Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally on August 31, 2016 in Phoenix, Arizona. ; Credit: Ralph Freso/Getty Images

Donald Trump's whirlwind day yesterday took him from Mexico City to Phoenix. In Mexico, he met with President Enrique Pena Nieto.

After that joint news conference, Pena Nieto announced he'd told Trump at the meeting's outset Mexico wouldn't pay for a wall.

Maybe Trump didn't consider that a discussion. Last night, Trump spoke at length in Phoenix about his plan to combat illegal immigration. Early on, he argued that those with a vested interest in illegal immigration willfully misrepresent the issue.

Trump's plan offered a series of proposals, including large increases in Border Patrol officers and ICE deportation officers. Additionally, he sees local law enforcement as willing partners in aiding deportations. Of course, what's missing there is how he'd get cooperation from cities, like Los Angeles and San Francisco, that don't want to cooperate with ICE.

There's no political incentive to do so. Trump says he'd cut off federal funds to sanctuary cities, but that would be a very tough lift in Congress.

How do you read Trump’s visit and speech last night?

Guests:

Sam Quinones, journalist and author of “Dreamland: The True Tale of America's Opiate Epidemic” (Bloomsbury Press, 2015)

Paris Dennard, Republican political analyst and former staffer for President George W. Bush and the Republican National Committee: he tweets from @PARISDENNARD

Bill Burton, Democratic political strategist, Hillary supporter, former deputy White House press secretary for Barack Obama; he tweets from @billburton

Kim Kardashian West attends the Hype Energy Drinks U.S. Launch. Kim promotes many products via Instagram, but is she disclosing these #ads effectively? ; Credit: Rick Diamond/Getty Images

Fans of the Kardashian clan are used to seeing the sisters tout their latest beauty secret on Instagram, but are their endorsements candid testimonials, or adulterated advertisement?

Social media has made sponsored content more camouflaged  than ever before. Platforms such as Facebook and Instagram have made it difficult for the Federal Trade Commission to ensure paid content are labeled as advertisement. The FTC updated its guidelines in May 2015 to include social media disclosures: if a person is paid to promote a product, he or she must disclose that relationship with the company since it could affect a consumer’s opinion on the product.  

For social media sites, the guidelines state that starting a title with “AD:” or “#ad” would be effective. But a recent study by the non-profit group Truth in Advertising shows that many digital “influencers”  fail to disclose, correct, or remove paid ads to their followers, even after the non-profit filed complaints to F.T.C.

Host Larry Mantle sits down with Bonnie Patten, the executive director of Truth in Advertising, and Sasha Strauss, a brand management expert,  to talk about what sponsored content means for consumers as advertising goes viral.

Guests: 

Bonnie Patten, Executive director of Truth in Advertising.org, a non-profit, advertising watchdog organization.

Sasha Strauss, Managing director, founder at Innovation Protocol, a strategic brand management firm. Professor at UCLA & USC.  He tweets @SashaStrauss

A voter shows off his, 'I Voted!', sticker. The current number of registered California voters is the second-highest in the state's history.; Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Monday on AirTalk, we spoke with California Secretary of State Alex Padilla about the need for poll volunteers statewide in the upcoming November election.

Further evidence of how important this election is to so many people is the number of registered voters for this election in California, the second-most in the state’s history.

Read more from KPCC’s Mary Plummer on local efforts to sign up volunteers and learn how you can volunteer at an L.A. County polling location here.

Guest:

Dean Logan, Los Angeles County Registrar/Recorder

A man prepares a reel of film before its screening at the 30th Deauville American Film Festival on September 5, 2004 in Deauville, France.; Credit: Bruno Vincent/Getty Images

Before there were Blu-rays and DVDs, an underground subculture obsessed with owning physical film reels existed.

This quickly vanishing film-crazed group includes RoboCop executive producer Jon Davison, 1950s Hollywood heartthrob actor Rock Hudson and a one-legged former Broadway dancer who lives in a world of decaying movie memories.

“A Thousand Cuts: The Bizarre Underground World of  Collectors and Dealers who Saved the Movies” explains the group in detail --along with their strong desire to own a physical copy of a film-- and also examines the FBI’s and Justice Department’s 1970s campaign aimed at harassing and intimidating film dealers.

Co-authors Dennis Bartok and Jeff Joseph join Larry Mantle in studio to talk about their new book.       

