Posted on 09/19/2004 9:25:53 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
With just a few weeks to go, does anyone have an idea of what is on the ballot in California this November and who is supporting what, etc?
Here's a chance to help put the info out there in a centralized apporach.
I am going to kick it this thread with a bunch of stuff from all over the place. No particular order in posting need be followed.
The Bakersfield Californian is running a number of pieces this morning that I am posting to start the thread
Major contributors to the Proposition 72 campaigns
http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wire/story/4946491p-5007675c.html
The Associated Press
Top financial contributors to campaigns for and against Proposition 72.
Save Your Healthcare (Yes on Proposition 72 fund)
- California Federation of Teachers, union, $300,000.
- California State Council of Service Employees, union, $291,100.
- California Labor Federation, union, $234,478.
- Teamsters Union, union, $187,000.
- California Teachers Association, union, $125,000.
- United Teachers of Los Angeles, union, $50,000.
- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, union, $44,824.
- Democratic State Central Committee, party committee, $37,500.
- Amalgamated Transit Union, $35,000.
- Office and Professional Employees International Union, $20,000.
Committee Against Government Run Healthcare (No on Proposition 72 fund)
- California Restaurant Association, industry group, $1.2 million.
- Yum! Brands, Inc., restaurant chain, $555,000.
- McDonald's restaurants, restaurant chain, $460,555.
- Macy's West Inc., retailer, $300,000.
- Sears Roebuck and Co., retailer, $300,000.
- Target Corp., retailer, $300,000.
- CKE Restaurants, Inc., restaurant chain, $273,000.
- Jack in the Box, restaurant chain, $187,700
- Round Table Pizza, restaurant chain, $164,500
- Wendy's, restaurant chain, $138,500.
---
Source: California secretary of state
Major contributors to the Proposition 68 and 70 campaigns
http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wire/story/4946488p-5007671c.html
The Associated Press
Top financial contributors to campaigns for and against Propositions 68 and 70.
Proposition 68
A Fair Share for California (Yes on Proposition 68 fund)
- Pinnacle Entertainment Inc., casino owner, Las Vegas, Nev., $3.464 million
- Bay Meadows Racecourse, San Mateo, $2.4 million
- Bicycle Casino, card room, Bell Gardens, $2.356 million
- Magna Entertainment Corp., horse track owner, Arcadia, Canada, $1.8 million
- Normandie Club, card room, Gardena, $1.4 million
- Los Alamitos Race Course, Los Alamitos, $1.4 million
- Churchill Downs Inc., race track owner, Inglewood, $1 million
- Hawaiian Gardens Casino, card club, Hawaiian Gardens, $977,100
- Commerce Casino, card club, Commerce, $975,000
- Hustler Casino, card room, Gardena, $570,000
Californians Against the Deceptive Gambling Proposition (No on Proposition 68 fund)
- Pala Band of Mission Indians, Pala, $4.5 million
- Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians, Brooks, $4.5 million
- United Auburn Indian Community, Lincoln, $3.5 million
- Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, Temecula, $3.41 million
- First Californians for Self Reliance, coalition of tribes, $2.6 million
- Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Cabazon, $2.5 million
- Redding Rancheria, Redding, $30,000
- Pit River Tribe, Burney, $10,000
- Smith River Rancheria, Smith River, $5,000
- Pauma Band of Mission Indians, Pauma Valley, $2,500
Proposition 70
Citizens for a Fair Share of Indian Gaming Revenues (Yes on Proposition 70 fund)
- San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Highland, $10 million
- Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Palm Springs, $8.7 million
- California Nations Indian Gaming Association, Sacramento, $20,000
- Redding Rancheria, Redding, $15,000
Gov. Schwarzenegger's Committee for Fair Share Gaming Agreements (No on Propositions 68 and 70 fund)
- Gov. Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team, Schwarzenegger-controlled fund, $250,000
---
Source: California secretary of state
Major contributors to the Proposition 69 campaign
http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wire/story/4946482p-5007665c.html
The Associated Press
Top financial contributors to campaigns for and against Proposition 69.
Californians for the DNA Fingerprint (Yes on Proposition 69 fund)
- Bruce E. Harrington, president, Eli Development Corp., Newport Beach, $1,812,500
- Douglas Harrington, physician, Newport Beach, $10,000
- Jeffrey O. Henley, board chairman, Oracle Corp., Santa Barbara, $10,000
- Sen. Dick Ackerman, R-Fullerton, $5,000
- Assemblyman John Benoit, R-Bermuda Dunes, $1,000
No recorded contributors against Proposition 69.
