|
California State 2006 - Proposition 89 California Clean Money and Fair Elections |
Official Summary, Pros & Cons
Other Resources
Visitor's Comments
Join the Discussion!
Official Summary, Pros and Cons
Provides that candidates for state elective office meeting certain eligibility requirements, including collection of a specified number of $5.00 contributions from voters, may voluntarily receive public campaign funding from the Fair Political Practices Commission, in amounts varying by elective office and type of election. Increases income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions by 0.2 percent to fund program. Imposes new limits on campaign contributions to state-office candidates and campaign committees, and new restrictions on contributions and expenditures by lobbyists and corporations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased revenues (primarily from increased taxes on corporations and financial institutions) totaling more than $200 million annually to pay for the public financing of political campaigns for state elected offices.
|
Current Programs
|
Proposition 89 Summary
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)
Proposition 89 Analysis
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)
Proposition 89 Arguments & Rebuttals
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)
A YES vote on this measure means: Candidates for state offices could choose
to receive public funds to pay for the costs of campaigns if they meet
certain requirements. Candidates not accepting public funds would be subject
to lower contribution limits than currently. The tax rate on corporations
and financial institutions would be increased to pay for the public
financing of political campaigns.
A NO vote on this measure means: Candidates for state offices would continue
to pay for their campaigns with private funds subject to current
contribution limits. The tax rate on corporations and financial institutions
would not change.
Follow the Money (for and against this proposition)
To find the information, first click on a "Committee Name" link,
and then select the radio button "Late and $5000+ Contributions Received."
Organizations & individuals FOR Proposition 89
89Now.org (In English and en Español)
Californians for Clean Elections
California Clean Money Campaign
League of Women Voters of California
The Foundations for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights
Consumer Federation of California
Organizations & Individuals AGAINST Proposition 89
California Chamber of Commerce
Insurance Brokers and Agents of the West
Selected Articles, Editorials, Opinions, Reports
United Teachers Los Angeles Endorses Prop. 89
Yahoo! News
September 28, 2006
Proposition 89: Take the “For Sale” sign off the State Capitol
Consumer Federation of California
By Richard Holober, Executive Director
September 7, 2006
No on Prop. 89: It's badly written, unconstitutional and futile
San Diego Union-Tribune, Editorial
August 24, 2006
Clean money draws bipartisan enemies
San Francisco Bay Guardian
July 18, 2006
Prop. 89: So Good It's Scary -- to Sacramento
Los Angeles Times
July 19, 2006
Prop 89 - Get Corporate Money Out Of Politics
Daily Kos - By Marthature
July 23, 2006
Visitor Name: Rachel Morris
Congregation: Unitarian Universalist Church of Ventura - Ventura
Although the majority of published material is in support of Proposition 89, there are a number of groups voicing their opposition. It's easy to see that these groups have worked hard over the years to gain political advantage through finance. Of course they aren't about to sit back and watch Prop 89 level the playing field. Sure, they'll point to one or two red herring details that could be ironed out through negotiation and amendments. But the real question this bill asks is "How comfortable are you with democracy?"
It's not as easy a question as it sounds. When it comes down to it, how many voters really know what's going on? Don't laugh, I was 35 before I learned that the Secretary of State doesn't take dictation - they actually determine how and if votes are counted in the State! So, why should I trust a populace vote? Especially since television makes it entertaining to get misinformed? Answer: because if the citizens don't get to decide, the alternative isn't a benevolent Higher Power, an all-knowing parent figure. The alternative is a corporate board, where the bottom line is material wealth and political control for the benefit of the few.
I think the best approach is to put our faith in the natural good-will and inspiration of the citizens, work like heck to get real news published, and support the "Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2006" from every rooftop.
Visitor Name: Eileen Prendiville
Congregation: Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Marin - San Rafael
I have been a staff nurse for 29yrs and a CNA member. Clean money and fair elections are an essential first step toward true health care reform, a single payer system, which is the ultimate goal of CNA and the reason for placing Prop 89 on the ballot. We need to clean up our corrupt system where money is donated in exchange for political favors. The pharmaceutical, insurance and hospital industries heavily lobby our elected officials and prevent the reforms that are necessary to change our current system. As a direct care RN on the front lines every day in our hospitals and clinics, I and my colleagues see what a disaster we currently have in healthcare. We see gross inequities between those who have insurance and those who do not. Our hospitals are often run by corporate chains and are profit driven first and foremost. They compete for and seek out the lowest risk and most insured patients in order to maintain their competitive advantage. Expensive marketing consultants are hired to find ways to lure the most affluent of patients. Medical supply companies, pharmaceutical companies and the insurance industry continue to make substantial profits at patients’ expense. This money should be used for direct patient care services such as providing prenatal care to every pregnant woman, for example. Perhaps our infant mortality rate which is one of the highest in the developed world would be lowered if our health care dollars were redistributed.
