Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:03 The freedom democratic. I am confident that the democratic party will reunite on the basis of democratic principles and that together we will March towards a democratic victory. I think the democratic leadership understands that we need to bring those people into the party. We need to transform the party. We need to make the democratic party, a democratic party with a small group.
Speaker 1 00:00:35 I think the future of the party is working class. And I think that what I represent and, and perhaps, you know, Senator Sanders also Senator Warren, there's a lot of working class champions in the democratic party. And I do think that that's the future.
Speaker 2 00:00:50 Welcome to talking strategy, making history I'm Dick flux activist, retired professor of sociology and a really old
Speaker 3 00:01:02 Guy. And I'm, deraco Lera more hall, a slightly less old guy, and also an activist and political strategist. And this season on talking strategy, making history, we're going to be talking about one of the big questions for progressive strategy here in the United States, in what we're calling a Hitchhiker's guide to the democratic party.
Speaker 2 00:01:26 We're very honored to have as our guest, the newly elected state Senator from our district, Monique Limone, who's just finished a very noted term in the state assembly, uh, run for the state Senate before that she was a major figure in the educational world of our community, uh, as a member of the board of education for a number of years, as a staff member at UCS B, uh, in a important role, dealing with disadvantaged students, uh, and, uh, she's well versed in a range of policy issues noted as a progressive leader in California politics. We're very honored to have you here with us, Monique,
Speaker 4 00:02:18 Thank you, Dick. It's great to be here with you and <inaudible>, as you may
Speaker 2 00:02:22 Know, we, what we're trying to do on this podcast, one of the main purposes of it is to try to talk to Progressive's about electoral politics, about the democratic party and help people think strategically about how to operate, not in enemy territory when the democratic party, but as a, as a place, as a terrain, as a space for advancing the agendas that we think are necessary to save the world and you are in the midst of a legislative battle. And one, the, I think the way to start is to highlight an event that you were involved in, in the legislature it's assembly bill 3 0 8 8, the bill for protecting tenants against evictions in the midst of the COVID crisis. And let me point out something that is a major context for this California we've achieved on paper, at least a lot of what the initial goals of Progressive's intellectual politics are.
Speaker 2 00:03:31 We have a super majority of Democrats in the legislature and a democratic governor. It's a so-called trifecta. And yet this important measure suffered a great deal of, uh, vicissitudes. Let me put it that way. Uh, and w what was adopted was not something that necessarily you and others who were advocating for this were hoping to achieve. So I like to use that, and we have a couple of other ideas too, for case study of the problem within government and within the party about passing legislation that, uh, creates more justice, uh, for people, uh, but may come up in big collision with major interests in lobbies. So, uh, if you get my drift, what do you think? Well,
Speaker 4 00:04:22 Thank you, Dick. I think that the bill you're talking about was a very big bill and there's multiple elements that were involved in how we got to the outcome. Um, certainly I was involved, um, as the chair of banking and finance, um, and really thinking about what would happen to, you know, landlords, um, but also to homeowners in the context of renters, um, and how we got to a place, uh, that reflected the crisis and emergency we're in. Um, it was a really difficult bill when I say difficult, I think back to, you know, weekends nights, um, anytime of the day, getting on the phone and trying to negotiate, uh, with a lot of stakeholders about what the bill would look like, but also, uh, knowing that we had to get a two thirds vote. That was the key in order for renter protections to go past what the judicial council had done.
Speaker 4 00:05:25 We needed to have a two-thirds vote that would make these protections go into place immediately. As such, we knew we were going to have to go to members who might not necessarily feel comfortable with where we want it to go. Um, assembly member, David Chu was leading the bill. I was one of his principal co-authors and played a role in also negotiating. He and I were the two kind of main members on the assembly side negotiating. And, um, we definitely did not get to where we wanted. Uh, we were hoping for more permanent protections, uh, that would extend besides, you know, past January. So now we're going into the legislature, knowing that we're still gonna have to work on this issue, but we got to a place that was better than no action. And sadly, I think sometimes that's what happens. Your, your options are maybe not ones that you would create for yourself, but one ones that are created for you when, you know, you can't get the votes for some difficult situations. So, uh, that's, that's the outcome of that particular bill, the bill, uh, just to remind people, it put renter protections into place during the pandemic that would require that landlords not evict individuals who had been negatively impacted by COVID. Right.
