BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 516
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 13, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
SB 516 (Steinberg) - As Amended: August 5, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 38-0
SUBJECT : FOREIGN LABOR CONTRACTORS: REGISTRATION
KEY ISSUE : IN ORDER TO BETTER PROTECT AGAINST TRAFFICKING AND
LABOR EXPLOITATION OF NON-CITIZENS AUTHORIZED TO WORK IN THE
U.S. ("FOREIGN WORKERS"), SHOULD REGULATION OF FOREIGN LABOR
CONTRACTORS AND EMPLOYERS SEEKING TO RECRUIT FOREIGN WORKERS BE
SIGNIFICANTLY STRENGTHENED?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This important bill, sponsored by the Coalition to Abolish
Slavery and Trafficking (CAST), represents a multi-faceted
approach to try to better prevent human trafficking and
exploitation of foreign workers in California. The author and
sponsor note that workers entering the U.S. lawfully on
temporary visas are vulnerable to abuse by foreign labor
contractors (FLCs) who may, for example, make false promises of
employment to workers to get them to come to this country, and
subsequently use intimidation, threats, or violence to trap them
in poor working conditions and even enslave them. The bill is
supported by a number of civil rights and anti-trafficking
advocates, and is opposed by many employers, including the
California Chamber of Commerce and the Motion Picture
Association of America. The coalition of opponents jointly
state that while they support the author's efforts to address
human trafficking, they believe the bill, in its present form,
goes too far and if enacted would create unnecessary and
burdensome state oversight over legitimate business operations
that are not the kind of foreign labor recruiters that deserve
to be regulated in order to prevent exploitation.
After extensive discussions among the stakeholders, Committee
staff has developed a number of proposed amendments that seek to
address opponents' stated concerns while at the same time
seeking to preserve the bill's laudable objective of
SB 516
Page 2
strengthening anti-enslavement tools to better prevent human
trafficking and exploitation of foreign workers in California.
The analysis therefore recommends a host of substantial
potential amendments that the Committee may wish to discuss with
the author to determine his openness to them. Among other
things, these proposed amendments would: (1) substantially
narrow the bill's current definition of "foreign labor
contractor" and "foreign labor contracting activity"; (2)
completely prohibit criminal liability for employers that only
use foreign labor contracting services provided by registered
FLCs; (3) completely eliminate the bonding requirement for
employers; and (4) substantially limit the bill's current joint
and several liability approach to only those employers who fail
to use a registered FLC and who do not make a good faith effort
to ensure compliance by the FLC. Due to time constraints,
should the bill pass this Committee, these amendments would be
taken in the Appropriations Committee. This bill was approved
by the Senate without receiving a single "No" vote, and passed
the Assembly Labor Committee by a 5-0 vote. Nevertheless the
author's staff informed the Committee that the author remains
committed to try to address where appropriate the reasonable
concerns expressed by employer organizations.
SUMMARY : Expands registration and disclosure requirements to
regulate foreign labor contractors and the employers who use
their services, and specifies remedies and civil liability for
violations of these requirements. Specifically, this bill ,
among other things:
1)Defines "foreign labor contractor" to mean any person who
performs foreign labor contracting activity, including any
person who performs activity wholly outside the United States,
except that the term does not include any entity of federal,
state, or local government.
2)Defines "foreign labor contracting activity" to mean
recruiting, soliciting, or related activities with respect to
a foreign worker who resides outside of the United States in
furtherance of employment in California, including when such
activity occurs wholly outside the United States. Further
clarifies that "foreign labor contracting activity" does not
include the services of an employer, or employee of an
employer, if those services are provided directly to foreign
workers solely to find workers for the employer's own use, and
are provided without the participation of any foreign labor
SB 516
Page 3
contractor.
3)Clarifies that "foreign worker" means any person seeking
employment who is not a United States citizen or permanent
resident (i.e. green card holders) but who is authorized by
the federal government to work in the United States, including
a person who engages in temporary nonagricultural labor
pursuant to the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, as
specified.
