'Wonderful repudiation of totalitarians': Judge rules Newsom's censorious meme ban unconstitutional



A federal judge ruled Wednesday that California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) meme ban is unconstitutional.

Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California noted that Newsom's AB 2839 "acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas which is so vital to American debate."

Christopher Kohls, the satirist who sued in hopes of killing the ban, took to X, writing, "VICTORY! Lawsuit against Newsom has been won."

Elon Musk, whose re-sharing of one of Kohls' memes appears to have prompted Democrats to push the ban, wrote, "California's unconstitutional law infringing on your freedom of speech has been blocked by the court. Yay!"

Background

Kohls, who goes by Mr Reagan online, shared a Kamala Harris campaign ad parody on July 26. The video used many visuals present in real Harris ads in circulation at the time but had a new script read by a convincing AI-generated Harris soundalike.

"I, Kamala Harris, am your Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility at the debate," says the AI voice in the nearly two-minute video. "I was selected because I am the ultimate diversity hire. I am both a woman and a person of color. So if you criticize anything I say, you're both sexist and racist."

'Parody is legal in America.'

The video enjoyed significantly more traction after Elon Musk retweeted it, netting hundreds of millions of views. Of course, Democrats in and outside the Harris campaign were apoplectic.

Mia Ehrenberg, a spokeswoman for the Harris campaign, told the Associated Press, "We believe the American people want the real freedom, opportunity and security Vice President Harris is offering; not the fake, manipulated lies of Elon Musk and Donald Trump."

Newsom also appeared prickled by the success of the parody video, writing, "Manipulating a voice in an 'ad' like this one should be illegal. I'll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is."

Musk once again retweeted the offending video and wrote to Newsom, "I checked with renowned world authority, Professor Suggon Deeznutz, and he said parody is legal in America."

It is worth noting, no such professor exists.

Humorless Democrats

As promised, Newsom ratified two pieces of censorious legislation on Sept. 17.

The first, AB 2839, banned the distribution of advertisements or other election-related communications containing "materially deceptive content" within 120 days of an election, and in some cases, 60 days after an election.

The term "materially deceptive" was defined thusly: "audio or visual media that is digitally created or modified, and that includes, but is not limited to, deepfakes and the output of chatbots, such that it would falsely appear to a reasonable person to be an authentic record of the content depicted in the media."

Assembly member Gail Pellerin, the Democrat responsible for AB 2839, said in a statement, "With fewer than 50 days until the general election, there is an urgent need to protect against misleading, digitally-altered content that can interfere with the election. With the enactment of AB 2839, California is taking a stand against the manipulative use of deepfake technology to deceive voters."

The second piece of legislation, AB 2655, the so-called "Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024," would force social media companies to censor users' politically protected speech deemed "materially deceptive."

Like Pellerin, Newsom — who just passed a law barring all local governments from requiring voters to provide proof of identification — characterized this legislative push as a way to shore up election integrity.

In response to the bill-signing, Musk doubled down, reposting the video with the caption, "The governor of California just made this parody video illegal in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Would be a shame if it went viral."

Kohl sues — and wins

Kohl, represented by the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, filed a lawsuit within hours of Newsom's ratification of the censorial legislation, claiming AB 2839 violates the First and 14th Amendments.

The complaint noted AB 2839:

  • "constitutes an impermissible and unreasonable restriction of protected speech because it burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests in ensuring fair and free elections";
  • "bars and chills speech based on content, viewpoint, and speaker";
  • "is not content-neutral because it targets only AI-generated election-related speech";
  • "is not speaker-neutral because it exempts actual candidates from using AI in their own favor if they include a disclaimer in their content"; and
  • "contains no exemption for parody or satire."

Judge Mendez granted Kohl a preliminary injunction against the ban Wednesday: "AB 2839 does not pass constitutional scrutiny because the law does not use the least restrictive means available for advancing the State's interest here."

A 'powerful reaffirmation of free speech values in a world of new technology.'