Speaker 2 00:06:46 So what we're interested in is it's not a matter of defending what was adopted, as I understand what was adopted. There is some relief, uh, from Vishen now, uh, in the ordinance that got passed, but there are things that didn't get in which first of all, we'd like to hear what they were, but what was the reason they had to be removed when you said some members were uncomfortable? That's part of what in our efforts to think strategically. So you've got members of the democratic caucus who themselves were. Sometimes we call them corporate Democrats or moderate Democrats, trying to understand the forces that operate in a major bill like this, that prevent the, the most equitable structural solutions. That really the ones that we start out thinking really needed.
Speaker 4 00:07:37 So let's think back to what we were trying to do, but we were trying to do was in the absence of the federal government coming in and helping our state do true rent relief, ensure that our renters in the state of California who were struggling were just simply not going to be on the hook for the rent, because we understood that to be an element that was needed. Um, but we also, you know, I know that all sides wanted that, but we didn't have a way to make that happen. So we had to start negotiating with, if we don't have a pot of money that can go to renter so that they can pay rent, what do we do to help renters? What do we do in a time where we are watching people's ability to work diminish because of the COVID crisis, we're watching people, you know, potentially stop making rental payments and lose their place that they live in.
Speaker 4 00:08:33 And that's when we came in and said, look, we have to think of a way to negotiate a deal that would help renters. We wanted to help renters in a more broader way. So I'll give you one example. The bill is specific to renters who have been impacted by COVID. We would have loved to have had a, to help every renter, whether you're impacted by COVID or not. Because proving that you're impacted by COVID is really difficult. I mean, you're either sick or you're not, but there's so many other ways that COVID has impacted. You may not have COVID, but you, you may be in a job where you just don't have as many hours that you're working that week or that month, you know, you may not have COVID, your name may be on the lease, but, or the rental agreement, but your partner was your main provider and they're impacted by COVID.
Speaker 4 00:09:29 I mean, the list goes on that makes all of this very complicated. So I feel like that was an area where we did not have broad support for renters in California, and we wanted to do more. We wanted it to be easier. We didn't want to have so many metrics in place for people to have to prove, but we also understood that at some point, if there were particularly mom and pop landlords, that we're going to start to see their ability to pay mortgage, you know, diminish as well. We wanted to try to help them as well. And we wanted to ensure some protections for them, with the banks. And that's where it got very hard, because that was just fought in a really big way. I mean, at one point I was carrying a bill that only dealt with the mortgage piece and there were 45 lobbyists working against my bill. And this was before I got to the point where I was a principal co-author on 3, 0, 8, 8. So,
Speaker 2 00:10:28 First of all, just give us an idea if you can, of, why would the bank subject to state relief for mom and pop type mortgage holders? I can understand why they would have an army like that to oppose that kind of measure. So that would be important, but what were they doing that made their lobbying so potent and so effective would be another part of, of what we're trying to figure out here, what we're trying to learn from you?
Speaker 4 00:10:55 Well, the banks were not opposed to having rent or relief. They were opposed to the state requiring the banks to provide assistance for individuals with the mortgage. So we talked a lot about forbearance. That was what we were working on, and that's what they were opposed to. A lot of banks willingly were doing it, but for the state to come in and have very clear cut requirements about disclosures, about how long, the forbearance period who would qualify for Barron's period was what they mostly opposed. And they opposed it in a very big way. The jurisdiction with banks and financial institutions has always been a delicate one between the federal government and the state. And so their argument was a state shouldn't have the power or authority to tell us what to do. If we're a federally chartered bank. And our position was well, there's been a Supreme court ruling that says the Ana crisis or emergency. And if you meet this criteria, the states are able to step in and tell the banks what to do. So we fought about that a lot. Um, and that was significant for a state to come in and give banks regulations about who should have forbearance and under what terms and conditions was something they fought. And unfortunately on the night that I moved the bill forward, I got to 40 votes, 40 votes. I needed one more vote, one more vote in the assembly for that bill to move over to the Senate and it failed. So
Speaker 2 00:12:22 I know DACA has a question, but let me just follow that last point up. So how many Democrats voted against the measure that you're talking about and are they people who often side with the more corporate arguments and positions and why is it that they do? This is what we, I think the general point we're trying to learn more about from you.
