4 ms·

I've read both articles, and I don't buy your characterization of the situation. The primary question I have is: "Did Newsom use his power to try to benefit hi

I've read both articles, and I don't buy your characterization of the situation. The primary question I have is: "Did Newsom use his power to try to benefit his friend?" Both articles, to me, say "yes, he attempted to use his authority to benefit his friend." The article you linked, based on how I read it, says that he attempted to help his friend with his office, he was caught by journalists, and backed out because the cost/benefit changed due to journalist due diligence. Here is the bill in question: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB257/id/2605912 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB257/id/2605912 Here is the core of what defines fast food: (a) “Fast food chain” means a set of restaurants consisting of 100 or more establishments nationally that share a common brand, or that are characterized by standardized options for decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services. Here is the exemption: (i) An establishment that on September 1, 2022, operates a bakery that produces for sale on the establishment’s premises bread as defined under Part 136 of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations shall not be considered a fast food restaurant, so long as it continues to operate such a bakery. This exemption applies only where the establishment produces for sale bread as a stand-alone menu item, and does not apply if the bread is available for sale solely as part of another menu item. I could be convinced that my interpretation is less plausible if you can justify that exemption in a way that makes sense including why the date matters. In the original article Newsom gave a non-answer. When politicians give a non answer, I think we have a responsibility to assume the worst, otherwise we are encouraging politicians to continue giving non-answers.

CalChris 3y ago
The date matters because it was signed into law Sept 5, 2022. Perhaps you can explain why this article now, in 2024? I can't explain the exemption although it was for a sector and not a corporation as the title implied. Further, Newsom disputes whether it even applies to Panera. Instead that explanation, why bakeries, isn't incumbent on me but rather on the objecting journalist. The truth is out there. The hearings were open and a record is available. Or maybe just "California's fast food law exempts Panera because of Gov. Newsom's relationship with billionaire franchisee" will do.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  The date is a signifier that it is a loophole with a low bar, otherwise something more directly related to being a bakery would be there. Subway, for example, would be able to bake a few bags of bread per day and put them on the counter top for sell and call themselves a bakery. That's a clear indication it's not the selling of bread baked on premises that makes a place a bakery or not. > Perhaps you can explain why this article now, in 2024? "As California prepares to implement a new law that requires major fast food chains to pay workers a minimum of $20 an hour starting in April..." > I can't explain the exemption although it was for a sector and not a corporation as the title implied. because if it was a corporation that would be an obvious and odious conflict of interest. Exempting a sector offers plausible deniability. Plausible deniability's purpose is to help people who want to believe something believe it. > Further, Newsom disputes whether it even applies to Panera. Because he was caught, not because that wasn't the intent. > The truth is out there. The hearings were open and a record is available. I don't think we'll ever know, and I would need at least one example of these negotiations to believe that it's possible to make that determination. > California's fast food law exempts Panera because of Gov. Newsom's relationship with billionaire franchisee I think he had the means, the motive, and the opportunity. I think journalistic due diligence mitigated what would other wise be an abuse of office. Most of all I find the dated bakery exemption dubious and the most simple explanation for a dated loophole, to me, is that it was meant to target a single company while still retaining some amount of plausible deniability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

CalChris 3y ago

The date matters because it was signed into law Sept 5, 2022. Perhaps you can explain why this article now, in 2024? I can't explain the exemption although it was for a sector and not a corporation as the title implied. Further, Newsom disputes whether it even applies to Panera. Instead that explanation, why bakeries, isn't incumbent on me but rather on the objecting journalist. The truth is out there. The hearings were open and a record is available. Or maybe just "California's fast food law exempts Panera because of Gov. Newsom's relationship with billionaire franchisee" will do.

hayst4ck 3y ago
The date is a signifier that it is a loophole with a low bar, otherwise something more directly related to being a bakery would be there. Subway, for example, would be able to bake a few bags of bread per day and put them on the counter top for sell and call themselves a bakery. That's a clear indication it's not the selling of bread baked on premises that makes a place a bakery or not. > Perhaps you can explain why this article now, in 2024? "As California prepares to implement a new law that requires major fast food chains to pay workers a minimum of $20 an hour starting in April..." > I can't explain the exemption although it was for a sector and not a corporation as the title implied. because if it was a corporation that would be an obvious and odious conflict of interest. Exempting a sector offers plausible deniability. Plausible deniability's purpose is to help people who want to believe something believe it. > Further, Newsom disputes whether it even applies to Panera. Because he was caught, not because that wasn't the intent. > The truth is out there. The hearings were open and a record is available. I don't think we'll ever know, and I would need at least one example of these negotiations to believe that it's possible to make that determination. > California's fast food law exempts Panera because of Gov. Newsom's relationship with billionaire franchisee I think he had the means, the motive, and the opportunity. I think journalistic due diligence mitigated what would other wise be an abuse of office. Most of all I find the dated bakery exemption dubious and the most simple explanation for a dated loophole, to me, is that it was meant to target a single company while still retaining some amount of plausible deniability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability