Business
California billionaire tax proposal attracts 1.5 million signatures. Here’s what happens next
California, home to the ultra-rich in Silicon Valley and Hollywood, is embroiled in a heated fight over whether to tax billionaires to fund healthcare.
This week, supporters of the proposed billionaire tax began submitting nearly 1.6 million signatures, nearly twice the number needed to qualify for the November ballot.
Election officials now need to verify that the signatures are valid for the initiative to land on the ballot.
The proposal would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued at more than $1 billion, with some exclusions, such as property.
Supporters of the tax, including the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, say it would raise $100 billion, offsetting federal funding cuts to healthcare. A small portion of the funds would also go toward education and state food assistance.
If the proposal makes it to the ballot, it sets the stage for an intense, costly battle over whether the state’s billionaires should pay for services that lower-income residents depend on. Some tech moguls have pushed back against the idea and threatened to move. Some have already moved.
Voters will probably be bombarded with political ads and arguments from opposing sides as the battle intensifies.
Here’s what could happen next:
What are supporters arguing?
Supporters of the billionaire tax are tapping into people’s frustrations about healthcare and wealth inequality. They’ve pushed back against the idea that billionaires can avoid the tax by moving, noting that it applies to billionaires residing in California as of Jan. 1, 2026.
“When funding is cut, it brings a world of pain,” said Mayra Castañeda, an ultrasound technologist and a member of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, in a statement. “It means longer ER waits, fewer healthcare workers, rural hospitals shutting down, delayed care and lives lost that could have been saved.”
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has backed the idea.
“At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the richest people in our country must start paying their fair share of taxes,” he posted on social media site X on Monday.
What are opponents arguing?
Opponents say the tax could harm California’s economy and leadership in innovation without addressing the state’s financial woes.
“Because the state relies so heavily on high-income-earner tax revenue, this measure could lead to reduced budget revenue in the long term as highly mobile wealthy individuals leave the state to avoid this new tax,” said Rob Lapsley, president of the bipartisan California Business Roundtable.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office said last year that it is hard to predict the exact amount the state will collect because of factors such as fluctuating stock prices, which affect wealth. In a December letter, the office said the state would probably collect tens of billions of dollars from the wealth tax, but it could also lose other tax revenue.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes the wealth tax proposal. Earlier this year, he told Bloomberg he had concerns about how the proposal had been drafted. He also expressed fears that wealthy taxpayers will move out of the state.
“The impact of a one-time tax does not solve an ongoing structural challenge,” he told the news outlet.
How much are opponents spending to fight the billionaire tax proposal?
Billionaires are spending millions of dollars to fund groups that are fighting the proposal or promoting other solutions they say would address wealth inequality.
In late December, PayPal and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel contributed $3 million to the California Business Roundtable, which is opposing the billionaire tax, according to spending data filed with the secretary of state.
In March, former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt donated $1 million to that group. Other tech executives have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars this year. It’s unclear how much of that money goes toward opposing the tax since the donation was made to the entire group.
Since January, tech executives, venture capitalists and business leaders have donated roughly $93 million to a nonprofit called Building a Better California, according to data on the secretary of state’s website. A large chunk of that funding came from Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who donated $57 million to the nonprofit. Executives from DoorDash, Ripple, Stripe and other companies have also contributed to the group.
Building a Better California’s website outlines policies it supports, such as expanding affordable housing and more transparency in state government. The group has told donors that it offers “near-term and longer-term protection against wasteful government spending and any and all new taxes on personal property and personal assets.”
Brin, who relocated to Nevada last year, told the New York Times that he fled “socialism” when his family left the Soviet Union in 1979, and he doesn’t “want California to end up in the same place.”
Are there other proposals that could kill the billionaire tax?
Yes. Another initiative, known as the “Improving Transparency, Effectiveness & Efficiency in California Government Act,” could nullify the billionaire tax act.
It would prevent new taxes from being exempt from a voter-approved state spending limit, in contrast to the billionaire tax measure.
Supporters of the transparency act, including Building a Better California and Inland Empire Economic Partnership, plan to submit about 1.5 million signatures to county election officials this week.
If voters approve conflicting ballot measures, the one with more yes votes would take effect.
How much have groups spent on a ballot measure in the past?
Hundreds of millions of dollars has been spent on ballot measures in the past. In 2020, a record $200 million was spent on Proposition 22.
The initiative, funded by Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and other businesses, allowed gig companies to classify their workers as contractors rather than employees.
With the battle over the billionaire tax expected to heat up, spending on both sides is likely to climb.
Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.
Business
Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley
Dear Mr. Pelley:
I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.
Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.
Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.
Sincerely,
Nick Bilton
Executive Producer, 60 Minutes
Business
Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud
The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.
The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.
Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.
Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.
Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.
In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.
The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.
Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.
The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.
The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.
Business
Monterey Park takes landmark vote on banning data centers
Residents in the city of Monterey Park will be the first in the nation to vote on a permanent ban on data centers Tuesday.