4)Requires, on and after July 1, 2015, any person acting as a
foreign labor contractor (FLC) to register with the Labor
Commissioner, but prohibits registration or renewal of
registration by the Commissioner until all of the following
conditions are satisfied:
a) The person has executed a written application containing
specified information.
b) The Labor Commissioner, after investigation, is
satisfied as to the character, competency, and
responsibility of the person.
c) The person has deposited a surety bond, ranging from
$50,000 to $150,000, depending on the person's annual gross
receipts from operations as a foreign labor contractor.
d) The person has paid a registration fee of $500 plus a
filing fee of $10.
5)Requires the Labor Commissioner, on and after August 1, 2015,
to post on its website the names and contact information of
all registered foreign labor contractors.
6)Provides that the Labor Commissioner may not register a person
as a foreign labor contractor if the person was found to have
violated the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000 and other specified provisions of state and federal law.
7)Prohibits a person from knowingly entering into a contract for
the services of a foreign labor contractor that is not
registered.
8)Requires, on and after July 1, 2015, a person using the
employment services of a foreign labor contractor to disclose
specified information to the Labor Commissioner, including the
name, address, and contact information of the person
designated by the employer to work with a foreign labor
SB 516
Page 4
contractor.
9)Requires a foreign labor contractor to disclose in writing
specified information to each foreign worker who is recruited
for employment that, among other things, identifies the
employer and recruiter, the type of visa under which the
worker is to be employed, and terms of the work contract.
10)Prohibits a foreign labor contractor or a person using the
services of a foreign labor contractor from assessing any fee
to a foreign worker for employment services, including, but
not limited to, visa fees, processing fees, transportation
fees, legal expenses, placement fees, and other costs.
11)Provides that a person may not intimidate, threaten,
restrain, coerce, discharge, or in any manner discriminate
against a foreign worker or a member of his or her family in
retaliation for a foreign worker's exercise of any rights
under the law.
12)Establishes a civil penalty of no less than one thousand
dollars ($1,000) and no more than twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000) per violation of these provisions, in addition to
any other civil remedies available to the Labor Commissioner
or an aggrieved person.
13)Exempts employers from criminal liability if the employer
used services provided only by a registered foreign labor
contractor.
14)Permits the Labor Commissioner or an aggrieved person to sue
for injunctive relief, for damages, or to enforce the
liability of surety bonds, as specified.
15)Provides that a person using the services of a FLC is jointly
and severally liable for violations by the FLC unless the
person used services provided only by a registered FLC and
made a good faith effort to ensure compliance by the FLC with
these provisions. Further specifies that "good faith effort"
means all reasonable and feasible efforts by the person using
the services of the FLC to ensure the FLC has not committed
any violations of these provisions.
16)Allows any person who, upon information and belief, claims a
violation of this chapter has been committed to bring a civil
SB 516
Page 5
action for injunctive relief on behalf of the general public
and, upon prevailing, to recover his reasonable attorney's
fees and costs.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Defines "foreign worker" to mean any person seeking employment
who is not a U.S. citizen but who is authorized by the federal
government to work in this country, including a person who
engages in temporary nonagricultural labor pursuant to Section
1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of Title 8 of the federal Immigration
and Nationality Act. (Business & Professions Code Section
9998.1(d). All further references are to this code unless
otherwise stated.)
2)Defines "employment services" to include procuring employment,
marketing labor, or otherwise arranging the employment or
transportation, housing, and other living accommodations for
foreign workers either on behalf of those workers or on behalf
of another party. (Section 9998.1(c).)
3)Requires every contract for the provision of employment
services to foreign workers to be written in the primary
language of the foreign worker and include all material terms
including, but not limited to, any and all compensation or
consideration to be provided to the foreign worker in exchange
for that worker's labor or services, any wages, housing,
transportation, other living accommodations, and other
benefits which are to be provided. (Section 9998.2.)
4)Prohibits a foreign labor contractor from making, publishing,
or circulating to any person any false, fraudulent, or
misleading representation or information concerning the terms
or conditions of employment at any place of employment.
(Section 9998.3.)
5)Provides that any person who violates these provisions or who
causes or induces another to violate them is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand
dollars ($1,000), or imprisonment in the county jail for not
more than six months, or both. Further allows any person
aggrieved by a violation to bring an action for injunctive
relief damages, or both. (Section 9998.8.)