Speaker 4 00:12:48 There were 60 Democrats, um, in the assembly at the time and I had 39 of them give me a vote and one Republican, that's how I got to 40. So yes, there were a great deal of Democrats. I mean, a big bunch, um, that did not support the bill. And there was a mixture of Democrats that we sometimes think as more moderate Democrats, but actually there were a handful that were very surprising that came from very blue districts that were not in favor
Speaker 2 00:13:19 Of it. And why was that? Do you think? I think
Speaker 4 00:13:22 It was a number of reasons when you have 45 lobbyists actively working the members, calling them, texting them, setting up meetings with them. I found that a lot of the arguments that were being used were very one dimensional. It only portrayed the side of the financial institution and not that of the people of California. So very often I had members talking to me with a narrative that was reflective of the industry, as opposed to the narrative of how we help consumers in California, 45 lobbyist can do that. I mean, they just split up the members and they start kind of sharing these talking points that are not reflective of the entire scope. And picture members were confused. I think banking and finance issues are not always, there's not a lot of subject matter expertise in this area, right. And so members were confused. I think members were also fearful of, well, is this the right or wrong thing to do because we don't know what's going to happen with COVID.
Speaker 4 00:14:22 We don't know what the pandemic this vote took place in may. And so in may, we still didn't know how bad this housing situation was going to be. We anticipated would be bad. We didn't know how long COVID was going to go on all of those things. I mean, so you combine all of these factors and it creates for a very, very, very difficult chance for progressive bills to move forward. And I always understood, always understood that my bill, as it moved through the process, as it moved through, you know, more committee hearings, it would have to change or evolve that my starting point was not going to be the outcome. I understood that the governor's office would eventually get involved with negotiating. And that's what we saw in 30 88. The element for forbearance that was put in there was a process of negotiation because we had to deal with that as well. Is there anything
Speaker 2 00:15:14 That you could imagine that Canada advocates could have done to offset the kind of pressures and arguments that you were talking about? I think
Speaker 4 00:15:23 When it comes to the tenant advocates on this particular issue, one of the things that would have been super helpful early on is that we all would have collectively put all the points together, right. Um, made all of the connections, tied all the dots together type of thing, because at one point the tenant advocates were only thinking 10 and tenant tenant. And we were trying to figure out how we were going to get this out and have a better chance of making sure our colleagues understood that this was a bigger picture, would help a lot of folks. And so I think just earlier on, I mean, it's hard, COVID has been really difficult. It's been unpredictable. We don't completely know. And in moments like this, when you have uncertainty unknowns, I don't know that everyone's always big, brave and bold. I think that there's members with good hearts that actually get scared and don't want to move or disrupt the status quo as much. And we saw that with the original bill related to forbearance.