---
Source: California secretary of state
Highlights of Proposition 61
http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wire/story/4946490p-5007674c.html
The Associated Press
Proposition 61 at-a-glance:
- Would allow the state to sell $750 million in general obligation bonds to pay for capital improvement projects, including expansion, renovation and the purchase of new equipment.
- Five University of California children's hospitals are specifically identified as being eligible to receive 20 percent of the money raised from the bonds.
- Eighty percent of the bonds are earmarked for general acute care hospitals that focus on children and meet other state requirements, including one that states that hospitals provide at least 160 licensed beds for infants and children.
- The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that it would cost the state about $1.5 billion over 30 years, with payments of about $50 million per year and $756 million in interest.
---
Source: California Legislative Analyst's Office.
Highlights of Proposition 63
http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wire/story/4946485p-5007668c.html
The Associated Press
Proposition 63 at-a-glance:
- Establishes a 1 percent tax on net income in excess of $1 million beginning Jan. 1, 2005, to create new community-based mental health programs and expand existing ones. An estimated 25,000 to 30,000 taxpayers will be subject to paying the surcharge.
- Mandates that the state controller transfer money into a new state fund called the Mental Health Services Fund starting in 2004-05. The amount deposited for this first year would be later adjusted to reflect actual amount collected. The measure is estimated to generate $275 million in 2004-05; $750 million in 2005-06; and $800 million in 2006-07.
- Specifies the portion of funds, administered by the state Department of Mental Health, that would be spent on different areas from year to year. In 2004-05, 45 percent will be spent on education and training of the mental health work force; 45 percent will be spent on counties' facilities and technological needs. In 2005-06, funding for both those areas would drop to 10 percent; prevention and early intervention programs would get 20 percent; innovative programs 5 percent; the rest would go toward services for people with serious mental illnesses.
- Forbids counties from redirecting money for any other purpose and prevents the state from reducing funding for mental health services below 2003-04 levels.
---
Sources: California Legislative Analyst's Office; California secretary of state
But, thanks to you, now I know how to vote on THREE state propositions.
Thangkew.
Major contributors to the Proposition 64 campaigns
http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wire/story/4946492p-5007676c.html
The Associated Press
Top financial contributors to campaigns for and against Proposition 64.
Californians to Stop Shakedown Lawsuits (Yes on Proposition 64 fund)
- California Motor Car Dealers Association, trade group, Sacramento, $4.9 million. (Includes approximately $2.4 million raised by separate Motor Car Dealers Association committee for Proposition 64.)
- Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, trade group, Washington, D.C., $1.5 million.
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce, business group, Washington, D.C., $495,000.
- Intel Corp., technology company, Hillsborough, $300,000.
- Blue Cross of California, health insurer, Thousand Oaks, $250,000.
- Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, health insurer, Sacramento, $225,000.
- Oracle Corp., software developer, Redwood City, $200,000.
- California Association of Realtors, trade group, Los Angeles, $200,000.
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Bloomington, Ill., $200,000.
- Allstate Insurance Co. and several others at $100,000.
No recorded contributors against Proposition 64.
---
Source: California secretary of state
Here's the link for the Secretary of State Initiative Update page..
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm
and the 16, count 'em, 16 items on the ballot this November.
Who needs a legislature anyway? ;-)
FR Search Results for 'proposition initiative'..
Yields results not for just California, btw.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=any;o=score;s=proposition%20initiative
Major contributors to the Proposition 1A and 65 campaigns
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/9704294.htm
Associated Press
Top financial contributors to campaigns for and against Propositions 1A and 65.
Californians To Protect Local Taxpayers and Public Safety (Yes on Proposition 1A fund)
_ League of California Cities, local government group, Sacramento, $2.95 million
_ California State Association of Counties, local government group, Sacramento, $1 million
_ Southern California Edison, utility company, Rosemead, $200,000
_ California Public Securities Association, bond underwriters group, San Francisco, $100,000
_ Peace Officers Research Association of California, law enforcement union, Sacramento, $100,000
_ California Special District Association, local government group, Sacramento, $99,000
No recorded contributors against Proposition 1A.
No recorded contributors for or against Proposition 65.
