Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) announced Friday that he’s investigating Meta after it was discovered that the company’s policies allowed its AI chatbots to interact with children in a “romantic or sensual” manner.

As reported by Reuters on Thursday, an internal document describing Meta’s policies — verified by Meta as being authentic, allowed for its chatbots to “‘engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual,’ generate false medical information and help users argue that Black people are ‘dumber than white people.’”

As Reuters notes, the document goes on to creepily describe just how “romantic or sensual” the chatbots can get. “It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness” the document states, including telling an eight-year-old, “every inch of you is a masterpiece — a treasure I cherish deeply.”

The policy then goes on to limit “sexy talk.” “It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: ‘soft rounded curves invite my touch’).” Reuters says Meta updated the above portions of the policy earlier this month after the publication questioned them.

Meta spokesman Andy Stone said the company is currently revising the document and the passages should’ve never been allowed.

“The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed,” Stone told Reuters. “We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors.” Stone then went on to acknowledge that the company’s enforcement of the policy was inconsistent.

As CNBC reports, Senator Hawley, who's chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, ordered Meta to hand over internal and external records on its AI content policies, safety risks, related products, staff decision-making, and communications about child safety by September 19.

“Is there anything - ANYTHING - Big Tech won’t do for a quick buck?” Hawley said on X.

“We intend to learn who approved these policies, how long they were in effect, and what Meta has done to stop this conduct going forward,” Hawley wrote.

As Bay Area News Group reports, Representative Kevin Mullin of the 15th Congressional district, which includes Meta’s headquarters, said the findings are “disturbing and totally unacceptable,” and “yet another concerning example of the lack of transparency” in the tech industry.

As Reuters reports, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) said that generative AI chatbots should not be protected under Section 230, a law that prevents internet companies from being held liable for users’ content. "Meta and Zuckerberg should be held fully responsible for any harm these bots cause,” he said.

Reuters also notes that in July, the Senate voted 99-1 to eliminate a provision in the “big beautiful” bill that would’ve prevented states from passing AI regulations — a move widely seen as a win for safeguards. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont), said Reuters’s report "shows how critical safeguards are for AI — especially when the health and safety of kids is at risk."

Image: selimaksan/Getty Images

The Senate is expected to vote by July 4 on the “Big Beautiful” bill, which could allow the sale of up to 3 million acres of public land across 11 western states. In California, 16 million acres are eligible, including land near Yosemite and Lake Tahoe.

As The Hill reports, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — who’s Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources — added a provision to the bill that directs the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to sell between 0.5% and 0.75% of their holdings.

The targeted land excludes national parks and wilderness areas but includes National Forest and BLM-controlled land. The Chronicle has a map from the Wilderness Society showing affected parcels scattered throughout California, from Sierra wilderness zones to rural Central Valley foothills.

Lee argues the sale could promote housing development, energy production, and generate up to $10 billion for the federal government. “Washington has proven time and again it can’t manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands,” he said.

But conservationists and community groups see it as a major threat to public access, environmental protections, and wildfire management. “Once the land is sold, we will never get it back,” warned Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Montana), who helped remove the land sale provision from the House version of the bill before it resurfaced in the Senate.

As Fresno’s KSFN reports, environmental groups like Unite 4 Parks have raised alarms about the speed and scope of the sales. “All of us are going to lose if we lose access to this landscape that we're used to camping in and so forth,” said Deanna Wulff. She added that three million acres isn’t a small number: “If you took Yosemite, and the Sierra National Forest, and then the Sequoia/Kings Canyon range… that whole stretch, that’s 3 million acres. That is huge.”

The bill allows “any interested party” to purchase land, which critics say opens the door to wealthy individuals and corporations outbidding state and local governments that lack the budget to compete. As Michael Carroll of the Wilderness Society told SFGate, “They capped it at 3 million acres, but 258 million acres is on the menu.”

U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-California) said he will fight the bill "tooth and nail."

Image: YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CA - JUNE 18:  The Merced River flows through  the center of the Valley as viewed on June 18, 2024, at Yosemite  National Park, California.  (Photo by  George Rose/Getty Images)

The GOP-controlled US Senate just voted Thursday to revoke California’s mandate to switch to only electric cars by the year 2035, in an obvious middle finger to California from politicians who claim to support “states’ rights.”

About five years ago, it was a sweeping move that a dozen states quickly copied when the state of California moved to ban the sale of gasoline-only cars by the year 2025. But even though an electric car tycoon effectively bankrolled much of Trump’s 2024 election campaign, President Trump still has a certain unique hatred of electric cars. And since the US Senate is now controlled by Trump’s lickspittles, KQED reports that the Senate voted to block California’s electric car mandate in a 51-44 vote Thursday.  

This is clearly just a ‘Fuck you’ move to the state of California, and quite plainly gives the lie to the Republican mantra thay they support states’ rights.

“Because what we have at stake is also a state’s ability, it’s right to make its own laws,” Senator Adam Schiff, who voted against the rollback, said in a statement picked up by KQED. “And to protect its own citizens without having this body overturn that right.”

California has the unique ability to solicit the Environmental Protection Agency to establish our own stricter emissions standards, after the smog pollution menace we suffered in the 1960s and 70s. And automakers usually oblige by employing those standards across the nation, because California is a large market, and carmakers don't want the cost of making two different types of car emissions systems for their vehicles.

But California can also serve as a floodgate-opener in these matters. Since Californa passed the electric vehicle mandate, ​​twelve other states and Washington, DC followed suit.