Speaker 5 00:16:22 So go ahead. Draka Hey, Monique,
Speaker 3 00:16:24 I just wanted to pick up a thread that you kind of dropped down early on in talking about the difficulty of moving legislation, say around financial reform or anything that can run a foul of well-heeled deep pocketed interests. And you mentioned that one of the things that corporations or corporate sector or an industry can do, if they're about to be regulated is unleash a bunch of lobbyists on Sacramento to help control the debate and the discussion, but it can't be just that, right. It can't just be that they send people with talking points to the Capitol to talk to legislators. There must be something else going on and not just in crisis times, like COVID that is pulling Democrats away from more regulatory or more progressive or more democratizing programs when it comes to the economy. So, I mean, I can think of a number of examples from, um, you know, uh, housing and tenants rights bills to, uh, healthcare and the fight over creating a single payer system. But it seems like there's a block even of Democrats in the legislature that are pretty explicitly organized around pro-business or pro corporate interests that are sometimes called the mod or the moderate caucus. And I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about from the perspective of a legislature, legislators, rather, what is that organization? So to speak look like, what does that caucus look like? How does it act and who are they? So
Speaker 4 00:18:04 There definitely is an organized group. And so the interesting thing though, is that, you know, there's an organized group, there's a number of members who participate, but there's also members who break off. So I think if, for example, someone like Jim Frazier, who initially, you know, he's been part of that group, but he supported my bill and spoke in favor of the bill when it came on the floor. And so there are moments like that where it's not that clear cut, right? Who's going to be siding with this. It's a group that gathers, they meet. I'm assuming virtually now, you know, on a monthly, every other week basis, I think. And, um, they have discussion topics about bills that could help businesses in California. And, you know, I've never been to a meeting. So I need to like full disclosure because I've never been to a meeting.
Speaker 4 00:18:55 I'm just assuming that this is what it is based on what members who do attend the meetings describe, and, you know, they, they have these conversations about the bills they do generally for both house of origin and four and a session, identify a number of bills that they will have challenges with that we'll have a problem with. And so I think they will probably tell you that their goal is to work with the authors to amend the bills. I think that some of the authors of the bills would say that the goal is to kill the bills. And so I think there's just different perspectives about that. I mean, I think every year I have a bill or two that makes it to, you know, the, the list of bills that they identify as problems. But we, as in me and my supporters, we've been able to work really hard to get some of those bills out to the governor's desk, but it's been pretty hard
Speaker 3 00:19:48 And their activity or their coordination. Isn't just among legislators. I mean, that's a big deal, right? Having legislators coordinate amongst themselves a strategy around legislation, but there's also an electoral piece, right?
Speaker 4 00:20:02 Like, is there a chair of the caucus that piece
Speaker 3 00:20:05 More like in terms of the elections for members, right. They get involved in supporting people for election, for primary or for reelection, if they get primaried, et cetera.
Speaker 4 00:20:17 Right. They do, they do support members. Um, and I don't know if it's the participants of the caucus themselves. I think there's a pack and there's business paths, certainly the chamber and other folks are very well aware of what participants, but members participate in this group. And you've seen, I think a number of packs support more moderate candidates at the state level. So as
Speaker 2 00:20:44 The Democrats have gotten super majority, then the chamber and other business interests have decided they're going to help fund some democratic legislators to win them over to the quote unquote pro-business position is that's, what's happened over the last few years.
Speaker 4 00:21:01 Yeah. But I don't know if it's just over the last few years though. I think that this has been around for awhile. I think that different groups fund different candidates for a number of reasons. And I definitely think that our democratic tent is huge in the legislature. Huge. And we definitely do not all see the world in the same way. And that translates to these bills. I mean, I fought for two years to get predatory lending reform in the state of California, but it took 20 years to get it done. Many people came before me who tried and I tried for two years and, and um, you know, I was able to get it done and it was actually bi-partisan. So I had a bunch of Republicans on the bill, but then not all of the moderate Democrats. So I mean, it kind of varies. I would say that where I see the most challenge is environmental. So tell
Speaker 2 00:21:56 Us about that. That's another area of course, of great public concern and a good deal of anxiety because the legislature, despite the super majority, hasn't done all that, the environmental conscious people have really wanted environmental
Speaker 4 00:22:12 Side. I think that it's a combination of political ideologies, right? Progressive versus moderate versus something else. But I also think it's regional and, you know, I'm the first woman of color from Ventura Santa Barbara to be elected to either the state assembly or the state Senate. And I often reflect on the fact that the environmental movement and we know so much about the environmental movement. Um, hasn't always looked and reflected the voices or the people, right. That looked like me. And so I think that that's one of the challenges as well, that I hear so often from people in inland California, that the, the coast, the coastal elites do not understand the environmental challenges of inland central valley, California. And you add that with political, you know, differences in political ideologies, then you have the regional piece. Um, so I do feel environmental bills are more challenging. So what is it that