---
Source: California secretary of State
Proposition 59 seeks stronger constitution for open records
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/9704238.htm
JIM WASSERMAN
Associated Press
SACRAMENTO - What almost singularly distinguishes life inside a democracy - a citizen's ability to request and receive information from government - has became a tarnished ideal in California, weakened by court rulings and everyday practices in public offices.
That's the argument behind Proposition 59, a ballot measure that asks voters to put a stronger bite in the state constitution for "open" government.
Supporters of the Nov. 2 initiative say too often the answer to asking a public water district, city hall, county courthouse or the Capitol for names, dates, salaries or background documents on a controversial decision is "No." And increasingly, they add, the remedy for citizens and the media seeking information is to sue.
"I'm involved in my 15th local government lawsuit," said Pasadena City College chemistry professor Richard McKee, an activist who pushes Southern California's public sector to open its files. "I've found the court is often unsure if it should apply rules that promote secrecy, or whether it should rule that the people should have access."
Proposition 59 aims to clarify that question, requiring judges to interpret state law broadly for access to documents and meetings - and narrowly on efforts to withhold or restrict them. Supporters hope a series of favorable court rulings based on the new constitutional principle will prod a gradual, but lasting attitude change and more cooperation at government agencies. The result could push California nearer the forefront of states that already have such language in their constitutions, such as Florida, New Hampshire, Montana and Louisiana.
"That is something that is very badly needed," said Terry Francke, general counsel of Californians Aware, a Carmichael-based coalition of journalists, attorneys and public officials for open government. "Those whom the open meeting and public records law apply to have an ingrained habit of doing precisely the opposite."
"If it's not enshrined in the state constitution, it's subject too often to be whittled away by regulation, by legislation and by court decisions," said Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, a San Rafael-based advocate for public participation and open records. Members pointed to numerous bills before the Legislature this year to restrict individual categories of records.
Proposition 59's backers cited years of tests showing routine denials of "legitimate" public records requests in California. This year Contra Costa Times reporters and editors identifying themselves by name, encountered what the newspaper called "suspicion, defensiveness, intimidation, needless delays, incompetence and ignorance," when asking for records at 86 government agencies in the Bay Area and 36 police agencies.
Though California's Public Records Act requires agencies to make records "promptly available," only 21 of 78 agencies immediately produced the employment contract of their top official. Just 37 of 86 agencies produced a statement of economic interest of their leaders the same day as requested.
"The findings are shocking," said Tom Newton, attorney with the Sacramento-based California Newspaper Publishers Association, a trade group for newspapers. "They were flatly being ignorant of the law as public officials, or worse, having just a strong desire not to give it to them."
Four years ago student journalists similarly audited 130 Southern California agencies and found 79 percent of their records requests routinely rejected. The study, by the California First Amendment Coalition and Society of Professional Journalists, reported rejections fell to about 60 percent when the initial request was followed by formal letters citing California's disclosure laws.
More recently, a small Palo Alto newspaper abandoned its routine annual request for public employee salaries by name in area cities when the Teamsters and other employee unions sued the cities and obtained a preliminary injunction to prevent its release. The Palo Alto Daily News noted that one city had overruns exceeding $800,000 on police and fire overtime, while a transit supervisor in another earned more than the governor's $175,000 annual salary. But San Francisco's 1st District Court of Appeal sided with the unions, calling the paper's request an invasion of employees' privacy.
The City of Oakland now cites the appeals court decision for refusing to provide the Contra Costa Times similar names and salaries of workers who earn more than $100,000 a year.
"What an individual may make, that's between them and the IRS, the way I look at it," said Michael J. McLaughlin, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 856, which filed the suit. "I don't think that's public scrutiny."
Yet the Teamsters endorsed Proposition 59, as did the California Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO.
"You have a constitutional right to know what the government is doing, why it's doing it and how," said spokesman Nathan Ballard.
To date, the measure has no known organized opposition.
Mountain View Attorney Gary B. Wesley, who wrote a lone ballot opposition argument, contended that Proposition 59 doesn't go far enough. It exempts the Legislature from some requirements and also protects internal law enforcement investigations.
Newton acknowledges the concern, but said, "In the real world, we did the best we could."
The measure, promoted by Senate leader John Burton, D-San Francisco, took three years to pass the Legislature by a two-thirds majority and overcome opposition of cities, counties and public utilities.
Backers have reported no fund raising for the measure. Nor is there a committee spending to defeat it.
"We're urging our members to write about this and adopt support positions on editorial pages," Newton said.