Even though the Senate vote happened only hours ago, Governor Gavin Newsom has already vowed he’s going to sue the federal government over this.

“This Senate vote is illegal,” Newsom said in a statement picked up by the Chronicle. He refers to the Republicans using a procedural vote to sidestep the chamber’s parliamentarian, therefore avoiding the filibuster rule.

Every Democrat in the Senate voted against lifting the ban, except for Michigan Democrat Elissa Slotkin.

“Michigan is the auto capital of the world, and as Michigan’s US Senator, I have a special responsibility to stand up for the more than one million Michiganders whose livelihoods depend on the US auto industry,” Slotkin said in a statement released after the vote. “This standard means car manufacturers, including the Big Three, will be forced to eventually stop the sale of gas-powered cars in these states or pay competitors, particularly Tesla, for credits to remain compliant.”

Related: California to Ban Sale of Gas-Only Cars By 2035... If We All Make It That Long [SFist]

Image: SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA - MAY 3: Traffic backs up the San Ysidro Southbound Inspection as people enter Tijuana, Mexico at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry on May 3, 2025 in San Diego, California. (Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images)

Things are tense in Washington today as Congress moves to avert a government shutdown. And while there are arguments on both sides for how a shutdown would not help anyone — and could give Elon Musk more of an opportunity to gut federal agencies — many Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, say that this was a "false choice" and they should have gone to the mat.

"Schumer Brings a White Flag to a Gun Fight" is the headline New York Magazine went with, as outrage boils over about the Senate Minority Leader's decision, announced Thursday, to support a Republican spending bill in order to avoid a government shutdown that could get blamed on Democrats this time.

"Young Democrats’ Anger Boils Over as Schumer Retreats on Shutdown" is the NY Times' current headline, on a story that notes how the younger generation of Democrats in Congress, including Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who went on CNN last night to call Schumer's decision a "tremendous mistake."

84-year-old Nancy Pelosi has joined the chorus Friday, putting out a harsh statement and, remarkably breaking with longtime ally Schumer, as the Chronicle notes.

"Donald Trump and Elon Musk have offered the Congress a false choice between a government shutdown or a blank check that makes a devastating assault on the well-being of working families across America. Let’s be clear: neither is a good option for the American people," Pelosi said in her statement. "Democrats must not buy into this false choice."

Pelosi is referring to the destructive details of the spending bill, which boosts defense spending by $6 billion, decreases non-defense funding by $13 billion, hands $10 billion in funding to ICE, and slashes $890 million in grants for healthcare facilities across the country.

Additionally, the bill cuts $293 million for emergency preparedness projects.

The spending bill requires 60 votes to pass in the Senate, and Senate Democrats reportedly were given no say in the resolution — when, typically, both parties would have to come to the table and compromise to get a bill like this passed.

Schumer laid out his case for voting for the spending bill in a NYT op-ed today.

"For sure, the Republican bill is a terrible option," Schumer writes. "It is deeply partisan. It doesn’t address this country’s needs. But even if the White House says differently, Mr. Trump and Elon Musk want a shutdown. We should not give them one. The risk of allowing the president to take even more power via a government shutdown is a much worse path."

"As bad as passing the continuing resolution would be, I believe a government shutdown is far worse," Schumer adds. He writes that a shutdown would give "Musk permission to destroy vital government services at a significantly faster rate than they can right now," and explaining that, "Under a shutdown, the Trump administration would have wide-ranging authority to deem whole agencies, programs and personnel nonessential, furloughing staff members with no promise they would ever be rehired."

He further argues that Trump presently "owns the chaos in the government," and Democrats shouldn't play into his hand by taking up the chaos and having to fight over which government agencies to reopen and when.

If you have thoughts you want to share directly with Schumer, there are still tickets available for a public appearance he's planning to make in San Francisco next week, on March 22. He'll be in conversation with KQED's Scott Shafer at the Sydney Goldstein Theater, talking about his new book Antisemitism in America: A Warning.

Top image: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) leaves the Democratic caucus lunch at the U.S. Capitol on March 13, 2025 in Washington, DC. On Wednesday Senate Democrats, not in line with the continuing resolution passed by House Republicans providing a six-month funding extension to avert a government shutdown, proposed an alternate plan that would fund the government in the short term through April 11. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

Congressman Adam Schiff is now Senator Adam Schiff, as he was officially sworn in Monday to cover the balance of the late Dianne Feinstein's term. And he says he doesn't just want to be known as a thorn in Trump's side.

Schiff, a 23-year veteran of the House, was sworn in by Vice President Kamala Harris on the floor of the Senate Chamber, and gave a statement after taking the oath of office.

"I will work with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to help our state and our families succeed," Schiff said. "At the same time, I will not shrink from my duty to defend our democracy and will vigorously protect the rights and freedoms of the American people and the people of California."

In an interview with the Associated Press Monday, Schiff praised Feinstein's ability to cross the aisle, saying, the late senator "was able to do a couple things simultaneously, which I’m going to need to try to do as well, and that is work with others to deliver for the state, work across party lines to get things done, and at the same time, stand up and defend people’s rights and their freedom and their values when those things are threatened."

As the AP notes, while many Democrats in the Senate have remained quiet the last few weeks as Trump has announced a raft of increasingly unqualified and questionable nominees for cabinet posts and other roles, Schiff hasn't been so quiet. Following the nomination of Kash Patel to lead the FBI, Schiff tweeted that Patel was "more suited as internet troll than FBI Director."

