Gavin Newsome, as slimy as they come..

[SunsetBengal]

Seems that he wrote a loophole in the $20 min wage law that was specifically worded to benefit one of his big doners. Go figure...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/california-s-new-20-minimum-wage-law-includes-odd-exemption-that-benefits-a-big-gavin-newsom-donor/ar-BB1j4gPy?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=898ff203687a495aa69d9ef9366837b9&ei=28

Quote:While Gavin Newsom and his cronies in the California legislature pat themselves on the back for their selfless magnanimity in raising the state's minimum wage, others have noticed a strange exemption whose beneficiary has ties to the governor himself.

Specifically, as noted by BNN Bloomberg, it appears the Panera Bread chain has evaded the new stipulation to raise their minimum wage to $20 per hour.

According to Bloomberg, there's a strange and oddly specific loophole in that law, which exempts chains that bake and sell bread as a stand-alone item from raising their minimum wage.

Which is akin to, say, Georgia raising the minimum wage for every business except chains that make chicken sandwiches and have partially literate cows as their mascot.
It's a little too specific.

It makes sense, however, when you learn that billionaire Greg Flynn, owner of a fast food and restaurant empire that includes several Panera Breads in the state of California, is a longtime friend of California Gov. Gavin Newsom who frequently donates vast sums of money to his political enterprises.

In this act, known as the FAST Act, fast-food chains in the state are forced to raise their wages to at least $20 per hour or face crippling fines, with many, like Chipotle, raising their prices to compensate for the wage increase.

Paneras in the area, meanwhile, have much more wiggle room, with some advertising the $20 minimum, while others are free to advertise wages of $16-18 per hour.

As Michelle Korsmo, head of the National Restaurant Association, said at an industry conference "everyone's scratching their head" at the suspiciously specific exemption.

Even more suspicious, according to insiders familiar with the negotiations that went into crafting the bill, it was Newsom who pushed for the exemption, possibly in light of Flynn's penning an op-ed in the political publication the Capitol Weekly, wherein he actually argued against the bill.

The plot, as they say, thickens.

As written, it seems clear to the casual observer that the exemption was put in the bill specifically to prevent Newsom from losing one of his major donors and political allies (though of course, no one has admitted that one way or the other).

At best, this is an almost archetypal example of government regulations failing to make sense.

At worst, this could be an example of blatant corruption from Newsom.

As Bloomberg reported, even industry insiders were puzzled by the bread-baking exemption.

Considering his well-documented relationship with Flynn, a personal one that goes back to high school, and a political one that goes back at least to 2014, the only reason for the exemption seems to be keeping his top political donors happy.

Granted, there's no proof one way or the other, but the evidence is at least incredibly suggestive.

And, given the evidence we do have of Newsom's rules for thee and not for me (such as eating at a fancy restaurant while the rest of the state was condemned to his brutal lockdown policies), it at least wouldn't be surprising