COMMENTS : In support of this measure, the author notes:
SB 516
Page 6
Foreign labor contractors are increasingly relied upon to
facilitate the migration of labor from one country to
another. California is the leading destination state in the
U.S. for temporary foreign workers with over 100,000
temporary workers annually. While many contractors behave
ethically and lawfully, others do not. They misuse U.S.
visa programs to exploit workers, often charging exorbitant
fees for their services, forcing workers into debt bondage,
falsifying documents, and deceiving workers about the terms
and conditions of proposed employment.
Unscrupulous foreign labor contractors threaten workers with
blacklisting, discrimination, and other forms of
retaliation, including the imposition of additional fees and
violence against themselves, family members, or their home
communities, for reporting abuses or seeking to escape their
fraudulently induced servitude. Legislation is needed to
prevent human trafficking and forced labor of foreign
workers in California resulting from the exploitative and
abusive practices of foreign labor contractors.
Background on exploitation of foreign workers. According to the
Office of Immigration Statistics within the Department of
Homeland Security, as of September 2011, there were
approximately 130,000 foreign temporary workers in California,
representing 15% of the national total and the highest subtotal
of any state (Office of Immigration Statistics, 2011 Yearbook of
Immigration Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (Sept.
2012), at p.4; see:
http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-s
tatistics/ois_ni_pe_2011.pdf ). These foreign temporary workers
are persons who have lawful non-immigration status and are
authorized to work in California under various classifications
of federal work visas.
Although the Legislature passed legislation in 1988 (AB 4554
(Roybal-Allard), Ch. 1450, Stats. 1988) to address reported
abuse by recruiters of foreign workers by establishing modest
disclosure and contract requirements, proponents of this bill
contend that abusive treatment and working conditions of foreign
labor workers continues, and that the visa process itself
provides opportunities for labor recruiters to exploit foreign
workers of all visa types. Proponents cite a recent study of
labor practices with respect to foreign labor workers in which
SB 516
Page 7
the authors found that "regardless of visa category, employment
sector, race, gender or national origin, internationally
recruited workers face disturbingly common patterns of
recruitment abuse, including fraud, discrimination, severe
economic coercion, retaliation, blacklisting and, in some cases,
forced labor, indentured servitude, debt bondage and human
trafficking." (The American Dream Up For Sale: A Blueprint for
Ending International Labor Recruitment Abuse, The International
Labor Recruitment Working Group (Feb. 5, 2013), at p. 5.) The
authors of the report concluded that "disparate rules and
requirements for workers, employers and recruiters, as well as
lax enforcement of the regulations that do exist, allow and even
incentivize recruiters and employers to engage in abuses."
(Id.)
Illustrative examples that exploitation is not restricted by
race, nationality, or visa categories. The sponsor of this
bill, the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking (CAST),
asserts that foreign workers entering California on temporary
work visas are vulnerable to exploitation and human trafficking
that can occur across all categories of race, nationality, and
visa categories.
For example, the H2B visa is a nonimmigrant visa primarily
issued to foreign nationals to enter into the U.S. for a
temporary position for which a shortage of U.S. workers exists,
working for a specific employer for a fixed period of time. CAST
states:
In 2012, six Mexican workers were fraudulently recruited to
come to the United States to work in forestry. The
recruiter came to their small town in rural Mexico to
convince the workers to work in Northern California. The
workers were promised a good salary and free room and board
in the United States. Relying on these promises the
workers entered the U.S. on H2B visas arranged by the
recruiters and traveled to California. However, once in
the U.S., their conditions were vastly different than
promised. They were charged extremely high deductions for
room and board and were often not paid for their labor.
They were forced to live and work in dangerous conditions,
sleeping in tents in the wilderness, living without
electricity, and denied clean drinking water. The workers
were kept in terror of their traffickers, who were armed
and repeatedly threatened to shoot and kill the workers if
SB 516
Page 8
they did not comply with the traffickers' demands.