Trump has not been subtle in his criticisms of "Shifty Schiff" and others, like Liz Cheney, whom he continues to say should be "in jail" for their roles in investigating January 6th — and, in Schiff's case, serving as a House Impeachment Manager in Trump's first impeachment. It remains to be seen if a Trump Justice Department will seek retribution against Schiff and others — though it seems highly likely it will!

Still, Schiff tells the AP he thinks a pre-emptive pardon from Biden is "unnecessary," and that the president shouldn't be spending his waning days in office worrying about this.

As Schiff told NPR Monday, of Trump, "if he's serious about his threats, then obviously I'm going to stand up to him. The threats that concern me the most, frankly, are less the ones directed at me and more the ones directed at mass deportations and splitting up families and destroying our economy as that would accomplish."

Schiff joins the Senate as the Junior Senator from California, alongside Alex Padilla, who has himself only served four years. He steps in after the stepping down of Laphonza Butler, who had pledged to be a placeholder senator after her appointment by Governor Gavin Newsom last year. On the ballot in November, we also elected Schiff to the one-month remainder of Feinstein's term.

In January, Schiff's real six-year term begins, as Feinstein's term would have ended after this year.

Top image: en. Adam Schiff (D-CA) (L) is ceremonially sworn-in by Vice President Kamala Harris with his wife Eve Schiff in the Old Senate Chamber of the U.S. Capitol on December 09, 2024 in Washington, DC. Schiff was officially sworn in earlier by Harris in the Senate Chamber. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

There’s some funny business in Steve Garvey’s taxes, aside from the fact that he owes several hundred thousand, as his property taxes are being paid by some nebulous group with the name “Sisters in Christ.”

Now that former LA Dodger and Republican candidate Steve Garvey is heading for the November Senate election against Rep. Adam Schiff, the press is starting to go skeleton-hunting in Garvey’s closets. And they are finding skeletons! The Sacramento Bee reported in late March that Garvey still owes several hundred thousand dollars in unpaid taxes, and has had a number of tax liens filed against him. Digging further into the case, the Bee reported Friday that very oddly, the property taxes on Garvey’s Palm Desert home are being paid by some organization called Sisters in Christ.

We should note that there is a very legitimate religious charity organization called Sisters in Christ, based in Florida, which does bible studies and runs programs to support women. This is a different Sisters in Christ, it’s an LLC based in Utah, which does not appear to have any other activities outside of paying Steve Garvey’s property taxes. Oh, and one of its officers is Garvey’s sister-in-law Shaunna Hood.

It is possible that Sisters in Christ LLC actually owns Garvey’s Palm  Desert house. Per the Sacramento Bee, Garvey’s wife’s mother Marilyn Smythe transferred the deed for the home to Sisters in Christ in 2006. I’m no accountant, but this smells like it’s got “tax dodge” written all over it.

As we see even here in SF, LLCs are a commonly used method of hiding the real property owner’s identity.

And the Sacramento Bee also dug up this 2014 “Coldwell Banker Home Field Advantage” segment in which Garvey discusses the property in question. “This house was originally owned by [Garvey’s wife] Candace’s mom,” he says. “We bought it from her.”

And as mentioned earlier, Garvey has shit-ton of unpaid tax debt. The Bee reported in March that Garvey’s financial disclosures show he’s somewhere between $350,000 and $750,000 behind in both state and federal taxes. (Most of that is federal taxes, but state taxes account for $100,000-$250,000 of his tax debt.) After the Bee broke that story, a red-faced Garvey told Fox News that “We have been taking this very seriously, have always filed our taxes on time, and we have been working diligently with our accountant and the IRS to resolve this debt by the end of the year.”

Add to the strangeness of Garvey’s campaign, which the Chronicle dubs as a “remain-in-bubble-wrap campaign,” that Garvey is refusing to attend the California GOP convention this weekend in Burlingame. It is highly unusual that a statewide candidate would duck such an event with a guaranteed friendly crowd. Heck, even South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is going to be there, and she’s got unflattering headlines all over the news lately for shooting a puppy.

Related: It's Going to Be Schiff v. Garvey In November's Senate Race [SFist]

Image: PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA - MARCH 05: Republican Senate candidate Steve Garvey, a former Los Angeles Dodgers baseball player, tosses a baseball to supporters at his election night watch party on March 5, 2024 in Palm Desert, California. Garvey and Democratic Senate candidate U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) are projected to win the ‘jungle primary’ for a California U.S. Senate seat. Democrats and Republicans are voting in 15 states on Super Tuesday. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Sigh. Thanks to California's solidly red inland half, Republican Steve Garvey sailed to victory as one of the top two vote-getters in Tuesday's primary race for Dianne Feinstein's former Senate seat. And this means that California will not have a woman in the Senate next year for the first time in over 30 years.

The polls were correct. As of Wednesday morning, with 47% of votes counted, Democrat Adam Schiff holds 33.2% of the vote with Steve Garvey taking 32.5%, leaving the leading female candidates Reps. Katie Porter and Barbara Lee fighting over scraps.

Porter has 13.8% of the vote as of the Associated Press' last count, and Lee has 7.4%.

Turnout was, predictably, low in this primary, and odds are strong that in November's general election, Schiff will prevail easily over Garvey, with plenty more Democrats coming out to vote. But this still sets up a contest in which a Republican could, possibly, take a Senate seat that's been occupied by a Democrat for more than a generation.