Guests:

Dennis Bartok, co-author of the book, “A Thousand Cuts: The Bizarre Underground World of  Collectors and Dealers who Saved the Movies;” he is also head of distribution for art-house distributor Cinelicious Pics

Jeff Joseph, co-author of the book, “A Thousand Cuts: The Bizarre Underground World of  Collectors and Dealers who Saved the Movies;” and a motion picture archivist

Colin Kaepernick of the San Francisco 49ers speaks to media. Kaepernick recently sparked controversy for kneeling during the national anthem. ; Credit: Harry How/Getty Images

28-year-old Colin Kaepernick knelt stone-faced on the sidelines, a chorus of boos showering him from the stands as “The Star Spangled Banner” echoed throughout Qualcomm Stadium during Thursday night’s football game between the San Francisco 49ers and the San Diego Chargers.

The 49ers quarterback has been under a microscope since last Friday’s game against the Green Bay Packers in San Francisco, the first time he chose to sit the anthem out. Following that game, the internet, sports talking heads, and even other players called Kaepernick out for being disrespectful to the country and even the military. In an interview with NFL.com, Kaepernick said in part "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way.”

There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder." And while many have criticized Kaepernick, others have praised his actions for bringing attention to an important issue. Kaepernick’s teammate Eric Reid also sat the anthem out last night, as did Seattle Seahawks cornerback Jeremy Lane, who was playing in Oakland.

The 49ers have defended their man's right to protest during the anthem. But with some fans threatening boycotts, Kaepernick's struggles at quarterback, and now division on the team, the Niners might decide to cut their losses and cut him. They'd still owe him nearly $12-million this season. But more important than his employment is whether his protest aids his cause. Kaepernick says he'll refrain from standing until changes are made. It's unclear what those changes are, but Kaepernick says he'll donate a million dollars of his salary to community organizations. Do protests by athletes bring social changes?

Is the national anthem a good vehicle for expressing discontent? Is it patriotic? If you owned the 49ers, would you be tempted to cut him over the division created on the team, or would you let that work itself out and keep him?

Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waves as she boards her new campaign plane at Westchester County Airport.; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Donald Trump seems to have weathered a tough couple of weeks to reassert himself in new polls. CNN's latest has him in a statistical tie nationally against Hillary Clinton.

But where Trump is struggling is in the electoral college race. He's trailing in several swing states, and hasn't broken through with women or college educated voters. Donald Trump is no longer the only presidential candidate with a jumbo jet bearing his name.

Hillary Clinton debuted her new Boeing 737 on Monday and taking questions from reporters, who will now be able to travel with Secretary Clinton as she campaigns.

Meanwhile, California's candidates and ballot measures are struggling for attention.

Guests:

Pilar Marrero, senior political reporter at La Opinion and other ImpreMedia Newspapers

Bill Whalen, research fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University

Mary Plummer, KPCC’s senior political reporter and “Human Voter Guide”

More than 175 years after profiting from the sale of 272 slaves, Georgetown University's leadership will give preference in admissions to descendants of the enslaved. ; Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

More than 175 years after profiting from the sale of 272 slaves, Georgetown University's leadership will give preference in admissions to descendants of the enslaved.

Additionally, the school's president said Georgetown will offer a formal apology, create an institute for the study of slavery, along with other memorials to slaves whose work benefited the school.

Recently, Georgetown researchers contacted descendants of the 272, including 34-year-old Jessica Tilson, to inform them of their ancestors’ enslavement and sale, which saw them penned and shipped from Maryland to Louisiana plantations. Tilson told "The Washington Post" that, previously, her family's history could be traced back only a few generations. When she received the news about Georgetown's new plans for atonement, she burst into tears. “I know some of the descendants wanted something to happen for us. I didn’t want anything for me. I wanted them to do something for my ancestors. That was the part that made me cry," Tilson said. She added, “Some of the descendants wanted money — reparations.... Georgetown hand me money for raping beating and selling my ancestors? I refuse to take money that way.”

In recent years, Princeton, Brown, Emory, Harvard, and other storied colleges have had to reconcile with histories of profiting and transacting in the slave trade.

Read more at the Georgetown Slavery Archive (LINK).

Guests:

Adam Rothman, Member of Georgetown University's Working Group on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation; Professor of History at GU.

Leslie Harris, Professor of History, Northwestern University; while at Emory University; Harris co-organized the first academic conference on slavery at universities, "Slavery and the University: Histories and Legacies,"  in February 2011.  