Speaker 2 00:23:18 We coastal elites don't understand in particular that you think we need to understand
Speaker 4 00:23:23 From the perspective of members who raised these issues? And this is something that's really difficult and definitely becoming the bigger issue is the jobs issue, the way that jobs and environmental protections have interfaced in California, I think has become more complicated. There's a way to do better for folks in California that are union jobs that are also move forward and environmentally progressive, sustainable green agenda. But we haven't been that great about it. And I think that that's been one of the big challenges. You will see that certain fractions of labor pull off. So for example, the building trades pull off on certain bills where they were like, no, this is gonna, you don't have a way to replace the jobs. And this is just about killing the jobs. Therefore we're going to protect them and it's become more and more difficult. You actually saw this play itself out a little bit this year, not just with environmental protection. So you look at, for example, Elmer's hoochies bill who had a bill about setbacks around oil extraction locations, and that when had a really rough death in the state Senate, natural resources committee, but then you also look at some of the bills related to housing that became very difficult because labor felt that there wasn't a role for them in the production of housing. So those are a couple examples of where it gets difficult. Well, do you see
Speaker 2 00:24:52 Ideas for solutions or pathways for bringing the labor interests and the environmental interests together? Is that something you're working on or hoping to work
Speaker 4 00:25:01 On? We're definitely trying to work on it. It's been difficult. I think that sometimes we have more opportunity for conversations locally that I think move us forward. Some things at the statewide level, it feels a little bit more difficult to have these conversations, but I also think that w we have to, I mean, there's not a choice. I don't think it's a matter of whether we want to have these conversations or not. We have to have a conversation about what it looks like. The term that's been coined to think over the last year is just transition. What's the, just transition from fossil fuels to green, that ensures jobs for our future. I think that that's kind of, what's been going, you saw LA county form or just transition committee to try to have this conversation with some of the, you know, labor folks whose jobs could be impacted by moving from, by transitioning from fossil fuels to greener economy.
Speaker 5 00:25:59 Go ahead. Deraco so I'm wondering
Speaker 3 00:26:01 If you could tell a story that might be useful to listeners about from your perspective as a progressive in the legislature about the battle over single-payer healthcare here in California, you've explained to us very helpfully, how it is that progressive legislation. Isn't a slam dunk. Doesn't always get passed even with a strong, you know, super legislative majority of Democrats and having a democratic governor. But I'm wondering, and I think that there's been a lot of sort of confusion and misinformation about what actually went down in the last legislative fight about moving forward with a single payer Medicare like system here, uh, for healthcare provision here in California, but you were sort of closer to it than a lot of us were. So how would you tell, talk to an activist now who is frustrated that they do all this work to put Democrats in office? We have all kinds of Democrats, tons of Democrats in tons of offices here in California, why can't this major priority of the left move forward?
Speaker 4 00:27:12 So that was my freshman year actually when the single payer conversation happened. And I think the outcome was one that disappointed so many activists. And I actually think also the legislature and members, I think how it went down was really complicated. And so one of my takeaways and I, as a member of the health committee, I was a member of the health committee for four years on the assembly. I've just got assigned to also serving on the health committee in the Senate. And, you know, one of my takeaways with health policy, um, especially something like single pair is that these are big policies. They're not little. And one of the challenges that I have seen is that we have not always agreed on how we define single pair on what we really want to do with single pair. And I feel like to bring a bill so big forward without some agreement, even from the activist side, I think, you know, turned into a bigger conversation that didn't result in the outcome that any of us liked.
Speaker 4 00:28:17 You know, I've been open about my support for a system that, you know, covers everybody and where everybody has access, where there is a system that helps all of Californians. And as a new member of the committee, I remember going, okay, do all your homework, start setting up on all the countries that have it and what it looks like. And that was happening simultaneously as there were conversations about whether or not we were going to hear the bill and what, you know, my takeaway was that first of all, there is not a universal, single pair. It is done differently. I think there's a universal, you know, desire to say someone, something an entity needs to be able to pay for healthcare so that everybody has access to it, but it's called different things and it's done different ways in every country. We also certainly didn't anticipate that we will, we wish that we weren't going to have the administration that we did to do something like single payer in California would require, you know, federal help.
