Posted on 11/06/2006 9:15:26 PM PST by SmithL
SACRAMENTO - As seven-figure contributions continue to roll in, momentum has shifted against two high-profile, multimillion-dollar initiatives on Tuesday's ballot, according to a Field Poll released today.
Once supportive, likely voters are now evenly split on Proposition 86, which would raise cigarette taxes to fund health programs, and leaning against Proposition 87, which would levy extraction fees on oil companies to pay for research into alternative energy.
But the races are still too close to call before Tuesday.
In California politics, initiative opponents tend to have a built-in advantage, because voting no preserves the status quo.
That edge is only amplified when an initiative targets a deep-pocketed special interest who fights back -- be it the pharmaceutical industry, public employee unions or, in this case, oil and tobacco companies.
In the $150 million battle over Prop. 87, oil companies have gained an edge over Silicon Valley venture capitalists and Hollywood producer Stephen Bing.
Voters now lean against the measure 44 percent to 40 percent; a month ago those numbers were reversed, with 44 percent support to 41 percent opposition.
The Prop. 86 contest, which pits tobacco companies against the hospital industry and health groups, is tied at 45 percent. The "yes" side held a 13-point advantage a month ago.
"The prevailing wind on 86 and 87 has been to the "no" side," said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. "With such a close election on many of these propositions, the final week of turnout" will be critical.
The battle over Prop. 85, which would require a waiting period and parental notification for a minor to obtain an abortion, looks to be a squeaker again.
It drew 46 percent support and 43 percent opposition; that's a 2-point gain for supporters since July. Voters defeated a similar measure in the closest contest of last year's special election.
But that measure is a sleeper compared with the blockbuster Prop. 87 production.
On Wednesday, former President Clinton, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and "Desperate Housewives" star Eva Longoria rallied in San Francisco for Prop. 87.
Other prominent supporters include former Vice President Al Gore and actors Robert Redford, Julia Roberts, Salma Hayek and Ben Affleck.
TV ads from Clinton and Gore have helped Prop. 87 maintain support among California's coastal residents and Democrats. But inland voters and Republicans are turning against the measure in droves.
"This is going to be a real horse race down to the finish," said Yes on 87 spokeswoman Beth Willon. "What our campaign is all about right now is getting out the vote."
She asserted that oil industry opponents were in "full panic mode" right now, and ramping up contributions to the "no" side.
Supporters of the measure have raised about $57 million -- almost $50 million from Bing. Opponents have collected more than $90 million, including $4 million from Chevron.
Opponents aren't panicked at all, said No on 87 spokesman Al Lundeen. "The more voters learn about the 31 pages of Proposition 87, the more likely they are to oppose it."
He gave the measure points for symbolism, but demerits for execution.
The other big-money fight is Prop. 86, which would give California the nation's highest cigarette tax.
Tobacco companies opposing the measure have raised more than $80 million. Hospitals and health groups have collected about $20 million.
Registered nurse Maria Robles said in a statement, "We're confident that voters will ultimately see through the tobacco industry's lies and vote for reducing smoking and funding health care programs."
Carla Hass, a spokeswoman for measure opponents, said they were "pleased with the direction" of the Field Poll.
"Up through Election Day, we'll continue to educate voters about the flaws in the initiative," she said. Opponents say too little of the money would actually go to health programs.
A quieter battle is occurring over California's parental notification for abortion measure, the second in as many years.
"This particular issue is very divisive," said DiCamillo. "The shape of the turnout will have a bigger impact on 85 than just about any other proposition."
Measure supporters say it's just common sense to have parents involved in such a big decision. It excludes teens younger than 18 who are married or those who get a waiver from a judge.
Those people supporting the measure are getting the word out through fliers and audiotapes at churches, recorded calls and mailers from the California Republican Party.
Measure spokesman Albin Rhomberg said a similar initiative last year got swept up in the no-on-everything fervor. "I would say we're cautiously optimistic," he said.
Opponents, including Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, say that the vast majority of pregnant teens already consult with a parent before terminating a pregnancy.
Compelling parental involvement could harm teens who live in abusive homes. Opponents are running television ads in Los Angeles, with smaller buys in the Bay Area, Sacramento and San Diego.
"From our perspective, it's a statistical dead heat," said Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on 85. "I think this race will be one of those 1- or 2-pointers."
The poll surveyed 795 likely voters on the three measures and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
A smaller group of likely voters, 394, was surveyed about Prop. 90. It would place new limits on government's ability to acquire land via eminent domain and to make other land-use decisions. Voters opposed the measure 42 percent to 35 percent.
The Prop. 90 poll results have a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
And in their campaign to ensure children are murdering their children, there is no mention in the ads of the "safeguards" for children who live in abusive homes.
Thank God. I simply cannot believe people can even consider voting for Prop. 87. I can't believe so many 'serious' politicians are backing it.
I mean, I don't have any love or much respect for Bill Clinton or Al Gore, but before they came out for this, I didn't think they were in the same category as Maxine Waters or Ralph Nader.
By that, I mean: I didn't think they would have basically publically admitted that they flunked, or would flunk, Econ 101.
What those against prop 85 are not telling us that the proposition makes allowances for girls who are in an abusive situation.
I hope prop 87 goes down in flames, I resent when those who are rich try to get us to vote for something that will affect our pocketbooks. We pay enough taxes here in CA, gas is high enough out here as it is.
---I resent when those who are rich try to get us to vote for something that will affect our pocketbooks----
Who are the rich you cite.
The TV ads I have seen do not even mention what the props are about , just chatter about some emotional dribble to make someone vote yes or no
for instance the TV ad that runs every 5 minutes about proposition 90 states: "proposition 90 is a taxpayer trap"
well gee last time I read about Tom McClintock's prop90 it was a proposition to limit the governments ability to seize private real estate by various tricks of emminent domain abuse !
nothing in it about trapping taxpayers
The real "liberal compassion" of a higher cigarette tax is to keep food out of poor kids' mouths.
Addictions are just that; and if parents at financial equillibrium must decide between cigarettes or food for the kids, the smokes will often (tragically) win.
(High alcohol taxes can force poor alcoholic parents into the same sad choice.)
.
Are Californians stupid enough to vote themselves higher gas prices?
kind of amazing, huh?
Is it just me, or does no one else see a connection between prop 86 and benefits for illegals? even the voter guide spells out over $1.2 BILLION to be spent on reimbursing hospitals for unrecovered emergency care, expanded health coverage for "undocumented" kids, etc.etc.etc. Have we come that far as a state in such a short time (since we voted to end public services to illegals) that we now have greater disdain for those participating in something legal (smoking) than we do for illegal immigration? and so much so, that we are now willing to FUND the cost of illegal immigration??? this is insane.
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop86/analysis86.html
AWESOME NEWS!!!!!!!!!
Proposition 87 is a true dog that's got to go. It needs to be 86'd.
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.