Arizona, Maine and Connecticut already have a clean money system in place and in those states there is more involvement in the political process by individuals who would normally be discouraged from running due to lack of funds. As well as having an improved voter turnout, women and minority candidates have increased.
Please endorse Prop 89 and encourage all your friends and family members to vote Yes. As Bill Moyers said "Clean money is the reform that makes all other reforms possible." Using the first UU Principle - the inherent worth and dignity of every person - it is essential that our liberal faith community promote the necessary changes in our political system in order to get a single standard of care for every man, woman, and child in this country.
Visitor Name: leo weilmann
Congregation: Unitarian Universalist Community of the Mountains - Grass Valley
Ir we do not try to clean up the act we have no one to blame but ourselves for the mess our election process is in.
Sadly it appears that voluntary contributions tohelp fund the process will not work. WQho wants to contribute $3.00 when corporations can contribute thousants? Already the cards are
stacked beofre the game has begun.
Proposition 89 may not be the perfect answer, but it seems to be a start in the right direction and as such deserves our support
Visitor Name: Nancy Neff
Congregation: Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto - Palo Alto
Arnold Schwarzenegger nailed the problem on the head when he was running for Governor: “I'll tell you how it works in Sacramento. Money comes in, favors go out, the people lose.” The system is so broken that it requires a radical fix, radical in the Latin meaning “root.”
I have been volunteering with the California Clean Money Campaign since I first heard of it in January at a talk on “Corporate Personhood.” I am deeply grateful to the visionaries who have been working on public campaign financing for many years, and joyful to have the opportunity to help pass Clean Money in California. I've been pretty cynical about politics and quite uninvolved for over 20 years. Many times I've thought, “We can't get anywhere on this [health, environment, education, whatever] issue because the monied interests are too powerful, the priorities all wrong. What we really need is campaign finance reform...(groan)!”
Clean Money takes out the “groan” and replaces it with “aha!” I am filled with hope that it is really possible to have government by the people and for the people, and my eyes fill with tears as I think of the promises of democracy that we deeply wish to make real for our children and grandchildren.
When CCMC began to support Prop 89 after the demise of AB 583, I was a little worried that Prop 89 had too many complicated provisions. Now that I have read them and learned how they all work together to close loopholes, and learned that Loni Hancock and CCMC had not put some of them in AB 583 due to the difficulty of passing them through the Legislature, I am fully supportive of Prop 89.
I understand that some unions are not currently supporting Prop 89 and I hope that their members are able to sway them to support it in the end. SEIU Local #(?) in San Francisco, 30,000 strong, supports it, though their parent union does not. Their representative who spoke in support of Clean Money at the Commonwealth Club recently said that business outspends unions 11 to 1 in Sacramento. In addition to the fact that corporations will lose more of their clout than will unions, unions will retain the strength of their numbers and their organization, their ability to turn out precinct walkers and get out the vote. Good ideas will carry more weight than big money.
Last weekend the Democratic Party Executive Board voted to remain neutral on Prop 89. The California Teachers Association, which has spent $114 million on ballot measures and $13.6 million on candidates since 1999 and is a major donor to the Democratic Party, is opposed to Prop 89. I can only speculate about the connections between these facts, but to an outsider it looks like CTA leadership doesn't want to lose its own big-money clout, and may have influenced the decision of the Democratic Party Exec Board. Local Democratic clubs are taking their own positions and every one I have heard of so far is endorsing Prop 89.
I am proud to be a member of a church that prizes democracy and exercises our voice in government through UULM. Passing Proposition 89 is crucial to the recovery of democracy in California, and an important step toward a national recovery of democracy via public campaign financing. We have less than 3 months left until the election and I hope that every UU in California helps to seize this historic moment and work for the passage of Proposition 89.
Visitor Name: Ray Waters
Congregation: Pacific Unitarian Church - Rancho Palos Verdes
I am a strong supporter of public funding of elections. Propostion 89 will remove the barriers to entry for candidates who are not rich. It removes the need for a politician to constantly chase dollars to support the next election. Lobbyists can sway officials by the force of their reason not the size of their contributions. This is the reform that makes all other reforms posible. Proposition 89's opponents fear the loss of their power over legislation.
Democracy will be enhanced by the passage of this initiative.