Speaker 4 00:29:21 And so the thought was, do you move something forward and just let it sit there until we have the right administration at the federal level, do you, you know, what do you move forward? There was a lot of resentment, I think, between the Senate and the assembly, because the assembly felt that the Senate had just moved it forward without doing the work without answering the questions that actually made the bill real, not just say, okay, we want single payer. So a lot of different things went on during that particular bill. Um, but I do feel that the, the job and the role of the activist was not lost, I think because they didn't get the bill they wanted, I don't know that it was all lost. I actually think that the bill would have gotten like the concept, I think has the votes. I think conceptually the votes are there.
Speaker 4 00:30:09 Um, how we make it happen was always the struggle. And I think right now, unfortunately with COVID people are more convinced that we need it. Um, if there was anyone, you know, if there were maybe more members who doubted it, they definitely are more convinced that we need it. And now the question is will, how have we make something happen? And I think there's been a little bit of transition to going from single payer to Medicare for all. Not because Medicare for all is a better system, but because it's an easier stepping stone to get to the final system. Yeah. To follow up
Speaker 3 00:30:41 On that. And one thing that occurs to me as you were telling the story is what's been going on just in the last few weeks in Congress or around Congress and around debate about moving a Medicare for all, or single-payer agenda at the federal level that everybody's, I shouldn't say everyone, it's certain subset of, uh, of the, on a very online left is angry at, uh, Congresswoman, uh, Kazia Cortez for not forcing a vote on a single payer right now, even though it can't make it through the Senate and would be vetoed. And it seemed like a similar sort of microcosm of that was happening in California, where there was an emphasis on, on a symbolic vote on up or down votes and, and getting a bill, no matter what the bill was out of committee, rather than having an actual plan to get something ratified and in place and funded. Have you been following that debate at the, at the national level? And does it remind you of what happened in California a few years back?
Speaker 4 00:31:44 I have been following it and it does remind me, and I think that that is, um, when I look at some of the feelings that, you know, some folks at the national level have with farmers, Marine, Ocasio, Cortez, I think back to like, there were some of those feelings that were shared in the California legislature. People were upset at the authors of the bills. Like, why did you do that to us? Why did you, you know, you're promising the people of California, a system that we know is not going to happen for a number of reasons. And why didn't you do the work? Why didn't you find the funding if you had a funding source, why didn't you put it in the bill? I think it was really difficult. I think back to, um, you know, how personal it got, like there were death threats to the leader of the assembly about it.
Speaker 4 00:32:27 And I think it both shows how important healthcare is to people that it would draw such strong feelings, but I also feel that it distracts from our ability to get something done. I mean, we tried to move forward in California, you know, since then elements to increase the California, you know, coverage. So, you know, increasing the age, um, trying to support undocumented members of our community to also get coverage on the public system. So there's been a number of things that, you know, folks have tried to do to try to inch our way there. And I agree with the activists that inching there is the most frustrating when you need care. Now I agree and we want to get there. It helps to have partners in the federal government. And I know that, I mean, I'm watching this look at COVID. We, we really want to get to a place and not even want, we need to get to a place where people have access to healthcare.
Speaker 4 00:33:25 And we also know that we didn't even need data for this because we've known it all along. And we continue to see that the data supports it, but that are communities of color, low income communities. You know, the underrepresented are so disproportionately impacted by healthcare. Um, they're living in communities where, you know, the air quality, the water quality is not what we'd like it to be. Um, they're living in communities with higher asthma. All of this stuff is connected. So I think we're seeing it live out in a really problematic way. And that definitely means that we want to find a way to get there. And we want to work with our federal government to identify what it is to be there. And, and I know that, you know, we have an attorney general, have you ever, Sarah, who's tried to do some work around this and, you know, he, he made coming to the federal government, should he be appointed? Hopefully he will be appointed to be able to kind of lead some of these conversations. So, uh, our
Speaker 2 00:34:20 Focused in particular though, is on, you know, grassroots activists. Are there ways or strategies that might push this process? You're talking about forward that haven't really been tried effectively at the grassroots. Uh, in other words, the experience you were talking about of recrimination and anger, that's not the best way of having effects on government movement on a thing like this. So have you, any thoughts of what would you, what would you advise the, uh, Medicare for all proponents at the grass roots to try to do in the coming period around that issue?