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar speaks at the South Los Angeles Get Out The Vote Rally. Last week, the NBA star suggested that uninformed voters avoid the polls. ; Credit: David McNew/Getty Images

Last week, NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar suggested that uninformed voters should not head to the polls.

The comment revived debates around whether votes from less informed population produce a better outcome on our elections.

Election watchers have argued that uninformed voters could pose serious risks to our political system, adding guesses and blanks to the ballots. On the other hand,  vote rights advocates have championed wisdom of the crowd.

Larry Mantle sits down with Jason Brennan, professor of political philosophy, to discuss the wisdom and ignorance of an uninformed voter.

Guest:

Lonna Atkeson, Political Science Professor at University of New Mexico; director for center of voting elections and democracy

Jason Brennan, Professor of political philosophy at Georgetown University. He’s the author of The Ethics of Voting

Gretchen Carlson speaks onstage. The former Fox co-host will be paid $20 million by Fox to settle her sexual harassment suit against Roger Ailes.
; Credit: Rich Polk/Getty Images for Variety

Former Fox News Channel anchor Gretchen Carlson has settled her sexual harassment lawsuit against Roger Ailes, the case that led to the downfall of Fox’s chief executive with stunning swiftness this summer.

In a statement Tuesday, Fox parent company 21st Century said that “we regret and apologize for the fact that Gretchen was not treated with the respect and dignity that she and all of our colleagues deserve.”

Carlson was paid $20 million, according to someone familiar with the confidential settlement who spoke under condition of anonymity. Carlson alleged that she was demoted and let go from Fox after she refused Ailes’ sexual advances and complained about workplace harassment. Ailes denied the charges, but 21st Century launched an investigation and Ailes resigned after other women made allegations.

In a statement, Carlson said she was ready to move on to the next chapter in her life, and plans to help empower women in the workplace. “I want to thank all the brave women who came forward to tell their own stories and the many people across the country who embraced and supported me,” she said.

Why is Fox paying for a lawsuit Carlson filed against Roger Ailes? And does this settlement make the company more vulnerable in other pending lawsuits?

With files from AP

Guest:

Camille Hebert, professor of law at the Ohio State Moritz College of Law

Carl Hiaasen's new mystery satire "Razor Girl" was inspired by a real life incident. ; Credit: Craig Barritt/Getty Images for Gilette

A woman rear ending a car while shaving her bikini area is an entertaining news story for most, but for novelist and Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen, this was the titular incident that inspired a novel.

Hence, “Razor Girl,” a farcical thriller whose cast of characters includes a “Duck Dynasty”-esque reality show star, a washed up detective turned restaurant inspector (who fans might recognize from Hiaasen’s “Bad Monkey”) and the car rear-ending con artist “razor girl” herself.

Carl Hiaasen joins guest host Pat Morrison to discuss his new book – as well as how his job as a newspaper columnist feeds his fiction and the challenges of writing satire in a political landscape that seems to satirize itself.

Carl Hiaasen will hold discussion at Vroman’s Bookstore on September 15, 2016, where he will also be signing copies of his book. For more information, click here.

Guest:

Carl Hiaasen, journalist, novelist and columnist for the Miami Herald; he tweets @Carl_Hiaasen

A U.S. district court opened a whistleblower lawsuit accusing a researcher at Duke University of including fraudulent data in federal grant applications.; Credit: khz - Fotolia

A U.S. district court opened a whistleblower lawsuit accusing a researcher at Duke University of including fraudulent data in more than 60 federal grant applications.

The researcher, Erin Potts-Kant, worked in a prominent lab of pulmonary biology on campus until she was arrested on charges of embezzlement three years ago. Most of her work since the arrest has been retracted or corrected for citing “unreliable” data.

The current suit, brought on by the Federal False Claim Act, could fine Duke university up to three times the ill-received funds. Investigators now must prove the questionable data were instrumental in securing federal grants.  So far, most alleged fraud cases have been in the healthcare industry.  In comparison, false claim lawsuits rarely target private universities and other research institutions. However, this case, if successful, could be a turning point for academics to re-examine their peer-review processes.

Guest host Patt Morrison talks with Alison McCook, who first wrote about the Duke case for Science magazine, and Joel Androphy, an attorney specializing in false claim litigation. 

Guests:

Alison McCook, Editor at Retraction Watch, a watchdog for science publishing; she tweets @alisonmccook.  She first wrote about this lawsuit in Science magazine.

