Legislation introduced earlier this year by California Democrats aims to ban private companies that allow paying customers to bypass security checkpoints from operating in California airports, citing equality concerns. Senate Bill 1372 was formally introduced in February of this year by State Senator Josh Newman (D-Orange County) and is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee today. 

Newman's legislation would target companies like Clear, which allows its members to bypass TSA security checkpoints by using biometric data like retina scans and fingerprints to skip the screening process that TSA uses. According to Newman, this is unfair and allows people with more money to jump ahead of others simply because they have more cash. Clear charges their members $189 per year for this service, and it is in use in over 55 airports across the United States. In California alone, the Clear service has been used over five million times in 2023. 

"It's a basic equity issue when you see people subscribed to a concierge service being escorted in front of people who have waited a long time to get to the front of TSA line," Newman told CBS MoneyWatch. 

"Everyone is beaten down by the travel experience, and if Clear escorts a customer in front of you and tells TSA, 'Sorry, I have someone better,' it's really frustrating." 

Republican Sen. Janet Nguyen (R-Orange County) surprisingly buys in to Newman's equity framing, though she says she's not supporting the bill:

"I do understand the frustration stated in Senator Newman’s bill," Nguyen, who sits on the transportation committee, told Politico. "It becomes a haves vs. have-nots where those who can afford it jump in front of the rest of us. They even cut in front of TSA Pre-boarding pass travelers who have been screened by the TSA."

James Murdock, president of the local chapter of the union that represents the TSA agents, AFDE Local 1230, issued a statement in which he slammed Clear as the "luxury resale" of a spot in the TSA line. 

 "While Clear may save time for its paying customers, non-customers suffer from Clear's aggressive sales tactics and longer security queues while they enter an essential security screening process."

Several airlines, such as United, have partnered with Clear to allow their paying customers who are 18 and up to bypass the lines for a discounted rate.

“Clear’s secure and seamless biometric security option creates an expedited travel experience that many of our frequent flyers already use and love,” said Luc Bondar, United’s vice president of loyalty and president of MileagePlus. ”We’re excited to partner with Clear to expand their presence at our hub airports and to provide all MileagePlus members with either free or deeply discounted memberships.”

Clear stores your personal information and biometric data, such as your fingerprint and eye scans, without depending on any other third-party company. According to Clear, they work hand in hand with the TSA and their expedited service, PreCheck. This allows people with both services to experience an even faster and more streamlined security process. 

What this legislation boils down to is that the government and government unions are trying to eliminate a private company that is doing the job more efficiently than the government and making a profit off of doing it. The PreCheck system allows travelers who pay $70 to $80 every five years to enjoy an expedited screening process by submitting fingerprints and a valid ID. Nobody is forcing anyone to use the TSA PreCheck or Clear's system; customers voluntarily pay the fees for the benefits of not waiting in a long line. It is the same thing as most amusement parks charging a hefty fee for the perks of bypassing long lines at their parks. 

If this is such an important issue and they legitimately care about people taking advantage of others, the logical step would be for the TSA to eliminate their PreCheck services as well. 

The question is: will they try to ban First Class next?

(*EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece was edited post-publication to reflect that Sen. Janet Nguyen does not support the bill.)