Another example is the J-1 visa, which is a nonimmigrant visa
intended for individuals approved for work- and study-based
cultural exchange visitor programs, and covers a wide array of
occupations including au pairs, ski resort workers, and
amusement park workers. A high proportion of J-1 visas are
issued through the Summer Work Travel (SWT) program,
administered by the State Department. According to Freedom
Network USA:
Because of the lax oversight and the precarious financial
situation of many J-1 SWT students, numerous instances of
exploitation, and several reports of forced labor, have
arisen in the J-1 SWT context. For example, a 2011
federal indictment charged New York area organized crime
syndicates . . . with offenses stemming from the
recruitment of women from Eastern Europe and Russia under
the J-1 SWT program to work as exotic dancers in the New
York City area. The indictment charged the defendants
with offenses related to visa fraud and transporting,
harboring, and inducing the illegal entry of women from
Eastern Europe and Russia under the J-1 SWT program.
Despite many recent reforms and attempts by the State
Department to address concerns, including issuance of new
regulations in May 2012, the SWT program still requires
improvements to reduce the risk of trafficking,
exploitation, and other abuses. The State Department
itself has acknowledged that, "there have been complaints
regarding job placement, work conditions, and participant
accommodations." The State Department also addressed the
potential misuse of the visa for trafficking in the 2012
Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report's country profile on
the United States, stating "NGOs noted vulnerabilities in
the J-1 Summer Work Travel program that can be indicators
for human trafficking, including reports of fraudulent
job offers, inappropriate jobs, job cancellations on
arrival, and housing and transportation problems"
(Freedom Network USA, Human Trafficking and J-1 Visas for
Temporary Workers, Sept. 2012.)
Possible Amendments the Committee May Wish to Discuss With the
Author In An Effort to Address Employer Concerns : Although the
bill had no registered opposition in the Senate and passed that
SB 516
Page 9
house unanimously, the employer community is now expressing
substantial concerns with the measure. These opponents
submitted a joint letter to the Committee explaining that while
they support the author's efforts to address real problems of
human trafficking, they believe the bill goes too far and
"creates unnecessary state oversight over legitimate business
operations that are necessary for California businesses to
assist foreign workers coming to this state."
After fruitful and lengthy discussions between the author,
sponsor, and coalition opponents, Committee staff have developed
a number of proposed amendments, outlined below, which seek to
try to address opponents' concerns while preserving the bill's
effort to create effective new tools to better prevent human
trafficking and exploitation of foreign workers by foreign labor
contractors.
Thus the Committee may wish to discuss with the author his
openness to amend the bill in the following ways :
A. Key definitions and scope of regulation. Under the current
version of the bill, a foreign labor contractor (FLC) is defined
as "any person who for compensation agrees to assist in securing
or who actually secures for or provides employment services to
foreign workers." The bill also specifies that "employment
services" includes, but is not limited to, procuring employment,
marketing labor, processing visa applications, or otherwise
arranging the employment or transportation, housing, and other
living accommodations for foreign workers, either on behalf of
those foreign workers or on behalf of another person. Persons
meeting this definition of a foreign labor contractor are
required by the bill to register with the Labor Commissioner,
post a surety bond, and provide various disclosures to foreign
workers, among other things. In addition, any person or
employer who uses the services of a FLC, as defined, to procure
foreign workers become regulated by this bill themselves by
virtue of that relationship, and must comply with a separate set
of obligations under the bill, including bonding and disclosure
requirements.
Opponents contend that the current definitions in the bill are
too broad in scope and would effectively make any employer who
hires a foreign worker subject to the requirements of the bill.
Furthermore, because employers hiring foreign workers sometimes
use the services of travel agencies to arrange for travel, or
SB 516
Page 10
immigration lawyers to process visa paperwork, the bill arguably
would deem such travel agencies and immigration law firms as
FLCs and treat them no differently than the labor recruiter-thus
requiring them to independently register with the Labor
Commissioner and post a bond, among other things.
It should be noted that the bill was recently amended in
Assembly Labor Committee to clarify that employers who recruit
foreign workers for their own use without the participation of
any FLC appropriately fall outside the scope of the bill and are
not required to register or comply with FLC requirements. In
addition, the bill was also amended to exempt talent agents
licensed by the Labor Commissioner from being regulated as FLCs.
Proponents note that licensed talent agents are already
strictly regulated by the Labor Commissioner pursuant to Chapter
4 of Part 6 of Division 2 of the Labor Code.