Joel Androphy, Attorney at Berg & Androphy in Houston, Texas, who specializes in false claims litigation; he tweets @jandrophy

; Credit: California Counts

A new proposition to legalize marijuana in California may pass this November, according to a recent California Counts poll.

The poll, which was administered by a collaboration of four public media organizations including KPCC, shows 71 percent approval of Prop 64. The measure would allow certain sales of marijuana, as well as cultivation taxes.

Support for Prop 64 contrasts with a 2010 marijuana proposition that failed at the ballot box - largely because of a fear of repeat problems that came with the legalization of medical marijuana in 1996. A lack of details with the 1996 law prevented voters from taking the plunge in 2010.

But that may not be the case this year with such a high approval rating. However, its fate also lies with the types of voters that show up this November - taking into account the presidential race

What do you think of Prop 64? Would you vote “yes” this time around?

Guests:

Jessica Levinson, Professor at Loyola Law School and governance expert

John Hudak, senior fellow in Governance Studies, Brookings Institution - Hudak specializes in marijuana policy

A new Ipsos survey examines how Americans define and obey the rules of the road.; Credit: Michael Nagle/Getty Images

A new Ipsos survey examines how Americans define and obey the rules of the road - such as the all-holy left passing lane, speeding over 10 miles per hour, and negotiating space with other drivers.

Since most respondents (8 in 10) said their driving skills are above average, the self-reporting data might not be entirely truthful. For instance, when asked how often the respondent, when going at the speed limit or below, changes lanes to let others pass, 60 percent said they often move over and only 7 percent said never. Is that what you observe on the road?

Only 16 percent of respondents said they often drive at least 10 mph above the speed limit on highways, 44 percent said they do it occasionally, and 33 percent said they never do. For the Millennials breakout data: nearly one in five say they often engage in the practice of "slowing down to annoy or educate people who want them to move over."

The good news is that most drivers seem to at least know the rules. About seven in ten seniors (aged 55 and older) and six in ten from younger ages agree that the far-left lane is for passing, not cruising.

Guest:

Julia Clark, Senior Vice President at Ipsos polling firm; she tweets @PollsterJulia

Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller speaks on the new Apple iPhone 7 during a launch event on September 7, 2016 in San Francisco, California.; Credit: Stephen Lam/Getty Images

Apple announced the latest reincarnation of the iPhone today in its highly anticipated annual event.

Besides the brand new finishes and improved cameras, Apple, like many analysts expected, eliminated the headphone jack entirely from its phones. Apple’s justification for the change is not so different from the historical ones it made before: wires are obsolete, wireless is the future.

But do long-time proponent of Apple products share the company’s desire to be so radical?  The upgrade can be seen as a way to sell more accessories by making the Apple ecosystem more contained than ever before. Users would be required to purchase an in-house headphones called “airbuds”, one of the more costly wireless earbuds that are compatible with the new audio connection, or keep the adaptor Apple provided to plug in your wired headphone.

Guest host Patt Morrison checks in with Edmund Lee, managing editor at Recode, on all things new out of the Apple orchard.

Guest:

Edmund Lee, Managing Editor at Recode, a technology news website. He tweets @edmundlee

Passengers sit on July 6, 2016 aboard the Swiss International Air Lines' new Bombardier CS 100 passenger jetliner during a flight over the Swiss Alps.; Credit: MICHAEL BUHOLZER/AFP/Getty Images

The movement to bring awareness to sexual harassment and assault on public transport has gained steam in the last several years.

LA Metro launched a campaign in 2015 to foreground the issue and educate riders, and the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority in DC has been working with grassroots groups to tackle the issue.

Despite these efforts, there’s one area of transport that has received little attention when it comes to issues of sexual harassment and assault: commercial flights.

Patt talked with listener Emily in Downtown who shared her experience of being sexually harassed on a plane:

Emily’s experience is far from unique. As with sexual assault cases in general, in-flight incidents are thought to be under-reported.

According to a recent Slate article, the FBI cited 37 open cases involving sexual assaults on aircrafts so far this year, but it’s impossible to get a more accurate number since it’s not something the Federal Aviation Administration tracks. The article also finds that cabin crew are often ill-equipped to handle these kinds of allegations.

"There is a lack of clear guidelines in terms of what an aircrew is going to do," said Manish Madan, Professor of Criminal Justice at Stockton University.

