Interesting. But it seems to me it MIGHT have helped with the spending out there in Cali. I also find it interesting that the unions didn't like it.
When the campaign manager himself says it won't, I have a hard time believing it would. And the fine print did not support that result.
You might also find this article interesting. Deception in propositions is nothing new to California:
http://www.rppi.org/suchadeal.shtml
Such a Deal: Californians Have a History of Buying Ballot Measures that are Deceptively Written and Advertised
by Ted Balaker
Ted Balaker is Jacobs Fellow at Reason Foundation
March 2, 2003 -- Like doughnuts or deodorant, politics is about selling. And what sells a product isn't so much what the product does, but what the buyer thinks it does. Take Proposition 56. It doesn't really matter if it actually reforms the budget, because as long as people think they are getting budget reform, they will vote for it.
Special interest groups and politicians have learned the trick is to get people to pay attention - but not too much attention. If you're at the supermarket perusing deodorant options, industry executives don't expect you to ponder the active ingredients in each; they figure you'll simply reach for the one with the commercial that made you feel robust and athletic. Likewise, those selling propositions don't want you to think too much, they just want you to vote for the one that feels right.
The big problem for California arises after voters have cast their ballots. If you're duped into buying deodorant that doesn't work, you can simply buy a different brand next time. But once voters pass a proposition, the whole state is stuck with it.
Thankfully, political peddlers aren't particularly creative. Over the years they've stayed loyal to a few tricks, and a perceptive voter can learn to spot the shady sales tactics.
Beware of propositions with impressive names
Proposition 111's alias was too enticing for voters to pass up in 1990. After all, even the most skeptical among us might have rolled the dice on a tempting title like the "Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act."
Perhaps voters dreamed that one grand proposition could unlock the secrets to rescuing California from slow moving streets and fast spending politicians. Sadly, the key features were hardly revolutionary. To relieve traffic congestion, the proposition would fund transportation projects by raising gas taxes. To "limit spending," it would loosen spending restrictions enacted by the 1979 Gann Spending Limit. How would loose spending restrictions limit spending? Couldn't tell you. But the "Traffic Congestion and Spending Limitation Act" sure sounds promising.
(snip)
The main purpose of Prop. 76 was to take the power out of the previously passed Prop. 98, mandating huge spending for schools, no matter what and to control spending.
Its defeat is a disaster for CA.