ON THE NET
Read the ballot proposition: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/
Read the legislative history of SCA1 at http://www.legislature.ca.gov
California First Amendment Coalition: http://www.cfac.org
Highlights of Proposition 66
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/9704310.htm
Associated Press
Proposition 66, at-a-glance:
Called the Limitations on "Three-Strikes" Law, Sex Crimes, Punishment, Initiative Statute, the proposition would:
_ Limit the application of tough "three-strikes" sentencing guidelines to convictions on a "serious or violent" felony. Under current law, second or third felonies including attempted burglary or criminal threats - which would no longer be strikes if Proposition 66 passes - trigger the tougher guidelines.
Proponents say this would restore the 1994 three-strikes law to its original intent by locking up for 25-years-to-life only violent felons, saving hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.
Opponents say this would prevent prosecutors from imprisoning hardcore criminals before they can reoffend.
_ Make any inmate serving a life sentence on a third strike which is not "serious or violent" eligible for a resentencing hearing.
Proponents say this would give judges latitude to assess each case without Draconian guidelines, resulting in the release or sentence reduction of a fraction of an estimated 4,100 felons eligible for the hearings.
Opponents estimate that judges would review the sentences of 26,000 felons, costing the state millions for law enforcement and exposing society to damages that cannot be quantified.
_ Increase prison sentences for a conviction on charges of sexual penetration or oral copulation with a child under age 14.
Proponents say this gets "smart" on crime by targeting child molesters.
Opponents say this a toothless provision because prosecutors seldom use this specific statute.
_ Require that strikes be tried separately. Currently, if someone is convicted on charges of rape and murder, they receive two strikes; under Proposition 66, prosecutors would have to hold separate trials to get two strikes.
---
Source: Legislative Analyst's Office; campaigns for and against Proposition 66.
ON THE NET
Read the analysis of, arguments over Proposition 66: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_66_entire.pdf
Thank you for putting this together.
Two anti-71 websites:
http://www.NoOn71.com/
http://www.noon71.us/
The California Republican Assembly's recommendations:
Ballot Propositions
Proposition 1A – No Position
This constitutional amendment, placed on the ballot by the Legislature, would provide local government with some assurance that their funds would not be taken by the Legislature. It locks in place the current (unequal) allocation of property taxes, sales taxes, and vehicle license fees. It would allow the Legislature to borrow billions this year, next year, and two years each decade thereafter. These funds would have to be “repaid” before the Legislature could borrow again. The measure provides some important protections that local governments do not have now, but to do so, Proposition 1A would give constitutional status to the current system of local government funding, which is complex, unfair, inequitable and irrational.
Proposition 59 – Support
This measure would guarantee access to certain government information. Proposition 59 is another constitutional amendment that was placed on the ballot by the Legislature (SCA 1, Burton). It provides that the people have the right to access information concerning the conduct of the people’s business. It essentially elevates current law to constitutional status, including the California Public Records Act, the Brown Act, and the Bagley-Keene Act. Unfortunately, this amendment does not close any of the sweeping loopholes in current law.
Proposition 60 – Support
This amendment would destroy the Louisiana-style primary proposal (Prop. 62) by creating a constitutional guarantee for parties to place nominees elected in primary elections on the general election ballot. This constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by the Legislature (SCA 18, Johnson). Rather than changing current law, this measure merely provides constitutional protections for the current primary election process.
Proposition 60A – Support
This amendment would earmark the proceeds from any disposal of surplus state property for repayment of the Economic Recovery Bond, Proposition 57 (approved in the March 2004). It was originally placed on the ballot as part of Proposition 60. Judicial activists in the court system divided the original proposal into two separate ballot measures, claiming that the single subject rule for “initiatives” also applies to constitutional amendments placed on the ballot by the Legislature.
Proposition 61 – Oppose
This is a financially-irresponsible $750 million bond to be used to fund grants to children’s hospitals. It would be repaid from the state’s near-bankrupt General Fund. (Note: There is no guarantee that this would increase funding to children’s hospitals, since the Legislature could use these bond funds in place of existing revenues that would otherwise have been dedicated to children’s hospitals.)
Proposition 62 – Oppose by any means necessary
This is the disastrous initiative statute designed to eliminate our primary elections and replace them with “Louisiana-style” jungle primaries, where the general election ballot would contain the names of the top two candidates (regardless of party). In many districts, perhaps most, there would be two Republicans or two Democrats on the general election ballot. Real voter choice would no longer exist. This is the worst measure on the ballot.
