Newsom even pointed out that Panera wasn't exempt.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/panera-newsom-w...
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
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.
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.
> 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://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/29/gavin-newsom-fast-f...
"The bill in question emerged from months of negotiations, presided over by Newsom’s office, between organized labor and the fast food industry. The two sides ultimately forged a truce that averted a ballot fight over a referendum challenging a more sweeping fast food labor law that the governor signed in 2022."
The lawmakers calling for the investigation are Republicans and presumably didn't vote for it.
Newsom doesn't write laws
the title says Panera but the article says Panera Bread and
chain restaurants like it.
Newsom even pointed out that Panera wasn't exempt.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
his office claimed the law was the result of “negotiations with stakeholders” so sounds like he’s involved when it’s a success, but didn’t do nothing when there’s a scandal
Eg: y'all come to my office and work this out.
It signals the Gov cares even if not the author of the deal.
(Viewing this from one angle).
The governor has to sign a bill or it won’t become a law. Just because he doesn’t write the bill doesn’t mean he doesn’t have input. He could easily convey the message, “Add _____ or I’m not signing it”.
1. They are claiming that because Panera generally mixes dough at central locations that they don't "produce" bread by baking it at the retail locations. It is not clear that this was their original intent and not a recently invented rationalization to obscure the connection to Panera.
2. The lawmakers that are calling for an investigation into the deal aren't the same lawmakers that write the deal are they?
3. The governor can obviously influence legislation including but not limited to his power to veto it.
so unless the law is changed or that organization doesnt file or fit under the federal code
then they are not obligated to pay employees $20/hr aside from by market forces
everything else is partisan pontificating or playing defense
Newsom was caught in several situations of "rules for thee, but not for me" during COVID, the conflict of interest that is congressional stock trading was defended as a right, and supreme court justices are openly taking bribes without consequences.
Citizens united said the rich can spend as much money as they want to get their standard-bearer elected.
Even if it's not true, it's consistent, so it's not "clickbait working" so much as a story that completely makes sense given the current magnitude of corruption in American politics.
This isn't a new thing in presidential politics, nor specific to either party. Politics is a contact sport, and the competitors play the long game.
I'm a little surprised his tenure as governor is turning out this way. As mayor he definitely dialed down the rampant cronyism and corruption that defined Brown's reign.
Think about it critically for a sec without your partisan goggles. We're talking about a hyper specific exemption (60+ locations, sells bread produced on-site as a standalone product since at least 2022 or whenever). If it doesn't apply to Panera, who does it apply to? It won't apply to McDonald's or Subway because bread has never been a standalone item there. It won't apply to the Lee's by my place because there aren't 60 of them. Certainly Newsom and the legislature wouldn't have spent the effort to carve out an exemption that applies to nobody.