies at all.
Instead the bill solely requires, as noted above, that
beginning one year after the bill's enactment, only those
relatively few giant retail sellers and manufacturers doing
business in this state which have annual gross receipts
exceeding $100,000,000 (less than 5% of the state's
businesses) need disclose their efforts, whatever they may
be including if there are none, to eradicate slavery and
human trafficking from its supply chain.
"Private businesses should not be used as the
enforcement arm for federal and state laws
regarding slavery and human trafficking. That
responsibility falls with the federal and state
government entities themselves."
However it should be noted that the measure does not, as
noted above, require the relative narrow number of
designated large companies to do anything other than post
specified information on their web sites and also make such
information available to interested consumers. The bill
does not in any way require these private businesses to act
as an enforcement arm of government; indeed, the bill
acknowledges that these businesses are still completely
free to do anything they want about their efforts to fight
human trafficking and slavery, they simply need to note
this information on their websites and make such
information available to interested consumers.
"[T]he practical effect [of this legislation]
will be to hold certain companies up for ridicule
and condemnation for "failing" to address issues
they are powerless to address."
SB 657
Page 13
However it should be noted that the measure does not require the
relative narrow number of designated large companies to do
anything other than post specified information on their web
sites and also make such information available to interested
consumers. If the information the business provides is found by
some consumers to reflect inadequate attention to this issue,
then that is a business choice as to whether that is a wise
course of action.
As to whether businesses here in California are completely
"powerless to address" the presence of human trafficking and
slavery in their product supply chains, as the business trade
groups contend, there is ample evidence, as noted above, that to
the contrary, some respected California businesses, according to
the report issued by the California ACTS Task Force noted above,
have already taken the lead to adopt their own codes of conduct
that set out minimum labor standards for their suppliers and
sub-contractors, voluntarily using their substantial economic
power to influence labor and human rights practices within their
supply chains.
Suggested Clarifying Amendments : In order to maximize clarity
in the bill that the measure does not require the specified
large business entities to do anything regarding human
trafficking and slavery within their product supply chains,
other than disclose what if anything they are doing, including
nothing, the Committee may wish to explore with the author the
possible merits of the following minor clarifications to the
section 3 of the bill:
SEC. 3. Section 1714.43 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
1714.43. (a) Every retail seller and manufacturer
doing business in this state and having annual gross receipts
that exceed one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) shall
disclose , as set forth in subdivision (c), its efforts to
eradicate slavery and human trafficking from its supply chain ,
including the absence of any such efforts . For purposes of
this section, "doing business in this state" shall have the
same meaning as set forth in Section 23101 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code.
(b) The disclosure described in subdivision (a) shall
be posted on the retail seller's or manufacturer's Internet Web
site with a conspicuous and easily understood link to the
required information placed on the business' homepage, and shall
SB 657
Page 14
be made available in writing upon request by a consumer. In the
event the retail seller or manufacturer does not have an
Internet Web site, consumers shall be provided the written
disclosure within 30 days of receiving a written request for the
disclosure from a consumer.
(c) (1) The disclosure described in subdivision (a) shall, at
a minimum, disclose to what extent, if any, that the retail
seller or manufacturer does each of the following:
(A) Engages in third-party verification of product supply
chains to evaluate and address risks of human trafficking and
slavery.
(B) Conducts independent, unannounced audits of suppliers to
evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for
trafficking and slavery in supply chains.
(C) Requires suppliers to certify that raw materials
incorporated into the product comply with the laws regarding
slavery and human trafficking of the country or countries in
which they are doing business.
(D) Maintains internal accountability standards and procedures
for employees or contractors failing to meet company standards
regarding slavery and trafficking.
(2) The disclosure described in subdivision (a) shall include
the absence or lack of any efforts by the retail seller or
manufacturer as to each of the actions specified in paragraph
(1).
Pending and Prior Pertinent Legislation : There is substantial
and long precedent for the Legislature to successfully enact
consumer information requirements that include requirements for
posting information on internet web sites. For example, just
this session there are at least two measures that require such
internet web posting. SB 1268 (Simitian) seeks to require local
transportation agencies that use electronic toll collection
system to post a privacy policy on their Internet Web site. And
SB 1269 (Oropeza) seeks to require the Department of Agriculture
and the Dept of Public Health to post on their Internet Web
sites information about the immunity from liability for groups
that donate food to charitable organizations. Last year, AB 483
(Buchanan, Chap. 241, Stats. 2009) required the Worker
Compensation Insurance Rating Board to establish an Internet Web
site that posted workers compensation insurance information.
Indeed, this Committee successfully enacted legislation in 2004
(Judiciary Committee, Chap.356, Stats. 2004) that requires the
State Bar to conspicuously publicize on its internet website
that its members have the right to limit the sale or disclosure
SB 657
Page 15
of member information not
reasonably related to regulatory purposes.
Regarding prior pertinent legislation pertaining to legislative
efforts to combat human trafficking and slavery, there is also a
long history of such legislative efforts. SB 1649 (Steinberg)
of the 2007-2008 legislative session sought to require retail
sellers and manufacturers doing business in the state to
develop, maintain, and implement specified policies related to
their compliance with federal and state law regarding the
eradication of slavery and human trafficking from its supply
chain. It was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
And SB 180 (Kuehl, Chapter 239, Statutes of 2005) established
the California Alliance to Combat Trafficking and Slavery
(California ACTS) Task Force. AB 22 (Lieber, Chapter 240,
Statutes of 2005) established civil and criminal penalties for
human trafficking and allowed for forfeiture of assets derived
from human trafficking.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alliance to Stop Slavery and End Trafficking (co-sponsor)
Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking (co-sponsor)
Consumer Federation of California (co-sponsor)
Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking
California Catholic Conference
California Commission on the Status of Women
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California School Employees Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Free the Slaves
Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
Not For Sale
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Polaris Project
Opposition
California Chamber of Commerce
California Grocers Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Retailers Association
Corona Chamber of Commerce
SB 657
Page 16
TechAmerica
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334