The judge agreed that counter speech is less restrictive than outright censorship and emphasized that lawmakers' fears of a digitally manipulated media landscape does not give them "unbridled license to bulldoze over the longstanding tradition of critique, parody and satire protected by the First Amendment."

Mendez, who expressed sensitivity to the risks posed by AI and deepfakes, further noted that AB 2839 is unconstitutional "because it lacks the narrow tailoring and least restrictive alternative that a content based law requires under strict scrutiny."

Adam Schulman, senior attorney with the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, called the ruling a "powerful reaffirmation of free speech values in a world of new technology."

Michael Shellenberger, the CBR chair of politics, censorship, and free speech at the University of Austin, said of the ruling, "Free speech, not censorship, is the solution to bad info. Wonderful repudiation of totalitarians @GavinNewsom @KamalaHarris & @Tim_Walz."

Musk congratulated Kohl, writing, "Score one for the people's right to free speech."

Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon said in a statement to Politico that the governor's office was "confident" the courts would ultimately uphold the state's ability to regulate deepfakes.

"Deepfakes threaten the integrity of our elections, and these new laws protect our democracy while preserving free speech," said Gardon. "Satire remains alive and well in California — even for those who miss the punchline."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Newsom threatens to pull funding from cities, counties that don’t solve homeless crisis: ‘I want to see results’



California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) plans to pull funding for cities and counties that fail to address the homeless crisis, warning Thursday he will redirect the money to those cities working on the problem.

The threat follows his executive order last month that requires local jurisdictions to “urgently address homeless encampments." He demanded that cities and counties “do their job.”

'We’ll send that money to counties that are producing results.'

Newsom claimed the decision to implement the action was due to a June Supreme Court ruling that found laws restricting people from sleeping in public areas are not unconstitutional.

At the time that he issued the executive order, Newsom stated that solving California’s homelessness problem is one of his primary concerns; however, the problem has only escalated under his leadership.

According to Cal Matters, the state has roughly 181,000 homeless individuals and only 71,000 emergency shelter beds.

On Thursday, Newsom stated that local governments that fail to comply with his recent executive order will have their state funding pulled, CNN reported. He noted that he expects cities and counties “to adopt humane and dignified policies to urgently address encampments on state property” that deliver “demonstrable results.”

Newsom claimed that local jurisdictions have received “unprecedented resources” from the state.

“No more excuses. You’ve got the money, you got the flexibility, you got the green light, you got support from the state, and the public is demanding it of you,” he stated. “I’m here on behalf of 40 million Californians that are fed up. I’m here because I’m one of them. I want to see results.”

Newsom claimed that the executive action was “not about criminalization.”

“What’s criminal, is neglecting people who are struggling and suffering and dying on our watch,” he continued. “This is a sincerely held belief that we need local government to step up. This is a crisis, act like it.”

According to the governor, the state could start “redirect[ing] money” in January when it begins working on budget proposals.

“I’m a taxpayer, not just a governor. It’s not complicated,” Newsom said. “We’ll send that money to counties that are producing results.”

Last month, Newsom vetoed an assembly bill that would have required him to provide annual evaluations of funds the state provides to its Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program.

Republican Assembly Leader James Gallagher slammed Newsom for shooting down the legislation, stating, “Gavin likes to spend. Oversight? Not so much.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Newsom's move to clear out homeless encampments is another 'PR stunt': California Senate Republicans



California Governor Gavin Newsom recently issued an executive order demanding local governments "urgently address homeless encampments," according to a Thursday press release.

Newsom has claimed for decades that solving California's homelessness crisis is one of his top concerns; however, under the politician's leadership, the problem has continued to escalate. The state currently has roughly 181,000 homeless individuals and only 71,000 emergency shelter beds, according to Cal Matters.

It is unclear where Newsom would like local municipalities to relocate the homeless population, but he is pushing leaders to do so swiftly.

Newsom claimed that his abrupt announcement to clean up the encampments was sparked by a United States Supreme Court decision handed down a month ago.