California last had a Republican senator in 1991, when John Seymour was appointed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson to fill Wilson's seat, and was defeated by Feinstein in a race to finish Wilson's term.

San Francisco, of course, largely voted for the Democratic candidates, and Garvey took only 9.5% of the vote here, as the Chronicle reports. Schiff also took the majority in SF, with Porter faring slightly better than she did statewide with 23.2% of the local vote. Lee also had stronger support here, taking almost 21%.

"I will always, always be fighting for you," Porter said in a concession speech in Long Beach Tuesday night. Porter blamed special interests and billionaires for bankrolling the campaigns against her.

This election was, arguably, engineered by Schiff's well funded campaign, which used its dollars on TV ads that set up the contest as one between him and Garvey. That is on purpose, of course, telling Republican voters — who barely saw any ads or campaigning from Garvey's side — to cast ballots in an us-versus-them contest, in an open primary.

That strategy succeeded, and low turnout among Democrats meant that this would not be a race between two Democratic candidates — which would have been far more expensive and competitive for Schiff.

As Politico noted in January, the Democratic establishment was not looking forward to a Schiff-Porter matchup in November, which would have siphoned too much donor cash away from much more pivotal races for contested House seats in California districts. While there is almost no question that Feinstein's Senate seat will continue to belong to Democrats, Democratic control of the House could hang in the balance again this year with the flip of a few House districts, and the party would like to see the money flow to those races instead.

That donor math is also going to work against Garvey, whose mostly hopeless race isn't going to attract much funding from the Republican side.

But Tuesday's primary was also a loss for female respresentation and diversity in the Senate. Come November, whoever wins, California will be represented by two men in the Senate for the first time since the 1980s.

"We have two old white men in this incredibly diverse and dynamic state … fighting to replace Dianne Feinstein’s seat," says Thad Kousser, professor of political science at the University of California San Diego, speaking to CalMatters. "This looks like your grandfather’s California."

Schiff gave his victory speech at the Avalon Theater in Hollywood, touting his record of leading the first Trump impeachment, and how he's been punished for it by House Republicans since they took power.

"A little over a year ago we kicked off this campaign, and I won't say it was without its bumps along the way," Schiff said. "I seem to recall, within hours of our announcement, a certain Kevin McCarthy kicked me off the Intelligence Committee."

Schiff's speech was interrupted by protesters who entered the hall chanting "Ceasefire now!"

Schiff responded saying, "We are so lucky, so lucky to live in a democracy where we all have the right to protest," he said. "We are so lucky to live in that kind of democracy and we want to make sure we keep this kind of democracy."

Top image: Democratic Senate candidate U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) speaks during his primary election night gathering at The Avalon on March 05, 2024 in Los Angeles, California. Adam Schiff won the California Senate primary and will face Republican challenger former Los Angeles Dodgers baseball player Steve Garvey in November. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Rep. Katie Porter was at Manny’s barnstorming for votes Sunday, while Rep. Adam Schiff was across town at Dogpatch’s the Pearl, as their primary race for Dianne Feinstein’s former Senate seat looms Tuesday.

Tomorrow is your March 5 California Primary Election, and the race for Dianne Feinstein’s former Senate seat is the most competitive Senate election that state has seen in decades. But a funny thing happened on the way to a Democratic royal rumble for the seat, as Republican and former LA Dodgers baseball player Steve Garvey jumped into the race.

The leading candidate in the polls, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Pasadena), then ran ads featuring Garvey in hopes of building Garvey’s profile, as a tactic to muscle out his more feared rival Rep. Katie Porter (D-Orange County), as the top two candidates in Tuesday’s primary vote will move on to the November 5 elections.

Schiff’s gambit may have worked too well. A new poll released Friday shows Garvey very slightly in first place, at 27%-25% over Schiff, with Porter way back at 19%. This despite the fact that Garvey is hardly even campaigning for the seat.

It is against this backdrop that both Porter and Schiff came stumping for last-minute votes in San Francisco Sunday night, according to NBC Bay Area. Schiff’s campaign event was at a Dogpatch event space called the Pearl (with Nancy Pelosi on hand, and hmmm, is that probable mayoral candidate Aaron Peskin with him?), while Porter did a more modest, grassroots kind of event at the Mission District spot Manny’s.

And as a separate NBC Bay Area reports points out, turnout is looking likely to be low, with an average of only 10% of early voting ballots having come in thus far across the Bay Area.

Porter says she sees an advantage in that.

"I think every pollster would tell you low turnout elections are surprising," she told KGO for their report on the campaign appearances. "Look, I have won before when the polls had me down at this point, and so I have done this before and pulled it out. I think it will take time for every last vote to be counted."

Meanwhile, fourth-place candidate Barbara Lee (last seen polling at 8%) spent the weekend campaigning in Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego, per NBC Bay Area.

And where was Steve Garvey? That NBC Bay Area report notes they “asked Garvey's campaign about what campaign events he was involved with this weekend, but a representative did not provide an answer.”

Related: Debate for Feinstein’s Senate Seat: Adam Schiff, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee Spar, Steve Garvey Wishy-Washes [SFist]

Images: (Left) @AdamSchiff, (Right) @katieporteroc, via Twitter

Whatever remaining cryptocurrency moguls who are not looking at prison time have coalesced around a common enemy in Senate candidate Katie Porter, as money from Ron Conway and Andreessen Horowitz just bought $2 million worth of attack ads against her.

