Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

California passes bill that forces businesses to appoint women to corporate boards

California passes bill that forces businesses to appoint women to corporate boards

California continues to suffer for a terminal case of the Bloomberg Syndrome.

California is experiencing a housing crisis, inflation, and delays have just added millions of dollars to the cost of the high speed train to nowhere, and our leading candidate for governor is proposing free healthcare for illegal immigrants.

The cherry on top of this Sacramento-created monstrosity has to be a new law dictating to businesses that women must be appointed to corporate boards.

State legislators passed a bill Wednesday that would require publicly-traded companies headquartered in California to place at least one woman on their board by the end of next year — or face a penalty.

Research shows that female representation on boards is key for women’s advancement in corporate America. Women on boards are more likely to consider female leaders for the C-suite and choose more diverse candidates for the board itself.

If the bill is signed into law by California governor Jerry Brown, it would be the first state to take such a step.

The penalty for non-compliance would be harsh, creating a #Diversity fine for non-compliance.

The bill mandates that corporate boards include at least one woman by the end of 2019 and as many as three by the end of 2021, depending on size. Companies that fail to comply could face a fine up to $300,000 from the California Secretary of State.

What is the chance of Brown not signing a piece of social justice legislation as part of his legacy development goals? Somewhere between microscopically thin and none.

Of course, representatives from the party that brought you the “wise Latina” approach to U.S. Supreme Court appointments assert that this move is going to bring nothing but sunshine and unicorns to businesses everywhere.

“It’s a world where all you see are men in the boardroom. I find it very hard to believe only men can qualify,” said state Sen. Hannah Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara).

Sen. Jackson is determined to change that. She’s pushing Senate Bill 826 which would make California the first state to require companies to hire women on their corporate boards of directors or face a fine.

“Women on boards of directors perform better for their shareholders,” she said.

Some astute citizens have already identified the problem with this ill-conceived piece of social justice legislation.

One list cites 29 genders in addition to the 2 traditionally acknowledged by those of us who believe in science and reason. Surely it is only a matter of time that a femme two-spirit demand their chance to contribute to the corporate bottom line.

Where will it end?

The line between satire and reality is becoming vanishingly small.

It’s funny how often unintended consequences are entirely predictable.

Bloomberg Syndrome occurs when a local or state government official decides to speak on global or national issues rather than issues with which his/her office is concerned and is a signal that he/she is about to perform poorly on the issues for which he/she was elected.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Friendly Grizzly | September 1, 2018 at 2:03 pm

This question is for any of you to practice business or corporate law: how difficult is it to move articles of incorporation to another state?

    more important question: how many companies are still based in California?

    If that looks like becoming a problem, they’ll take the approach that the SCOTUS just legitimized for sales taxes: If you want to open a business, or even deliver goods, to CA customers, you have to follow this law.

    It is not easy in most instances for publicly traded companies. In States that allow ‘Conversion’ you can recharter if the corporation conforms to the corporate structure of that State. For example, although the Uniform Corporations Business act is common, States have a say in how shares vote, voting rights, voting trusts, public bond issues etc. Often a large corporation will hire two law firms to ensure compliance, making sure they have regulators on board and ex-regulators as consultants.
    The other method, more common, is merger. This is the tact that the major corporations have used of late. Find a suitable partner, merge, and relocate to the home State of that corporation. Until recently this is why US corporations were moving to places such as Ireland that have more favorable tax policies. (still do, btw).
    Is it worth moving? Most assuredly yes. In fact CA has been bleeding corporations since Brown was elected. Most notably, Toyota USA (to Texas) and Nestle Foods USA (to VA).
    I will bet any number of corporate farms and such have quietly relocated to NV.

Asian Argento is out of a job. How about appointing her?

The embedded tweet by Federalist Musket pretty much sums it up. The left has done everything it can to erase all objectivity and now wants to begin redrawing the lines based on whatever whim or fancy strikes them at the moment.

They truly don’t understand human nature.

So you appoint a ditz. “Okay, I’ll take the appointment, but you have to tell me how I should vote. And I get to use the executive bathroom. Okay?”

Man oh Man. What an opportunity for Texas. Once the election is over, the Gov. of Texas should spend the next 4 years travelling California and urging businesses to relocate to a sane environment. Kind of like they already did.

    rdmdawg in reply to TimothyJ. | September 1, 2018 at 2:21 pm

    No, we should follow the Containment Strategy and prevent the moonbats from leaving California. When they leave the state, they tend to bring their batshit crazy ideas with them and infect wherever they go, leading to devastation and social collapse.

Jerry Brown is doing exactly what his constituents in SF and LA want from him. The coastals rule over the rest of us in the valley-mountains like lords over a serf fiefdom.

Bloomberg could only wish for the power Brown wields so brazenly.

Diversity… denying individual dignity, and not seeing the individual for the color, sex, gender, whatever. There is a similar phenomenon with selective-child.

OK i am no lawyer but how is this even legal, this should be shot down at the constitutional level without even thought it violates the freedom of assembly.

    Milhouse in reply to starride. | September 2, 2018 at 12:16 am

    No, it doesn’t. What does freedom of assembly have to do with it? A corporate board is not a political rally. Perhaps you meant freedom of association, but that won’t fly either. You could call it a sort of taking, since the state is dictating to the shareholders, who own the company, who must manage it. But then you could say the same thing about any rules for corporations, and that’s absurd. Corporations only exist in the first place by the grace of state law, and the state is entitled to put conditions on their governance. If you don’t like it don’t incorporate in California. Go find somewhere saner, that wants your business. You’ll be happier, that state will be happier, and the nutcases in Sacramento will be happier.

