View this post on the web at [link removed]

This Saturday feature, which is a labor of love for me, is packed with amazing content. It’s very popular. For those of you who subscribe ($70/year, $7/month), this column is a thank-you for your support of my independent work. There are a couple of items above the paywall worth reading/watching. But that is the tip of the iceberg. SO MUCH more under the paywall.
THANK YOU for being part of this project and for putting a spotlight on California politics!
Publishing Note: I do not currently plan on publishing on Monday, Labor Day. I’ve been known to change my mind but that’s the current plan. - Jon
Jon’s Saturday Mini Column
Send Newsom’s Campaign the Security Bill
California motorists already pay dearly for the privilege of driving. Sacramento has now found a novel use for their registration money: bodyguards for politicians who have left office and may be seeking the next one.
During the Legislature’s end-of-session scramble, lawmakers approved a $20 million increase for California Highway Patrol “security services.” The money comes from the Motor Vehicle Account, which is supported by vehicle-registration and driver’s-license fees. A companion bill permits CHP protection for current and former constitutional officers and legislators, as well as family members living with them, following a threat assessment.
The legislation names no beneficiary. Its timing invites a question.
Gavin Newsom leaves office in January and is considering a 2028 presidential campaign. He would remain eligible for CHP protection. The legislation contains no geographic restriction, no per-person spending ceiling, and no prohibition against taxpayer-funded officers accompanying an official to rallies, fundraisers, or campaign appearances. It also contains no reimbursement requirement.
Perhaps Californians would be less suspicious if they could learn what these arrangements cost. The Newsom administration has given them reason to be suspicious.
After Kamala Harris’s extended Secret Service protection was revoked, Newsom authorized CHP protection for her. KCRA reported that dozens of officers accompanied Harris on a book tour with domestic and international stops. When the station requested the total cost—not schedules, officers’ identities, or operational plans—the administration withheld it on security grounds.
Protective tactics should remain confidential. Total expenditures should not.
Threats against public figures are real, and some former officials undoubtedly require protection. But any prominent presidential candidate will generate threats. A “threat assessment” with no public standards, spending limits, reimbursement rules, or outside review is not much of a fiscal safeguard. It is a permission slip issued behind closed doors.
Campaigns may legally pay security expenses. Newsom’s donors could bear the cost without diminishing his protection. Sacramento instead chose an account filled by Californians registering work trucks, family cars, and pickups.
If Newsom campaigns in Iowa with a CHP escort, so be it. Send the officers—and send his campaign the invoice.
Public service can create lasting dangers. It should not create a lifetime claim on the public purse. California drivers renewing their license plates did not volunteer to become donors to Gavin Newsom’s presidential ambitions.
Reading/Watching/Listening Recommendations!
INSPECTOR GENERAL SLAMS LATEST HIGH-SPEED RAIL PLAN
Jon Coupal argues that California’s high-speed rail project has suffered another damaging setback, this time from its own inspector general. Writing for Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association [ [link removed] ], he highlights undisclosed cost increases, a construction schedule now extending into 2034, and the possibility that existing funding could run out by December 2027. Coupal contends that the rail authority’s latest business plan obscures crucial risks—and that limited media scrutiny leaves taxpayers dangerously uninformed about billions still at stake while the project’s costs mount.
A CALIFORNIA COUNTY USED DRONES TO SPY ON HOMES. A SETTLEMENT WILL NOW REQUIRE WARRANTS.
Mattha Busby reports that Sonoma County has agreed to curb a warrantless drone-surveillance program originally created to locate illegal cannabis grows. Writing in Reason [ [link removed] ], he explains how the operation expanded into searches for minor building-code violations, generating thousands of photographs, heavy fines, liens, and even foreclosures. Under a legal settlement, officials generally must obtain warrants, notify surveilled residents, limit image retention, and disclose flight logs—new safeguards intended to restore privacy, constrain future code-enforcement overreach, and prevent similarly abusive practices.⁠
Want More?
OK, this column is like an iceberg. You can see 10% of it above the waterline. Below the paywall is SO MUCH MORE. I curate a BUNCH of articles, a great chart, a great video, a great long-form story, and much more. And what famous moment in California political history happened on this day in 1968?
There’s a free trial - try it out and read all kinds of stuff, curated as a special thank you to our hundreds of paid subscribers!...

Unsubscribe [link removed]?