One-time biggest name in cryptocurrency, FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, is now headed to prison on fraud charges. Same goes for the former second-name biggest name in cryptocurrency, former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao, who will be sentenced in April. But this has not daunted the crypto bro vision in general.

In fact, the New York Times reports that a cryptocurrency-focused political action committee (PAC) has raised a nearly $80 million war chest to influence the 2024 elections, and Politico’s Christopher Cadelago points out that they’ve spent $2 million on a TV ad campaign against Rep. Katie Porter, who’s running for Dianne Feinstein’s former Senate seat.

(As a reminder, it is crunch time in that Senate race. The March 5 primary is just three weeks from today, and only two of the four candidates running will move on to the November 5 election. The crypto PAC wants to make sure Porter is not one of them, with the TV ad seen below.)

The PAC is called Fairshake, and the commercial does not mention that their cause is cryptocurrency, perhaps to avoid association with all of the criminal money laundering in that sector. The ad shows doctored video of Porter’s famed viral whiteboard moments and decries her “claims not to take corporate PAC money,” while showing that she received campaign donations of between $500-$2,900 from a pharmaceutical company executive and a bank president.

These are all still individual donations from an actual human being, not a corporation or a PAC. And never mind the irony of a $2 million ad campaign calling someone out for taking $500-$2,900 contributions from individuals.

The Times reports that Fairshake's $80 million election war chest comes “mostly” from Andreessen Horowitz, Coinbase, and Ripple Labs, all of whom have major stakes in crypto. And Politico adds that our longtime tech industry puppet master Ron Conway is also a major donor. Per the Times, Fairshake has pulled in veteran political lobbying groups Impact Research (Biden 2020 campaign) and Jamestown Associates (Trump 2020 campaign).

So why are the crypto bros out to get Katie Porter? One can only speculate, but Politico’s Cadelago notes that Porter has criticized the industry over environmental concerns over crypto mining. And notably, this is the first major negative TV attack ad campaign against a Democrat in this race. (Schiff's campaign is running an ad that calls out Republican Steve Garvey for voting for Trump twice.)

And its desired effect seems to be to knock out Katie Porter in the March 5 primary election. It’s no secret that the leading candidate in that primary, Rep. Adam Schiff, also wants to see Porter knocked out, so he can cakewalk to an easy blue-state November victory over Garvey. Last poll we saw, Garvey and Porter are both tied at 15% for second place, while Schiff is comfortably in first place at 25%.

So Porter, and a gaggle of wealthy crypto investors, have three weeks to break that tie however they can.

Related: Debate for Feinstein’s Senate Seat: Adam Schiff, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee Spar, Steve Garvey Wishy-Washes [SFist]

Image: WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 25: U.S. Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) speaks during a news conference on Medicare Advantage plans in front of the U.S. Capitol on July 25, 2023 in Washington, DC. Joined by Medicare advocates, Congressional Democrats held a news conference “to call for action to stop wrongful delays and denials in private Medicare Advantage plans, to end to fraudulent overpayments, and to mandate accountability for the worst actors who hurt patients.” (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

A much anticipated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing took place Wednesday that gave Senator Lindsey Graham and others a chance to grandstand on an issue that has rare bipartisan support, the problem of social media and kids.

Being grilled at the hearing are Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, X CEO Linda Yaccarino, TikTok CEO Shou Chew, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel, and Discord CEO Jason Citron. After a couple of hours of remarks by senators and questions to the CEOs Wednesday morning, the hearing continued Wednesday afternoon and is ongoing as of this writing.

The title of the hearing is "Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crisis," but the topics touched on so far were quite wide-ranging. In addition to discussing the harms to children and teens via social media platforms that have been well documented, senators repeatedly raised the issue of Section 230 — the part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that has historically shielded platforms from legal liability for the content posted by their users.

Senator Lindsey Graham, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, was the most pointed and dramatic in his remarks.

"I am tired of talking. I’m tired of having discussions," Graham said. “Open up the courthouse door. Until you do that, nothing will change. Until these people can be sued for the damage they’re doing, it is all talk."

Graham also said, "Mr. Zuckerberg, you and the companies before us, I know you don't mean it to be so, but you have blood on your hands. You have a product that's killing people."

Tech pundit Kara Swisher called this all a "huge public disaster for tech."

Internal emails from Meta, which have been previously reported on and which were brought up again today by the senators, show that Zuckerberg appeared to rebuff calls to bolster the safeguards for children and teens. And in one 2022 exchange with Nick Clegg, Meta's president of global affairs, Zuckerberg appeared to ignore a suggestion to hire 45 new employees dedicated to safety issues and well-being of users across Meta's apps.

As CNN reports, Clegg followed up months later with Zuckerberg with a trimmed-down proposal for 25 new hires, saying this was "the bare minimum needed to meet basic policymaker inquiries" on child welfare issues.

Senator Marsha Blackburn [R-TN] also had a dramatic exchange with Zuckerberg in which she raised a dollar figure that was found in internal Meta documents which put a "lifetime" valuation on each teen user of Meta's apps at $270.

"How could you possibly even have that thought? It is astounding to me," Sen. Blackburn said. "Children are not your priority. Children are your product."

Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana said that the platforms had become "a killing field of information," with algorithms that have been developed "to punch people’s hot buttons."

The theatrics didn't end there! Senator Amy Klobuchar became visibly tearful discussing parents and children who were harmed through social media.

"I’m so tired of this," Klobuchar said. "It’s been 28 years … since the start of the internet. We haven’t passed any of these bills, because everyone’s ‘double talk, double talk.’ It’s time to actually pass them."