In a Thursday press release, the governor's office wrote, "With the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v Johnson, local governments now have the tools and authority to address dangerous encampments and help provide those residing in encampments with the resources they need."

The high court's ruling found that laws restricting homeless individuals from sleeping in public areas do not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" and, therefore, such restrictions are not unconstitutional.

"I don't think there's anything more urgent and more frustrating than addressing the issue of encampments in the state of California," Newsom said in a video posted to social media. "We've invested now over $1 billion in encampment resolution grants."

"In the past, the courts have denied the ability of the local government — including the state — to clean up many of these encampments," Newsom claimed.

"We're done," he continued. "It's time to move with urgency at the local level to clean up these sites."

Newsom called on local governments to "do their job."

In a post on X, he declared, "No more excuses. We've provided the time. We've provided the funds."

Republicans speculated that Newsom's sense of urgency may have more to do with the recent announcement that Vice President Kamala Harris plans to run as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee in the upcoming 2024 election. Harris has been viewed as largely responsible for California's prison-to-homelessness pipeline for supporting soft-on-crime policies. GOP lawmakers called the move to clean up the state's streets a "PR stunt" by Newsom, who is being floated as a potential pick for running mate.

The governor previously cleaned up San Francisco's streets ahead of the U.S.-China summit in late 2023. Newsom admitted that the decision was motivated by the event.

"I know folks are saying, 'Oh they're just cleaning up this place because all those fancy leaders are coming to town.' That's true, because it's true — but it's also true for months and months and months before APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit], we've been having conversations," he said.

In response to Newsom's new executive order to clear encampments, state Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones (R-San Diego) remarked, "It's about damn time!"

"Letting people live and die on the streets or in our parks is unsafe and unsanitary," Jones stated, according to Fox News Digital. "I introduced a proposal earlier this year that would have provided even greater and more immediate solutions. While I am cautiously optimistic that the governor has finally taken note of the urgency of this problem, albeit many years later than needed, Californians deserve government for the people, not the PR hits."

Earlier this year, all state Senate Republicans, including Jones, introduced Senate Bill 1011, a bipartisan effort to prohibit people from sleeping in public areas when shelter space is available. Some Senate Democrats rejected the measure.

Senator Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) called Newsom's order "a good step" but noted that it would "require significant follow-through to ensure its effectiveness."

"Homelessness is one of the biggest challenges we face today, and it is imperative we take swift, decisive and effective action to address it," Niello stated.

Republican Assembly Leader James Gallagher wrote on X in response to the executive action, "Big promises. No action. [B]lame locals. No press. Rinse and repeat."

Just last week, Newsom vetoed an assembly bill that, if enacted, would have required his administration to submit to annual evaluations of funds provided to its Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program.

"Gavin likes to spend. Oversight? Not so much.," Gallagher said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Joe Biden is out, and THESE questions need answering



Last Friday, an unknown entity announced that Joe Biden would drop out of the race the following Sunday. This information was denied by both Joe Biden and the White House, however.

Then come Sunday, Joe Biden did indeed announce that he would decline the Democratic nomination and drop out of the 2024 presidential election. Interestingly, this bombshell of an announcement came via social media.

Apparently, Biden’s decision to drop out was a result of “money, polling,” the fear that his continued campaign would “wipe out the Democratic party,” and because “staff, friends, [and] donors all abandoned Joe Biden.”

“Something doesn’t smell right,” says Glenn Beck, who has some questions.

5 DISTURBING Questions After Biden Dropped Out & Endorsed Kamala Harriswww.youtube.com

1. “Why didn't he address it from the Oval [Office] like all other presidents?”

Glenn suspects that the answer to that is because there was “a gun waiting to go off.”

“You have until 2:00pm on Sunday to resign or ... what?” he speculates.

2. “What did Joe Biden get in return for resigning? Were there promises made by anyone that ‘we will make sure that you're not held responsible for any of those crimes that you might have committed?’”

“They can pardon him if he's not the president, [and] they can pardon his family,” says Glenn.

