Staff Reports
The California Legislature just sent AB 2599 to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk. The bill would force big companies doing business in California to hunt through 19th‑century records and file sworn affidavits about any ties to slavery. That this is now a live question for the governor is the real news — and it deserves a clear-eyed answer, not another round of performative politics.
What AB 2599 would require
Assemblymember Isaac Bryan authored AB 2599, the so‑called “truth and disclosure” measure. It targets businesses with more than $100 million in worldwide revenue and asks them to disclose whether they or predecessor entities existed before the end of 1964 and profited from slavery‑era transactions. Companies would file affidavits under penalty of perjury listing names, records and evidence, and the California Civil Rights Department would host a public, searchable database. On paper it is presented as transparency. In practice it is a complex, costly compliance regime.
Why this is a problem
This is government overreach dressed up as virtue signalling. California is dictating rules to any firm that wants to sell into its market, even if the company was formed in another state or country. Asking modern compliance teams to excavate scattered 19th‑century records is costly and often impossible. The law also hands a tidy new litigation story to big law firms who, not coincidentally, are entrenched donors. What sounds like moral clarity could quickly become an invitation to lawsuits, extortion‑style settlements, and a new drag on jobs and investment.
Budget and legal traps
There’s a technical caveat: the bill’s operation is contingent on a legislative appropriation. That means it won’t spring to life unless Sacramento funds the digital platform and staffing. But don’t let that soothe anyone. Signing the bill while the state refuses to fund it is a political dodge, not leadership. If the program is ever funded, businesses will face perjury exposure, overlapping disclosure regimes, and likely constitutional fights over preemption and jurisdiction. The legal bills from defending against that mess will fall on the same businesses the state says it’s “holding accountable.”
Newsom’s clear choice
Governor Gavin Newsom has three options: sign, veto, or let the bill become law without a signature. The right choice for California’s economy and rule of law is a veto. If he wants to play public‑relations games, he can let it linger unfunded — but the responsible move is to kill a bill that creates needless costs, invites litigation, and punishes companies for events centuries old. California shouldn’t trade real reforms for attention‑grabbing mandates that do more harm than good. Veto AB 2599 and stop turning corporate compliance into a political scavenger hunt.