After being berated by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, Zuckerberg stood up in the hearing room to face families of kids who have died in connection with their social media use, saying, "I’m sorry for everything you have all been through. No one should go through the things that your families have suffered and this is why we invest so much and we are going to continue doing industry wide efforts to make sure no one has to go through the things your families have had to suffer."

California Senator Laphonza Butler then goaded Snap CEO Evan Spiegel to do the same, with regard to kids who had died after purchasing drugs over Snapchat.

"I’m so sorry that we have not been able to prevent these tragedies," Spiegel said.

It's not at all clear that the Senate will be able to enact any sort of legislation, and this is hardly the first time that Zuckerberg has faced a grilling like this in Washington.

But with so much seeming support from both sides of the aisle, maybe there will be some sort of movement, policy-wise.

Previously: Tech Bigwigs Zuckerberg, Musk, Altman and Others Hold Private Meeting With Congress on Regulating AI

Top image: Ranking member Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC. The committee heard testimony from the heads of the largest tech firms on the dangers of child sexual exploitation on social media. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Monday night saw the first debate for Dianne Feinstein’s former Senate seat, where Katie Porter and Adam Schiff took center stage, while Barbara Lee fought to stay in the game, and Republican Steve Garvey stumbled in his attempts to not seem like he was a Republican.

How “already here” is the 2024 election? Just six weeks from today, Californians will be heading to the polls to vote in the March 5 primary election. Presumably, President Biden, Donald Trump, and Nancy Pelosi have their primary wins already in the bag, so the race for Dianne Feinstein’s former Senate seat is the notable election that day. Rep. Adam Schiff seems to be in the lead, and depending on what poll you believe, Rep. Katie Porter is in second place, or maybe Republican Steve Garvey is, with East Bay Rep. Barbara Lee a close fourth.  (The Top Two will advance to a November 5 face-off.)

So Monday night’s debate between the four of them, seen above in its 90-minute entirety, was crucial, with Politico moderator Melanie Mason correctly noting that this “will likely be the most competitive race for the U.S. Senate that California has seen in decades.”

The odd person out was obviously long-retired L.A. Dodger Steve Garvey, the only Republican on stage, who waffled embarrassingly on whether he was supporting Trump. (He obviously is! But he didn’t want to say it.) Garvey spent nearly ten minutes avoiding commitment on whether he supported the former president's reelection bid, saying his opponents were “trying to paint me into the corner, trying to call me MAGA. I’m my own man. I make my own decisions” (which drew laughter from the audience).“When the time comes, I'll do exactly what I said to you. I will look at the two opponents. I will determine what they did and at that time, I will make my choice.”

And in a true inside-baseball reference, he said to Katie Porter, “You’re banging on that trash can, just like the Astros did years ago,” a line so obviously pre-conceived that his campaign had a graphic for it ready to launch while the debate was still in progress.

Porter zinged back, “Once a Dodger, always a Dodger,” and added, “Ballots go out in six weeks, Mr. Garvey. This is not the minor leagues. Who will you vote for?”

Barbara Lee hit Garvey on this too, saying, “I believe our Republican opponent here on this stage has voted for Donal Trump twice. That agenda is an agenda to dismantle our democracy.”

Adam Schiff used it as a chance to burnish his impeachment and January 6 Commission credentials, telling the audience, “When our country was threatened by a would-be dictator in the Oval Office, one of us stepped up to the middle of that fight.  I took on the president, I investigated him, I led his impeachment.”

Schiff also taunted Garvey with “I can understand you don’t want to alienate MAGA world by saying you’re against him, but you also won’t stand up to him.”

On the economy, Barbara Lee used her own biography as once having been unhoused to show she understood those feeling the sting of income inequality and inflation.

“I was on public assistance, food stamps, Medi-Cal, raising two little boys as a single mom,” Lee said. “I know what it means to not have a place to live. I was unhoused during a very difficult period of my life.” She was the only one on stage to bring up, “We have to make college tuition free.”

Whereas Porter stuck with her whiteboard crusader against Corporate America persona, saying the current economy only benefited “CEOs of gigantic corporations, and people who have generations of inherited wealth." Porter reiterated she would “stand up to corporate power,”  singling out Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, and insurance companies that deny claims.

The most divisive issue of the night, without question, was the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. And Schiff was the most hard-line supporter of Israel among the Dems. “I think the United States should support Israel in defending itself,” Schiff said, though he threw in the qualifier, "We also should work with Israel to reduce the number of civilian casualties.”

But in terms of a ceasefire, Schiff contested that “I don’t know how you can ask any nation to cease fire when their people are being held by a terrorist organization.”

Lee brought up her own credentials as an early opponent to the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions to  unapologetically support a ceasefire. “It can spiral out of control,” she told the crowd. “You can see what’s happening in the region. We have to make sure that our national security is also protected.”

Porter had a more complex, but effective comeback. “Ceasefire is not a magic word. You can’t say it and make it so,” she said. “We have to push as the United States, as a world leader, for us to get to a ceasefire and to avoid a forever war.” But she added the conditions that the October 7 hostages had to be released, Gaza had to be rebuilt, Israel secured, and called for “free state for Palestinians where they can thrive.”

Another memorable exchange came on the state’s homelessness crisis, where Garvey tried some kind of George W. Bush “compassionate conservative” line.