Plus, they can point to Trump and say “if Trump gets in, it's going to be just revenge,” so “ we had to” remove Biden in order to pardon him before the administration shifts.

3. “Why [do] you jettison [Biden] and say it’s because he’s not capable” but you allow him “to run the country for the next six months?”

“That bothers me,” says Glenn, adding that the decision is a clear "inconsistency."

That’s just the beginning of his questions though. To hear Glenn’s inquiries and speculations in regard to Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ fearmongering about losing democracy, and the Democratic open primary that will select a new presidential nominee, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'There can be ZERO dissent': Parental rights advocate blasts Newsom's law forcing schools to keep kids' transitions secret



California Democrats and the LGBT activists among them have ramped up their years-long campaign to drive a wedge between parents and their children.

Alvin Lui, president of the parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit, told Blaze News that the state has long sought to keep parents in the dark about their kids' manifestations of gender dysphoria and efforts to transition at school. However, some school districts have in recent months bucked the trend of secrecy and grooming at school and have instead clued in parents.

The Chino Valley Unified School District under the leadership of Sonja Shaw, for instance, became the first district in the state to embrace a policy last year whereby school officials must inform parents if their kids request to use the bathroom intended for members of the opposite sex as well as if their confused children ask to use names and pronouns that don't correspond with reality or their official documents.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta took legal action against Shaw's district on Aug. 28, 2023, claiming it violated privacy laws regarding transvestite students. In October, a San Bernardino County Superior Court judge blocked the district from enforcing some of the related policies until the case was resolved.

On Monday, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) went a step further, ratifying Assembly Bill 1955, which forbids districts like the CVUSD from engaging in such transparency.

Lui, who moved his family out of California upon observing how similarly radical policies were transforming the state, indicated, "AB 1955 was passed solely in response to several school boards being flipped because parents were waking up and in order to discourage good teachers and counselors who still respect parental rights."

The law, first introduced by gay Assemblyman Christopher Ward (D) and championed by the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, prohibits school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and state special schools from introducing or enforcing rules, regulations, or policies that require employees to disclose to parents "any information related to a pupil's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression."

'The children must be the state's at all costs.'

Contrary to the spin from Newsom's office, educators in all districts must now effectively keep parents in California in the dark about their child's sexual confusion and gender dysphoria unless the mentally compromised minor in question consents to looping them in. School employees in the meantime can hook the child up with possibly pro-transitioning counselors and activist resources.

AB 1955 — which Elon Musk has cited as cause to move two of his major companies out of the state — also shields employees from consequence if they have worked to conceal a child's confusion from their parents.

Courtesy of Courage is a Habit

Assemblyman Ward affirmed Lui's characterization of the law this week, indicating that it will force compliance from those school districts that have tried to keep parents clued in to what's happening with their children at school.

"Politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety, and dignity of transgender, nonbinary, and other LGBTQ+ youth are on the rise nationwide, including in California," Ward said in a statement. "While some school districts have adopted policies to forcibly out students, the SAFETY Act ensures that discussions about gender identity remain a private matter within the family."

"This is what communism is," said Lui. "There can be ZERO dissent. The children must be the state's at all costs."

Lui is not alone in his understanding of the threats AB 1955 poses.

Journalist Michael Shellenberger, whose think tank Environmental Progress published the damning WPATH Files, noted Tuesday that the new Democratic law "makes children vulnerable to irreversible and lifelong medical abuse and mistreatment. And it is all based on the pseudoscientific idea that some children are born into the wrong bodies and that we can change a person's sex through drugs and surgery."

In pushing through AB 1955, it is clear that Democrats chose to ignore the ever-growing mountain of evidence indicating so-called "gender-affirming care" is not as advertised.

England's National Health Service appointed Dr. Hilary Cass in 2020 to lead an independent investigation into the U.K.'s sex-change regime and its youth-facing services. Following a penetrating, multi-year investigation, Cass — an esteemed British medical doctor who previously served as president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health — revealed that so-called gender science was effectively rooted in pseudoscience.

