The ongoing saga of whether some reproductively intact pets in California should be spayed or neutered goes on, after today’s approval by a state Senate panel of controversial legislation on the subject… but approval that came only after the change of a single word in the bill.

AB 1634 by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) began its legislative life as a strong requirement to sterilize most dogs and cats. But recent amendments moved the focus to sterlization for animals deemed by animal control officials to be problem pets.

The debate this morning before the Senate Local Government Committee attracted a large crowd of both supporters and opponents. And it focused on AB 1634’s requirement that a citation must be issued after animal control officials receive a report of a problem pet. On the third citation, a dog would have to be fixed; a cat would have to be fixed after two citations.

So what happens, asked Sen. Tom Harman (R-Orange), if the complaint made to animal control officials is “frivolous or false”? Could a dispute between neighbors over something entirely different lead to mandatory sterlization of a dog after three complaints?

After a long discussion, Assemblymember Levine — who either saw merit in the above scenario or simply decided that some bill was better than no bill — agreed to once again amend AB 1634.

Now, instead of saying a pet owner “shall be cited” when a complaint is made… the bill says a pet owner “may be cited.” And that wiggle room for local animal control officials was enough to draw the vote of Sen. Mike Machado (D-Linden), who cast the deciding vote.

Pet Sterlization is an emotional issue (after my last posting on this bill, I received more emails than on just about any topic). As such, it’s unclear whether the two sides have found a proposal they can both live with… or are going to continue to battle it out as the bill heads next to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

With the looming deadline for legislation to clear policy committees in the state Capitol, some of the more noteworthy bills of the two year sesssion are being either tweaked or virtually rewritten.

Two of the bills that are newly modified have been the source of a lot of attention.

First is the hugely debated proposal to require most dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered. The bill, AB 1634 by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), ran aground in 2007 after organized and vocal opposition.

Late last week, Levine all but scrapped the mandatory sterlization plan. The new bill says that a dog impounded at a shelter will be sterilized on the third visit; the first two impoundments of an “intact” pooch will result in monetary fines. For cats, it’s spaying or neutering on the second visit to the shelter. AB 1634’s only other required sterilization is for a pet that’s the subject of a complaint to a local animal control agency.

In other words… if you control your dog or cat, he or she can keep all of his or her parts. So will that mollify the critics?

Nope.

The group known as PetPAC plans to lobby legislators tomorrow in their continued opposition to AB 1634, now calling it a “three strikes for pets” bill.

[UPDATE Tuesday, 8:32 am — Note to self: don’t write about AB 1634 again. Thanks to all of you who read the posting and then promptly fired off an email to me. Yes, I’ve read the bill. No, I’m not brain dead. Yes, I understand that this is a controversial bill. No, I’m not brain dead. Seriously though… the sheer number of emails that arrived that used the exact same arguments, and even same language, only reminds me of the 4,210,923 reasons I’ll never run for elected office. And again, to the nice lady who loves cats: No, I’m not brain dead. At least not today.]

Meantime, the highly publicized push for a new tax on the adult entertainment industry has been scaled back. After being scaled up, that is.

AB 2914 by Assemblymember Charles Calderon (D-Whittier) proposes a new tax on everything from adult entertainment stores to the XXX movie industry, with the money earmarked for programs to “ameliorate the secondary effects” of the industry on communities.

The original version of the proposal, submitted on April 3, called for an 8% tax on stores that specialize in “adult materials” and adult entertainment clubs. Then on May 8, Calderon upped it to a 25% tax and added in businesses that “produce” adult movies.

Now, in amendements filed last Thursday, Calderon has gone back down to an 8.3% tax on most of these businesses.

No word yet on whether that eased the adult entertainment industry’s mind… though it’s doubtful that it has.

Some new numbers reinforce the growing influence of independent expenditure committees, those political entities that can raise and spend money in unlimited amounts because they’re not controlled by candidates for office.

Data compiled by the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission on yesterday’s legislative races in open seats (no incumbent) concludes that just under $10 million was spent by IE committees either for or against various challengers for the Assembly and Senate.

Most of that money, about $5.9 million, was spent on the 19 open Assembly races. And tops on that list appears to be the Democratic primary in Assembly District 8, where Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada knocked off West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon. That race alone attracted more than $1.15 million in IE spending, with big money funneled into IE committees by both the educational non-profit EdVoice (pro-Cabaldon) and the California Teachers Association (pro-Yamada).

Big IE bucks were also spent the Democratic primary in the Bay Area’s Assembly District 19 ($787,310) and in the Democratic primary for Los Angeles County’s Assembly District 40 ($705,408).

On the state Senate side, IE campaigns spent a combined $3.77 million on six open seats. Tops here was the Democratic primary for Los Angeles County’s Senate District 25. Here, former Assemblymember Rod Wright beat three challengers, including incumbent Assemblymember Mervyn Dymally. More than $950,000 of the IE money in this race came from one committee funded largely by business, real estate, and energy interests.

The second largest draw for IE cash on the Senate side was the GOP primary in Riverside County’s Senate District 37, where Assemblymember John Benoit defeated former Assemblymember Russ Bogh.

The FPPC recently released a detailed report on independent expenditure committees, whose appeal can be found in that they are exempt from any of the donation limits under existing state campaign finance laws.

That title has only been used once before in the California Assembly (and then only under unusual circumstances), but it’ll be the buzz word for today when Karen Bass is sworn in as the 67th speaker of the lower house.

Bass hooked the top job several weeks ago, but today formally assumes the title and the power. The 53-year-old Los Angeles Democrat replaces Fabian Nunez at the helm, three months after Nunez’s gambit to modify the existing term limits law was rejected by voters.

Speaker Bass spent some time with several Capitol reporters over the past few days, including a brief interview with me late last week.

In such a setting, it quickly becomes clear that she’s much more succinct than the often verbose Nunez. That truncated communication style may be the perfect fit for her similarly slim agenda as leader of the Assembly. In almost every recent interview, including ours, Bass has said that there are only three things on her to do list: solving this year’s budget mess, examining systemic reform of the state tax code, and strengthening California’s overburdened and often neglected foster care system.

Click below to hear my profile of Bass that aired this morning on The California Report.

Aside from the big items on her agenda, a few other comments on recent issues from my interview with the new “Madam Speaker”:

Redistricting: Bass says she supports an effort to remove political map drawing duties from the hands of the Legislature… but she’s stopping short of an endorsement of the proposal that appears headed for the ballot thanks to the work of Governor Schwarzenegger and government reform groups. In fact, she expressed reservations about the proposal, and a desire to see what might come out of a new effort on the issue pledged by the outgoing Speaker Nunez.

Health care reform: Bass also said she’d like to return to last year’s discussion on changes to the state’s health care system… and dismisses any speculation that legislative efforts on the issue are all but dead in the near future.

Foster care reform: And back on her pet issue, Bass explained her interest in a future ballot initiative to find a new way of paying for the state’s troubled foster care system… and why the needs are so great.

Today’s big ceremony in the Assembly chambers will feature a who’s who of VIPs, including many of the politicos who once held the job of speaker. And then it’s back to work… and Bass’ greatest challenger… as Governor Schwarzenegger unveils his much anticipated revised budget tomorrow afternoon.