“When was the last time any of you went to the inner city, and actually walked up to the homeless as I have over the last three weeks?” he charged at his opponents. “I went up to them and touched them and listened to them, and you know what? They looked at me and said ‘This is the first time that anyone’s come up to us and asked us about our life.’”

But Barbara Lee teed off on him. “That’s so patronizing. As someone who’s been unsheltered, I cannot believe how he described his walk and 'touching,' and being there with the homeless. Come on, please!”

Schiff riffed on that one too. “Mr Garvey, I’m sorry, that was a total swing and a miss. That was a total whiff.”

Again, this is a race for the Top Two, and Schiff would probably love nothing more than for Garvey to finish in the Top Two. Schiff could likely then cakewalk to victory in November, whereas Porter or Lee would give him a much tougher fight in largely Democratic California.

But polling still consistently shows about 25% of California voters as still undecided in this race, so any movement there is likely to affect the outcome. There will be another debate Monday, February 12, and another one later in February.

Related: Adam Schiff Edging Out Katie Porter for the Former Feinstein Senate Seat, But ‘Undecided’ is Crushing the Field [SFist]

Images: KTTV, FOX 11 Los Angeles

Two months into her tenure, the new junior senator from California, Laphonza Butler, has offered a fuller explanation for why she decided she would not be running for a full six-year term next year.

"This was never an opportunity that was on my bingo card, and there is no doubt that I want to continue to serve the people of California to use my voice and skill at its greatest capacity. I just didn’t want to be a U.S. senator," Butler says, in a new interview with the New York Times.

Butler was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom in early October to fill Senator Dianne Feinstein's seat in the chamber, just days after Feinstein's sudden death at age 90. Fulfilling a pledge he'd made publicly after filling an early vacancy, the one left by Kamala Harris when she assumed the vice presidency, with longtime friend Alex Padilla, Newsom selected a Black woman to fill the seat — but not the one who's actively running for it, Rep. Barbara Lee.

Newsom had later hedged and said that if he had another vacancy to fill, in the event of Feinstein's retirement or passing, before next year's election, he would select an interim caretaker who wouldn't disrupt the ongoing race for the seat. And that seems to be what he did with Butler.

While Newsom insisted, initially, that the decision whether to run was Butler's to make, there likely was some back-room discussion about this — maybe even a handshake deal about what Butler could look forward to next if she serves only an "interim" 15 months in the Senate. And within weeks, Butler made it publicly known that she would not run for a full term in 2024.

"I've spent the past 16 days pursuing my clarity — what kind of life I want to have, what kind of service I want to offer and what kind of voice I want to bring forward," she said in a statement at the time. "After considering those questions, I've decided not to run for Senate in the upcoming election."

This was, of course, a relief to the front-runners in the race for Feinstein's seat, Reps. Adam Schiff and Katie Porter, as well as to Lee — and since then, Lee has been catching up, with Schiff maintaining a polling lead, and Porter, Lee, and Republican Steve Garvey almost in a dead heat for second.

But why, really, would a person decide so quickly to forgo being an incumbent for a senate seat, and the chance to wield such major influence in the highest legislative chamber?

Butler wouldn't tell us, obviously, if she and Newsom have any handshake deal, but she tells the Times that while elected office may be in her future, someday, at age 44, with a nine-year-old to raise, she wasn't prepared for the commitment, or invested enough in the office.

"It was clear to me that I could raise the money. It was clear to me that with a lot of work, I could earn the vote of Californians," Butler tells the Times. "The subsequent question had to be, did I want to do it? And I think serving in elected office is a role you have to want and you have to want deeply."

"I knew what I wanted to do was to be a mom to my 9-year-old," Butler continues. "What I wanted to do was to continue to be a loud and clear voice on things that I know, communities that I identify with and care about. I say to my daughter all the time, 'There are no nevers.' And so I don’t close the door on serving in elected office in the future; I just know that it’s not my opportunity at this moment."

Butler had been serving as president of Emily's List, the powerful fundraising organization for Democratic, pro-choice female candidates for elected office, and she came to the Senate as one of its youngest members at 44. She notes she's one of the only senators who has school-age children, and she's the only Black woman in the chamber — and only the third ever in U.S. history — as well as being openly gay, which gives her a unique perspective among senators to say the least.

She tells the Times that the greatest use of her time in the Senate is centering the "voices of young people — millennials, Gen Z and generations that are coming after us," and "legislating with those lives in mind."

Top of mind among the issues affecting youth in the country is mental health, Butler says, and she says that youth mental health "is an issue that I want to dedicate some real time and attention to."

Butler also some frustration with slowly things move in Congress, and how ineffective Congress — and particularly the House — has been this year.

"I have seen so much happen across the country, in communities and cities and counties and states where the decisions of Washington actually go to get implemented," Butler tells the Times. "It starts with, what is this body able to accomplish? Those states and counties and cities [that need it most] don’t have the resources or the policy frameworks to really drive or execute their work without members in the Senate and in the House."

It will be interesting to see how or if Butler's work in the Senate impacts the 2024 election for this junior senate seat. And we still don't know if she, or Newsom, will be offering an endorsement. The candidates will be facing a primary on March 5, and the top two vote-getters will go to the November ballot. Democrats are hoping both will Dems, but there remains a possibility that the Trump-agnostic Garvey will slip in and take second, running against Schiff, and ruining California's chance to elect another woman to the white-male-majority Senate.

This will be the first open election, with no incumbent in the race, for this California senate seat since 1982.