Blaze News previously reported that among the many damning revelations about the sex-change regime in the Cass review was its finding that there was "no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence."

While "social transition" of the kind Newsom and California Democrats want to hide from parents apparently had no discernible impact on mental health, the Cass review further revealed that those children so groomed were much more likely to undergo sex-change medical interventions at a later stage.

Contrary to the core claim of sex-change activists, such medical interventions do not lessen the risk of suicide. A peer-reviewed study in BMJ Mental Health revealed in February that "medical gender reassignment does not have an impact on suicide risk."

Besides underscoring the "weak" and unreliable nature of the evidence in support of "gender-affirming care," the Cass review also indicated that clinicians "are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity."

California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus Chair Susan Eggman, evidently immune to the scientific insights raised in the Cass review, BMJ Mental Health, and elsewhere, said AB 1955 was "life-saving legislation."

"Safe and supportive schools for all our children should be our top priority. And at the end of the day that's what this bill does, ensures our K-12 campuses remain safe and affirming places for our youth no matter how they identify," stated Eggman.

Those cognizant of the fallout of so-called "gender-affirming care" and supportive of parental rights aren't buying what Eggman and other California Democrats are selling.

'Moms and dads have both a constitutional and divine mandate to guide and protect their kids.'

Shellenberger stressed on X, "What Gavin Newsom has done is actively prevented schools from informing parents that their children have been put on a medical pathway."

"This is an outrageous attack on the rights of children and parents. Children have a right to go through puberty. No adult should be able to block their puberty. And parents have a right to know if their child thinks that they are the opposite sex or were born into the wrong body," continued Shellenberger. "The new law creates the grave risk that activist teachers, students, and outside groups will convince their children that they were born into the wrong body, and hide their 'social transition' from parents, which will lead to harmful medical mistreatment."

Jonathan Keller, president of the California Family Council, denounced AB 1955, noting, "Moms and dads have both a constitutional and divine mandate to guide and protect their kids, and AB 1955 egregiously violates this sacred trust."

California Assemblyman Bill Essayli (R), who unsuccessfully attempted to advance legislation requiring parental notification in schools, said in a statement, "Today, Governor Gavin Newsom defied parents' constitutional and God-given right to raise their children by signing AB 1955, which codifies the government's authority to keep secrets from parents."

Essayli noted that the bill's ratification is "immoral and unconstitutional" and promised to challenge it in court.

Already, the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit challenging AB 1955 on behalf of the Chino Valley Unified School District and several Californian parents with children in the system.

Blaze News previously reported that Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares (R) and 15 other attorneys general recently filed an amicus brief on behalf of their respective states asking that the U.S. Supreme Court take up a case regarding schools' covert efforts to transition children into sexually confused transvestites behind their parents' backs.

If the Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School District is taken up by the high court and the plaintiffs succeed, then there is a strong likelihood that AB 1955 and comparable laws across the nation will fall.

Human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali also condemned AB 1955, writing, "It is truly terrible news for children and for many Americans a key reason not only to flee California but also the Democratic Party. The madness and mass child abuse really has to stop."

Lui emphasized that while children are now at greater risk in California, particularly in those districts that once resisted the preferred policies of the sex-change regime, the problem is not limited to the Golden State.

"Parents must understand that public K-12 have already been keeping transgender secrets from parents in ALL 50 states through school counselors and 'mental health' Trojan horses," said Lui. "This isn't just a California or New York thing. Moving to another state doesn't get you away from it any longer. That is the fallacy that gives parents a false sense of security."

"I certainly advocate for all Americans to leave California, but whichever state you land in, you will still have to fight for and protect your children," added Lui.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

WATCH: Gavin Newsom's new pro-abortion ad is so bad, it’s funny



While abortion is no laughing matter, Gavin Newsom’s latest pro-abortion – or in his words “reproductive care” – ad has Sara Gonzales in stitches.

The commercial comes in unison with Newsom’s latest proposal that aims to pave the way for women in Arizona to seek abortions in California because the “mean red states … are making it harder for them to kill their babies,” mocks Sara.

