Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Banking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to study a state public bank; backers say it could reduce financing costs
Summary
AB 2,243 to establish a state bank commission moved out of the Assembly Banking and Finance Committee. Sponsor Assemblymember Haney said a commission would evaluate whether a state bank or other public finance tools could lower borrowing costs; proponents cited potential long‑term public benefits while banks and credit unions warned of taxpayer risk.
The Assembly Banking and Finance Committee voted to pass AB 2,243 to the Committee on Appropriations after testimony for and against establishing a state bank commission to study public banking options.
Assemblymember Haney, the bill’s sponsor, said AB 2,243 does not create a bank but would establish a deliberative, independent commission to evaluate whether a state bank or other public financing tools could better manage public dollars. "The goal is to complement, not replace existing financing mechanisms," Haney said, adding that the commission would provide a roadmap and that any final decision would remain with the Legislature.
Supporters included public‑banking advocates and labor groups. Jennifer Finger, a retired banker with experience at large and mission‑driven banks, said modest reductions in financing costs could translate into billions in savings and described how capital can be leveraged to support loans in‑state. "AB 2,243 does not create a bank. It creates a disciplined independent process to evaluate whether a state bank could reduce overall financing costs," Finger said.
Tristan Brown of the California Federation of Teachers urged support, saying public banks can take a longer view on returns and help finance projects—such as workforce housing—that private banks may not prioritize.
Opponents warned of risks and asked for guardrails. Chris Schultz for the California Bankers Association cited concerns about taxpayer exposure if the state were to guarantee deposits and flagged provisions that could use capital from state entities such as the Fair Plan and Earthquake Authority. "Should the state's taxpayers be on the hook to guarantee the deposits of a municipality that elects to start a state public bank?" Schultz asked.
Rob Wilson for California's Credit Unions also expressed concern about state guarantees and regulatory oversight and said his members remained opposed to AB 2,243.
After discussion the committee recorded a roll call and the chair declared the bill out of committee, to be referred to Appropriations for further review.
Next steps: AB 2,243 will be evaluated in Appropriations, where budget and fiscal implications will be considered.
