SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers have sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a bill that would force major corporations to certify, under penalty of perjury, that they have combed through generations of records for any connection to the historical slave trade.
Assemblyman Isaac Bryan’s AB 2599 has passed both chambers of the Legislature. If Newsom signs it — and lawmakers appropriate the necessary funding — the mandate would apply to any business operating in California with more than $100 million in annual worldwide gross receipts, provided the company or a predecessor entity existed on or before Dec. 31, 1964.
Those companies would be required to search their own records and those of related entities for evidence of buying or selling enslaved people, using enslaved people as collateral, extending loans to finance such purchases, insuring those transactions, or providing related services that facilitated them. Affidavits would be filed under penalty of perjury, and the California Civil Rights Department would be tasked with building a public digital platform by January 2028 — within one year of an appropriation — to make the filings and disaggregated data available to the public.
The bill also requires businesses bidding on state contracts to certify they have submitted the required affidavit, again under penalty of perjury. Because the measure expands the crime of perjury, it would impose a state-mandated local program — though the bill stipulates that no reimbursement for those costs is required.
Slavery is an evil that deserves honest study and preservation of its history, supporters of the measure note. But critics argue that California has universities, archives, historians, and a massive state government that could conduct historical research — instead, the bill puts the burden squarely on private compliance departments to hunt through records stretching back more than 170 years, long before any current executives were born.
Holiday Mandate Also Advances
Separately, Assemblyman Matt Haney’s AB 2017 is headed toward another Senate vote after being amended again on Aug. 27. The bill would add Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha to California’s list of state holidays. Courts would stay open and private businesses would not be forced to close.
While that measure carries far less economic weight than the corporate slavery-records mandate, it reflects what critics describe as Sacramento’s appetite for adding designations and requirements on top of an already heavy regulatory climate.
Data on Departures and Deficits
The legislative push arrives alongside fresh evidence that businesses are reconsidering their California footprint. A corrected study from the Public Policy Institute of California found annual headquarters departures climbed from roughly 240 in 2011 to more than 400 in 2021. The state lost a net 1,250 headquarters over that period. While researchers noted relocations remained a small share of overall headquarters activity, they found departing companies tended to choose states with lower taxes and less regulation.
A 2026 analysis found California’s largest metro areas — including Los Angeles and the combined San Francisco-San Jose region — continuing to post net headquarters losses.
The state’s own Employment Development Department reported a loss of 20,500 nonfarm payroll jobs in July, even as the unemployment rate improved to 5.1%. Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office projects an $18.5 billion operating deficit for the 2026-27 budget year.
High taxes, heavy labor regulation, and the cost of living remain persistent pressures, making the timing of new compliance mandates notable.
California remains an economic powerhouse with extraordinary workers, capital, technology, agriculture, ports, and universities. The question, as one observer put it, is how many unnecessary burdens Sacramento can pile onto those advantages before companies decide they’ve had enough.
Source: pjmedia.com — https://pjmedia.com/david-manney/2026/08/29/california-lawmakers-keep-giving-businesses-reasons-to-leave-n4956700
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice. Do your own research and consult a licensed professional before making financial decisions.
So, what exactly happens to the companies that may find evidence of connections to slavery? What about companies with connections to using slave labor in other countries, such as German companies during WWII? What about people or companies with connections to modern-day slavery or human trafficking, either in the US or selling goods in the US produced by slave labor in Asia, etc.?