Newsom’s ad, despite what you might think, “isn’t a parody … [or] SNL.”

“This is an actual ad released unironically from Gavin Newsom on abortion,” Sara prefaces.

While we don’t want to give away too many spoilers, know that the commercial features a pair of young girls being literally hunted down by a cop with a thick Southern accent, armed with both handcuffs and a pregnancy test?

It also includes the following statement: “Trump Republicans want to criminalize young Alabama women who travel for reproductive care.”

Blaze contributor Matthew Marsden is flabbergasted.

“What are you thinking, you colossal bunch of morons?” he asks.

To see Newsom’s commercial, watch the clip below.


Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Gavin Newsom reportedly pushed for exemption to wage hike law, thereby benefiting his  his billionaire donor



California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) ratified a law in September increasing the hourly minimum wage for fast-food restaurant employees from $16 to $20 per hour, effective April 1, 2024. This legal requirement was not, however, imposed equally.

Insiders recently revealed to Bloomberg that Newsom personally fought for an exemption that would ultimately benefit his longtime donor and billionaire pal Greg Flynn, one of America's largest restaurant operators.

Assembly Bill 1228 defines "fast food restaurant" as a "limited-service restaurant in the state that is part of a national fast food chain."

While Flynn's two dozen Panera Bread locations in California — which serve soups, pizza, salad, sandwiches, milkshakes, desserts, and other meal items — would ostensibly satisfy this definition, Newsom apparently secured an exception to the rule for "an establishment that on September 15, 2023, operates a bakery that produces for sale on the establishment's premises bread" as a stand-alone menu item.

When a KCRA-TV reporter pressed Newsom on the apparent carve-out for Panera on Sept. 28, the Democratic governor said, "That's part of the sausage-making that was part of 257, the original bill, and we went back and forth and [it] was part of the negotiation. It's the nature of negotiation."

Newsom stressed further that it was the decision was the result of "give and take."

Flynn, who also owns thousands of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Applebee's, and Wendy's locations, reportedly opposed AB 257, the so-called "California Fast Food Restaurant Minimum Wage and Labor Regulations Referendum" in 2022, which included the bread exemption but would have increased the minimum wage to $22.

Flynn evidently got his way. AB 257 was repealed and replaced with AB 1228, which still contains the favorable exemption benefitting Panera Bread.

Flynn told Bloomberg he did not play a role in crafting the bread exemption and declined to comment on his connections to the governor.

The duo went to the same high school and apparently did some business together. Bloomberg highlighted that Newsom even drew an undisclosed amount of income from Flynn's company while California's lieutenant governor.

Flynn has donated a great deal to Newsom in the years since.

For instance, he donated $50,000 in April 2017 in support of Newsom's gubernatorial bid the next year. In 2018, Flynn kept shelling out cash in support of Newsom's race for the governor's mansion.

In 2021, Flynn donated $100,000 to Newsom's campaign to stave off a Republican recall effort. He also threw $64,800 Newsom's way in 2022 in support of his re-election.

The billionaire's donations to Newsom pale in comparison to the amount of money restaurants exempted from the new wage hike could potentially save. In the hypothetical case of a full-time employee paid the straight hourly for 52 40-hour weeks, the delta is over $8,000.

Bloomberg noted that McDonald's Corporation franchisees are expecting an additional annual cost of $250,000 due to the law, which some have deemed a "devastating financial blow." Businesses unwilling to eat the the whole of the cost will offload it onto customers. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., for instance, is reportedly considering increasing prices to offset the boosted expense.

Despite the potential savings, some of Flynn's Panera establishments have reportedly advertised that they will pay $20 hourly wages for select non-management roles. However, the Flynn-owned Panera near the California capitol in Sacramento still appears to be advertising $16 and $18 hourly wages.

Bloomberg indicated that neither Newsom nor Panera Bread representatives responded to their requests for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Gavin Newsom’s PAC Raised Almost $10 Million In Less Than A Year

Campaign for Democracy spent $2.6 million on advertisements