NEWSOM ANTI-GOUGING CRUSADE IS FLOPPING

Gov. Gavin Newsom says he’s not running for president, at least not in 2024, and there is no reason to think he’s hiding his intentions. If President Joe Biden’s health holds up, it’s unlikely he’ll have to run against any prominent Democrat. Biden’s poll numbers are improving, and he is doing a better job than many expected in holding together a party in which the moderate and progressive wings have been known to clash sharply.

Nevertheless, the notion that Newsom is spending a lot — perhaps too much — of his time and energy thinking about a presidential bid is common in California political circles. His interest is unsurprising. For 50-plus years, every governor of the Golden State eligible for national office has either run or considered it, except for George Deukmejian, who told 1988 GOP nominee George H.W. Bush he didn’t want to be his running mate. But Newsom’s interest can also seem excessive. The frequency of his jabs at two Republicans with national ambitions of their own — Florida Gov. Ron Desantis and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott — has little precedent, as The San Diego Union-tribune Editorial Board wrote in September after interviewing him.

Five months later, the questions about how Newsom is balancing his job and his ambitions are coming to a head. The governor’s Nov. 30 decision to call a special session of the Legislature — his first — to address what he called blatant gasoline-price gouging by oil companies seemed straight out of the populist progressive playbook. It prompted applause from Democratic officials — and much of the public — who were furious over the state’s brush with $7-agallon gas earlier in the year. The industry’s claim that stricter state rules on how to refine gasoline made higher prices inevitable was undercut by research suggesting what was really to blame was a “mystery gasoline surcharge.” Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-berkeley, quickly moved to introduce a bill intended to make California the first state to impose penalties on “excessive” oil company profits.

But last week, Newsom’s pet proposal appeared close to collapse. Why? One argument is that it’s due to his passivity in making the case for his splashy plan. This concern took center stage in Sacramento on Wednesday when the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee held the first public hearing on the proposal. Sen. Dave Min, D-irvine, said any penalty on oil company profits would depend on advocates finally coming up with “a smoking gun ... that shows intentional collusion.” Sen. Bill Dodd, D-napa, said Newsom and his allies had done zero due diligence in evaluating “what the hell are the unintended consequences” of a poorly designed tax/penalty. An Associated Press analysis detailed all the questions that Newsom had yet to answer. The optics of the governor doing an interview about the death penalty Tuesday with TV host Jon Stewart at San Quentin State Prison while his signature issue hit a brick wall in the Legislature and questions on it went unanswered only raises new questions about Newsom’s priorities and all he’s juggling.

This doesn’t seem to register in the Governor’s Office. On Thursday, the governor’s deputy press secretary, Daniel Villaseñor, told an editorial writer that Newsom has been “very involved” in shaping legislation, while also saying that “at the end of the day, this [discussion] is led by the Legislature.” He also said the case for an anti-gouging law was rocksolid without “any smoking gun.” But is it?

Perhaps a flurry of action in coming weeks will vindicate that view. But because of the campaign cash it hands out and the jobs it creates, the oil industry is stronger politically in the state than might be assumed. If lawmakers are looking for cover so they can keep the status quo, Newsom’s failure to sweat the details offers some. It’s a bad look for any politician, but especially for a would-be president.