California Gov. Gavin Newsom may soon receive a bill requiring major companies to swear, under penalty of perjury, that they searched generations of corporate records for ties to slavery.
This bill bill, upon appropriation by the Legislature, would require any business or enterprise that is doing business in the state that was in existence or whose predecessor company was in existence on or before December 31, 1964 and has annual worldwide gross receipts that exceed $100,000,000 to complete an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, verifying that it has searched through any and all records in its and its related entities, as defined, possession, control, and knowledge for records that the in-state covered entity or its related entities bought or sold persons subjected to slavery, used persons subjected to slavery as collateral, provided loans to purchase persons subjected to slavery, insured such transactions or the persons subjected to slavery, or provided related or other services to aid or otherwise facilitate those transactions. The bill would set forth the contents of the affidavit, the timeline and manner of submission, and reporting requirements. The
This bill would require the Civil Rights Department to create a public, digital platform by January 3, 2028, within one year after an appropriation is made, that would make available affidavits and reports records made pursuant to the bill and disaggregated data, as described. The bill would additionally require the above-described business or entity, that submits a bid or proposal to, or otherwise proposes to enter into or renew a contract with, a state agency, as described above, to additionally certify, under penalty of perjury, that they have submitted the affidavit in compliance with the above-described provisions. By requiring an affidavit and to certify under penalty of perjury regarding compliance with the above-described affidavit requirements, and thus expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Welcome to doing business in California in 2026.
Assemblyman Isaac Bryan's AB 2599 has cleared both chambers of the California Legislature. If Newsom signs it and lawmakers provide funding, businesses operating in California with more than $100 million in worldwide annual revenue would fall under the mandate if they, or a predecessor company, existed on or before December 31, 1964.
Those companies would have to search their records and those of related entities for evidence involving the purchase or sale of enslaved people, use of slaves as collateral, loans financing their purchase, insurance transactions, or other business connected to slavery.
The affidavit would be submitted under penalty of perjury, and California's Civil Rights Department would eventually make the records publicly available.
Of course, slavery is evil; its history deserves to be preserved, studied, and truthfully taught. But California lawmakers have decided corporate compliance departments in 2026 should search records reaching back to 1849 for actions taken generations before anyone now running those companies was born.
If Sacramento wants more historical research, California has universities, archives, historians, and an enormous state government. Lawmakers chose to put the burden on private businesses.
Meanwhile, Assemblyman Matt Haney's AB 2017 is headed toward another Senate vote after being amended again on Aug. 27. It would add Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha to California's list of state holidays. Courts would remain open, and private businesses wouldn't be required to close.
Muslim Californians should be free to celebrate their holy days, just as every American should be free to practice their faith. AB 2017 carries far less economic weight than Bryan's corporate mandate. Its relevance is Sacramento's endless appetite for another designation, requirement, program, or government instruction.
Employers already have reasons to question whether California is worth the trouble.
A corrected Public Policy Institute of California study found annual headquarters departures climbed from about 240 in 2011 to more than 400 in 2021.
California lost 1,250 headquarters on net during the period studied. The researchers properly noted that relocations remained a small share of overall headquarters activity, but they also found departing companies tended to choose states with lower taxes and less regulation.
More recent data aren't comforting. A 2026 analysis found California's largest metro areas, including Los Angeles and the San Francisco-San Jose region, continuing to suffer net headquarters losses.
High taxes, labor regulation, and the cost of living remain major pressures.
California's own Employment Development Department reported the state lost 20,500 nonfarm payroll jobs in July, even as unemployment improved to 5.1%. Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office calculates an $18.5 billion operating deficit for the 2026-27 budget year.
California remains an economic giant with extraordinary workers, capital, technology, agriculture, ports, and universities. Sacramento seems determined to discover how many unnecessary burdens those advantages can carry.
Companies don't need another reason to leave.
California lawmakers keep volunteering them.
Sacramento may never run out of bad ideas, but we don't have to run out of ways to expose them. Join PJ Media VIP today and get 60% off with promo code FIGHT. Your support keeps independent conservative journalism fighting when the political class would much rather nobody ask uncomfortable questions.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member