Feminine females (a.k.a. “cis-females”), lesbian females, bisexual females, or neo-females? Or just males in hats?

I forget the name of the last female California governor. Can anyone help me out.

This should be named the Chelsea Clinton Employment Act. Although, come to think of it, the Obama girls are about old enough to be looking for “meaningful” work, aren’t they?

Next comes a requirement to have left handed transgender albinos on every board. Because it’s the right thing to do…

If this passes then every women that is now appointed to a board will be assumed to be a token appointment and not taken seriously and to be ignored. She will be assumed not to be qualified for the job. This is a step back for women.

    DDsModernLife in reply to Kevin Smith. | September 1, 2018 at 5:18 pm

    I logged in just so I up “up-ding” your comment. You said exactly what I was planning to say. It’s a step back. This law effectively converts women from “qualified/competent” to “required by law.”

      And it has to beg the question of just how committed to women Democrats are. After 50+ years using similar laws to guarantee that their minority (including women) demographics are baked in the public’s socio-cultural consciousness as “less than” because they can’t compete in any real sense and therefore must be forced upon employers/boards, Dems have to know the actual impact of such ridiculous and demeaning legislation. Nothing says “women need to be protected and provided an unfair advantage to compensate for their obvious failings” quite like singling us out for special treatment.

        Tom Servo in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | September 1, 2018 at 6:00 pm

        The way out for any corporate board is so easy, and so obvious – they just need one of their current members to publicly self-identify as a woman, maybe wear a dress and lipstick a couple times. What will the State do after that?

          Bwahaha, Tom! As I understand the rules of gender designation handed down by our SJW overlords, all they have to do is report that they woke up that morning thinking they were a woman. Or feeling it. Either way, the simple act of stating one thinks one another gender is sufficient. No need for lipstick or dresses.

          Who could have made this up even ten years ago?

          Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | September 2, 2018 at 12:17 am

          Since when do women have to wear lipstick or dresses? Just say “I’m a woman, but only during board meetings”.

          Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | September 2, 2018 at 12:18 am

          They could even rotate the job of “designated woman”.

Is it even a problem? I bet there are already women on every single such Board.
Nevertheless, the law is an insult.

The Federal Government ought to post ads in the LEGAL section of newspapers all over the country that they are NOT responsible for the debts incurred by California, since clearly, California and the US are headed for a nasty divorce.

You folks are getting it all Wrong!

This law is just fine, appoint whoever you want and then assign them one of the 17 different genders. Women–no problem, Its–no problem, Males–we don’t need no effing males, Mixed–no problem, etc.

Remember this California, where there is a Leftist Cause to exploit, there is a Way!

OK… on the annual report, I want to see a picture of the vagina. in California you can’t be too careful about who claims to be what.

More insanity from the Cereal State.

I think Zimbabwe now requires one of the owners (majority?) of a business to be a Black resident. Obviously, Zimbabwe is more progressive than California… for now.

So who is the designated board member who will identify as a woman?

I am available for board membership, at the usual rate of compensation for the rest of the members. I will do my homework, attend the minimum number of sessions, and promise not to talk to the press, or of called upon to do so, will not embarrass the company.

Apparently, there was a law like this in Norway some years ago mandating 40% women on corporate boards. A lot of unqualified women got appointed and Norwegian corporations took a significant performance hit because they didn’t know what they were doing.

Kommiefornia reckons to be the 5th largest economy IN THE WORLD.

How you gonna feel, when you CHASE EVEN MORE BUSINESS out of the state.


I am still trying to figure out, why “supposedly brilliant people”, actually PUT UP WITH THIS CRAP?

If Florida elects Gillum – give me 2 years to wrap up my business and my homestead, and I’M GONE.

Might even just have to forgo my gun collection and MOVE TO ISRAEL.


I was always told that, in a nutshell, fascism is where business is owned by private individuals and the government runs those businesses. With the State of California making demands like the one described here along with many others that increasingly give the state more and more control over how private businesses are run, increasingly it it appears that California is becoming more and more of a fascist state. It makes me wonder where Antifa is and why they are not doing their job of stomping out fascism in America.

    ConradCA in reply to Cleetus. | September 2, 2018 at 1:43 pm

    Fascism is where someone use government to destroy liberty. Other differences between fascist organizations are irrelevant because it is largely lies that fascists hide behind in order to gull feeble minds.

As an investor, I want corporate Boardmembers to be appointed on the basis of their professional competence, their business experience and their intellectual abilities — not on the superficial basis of their genitalia, or, their skin pigmentation.

Such a rule, if implemented, is also patronizingly insulting to a woman who is appointed to a Board, inasmuch as it supports the presumption — accurately, or not — that said woman was merely appointed to ensure compliance with the rule, and, not on the basis of her experience and her abilities.

It’s amazing that, even though 99.9% of Dumb-o-crat politicians lack substantive private sector work experience — much less any experience founding or managing a business — they all profess to possess the alleged sagacity to dictate to businesses how they should manage their internal affairs.

1) California intends this to apply to companies incorporated in other states but with corp headquarters in Cali–this is unconstitutional.
2) Corp boards are not appointed–they are elected by shareholders. Mandating a quota is contrary to the legal status of a corp.

    Milhouse in reply to ccscientist. | September 3, 2018 at 3:31 am

    1. How is it unconstitutional for a state to regulate corporations that set up their HQs there?

    2. How is it “contrary to the legal status of a corp” for the state to tell the shareholders whom they may choose as directors?

Just have a board member declare he “identifies as a woman” and let the effing Fascists in Sacramento grapple with that.

thalesofmiletus | September 3, 2018 at 3:33 pm

(f) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.

Clown-state law has its own loophole. Hilarious.