Her opponent can run ads that say "She proposed laws that made her husband's company richer" and it would probably barely affect her outcomes, as long as she has the D next to her name.
Amusing side note, she is my parent's representative, and I'm sure they would not care one bit about this as long as she's a Democrat.
California uses a jungle primary to solve this exact problem.
You seem to be complaining that the demographic makeup is insufficiently Democratic to cause a D vs D main election. A jungle primary isn't supposed to oppose the local demographics.
Alternatively, you can try to find some candidates with (R) next to their name that don't suck. A Republican that believes in actual fiscal responsibility, promoting small business, not being a bigoted jerk, and not hanging out with Russian spies would actually get some support from the middle of the spectrum.
California used to have a bunch of those, but they are all gone, long gone.
A government official has a financial interest in the employment of their spouse (who in this case, also more than likely has stock/stock options/RSUs from his employer)
Edit to add: my spouse was a small time elected official in California, and there are lots of rules and required disclosures. Complying with the gift policy can be tricky -- if you meet your friends at their cabin for a ski trip it's allowed, but if you plan to meet them, but they were unable to make it, you can't stay there without them, it's not allowed to stay in their cabin without them.
I assume that it is interpreted more narrowly than that. So, say, a farmer in the legislator trying to get, for example, a new aqueduct project approved to lower water costs for farmers in a large region would be OK even if they themselves would benefit from lower water costs, but that same legislator trying to get the state to pick their spouse's excavating company when awarding the construction contracts for the project would not be OK.
There's plenty of politicians, and we're better off when the ones that have an interrest or benefits just backs out and don't participate in that particular cause.
That's a feature not a bug. It provides cover when "good people" do it and an opportunity to use the courts to get your way when "bad people" do it.
> (a) The remedies provided in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 83100) shall apply to any Member of the Legislature who makes, participates in making, or in any way attempts to use his or her official position to influence any of the following governmental decisions in which he or she knows or has reason to know that he or she has a financial interest:
> (3) Introduction as a lead author of any legislation that the member knows or has reason to know is nongeneral legislation.
> (4) Any vote in a legislative committee or subcommittee on what the member knows or has reason to know is nongeneral legislation.
> (5) Any rollcall vote on the Senate or Assembly floor on an item which the member knows is nongeneral legislation.
Non general legislation is defined  as:
> (a) “Nongeneral legislation” means legislation as to which both of the following apply:
> (1) It is reasonably foreseeable that the legislation will have direct and significant financial impact on one or more identifiable persons, or one or more identifiable pieces of real property.
> (2) It is not reasonably foreseeable that the legislation will have a similar impact on the public generally or on a significant segment of the public.
> (b) For purposes of this section and Section 87102.5, all of the following apply:
> (1) “Legislation” means a bill, resolution, or constitutional amendment.
> (2) “Public generally” includes an industry, trade, or profession.
> (3) Any recognized subgroup or specialty of the industry, trade, or profession constitutes a significant segment of the public.
> (4) A legislative district, county, city, or special district constitutes a significant segment of the public.
> (5) More than a small number of persons or pieces of real property is a significant segment of the public.
> (6) Legislation, administrative action, or other governmental action impacts in a similar manner all members of the public, or all members of a significant segment of the public, on which it has a direct financial effect, whether or not the financial effect on individual members of the public or the significant segment of the public is the same as the impact on the other members of the public or the significant segment of the public.
So --- it's not quite as broad as the earlier quote. But, I guess the question becomes is companies that like to retain more information than they need to do their job a recognized subgroup of the industry?
The point of the conflict of interest rules, though, is to make it crystal clear that any sort of appearance of conflict is to be avoided, which includes conflicts by virtue of marriage. Based on the definition of nongeneral legislation, I'm guessing this is probably fine (but is worth a look by the commission), but if it is OK, the legislator should say as much, and not claim independence from the spouse -- because the law does not allow for such independence.
Receiving bribes and 'integrating' them into economy, through a network of relatives, is not that uncommon, unfortunately.
More sophisticated forms take 250K per hour speech fees, book+documentary 'deals', and buying expensive property much cheaper than market price (from the willing 'donors').
To find info on links between a politician and his/her bribe loundering network, you have to use non-google/non-yahoo search engine. And plugin the names of the relatives.
Pick federal Congress representatives from your district that have not changed for, say, 7-10 terms or more, and that live 4mln+ homes. And do the search.
Politicians who sit on the committees dispensing money (eg aid), or government contracts tend to be more corrupt (proportional to how much money they oversee being dispensed out).
How about an example? Your claims are extraordinary..
The claims are reality. American politics is absurdly, laughably corrupt and has been for a long time. I've said this for years: everything we accuse the Russians (our evil doppelgangers) of has been true here for a long, long time.
This would be a way to have usable services without your videos on machines with privacy policies you might not agree with. Even encrypted videos and "differential privacy" are compromises.
Her inner intention is less important because it is hard to provide clear evidence for or against it (absent some sort of recorded evidence). It creates a situation of uncertainty and to avoid this you are usually required to disclose any detail that could cause even the appearance of a conflict of interest (you are married to the person who benefits from your action), and remove yourself from the decision making position.
So for example using public money to buy the very best available product on the market from your spouse's company is still a conflict of interest. You are expected to withdraw and let an impartial person take over. If the product is good then the evaluation will have the same result but there will be no suspicion that you tried to influence the result in your interest.