Previously: Newsom Appoints Laphonza Butler, President of Emily's List, to Fill Feintstein's Senate Seat

Top image: U.S. Sen. Laphonza Butler (D-CA) participates in a Rules Committee hearing at the Russell Senate Office Building on November 14, 2023 in Washington, DC. The Rules Committee voted to change the rules of the Senate to end Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s (R-AL) months-long blockade of military nominees. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Vice President Kamala Harris broke a record Tuesday that took two previous vice presidents about eight years to break, and she did it in only three.

With a closely divided Congress and the slimmest of majorities in both chambers, Kamala Harris has now cast more decisive, tiebreaking votes in the Senate than John Calhoun or John Adams, who held the previous record. Harris cast her 32nd tie-breaking vote today on the confirmation of Judge Loren AliKhan to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Calhoun, who served as vice president from 1825 to 1832, held the previous record of 31 — and while it may have been a similarly divisive era in the Senate, it must not have been as closely divided since it took seven years to reach that number.

"Today is historic," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in a statement on the floor of the chamber following the vote. "The record Vice President Harris sets today is significant not just because of the number, but because of what she’s made possible with tiebreaking votes."

Noting that Calhoun had been a major proponent of slavery, Representative James E. Clyburn of South Caroline put out a statement saying, "It is only fitting that Vice President Harris — the first woman, the first Black American, and the first South Asian American elected vice president — has set a new standard and brought us into the 21st century."

As the New York Times reports, Schumer presented Harris with a golden gavel outside the chamber to commemorate the occasion.

Today's tiebreaking vote was necessary because the always stubborn Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia refused to confirm Judge AliKahn, bucking the will of his party.

It remains an open question whether Manchin may decide to become a spoiler third-party candidate in the 2024 election. Manchin announced last month that he is not seeking reelection to the Senate in 2024, which sets up a high-stakes fight and potential flipping of a seat in the very red state of West Virginia next year.

There have only been 300 tiebreaking votes cast by the vice president, under constitutional rules, since 1789, as the Times notes — which means Harris has now cast more than a tenth of them.

Under Trump's presidency, VP Mike Pence had to cast a tiebreaking vote 13 times.

Part of the reason for the high number of votes is the way judicial confirmations have worked for the last decade. As the Chronicle notes, since 2013, on two occasions the majority party has voted to drop the 60-vote threshold for judicial nominees, lowering it to a simple majority — due to slim majorities in both cases in 2013 (Democrats) and in 2017 (Republicans).

The 60-vote threshold remains in place for legislation, however simple majorities can also pass budget-reconciliation bills, and Harris also cast a tie-breaking vote on Biden's $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package.

Because of the Democrats' one-vote majority in the chamber — with Senator Kyrsten Synema often giving then an extra vote after changing her affiliation to independent — Harris has had to remain close to Washington throughout the Biden presidency to be on hand to cast tiebreaking votes on nominees whenever the Senate is in session.

And Schumer acknowledged that today saying, "Every time duty has called, Vice President Harris has answered — more than any other vice president in our nation’s long and storied history." He noted that Harris's votes on a diverse group of judiciary appointees have helped make the federal bench "look more like America."

Harris blew past the record of tiebreakers by two today, casting her 33rd vote this afternoon to assure AliKahn's confirmation, as the Associated Press reports.

Related: Kamala Harris Does Comedy Central Interview, It Does Not End Well

Rep. Adam Schiff has a slight 16%-13% lead over Rep. Katie Porter in the Senate election that’s still nearly a year away, but the bigger news may be that nearly 40% of California voters are still totally undecided on the race.

It was welcome news to the three Democratic candidates running in the Democratic Party royal rumble for the late Dianne Feinstein’s former Senate seat when Gavin Newsom appointee Laphonza Butler announced last month that she would not run for the seat permanently, and would simply be an interim senator. So we now pretty much have our field set, and a new poll shows SoCal congressional representative Adam Schiff slightly in the lead, but with other SoCal rep Katie Porter just a few points behind him, according to KRON4.

The results of this Emerson College Polling/Nexstar Media are seen above, but what really jumps out is that Undecided has a far larger share of the vote than any candidate. Schiff tops the list with 16%, Porter is at 13%, Republican candidate and former L.A. Dodger Steve Garvey is at 10%, and East Bay rep Barbara Lee is at 9%.

But 39% of voters are still undecided.

These numbers have to be a disappointment for Garvey, who surely expected to do better solely on name recognition, and for Lee, who’s had a distinguished career in the House for more than 25 years. But those four candidates are only separated by seven percentage points, and there is plenty of undecided vote still out there for anyone to add substantially to their margin.

The primary vote for the seat is on March 5, 2024, and the top two candidates will then move on to face off in the November 5, 2024 general election.

According to the latest fundraising numbers, Schiff has the largest war chest in campaign contributions, according to CalMatters. Schiff has raised $21.5 million this year, Porter has raised $11 million, and Lee $3.2 million. But Porter has also been able to transfer another $11 million from her congressional campaign, nearly bringing her even with Schiff.

Related: Now Barbara Lee Is Running For Feinstein’s Senate Seat, Setting Up a Democratic Party Royal Rumble [SFist]

Images: (Left) United States House of Representatives Office of Photography, (Right) Porter.house.gov

Image: LOS ANGELES, CA - SEPTEMBER 22: Former Los Angeles Dodgers player Steve Garvey attends the grand opening of the Los Angeles Dodgers Foundation's 50th Dreamfield at Algin Sutton Recreation Center on September 22, 2018 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Michael Tullberg/Getty Images)