Thus the Committee may wish to discuss with the author his
openness to adopt amendments that would focus the definition of
"foreign labor contractor" and "foreign labor contracting
activity" so that these terms apply more narrowly to capture
those who recruit and solicit foreign workers residing outside
of the country in furtherance of their employment in this state.
These amendments would help address opponents' concerns that
businesses, such as an independent travel agency simply booking
travel for an employer's foreign workers, are not
inappropriately swept into the definition of FLC that would then
subject them to the strict disclosure, bonding, and disclosure
requirements under the bill.
B. Civil and criminal liability. The bill currently imposes
misdemeanor criminal liability upon any person who violates
these provisions or causes or induces another to commit a
violation, and subjects a violator to a civil penalty between
$1,000 and $25,000 per violation. In addition, the Labor
Commissioner or a person aggrieved by a violation may bring a
civil action for injunctive relief, for damages and attorney's
fees, as specified, and to enforce liability on the surety bonds
required by the bill. This bill would also authorize the Labor
Commissioner to take assignments of actions on the FLC's bonds
and prosecute actions on behalf of foreign workers who are
harmed by violations of this law and who, in the judgment of the
commissioner, are financially unable to hire an attorney. This
provision is also modeled after the farm worker protections in
Labor Code section 1693, related to farm labor contractors.
SB 516
Page 11
The bill also contains a limited private right of action that
allows a person, who upon information and belief claims a
violation has been committed, to bring a civil action for
injunctive relief on behalf of the general public. Upon
prevailing, the person bringing such an action shall recover
reasonable attorney's fees and costs. This provision is
substantially similar to a private attorney general right of
action provided to protect farm workers from specified unlawful
employment abuses related to charges for transportation costs
committed by farm labor contractors. (See Lab. Code Sec.
1697.1(d).)
The author asserts that statutory civil penalties are necessary
to offset the large amounts of money that many foreign workers
lose as a result of the predatory tactics utilized by
unscrupulous foreign labor contractors, and to serve as a
deterrent to those defrauding these workers. Further, existing
law authorizes farm workers to file an action against an
unlawful employer for injunctive relief, damages, and attorney's
fees. (See Lab. Code Secs. 1697(b) and 1697.1(c).) Notably,
this bill would provide the same rights of action and remedies
as the Legislature has already provided to farm workers.
In order to address concerns about the possibility of criminal
liability for any violation of the bill, including
document-related registration or disclosure violations, t he
Committee may wish to discuss with the author his openness to
adopt amendments that would prohibit criminal liability for an
employer so long as that employer only uses foreign labor
contracting services provided by a registered FLC.
C. Joint and several liability; employer bonding requirement.
The bill currently provides that FLCs and those persons using
their services to obtain foreign workers or employees are
jointly and severally liable for violations of this act. Under
joint and several liability, each party is financially liable
for all of damages arising from violations committed by the
other party, even where the violation was essentially committed
by one party alone. This provision is similar in concept to
Labor Code section 2753, which imposes joint and several
liability on a person who, for money or other valuable
consideration, knowingly advises an employer to treat an
individual as an independent contractor to avoid employee
status.
SB 516
Page 12
In addition, the bill requires both FLCs and those who use or
anticipate using their services to obtain foreign workers to
deposit a surety bond with the Labor Commissioner. According to
proponents, joint and several liability is a means of
incentivizing employers to take a more active role in overseeing
the foreign labor contractors they use to procure workers-all of
which is intended to help prevent trafficking and abuse. By
making both the FLC and the employer jointly and severally
liable for violations of this act, the bill would provide
additional deterrence to unscrupulous foreign labor contractors
and employers who use their services. The purpose of the
bonding requirement is to ensure a foreign worker may recover
monetary damages for a violation by either the FLC or the
employer, and from either bond.
Opponents strongly oppose a policy of joint and several
liability, as well as any bonding requirement for employers.
