BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1778|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1778
Author: Lieu (D)
Amended: 5/13/10 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE : 7-1, 6/29/10
AYES: Wright, Calderon, Florez, Negrete McLeod, Padilla,
Price, Yee
NOES: Harman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Denham, Oropeza, Wyland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-4, 8/12/10
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Leno, Price, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Ashburn, Emmerson, Walters, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-19, 5/24/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : State agency promotions: commercials
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires promotional activities
conducted by state entities to be filmed in California,
except as specified.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides for the California Film
Commission which offers free on-line permitting for all
state property including state parks and beaches, freeways,
roads, and government buildings. California has a network
of over 50 Regional Film Offices across the state to
CONTINUED
AB 1778
Page
2
provide localized support, detailed location information
and facilitate the permit process. Existing law also
provides various incentives, including tax incentives, to
specified entities that undertake film production in
California.
This bill:
1.Stipulates that any department, commission, office,
agency, or other administrative entity of the state that
produces, or contracts for the production of, a
promotional commercial for the state or a product of the
state, and finances that commercial in whole or in part
with public funds, must require that commercial to be
filmed in California.
2.Provides an exception for any agreement between a state
entity and a private entity to feature or otherwise
promote a California product in a program that is made by
a private entity and featuring or promoting the product
is not the primary purpose of the program.
Comments
According to the author's office, "This bill is intended to
ensure that all commercials made on behalf of the State of
California, and paid for with state funds, are actually
filmed in California. When California taxpayers finance
the filming of a commercial that promotes California or its
products, they expect the money will be spent in
California, using the talents of California workers to
support our economy. This is particularly important
because California is in the midst of the worst recession
since the Great Depression."
The author's office also states, one of the reasons for
this bill is that the California Milk Advisory Board
recently brought a production crew to Auckland, New Zealand
to shoot a series of 10 commercials claiming that
California cows are happier. "The Board stated that this
particular filming was a 'minor portion of production' and
that any cows identified as Californian in the ads will be
actual California cows." The Board further said that in
AB 1778
Page
3
this particular case, "They were not actually shooting
Happy California Cows commercials in New Zealand; they were
shooting unhappy cows from all over the world auditioning
to become California cows. Regardless, it makes sense to
clarify in the law that an ad promoting a California
product should actually be filmed in the State of
California." In a recent LA Times article, the Milk Board
defended its actions based upon the economics of filming in
New Zealand, saying, "We have a fiduciary responsibility to
spend their (the dairy industry) hard earned dollars as
efficiently as we can. In this particular case, we found
significant cost savings by shooting a portion of this
product overseas."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12
2012-13 Fund
Filmed material prohibitionunknown, likely significant
costs General
Special
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/12/10)
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit
Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Labor Federation
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Edward Gutentag, cinematographer & founder of
Shootmoviesincalifornia.com
Engineers and Scientists of California, IFPTE Local 20
International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Jockeys' Guild
Office of Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Professional and Technical Engineers, IFPTE Local 21
United Food and Commercial Workers Region 8 States Council
UNITE-HERE!
AB 1778
Page
4
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/12/10)
Agricultural Council of California
Alliance of Western Milk Producers
California Cut Flower Commission
California Pear Growers
Dairy Institute of California
Milk Producers Council
Western United Dairymen
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The California Labor Federation
states in support, "At a time of budget shortfall, there is
little the state can do directly to create jobs. One
important tool we have is the use of public dollars.
Taxpayer funds can and should be directed to creating jobs
here in California." Furthermore, the California Labor
Federation contends that "Investing in jobs here does more
than just reduce unemployment. For every good job created,
there is a multiplier effect, as another family is able to
put money back into the economy again. In addition, there
is a general fund savings as fewer working families are
forced to rely on the safety net."
The California Teamsters Public Affairs Council also states
in support, "We think it only makes sense that, when
California taxpayers finance the filming of a commercial
promoting California or its products those monies should be
spent in California, using the talents of California
workers to support our economy."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Cut Flower
Commission and the California Pear Growers claim that
enactment of this bill will negatively impact the ability
of industry funded programs, such as agricultural
commissions and marketing orders, to promote California
products. These opponents argue that agricultural
commissions and marketing orders are funded entirely
through assessments on California farmers and food
processors. Such funds are held in trust at the California
Department of Food and Agriculture and can only be used for
specific statutorily prescribed programs and activities.
Additionally, these opponents emphasize that "no public or
general funds are used by these entities. However, AB 1778
AB 1778
Page
5
treats these industry funded programs as if general funds
were being used."
The Alliance of Western Milk Producers, points out that the
most promising market for the future of the California
dairy industry consists of Pacific Rim countries. The
Alliance believes that this bill prohibits the use of film
crews in Asia to prepare promotional pieces that would
effectively appeal to audiences in that region of the
world, thus hampering promotional efforts and campaigns to
increase demand for California products overseas. Another
example provided by the Alliance involves the Food Network
which is based in New York City. The Alliance believes
that any interest in partnering with this network or its
celebrity chefs would be severely hampered or simply not
allowed by this bill because under the provisions of this
bill such filming would be restricted to California.
Also writing in opposition, the Western United Dairymen
contend that this bill raises serious legal issues that
include questions of federal preemption and an illegal
trade barrier under the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Blakeslee, Block,
Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero,
Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La
Torre, De Leon, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Galgiani, Hayashi, Hill, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nestande, Nielsen, V.
Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Skinner, Smyth,
Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Yamada,
John A. Perez
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Conway, DeVore, Fletcher, Fuller, Garrick, Gilmore,
Hagman, Harkey, Jeffries, Logue, Miller, Niello, Norby,
Silva, Audra Strickland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bass, Cook, Emmerson, Evans, Gaines,
Hall, Hernandez, Huber, Knight, Nava, Saldana, Tran,
Villines, Vacancy
AB 1778
Page
6
TSM:nl 8/17/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****