Sara Nelson, International president of the Association of Flight Attendants, said both passengers and airline staff need clear guidelines.

“Passengers need to know... to report it [sexual harassment] to the crew members,” she said. “We [flight attendants] also need training in how to recognize these issues... the victims are not necessarily in a situation where they feel comfortable to report it themselves.”

While flight attendants can restrain a passenger who is a physical threat to others onboard, sexual assault and harassment sometimes falls outside the range of established procedure.

“This is a unique crime,” Nelson said. “There needs to  be training around it... how to respond both to the perpetrator and to the victim, to handle it properly, report it and... get that report to the authorities so that they can properly handle it.”

These interviews have been edited for clarity. This story has been updated.

Guests:

Sara Nelson, International president, Association of Flight Attendants

Manish Madan, Professor of Criminal Justice at Stockton University in  Galloway, NJ, whose research focuses on sexual harassment and sexual assaults

We gathered a panel of six guests from all sides of the argument. They fielded questions from the audience on topics that ranged from fiscal to racial implications.; Credit: Milan Kovacevic

Voters will see two state measures that take very different approaches in changing how California handles capital punishment in November. Proposition 62 would repeal the death penalty, while Proposition 66 would aim to speed up the process. 

On Wednesday evening, we gathered a panel of six guests from all sides of the argument. They fielded questions from the audience on topics that ranged from fiscal to racial implications.

The town hall was moderated by Larry Mantle, host of KPCC’s AirTalk, and Maureen Cavanaugh, host of KPBS' Midday Edition. It was put on by California Counts, a collaboration with KPCC in Los Angeles, KQED in San Francisco, Capital Public Radio in Sacramento and KPBS in San Diego.

Here are three questions debated during the event. 

Will Proposition 66 save California money? 

There are 743 people on California’s death row. That's by far the highest number in the nation. California hasn't executed a condemned prisoner since 2006. 

Proposition 66 aims to speed up the process of the death penalty; proponents said it would save the state money because it puts time limits on court reviews and requires appellate lawyers to take death penalty clients. (Currently, there aren’t enough lawyers to handle the automatic appeals for death row inmates.)

But opponents said, even if Proposition 66 passes, it'll cost the state a nice chunk of change. Justin Brooks, director of California Innocence Project, said there's a misconception that death penalty appeals cost money; it's death penalty trials that cost a lot, he argued. 

Yes to abolishing the death penalty says

Money 

No to abolishing the death penalty says

Money 

How do families of murdered victims feel?

Two panelists at the event Wednesday have had loved ones murdered. Beth Webb's sister Laura Webb was killed with seven other people in the 2011 shooting at Salon Meritage in Seal Beach. Marc Klaas is the father of Polly Klaas. She was kidnapped and killed in 1993.

Webb said she wants her sister's killer to serve life in prison because it validates what he did. She's in favor of Proposition 62, which would make the maximum sentence life imprisonment without parole. (Current death row inmates would see their sentences changed to life in prison under the proposition.) 

Klaas, on the other hand, said his daughter's killer doesn't deserve to live. He's in favor of keeping the death penalty. 

Yes to abolishing the death penalty says

Victims 

No to abolishing the death penalty says

Victims 

What are the racial implications? 

The real question is "do we deserve to kill?" Justin Brooks argued. He said he's walked 25 innocent people out of prison. 

Mike Farrell, co-author of Proposition 62 (and a former actor best known for his role on the TV series MASH), echoed those concerns. He also brought up the issue of racial discrimination.

Paul Pfingst, former San Diego County district attorney, said race play a role in every facet of the criminal justice system. But the notion that "the people making these decisions [about death penalty sentencing] are just a bunch of racists who don't care about these things, is just unfair," he argued.

Yes to abolishing the death penalty says

Race 

No to abolishing the death penalty says

Race 

To hear the full broadcast, tune into Airtalk noon Thursday, September 8. The audio will be archived on this web post.

Where do you stand on the death penalty? Tweet us your thoughts using the hashtag #CAcounts.

Guests

Justin Brooks, executive director of the California Innocence Project

Tom Dominguez, president of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs

Mike Farrell, human rights activist, co-author of Prop 62, and former actor best known for his role on the TV series MASH

Paul Pfingst, former San Diego County district attorney

Beth Webb, sister of Laura Webb, who was killed along with seven other people in the 2011 shooting at Salon Meritage in Seal Beach

Marc Klaas, father of Polly Klaas, who was kidnapped and killed in 1993

Series: California Counts

California Counts is a collaboration of KPBS, KPCC, KQED and Capital Public Radio to report on the 2016 election. The coverage focuses on major issues and solicits diverse voices on what's important to the future of California.