They believe it is harsh and unfair to potentially hold
employers fully liable for violations committed by a FLC when,
they contend, the employer may have little control over the
actions of the FLC, particularly when the FLC may be operating
outside of the U.S. Opponents contend that the bill will punish
innocent employers for violations committed by FLCs that they
cannot prevent, and will encourage lawsuits against employers
for violations where no "actual harm" has occurred. Finally,
they also contend that the employer bonding requirement is
burdensome and unprecedented in the law in its application to
employers when the presumed target of the bill is to regulate
contractors who provide services to employers.
The Committee may thus wish to discuss with the author his
openness to an amendment to eliminate the bonding requirement
for employers. At the same time, it may make more sense to
increase correspondingly the amount of the bond that foreign
labor contractors must deposit, which would be fairly modest in
size given the potential liability at stake for multiple
violations involving multiple foreign workers.
Thus the Committee wish to discuss with the author his openness
to an additional amendment that would limit joint and several
liability to employers who fail to use an registered FLC, and
who do not make a good faith effort to ensure the FLCs they use
follow the law. The Committee proposes that "good faith effort"
in this context should mean all reasonable and feasible efforts
SB 516
Page 13
by the person using the services of the FLC to ensure the FLC
has not committed any violations, and includes several
non-exclusive factors which give guidance with respect to acting
in good faith to ensure compliance by FLCs. As proposed to be
amended, this means that an employer who, in violation of this
bill, used an unregistered FLC would remain jointly and
severally liable for damages arising from violations. However,
an employer who used a registered FLC and acted in good faith to
ensure compliance by the FLC would not be subject to joint and
several liability, if the Committee's proposed amendment were to
be accepted by the author.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : In addition to the concerns noted
above, the opponents' coalition also opposes the bill on the
basis that federal immigration reform is imminent, and that this
bill may conflict or duplicate such legislation in a way that
disadvantages California employers. They state:
Immigration reform is currently being debated in
congress. Both the House of Representatives and the
Senate are taking up bills to address various aspects of
immigration, including foreign labor contractors in the
Senate. The conversation in California is premature
given the rapid pace with which reform is moving in
Congress.
SB 516 creates duplicative, overlapping and more onerous
requirements than the language in the U.S. Senate bill
(S. 744). California should wait until federal
immigration reform has been accomplished in order to
avoid conflicts with federal requirements. Should
Congress and California pass conflicting or duplicative
FLC registration and regulation, California employers
who hire foreign workers will be at a competitive
disadvantage to businesses in other states because they
will face higher litigation risks, and higher burdens.
Immigration reform is expected to ease the labor needs
of California employers in both high and low skilled
jobs. SB 516 could undermine the benefits of national
reform for California.
The Committee notes that whether any federal immigration
legislation is approved by Congress is far from certain, and
even if enacted, specific provisions of such legislation are
unknowable at this time. On the other hand, this bill addresses
SB 516
Page 14
serious and well-documented problems of human trafficking and
labor exploitation, and proposes a number of concrete solutions
that proponents believe are immediately necessary to protect
vulnerable persons victimized by these harmful and exploitative
practices.
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION : AB 4554 (Roybal-Allard, Ch. 1450, Stats.
1988) was enacted in response to testimony of exploitation by
labor agents who were reportedly recruiting foreign workers by
making false representations and promises of employment. AB
4554 established modest disclosure and contract requirements
intended to provide foreign labor workers with information
regarding their wages and other terms of employment.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking
Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking
Coalition of Immokalee Workers
International Justice Mission
Safe Horizon
Solidarity Center
Verite
Vital Voices Global Partnership
American Association of University Women - California
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
District Attorney, City and County of San Francisco
Food Chain Workers Alliance
National Council of Jewish Women-California
Pilipino Workers Center of Southern California
Polaris Project
Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary
Religious Sisters of Charity
Thai Community Development Center
Opposition
Alliance for International Education and Cultural Exchange
American Council of Engineering Companies - California
American Institute of Architects, California Council
AMN Healthcare
Bay Area Council
SB 516
Page 15
California Attractions and Parks Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Healthcare Institute
California Hospital Association
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Restaurant Association
California Ski Industry Association
California Travel Association
Chemical Industry Council of California
Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC)
Communicating for America
Family Winemakers of California
Intrax Cultural Exchange
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
National Federation of Independent Business
Southwest California Legislative Council
TechAmerica
TechNet
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334