Speaker 4 00:34:59 I think that it's really important for, and I would say that this is for activists on any issue for us to not just take a position on a value, but if we're going to push our legislators forward, you know, helpers, legislators get there also on the matter of how to make it happen from a policy perspective. I think that it is really important and I don't think all activists, you will be policy experts, but I think we need to understand when we say, look, we just want this particular thing and, you know, folks don't really have a way to get there. I'm like, okay, well, how do we get there? And let's try to have conversation. Let's not put aside the hard questions because I think those hard questions are what we need answers for in order to try to get there. I also think that, you know, that one of the mistakes that I sometimes see is that sometimes the activists it's interesting, the activists who have the strongest voice are in districts, where you have members who are likely to support it.
Speaker 4 00:36:00 And the activists with maybe a more softer voice are in districts where you have members who are not going to support it. And that dynamic is it's challenging actually. Uh, I would say that there's times where I'm like, oh, well, yeah, there's a lot of activists who are upset that this didn't happen. And they're, you know, they're now contacting the offices of so-and-so and so-and-so, but so-and-so, and so-and-so were going to support it along. What about strategizing to identify how we get the people who are not likely to support it, to support it? And what does that look like? And I can tell you that if we're trying to, for example, get members from a different district where they may not support whatever issue it is, it needs to be activist from that district. I feel like they tend to carry the stronger weight, um, versus activists coming from outside the district to tell someone, this is how you need to vote when they don't live in the district. And so I think that that strategy from an organizing perspective is really important. And I see that I miss more often than not
Speaker 2 00:37:02 The democratic party as an entity has some capacity to do the kind of organizing you're just talking about in districts that are less favorable to the party or where there's the kind of purple or red districts that you're referring to. Does the party itself conceivably have a role in the kind of organizing that you just advocated?
Speaker 4 00:37:24 I don't know that I see the statewide party have a role in it. I think back to some of the work that I've done on consumer protections and how I got individuals to support that bill in districts, who might not otherwise what we did is we went to local groups and organizations across the state. And I feel like the local groups and organizations were more helpful versus the statewide party. What did help was that, you know, I had moved some of these bills through the endorsement process for the statewide party. And I can say the California democratic party, you know, has endorsed the bill that is helpful as a talking point with members. But I feel like what really helped was identifying here's. This was me as an author of the bill. Here's where I'm having trouble. Here's where I need votes. Do I have groups and organizations in those areas that share my perspective, agree with me and who just haven't shared their voice or articulated their opinion to the member.
Speaker 4 00:38:22 Um, can I reach out to them to do the work? So I kind of feel more local groups tend to be helpful. I think the challenge for authors of bills and legislators is that the timeline doesn't always allow us to organize this way and we're almost organizing in the legislature. And so to also organize statewide is, is really hard. I mean, I tried, uh, and it's hard. You just need help and you can't do it alone. Um, and you usually don't have enough of a team that can do that plus every other bill. And that's where I think it becomes more challenging. And I do see a role for activists to help legislators organize sad.
Speaker 3 00:39:02 There are a missed opportunity to follow up on Dick's question is that there are local democratic party organizations affiliated to the state party in every district, right. In every community. And there's not a lot of followup or connection once you've gotten the state party's endorsement, which as you said, Monique is like, you know, helpful in some conversations in the Capitol, but it doesn't come with any troops. It doesn't come with calls to your squishy legislators who were on the fence, but it very easily could. In addition to whatever, like local, autonomous community organizations there are in everybody's district, there's also tons of democratic party clubs and unions, and at least one county central committee, but there's no coordination between what the party's agenda is supposed to be at the statewide level. And then what's going on locally.