Read more in this series and let us know your thoughts on Twitter using the hashtag #CACounts.

Matt Lauer looks on during the NBC News Commander-in-Chief Forum. He has been widely criticized for his performance as moderator. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Disorganized, uninformed, pandering, #Laueringthebar?

Probably not the critiques - or hashtag - NBC’s Matt Lauer was expecting after moderating Wednesday night’s Commander-in-Chief forum with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The “Today Show” host’s performance with the presidential candidates wasn’t received particularly well - which is putting it mildly considering one NBC executive called it a “disaster.”

Critics say Lauer frequently interrupted Clinton, squandered too many minutes on the email scandal and didn’t give her enough time to discuss foreign policy or veterans issues. When it was Trump’s turn, Lauer has been raked over the coals for treating the New York billionaire with kid gloves and not challenging the Republican nominee when he lied about opposing the Iraq war in 2002.

Those who have come to Lauer’s defense argue the moderator would’ve come across as biased if he’d called out Trump’s inconsistencies in real time. Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace, moderator for the final upcoming presidential debate, says it should be up to the candidates to call out their opponent’s false claims. In an interview last week Wallace said, “I do not believe that it’s my job to be a truth squad.”

What do you expect from the event moderators during a presidential election? Are they supposed to play the conversational timekeeper, fact-checking journalist or something else entirely?

Guest:

Aaron Kall, Director of Debate at the University of Michigan and author of the new book “Debating the Donald”.

South Koreans watch TV news reporting the North Korea's nuclear test at the Seoul Railway Station on September 9, 2016 in Seoul, South Korea.; Credit: Woohae Cho/Getty Images

President Obama warned that North Korea would face “serious consequences” after conducting a nuclear test early Friday – the latest in a series of provocative actions this year including a previous nuclear test eight months ago and multiple ballistic missile launches since.

But what more “serious consequences” can President Obama impose on the country? Larry Mantle speaks with Jim Walsh of MIT’s Security Studies Program about what that means.

Read Walsh's recent study on North Korea sanctions: 

Stopping North Korea, Inc.

Guest:

Jim Walsh, Ph.D., International security expert and a Research Associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program

California Gov. Jerry Brown speaks during a news conference on November 3, 2010 in Oakland, California. Brown has recently signed legislation to fight climate change. ; Credit: David Paul Morris/Getty Images

California will now be the nation’s example for reducing climate change after Governor Jerry Brown signed sweeping legislation yesterday that will require the Golden State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2030.

The law, SB 32, also gives more authority to California’s Air Resources Board to regulate emissions. A separate law the governor also signed yesterday gives lawmakers more power over that board.

For more from KPCC on the new law, click here.

Guests:

David Siders, reporter for the Sacramento Bee covering state politics; he tweets from @davidsiders

Chris Busch, research director at San Francisco-based think tank Energy Innovation

Lou Baglietto, Los Angeles County Business Federation Advocacy Committee Chair

The worn bars in the cell block are seen at Alcatraz Island. The Obama Administration is intervening in a Georgia case which has put the constitutionality of fixed bail systems into question.; Credit: TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images

The Obama Administration is intervening in a Georgia case which has put the constitutionality of fixed bail systems into question.

The argument? Under current bail systems, people who cannot afford to pay remain incarcerated. This could be proven as a way to “punish people for their poverty,” which is not permitted under the constitution.

As the Los Angeles Times reported, the Department of Justice’s intervention was sparked by a Georgia case which involved a disabled man who was arrested in 2015 for being under the influence as a pedestrian. He was kept in a Calhoun, Georgia jail for nearly a week because he could not pay the $160 bail.

Civil rights groups including Equal Justice Under Law have condemned the current bail system, calling it “wealth-based detention.”

But groups like the American Bail Coalition are opposed to the change, and argue that current system is about preserving community safety.

What do you think of the traditional bail system? Does it discriminate against the poor, or protect the public?

Guests: 

Katherine Hubbard, staff attorney for Civil Rights Corp.; former fellow at Equal Justice Under Law, a civil rights group based in Washington D.C. which has been advocating for changing the current bail system.

Jeffrey J. Clayton, policy director for the American Bail Coalition