Visitor Name: Ben Thompson
Congregation: First Unitarian Church of Oakland - Oakland
Prop 89 is a critical reform for our democratic process. Public financing of state legislative and executive offices will level the playing field among potential candidates so that individuals of modest means have as much chance to serve as wealthy individuals. Public financing will also eliminate the influence of self-interested large donors, both corporations and unions. Its fair, it makes sense, it works and its overdue. Both Maine and Arizona have had similar systems in place for several years and it works well. More women and minorities are running and getting elected.
Prop 89 speaks directly to UU values by strengthening the principle that every citizen should have an equal voice in public affairs.
God bless the California Nurses Association for putting this on the ballot. You can help by donating today to the yes on 89 campaign by visiting
www.89now.org.
Visitor Name: Tom Luce
Congregation: First Unitarian Church of Oakland - Oakland
Hi, I just read the Chronicle's editorial nixing Prop 89. I have to agree with the editorial if it is true that CNA has twisted the "clean money" ideal to their own advantage. I notice above that Eileen Prindiville actually states that CNA is pushing Prop 89 because they ultimately want to promote single payer health care financing. This is really a great argument in favor of the Chronicle's opinion! I note that you don't list the CTA as opposed to Prop 89 and yet the Chronicle quotes Barbara Kerr as opposed. What's going on here? Are we being asked to support 89 because it is the only reform measure to have made it this far and therefore we should support it? And then fix it later? It seems to me that this is going to be a fiasco. Please help us figure out what this about. Thanks
Visitor Name: Nancy Neff
Congregation: Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto - Palo Alto
I do not agree with the Chronicle's opinion. The lawyers for CNA and the California Clean Money Campaign do not think that the CTA will be treated differently than other unions because of its printing business. Prop 89 contains the statement, "This act shall be broadly construed to accomplish its purposes."
This web page does not have a complete list of either the pro or con organizations. There are large union organizations on both sides of this one. See the websites of each side for the long lists. I looked on CTA's website and they do say no on 89 there. One teacher told me that the CTA is afraid of wealthy individuals pushing charter schools through initiatives, and the CTA losing its ability to fight back. Current Supreme Court rulings do not seem to allow for limiting individual spending on initiatives, so Prop 89 could not address this. But this is only a problem for unions if unions are somehow construed to be corporations.
Personally I think that the leadership of some unions are afraid of losing their ability to write large checks to gain influence. I also think that Prop 89 will benefit unions, both because of the leveled playing field for initiatives, with corporations now having to form PACs if they want to donate over $10,000, and because of the leveled playing field for donations to candidates. Since corporations outspend unions (11 to 1 in the case of today's election), unions will benefit because they have the strength of their numbers, their organization, their ability to get out the vote, and hopefully their better ideas.
The CNA has made no secret of their agenda for health care reform, which they believe will be very difficult to achieve unless we institute public financing of campaigns. For the Chronicle to spin this as "twisting Clean Money to their own advantage" is the Chronicle's attempt to make the CNA look bad.
Maine was the first state to pass Clean Money and several years later was the first state to pass a form of universal health care. Since the majority of Californians favor universal health care, I would consider this to be an argument in favor of Prop 89.
Prop 89 has provisions for amendment by the legislature if necessary. Based on the success of Clean Money in Arizona and Maine, I am hopeful that it will be successful in California, and eventually, nationally.
Visitor Name: Webmistress (Rachel Morris)
Congregation: Unitarian Universalist Church of Ventura - Ventura
Dear Visitors,
To answer Tom Luce's question "What's going on here?" I believe he was referring to why some material appears on the UULM-CA Virtual Meeting House, and others not.
Our goal is to provide as neutral a site as possible, so everyone is inspired to share their opinions and experience. Also, we try to go for the informative links and information, and to stay away from empty sensationalism, inaccurate material, and mud-slinging. The concept is to provide a central location for useful information from many perspectives.
With limited resources and budget, we strive to include the key players and information based on our research. Are we going to miss organizations, articles, web links? You bet.
This is where all of you come in. If you know of an important link or verified fact that you really feel is important to the discussion, for heaven's sake, don't be shy. Send it to me at webmistress@uulmca.org. It can only make our site richer and more inclusive.
So - for 2006, be gearing up to contribute to our next election education effort.
Peace and Health,
-Rachel
Visitor Name: Nancy Neff
Congregation: Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto - Palo Alto
From the election results it appears that we were asking you to support a proposition that was flawed--in its appeal to voters! Many people think it had too many provisions in it beyond the Clean Money, so it was too confusing and drew fire from both business and some unions. I'm glad we accomplished a lot of education about public financing and I look forward to the opportunity to work for a more "pure" Clean Money bill.
UU Legislative Ministry
717 K St # 514
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 441-0018
admin@uulmca.org