Speaker 4 00:39:55 Yes. And it's hard for that to happen. I mean, I know when I was trying to move through the process of getting the party to like officially endorsed one of my bills, I mean, I called you direct. I was like, Hey, yes, I've been a member of the e-board for six years, but like, I've never had to do this particular part of it. The e-board is so big. Right. And so I definitely feel that there could be assistance. Like I went to the groups that I knew, like the young Dems of progressive, like I was calling people that I knew to try to figure out how I replicate that in other districts. Is there someone in another county that, you know, shares this perspective that would agree. And I get that. We can't do that with every bill, not when the legislature introduces so many bills, but if there really are key bills, that is an idea that I think could help for some of the bigger, broader bills. So
Speaker 2 00:40:45 I think we've reached our, a lot of deadline of coming to a conclusion. And I think that there's been a lot of insights that I find very rewarding in this conversation about these kinds of connections and in a way, uh, tying into some of the other sessions that we've had on this podcast, I need to organize at the grassroots in the areas of the state or in the country where, um, voters have decided or feel strongly that the democratic party does not represent them, does not engage them the need to reconnect at the grassroots in that way seems to be an important part of this. And also because what we're up against is the enormous capacities of the lobbies and Moniqua, knowing you have been up against the banking lobby directly as chair of the committee in the assembly. I wanted to ask you and kind of winding this up the legislature reconvenes at a couple of weeks, and what's your priorities or the, the agenda that you're most concerned about. And you mentioned your committee assignments, where are you most likely to be engaged?
Speaker 4 00:41:56 So we do convene the legislature is set to convene January 11th. And of course everything is pending, you know, the impact of COVID. And we're certainly worried. And that's going to be, I think the number one agenda for most members, um, in 2021, how to mitigate some of the health impacts, um, related to COVID economic impacts related to COVID. There's no question about it. We are now dealing with a budget deficit. It was 54 billion. It may be a little less, we're very hopeful though, because January 20th we will transition federal administrations. And we're very hopeful that we can move forward on a number of issues that have been rolled back. And that's environmental health policy, consumer protections, uh, education, you name it. That is our hope, but we know it's going to take time. Um, and certainly we will, you know, as a state, I think tried to do what we can, but we've also, I think a lot of us have said that number one is COVID no questions asked, but we can't ignore all the other issues that were still issues before COVID.
Speaker 4 00:43:00 And so that includes the issue of climate change. It includes the issue of, you know, healthcare, uh, you know, access to quality healthcare, um, first state, uh, inequities, right? That we see in, in our education system. I mean, all of those things were issues prior to COVID and remain issues and have actually from my perspective, been they're even bigger issues. Now, if we, if you look at the education system, we are seeing what happens with remote education and what are we going to do when we know that those, you know, that the students, um, who have not been able to act as an in-person classroom are coming from, you know, working class families, low income communities still don't have a reliable internet there's real issues that were issues before that have gotten even worse. And now we have to try to figure out, uh, how to address them.
Speaker 4 00:43:52 So there will be a lot of work in 2021 and 2022. There's no doubt about it. And some of that work also depends not just on what we plan and we anticipate what I've learned, especially representing this district is that there's times that as a legislator, you have to adapt to what the district needs of you. I was never a emergency response, natural disaster expert. And certainly with the things that I've lived in this district as a representative, my policy, you know, areas and awareness has had to increase, you know, to such a level that people are asking me now to serve on committees related to this, because they know it's a very common thing that at the district, and we have a lot of experience with it. Certainly don't have all the answers but experience with it.
Speaker 2 00:44:36 So thank you so much for spending time with us this Sunday, with deep respect and admiration, Monique, for you willing to serve at a time of crisis like this. I'm so glad that you're filling that need. Uh, and, uh, we look forward to connecting, criticizing, and having your back at the same time. That's how we hope we'll all be operating. So thanks so much beautiful
Speaker 0 00:45:24 Disaster. <inaudible> we've got to turn this world. The sister she'll be a hero. She's got the palbo Jane, she's got something.