If approved, Measure NDC would prohibit data centers within the city limits and could only be overturned by another vote.
Yard signs saying “No Data Center” in English and Chinese with images of dragons line sidewalks in the San Gabriel Valley city.
As a wave of data center opposition sweeps the country, numerous towns and counties across the U.S. have instituted temporary moratoria and other restrictions on the facilities. But only a handful have instituted indefinite bans, and just four other towns have sent related matters to the ballot.
Supporters are hoping the vote will set a precedent for the rest of the region, where residents are fighting proposals in Vernon and City of Industry.
“This is about as permanent a ban as we can get,” said Steven Kung, co-founder of the group No Data Center Monterey Park. “Winning Measure NDC would send a huge message to the rest of the San Gabriel Valley about how residents don’t want data centers.”
The ballot measure emerged from the fight against a 247,000-square-foot center proposed in 2024 by the Australian-owned investment firm HMC StratCap for a residential area in Monterey Park.
The facility would have sat less than 500 feet away from the nearest home and used three times the electricity of the 60,000-person, predominantly Asian American city.
While the developer touted the potential for jobs and tax revenue, residents expressed concerns about noise and air pollution, rising electricity rates and a potential to lower property values.
The company pulled its plans in late March following public outcry and a March 4 city council vote to extend a temporary data center moratorium and place a ban on Tuesday’s ballot.
In a letter to the city council, HMC StratCap said it would pursue a different use for the land and would not engage in a ballot measure fight.
The city council later banned data centers indefinitely, the first in California to do so, said Mayor Elizabeth Yang. But she’s still been out campaigning for the measure with all four other council members.
“If a council puts in an ordinance, a future council can reverse it too,” said Yang. “With the ballot measure, unbanning it is a lot harder because you need the entire city to vote on it.”
The measure proposes the ban “to protect air quality, drinking water resources, and public health” and “prevent impacts to electricity and water rates.”
While California places third in the country for existing data centers with about 300 facilities, it hasn’t been a hot spot in the recent AI-driven data center boom. High electricity rates, expensive land and regulatory hurdles mean that fewer, and smaller, facilities are currently planned than in Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois or Arizona.
“Most of California’s data centers are small by today’s standards,” said Shaolei Ren, an engineering professor at UC Riverside who studies how to reduce the environmental impacts of data centers. “Ten years ago, they would be medium-sized, but the power demand for new AI data centers has increased a lot.”
The average operating data center demands 45 megawatts, according to the Washington Post, while the average planned one would draw 430 MW. The one proposed for Monterey Park would have required about 50 MW at peak demand.
As proposals crop up in SoCal, they’re met with fierce opposition. Montebello, El Monte and Baldwin Park have all enacted temporary moratoria, and Alhambra recently banned data centers as part of a zoning code update. City of Industry, Vernon, City of Commerce and Santa Fe Springs are moving in the other direction, trying to court developers and streamline data center approvals. Community groups are fighting that.
Outside the San Gabriel Valley, residents of Coachella and Imperial County are showing up in droves to protest local proposals.
Matthew Shaw, a volunteer with the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development, who recently published a report on opposition to AI data centers, said a vote to ban them in Monterey Park “would lead to copycats, partially because so many groups are just opposed to any data center development at all.”
While there is no formal opposition to Measure NDC, some building trades like Ironworker Local 433 supported the Monterey Park data center when it was still live before city council. Those in the data center industry are lamenting the state of public opinion.
“These are multi-billion-dollar assets that are built by multi-trillion-dollar companies. These things will get done,” said Mehdi Paryavi, chairman of the International Data Center Authority. “My biggest problem is that our industry does not invest enough in community engagement.”
Paryavi said towns that seek to limit data centers are missing out on thousands of jobs generated by data center construction, operations and customers, as well as faster artificial intelligence speeds and better performance.
Kung said local community organizers are “looking at the empirical evidence” and seeing a ban as a win.
“We’ve never seen a city that embraces a data center and is like, ‘Look how our quality of life has increased, look how all the revenue has gone into citywide improvements,’” he said. “That just doesn’t exist.”
-
New Mexico3 minutes agoDeb Haaland Wins New Mexico Democratic Primary For Governor
-
North Carolina10 minutes agoGreenville Police Department Join Effort Promoting Safe Firearm Storage
-
North Dakota13 minutes agoToday in History, 1971: Rugby repeats as North Dakota sand greens golf champion
-
Ohio18 minutes agoU20 World Team decided at U20 World Team Trials in Geneva, Ohio – WIN Magazine
-
Oklahoma25 minutes agoOklahoma data center boom sparks backlash as Yukon leaders, residents raise concerns
-
Oregon28 minutes agoTimeline video traces SB 1008’s impact on Oregon juvenile justice, viewers can watch now
-
Pennsylvania33 minutes ago1 dead, 2 hospitalized after crash in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, police say
-
Rhode Island40 minutes ago
RIIL title-game spots were on the line Tuesday. Here’s who earned them.