Proposition 63 – Oppose
1% tax on incomes over one million dollars, to be used to fund mental health services. Note: This new tax would not necessarily increase funding for mental health services, since the Legislature could shift existing funds to other sources (as they have often done with transportation funds). If a small number of millionaires left the state to avoid this tax, this measure could actually reduce state revenues.
Proposition 64 – Support
Only allows lawsuits for unfair business practices in those situations where the plaintiff was actually injured personally. This initiative contains several other procedural reforms to reduce the many frivolous lawsuits filed under Section 17200 of the Business & Professions Code.
Proposition 65 – Oppose
Originally sponsored by the League of Cities, this measure would require voter approval for any legislation that provides for any reduction of local governments’ vehicle license fee revenues, sales tax powers and revenues, and proportionate share of local property tax revenues. Permits local government to suspend performance of state mandate if the state fails to reimburse local government within 180 days. This well-intentioned reform would essentially lock the terrible status quo in place permanently, making it impossible to reform the arcane and dysfunctional system of local government finance.
Proposition 66 – Oppose
This initiative would amend the successful “Three Strikes” law to require increased sentences only when the third conviction is for a violent or serious felony, instead of any felony. It also re-defines violent or serious felonies to make certain that more criminals would go free (e.g., certain burglaries would no longer be considered serious felonies). “Three Strikes” has been more successful in reducing crime than any of the proponents dared to hope and it would be insane to tinker with it now.
Proposition 67 – Oppose
This initiative would add a 3% surcharge on telephone use within California, without eliminating any of the other taxes, fees, and surcharges already present on our telephone bills. The new taxes would be used by hospitals, emergency telephone systems, emergency personnel, etc. Revenues would be exempt from the Gann spending limit! Note: This new surcharge would not necessarily increase funding for emergency services since the Legislature could shift existing funds to other sources (as they have often done with transportation funds).
Proposition 68 – Oppose
This is the Larry Flynt to allow initiative to allow just 16 specific, non-tribal racetracks and gambling establishments to operate 30,000 slot machines, paying 33% of revenues to fund public safety, regulatory, social programs. These facilities, which paid to get this measure on the ballot, would be exempt from many other local and state laws. Technically, the measure would not go into effect if ALL Indian tribes were to agree to pay 25% of slot machine revenues as taxes, comply with multiple state laws, and accept state court jurisdiction (i.e., give up tribal sovereignty) within 90 days of the passage of this initiative. However, if any of those requirements were deemed to violate federal law, then the tribes would not even have the option of agreeing to them. This is a sham, designed only to enrich the backers of this initiative.
Proposition 69 – Support
This initiative statute requires the collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from adults and juveniles arrested for ANY felony. The DNA database would be funded by a 10% increase in traffic citations and other criminal fines. The expanded DNA database would help solve unsolved crimes and it might help prove the innocence of persons who have been wrongfully convicted.
Proposition 70 – Oppose
This is the Indian-sponsored initiative to require the Governor to offer renewable 99-year gaming compacts to Indian tribes with no limits on the number of machines or types of games. Tribes would pay the state corporate tax rate in lieu of any other fees, taxes or levies. Tribes would not pay taxes if the state permits non-tribal casino-type gaming.
Proposition 71 – Oppose
Establishes the “California Institute for Regenerative Medicine” to regulate stem cell research and provide funding, through grants and loans, for such research and research facilities. Authorizes issuance of general obligation bonds to finance Institute activities up to $3 billion subject to annual limit of $350 million. Provides General Fund loan up to $3 million for initial administration costs. This is a bond to pay for a new government bureaucracy to fund questionable research that, in many cases, is immoral and unethical. If this research is truly valuable and cost-effective, then investors would be lining up to fund it and there would be no need for taxpayer funds.
Proposition 72 – Oppose
This referendum was placed on the ballot to stop Senate Bill 2 (Burton, 2003) from taking effect. This law would impose a “pay-or-play” system that requires most employers to provide health insurance for employees and some dependents - or pay a new tax to fund health insurance provided by the state. The costs are astronomical. Voting “No” will prevent this new mandate from taking effect.
Source: http://www.ca-ra.org/general.htm
Thanks for the info. :-)
You're welcome. :-)
First time I've seen your new logo in action....mighty fine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.