The Southwest California Legislative Council is a coalition of the Temecula Valley, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore Valley and Wildomar Chambers of Commerce representing more than 2,200 businesses throughout Southwest Riverside County.

The Council has adopted the following positions for the November California state ballot initiatives:

ü Proposition 30, Sales and Income Tax Increase OPPOSE

Title: Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

ü Proposition 31, Two-Year State Budget Cycle SUPPORT

Title: State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

ü Proposition 32, The “Paycheck Protection” Initiative SUPPORT

Title: Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.

ü Proposition 33, Automobile Insurance Persistency Discounts WATCH

Title: Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative

ü Proposition 36, Changes in the “Three Strikes” Law WATCH

Title: Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute.

ü Proposition 37, Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food OPPOSE

Title: Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute.

ü Proposition 38, State Income Tax Increase to Support Education OPPOSE

Title: Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.

ü Proposition 39, Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses OPPOSE

Title: Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

ü Proposition 40, Referendum on the State Senate Redistricting Plan OPPOSE

Title: Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

For a more detailed review please visit: http://www.slideshare.net/genewunderlich/ballot-prop-rview

Following is the detailed review of Propositions:

Proposition 30, Sales and Income Tax Increase

Title: Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Recommended action: OPPOSE (CalChamber: OPPOSE)

Background:

Gov. Jerry Brown is leading the charge for Proposition 30, which is a merger of two previously competing initiatives; the “Millionaire’s Tax”and Brown’s First Tax Increase Proposal.

Provisions of Proposition 30 include:

Raises California’s sales tax to 7.5% from 7.25%, a 3.45% percentage increase over current law. (Under the Brown Tax Hike, the sales tax would have increased to 7.75%)
Creates three new high-income tax brackets for taxpayers with taxable incomes exceeding $250,000, $300,000, and $500,000. This increased tax will be in effect for 7 years.
Imposes a 10.3% tax rate on taxable income over $250,000 but less than $300,000–a percentage increase of 9.71% over current policy. The 10.3% income tax rate is currently only paid by taxpayers with over $1,000,000 in taxable income.
Imposes an 11.3% tax rate on taxable income over $350,000 but less than $500,000–a percentage increase of 17.7% over current policy.
Imposes a 12.3% tax rate on taxable income over $500,000–a percentage increase of 24.39% over current policy.
Based on California Franchise Tax Board data for 2009, the additional income tax is imposed on the top 3% of California taxpayers.

Official Summary

“Increases personal income tax on annual earnings over $250,000 for seven years. Increases sales and use tax by ¼ cent for four years. Allocates temporary tax revenues 89 percent to K-12 schools and 11 percent to community colleges. Bars use of funds for administrative costs, but provides local school governing boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how funds are to be spent. Guarantees funding for public safety services realigned from state to local governments.”

Fiscal impact

(This is a summary of the initiative’s estimated “fiscal impact on state and local government” prepared by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Director of Finance.)

Estimated revenue from Proposition 30 vary from Jerry Brown’s $9 billion estimate to the $6.8 billion estimated by the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). The difference stem for the volatility caused by capital gains income from high-income earners, an issue in California’s tax system previously identified by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO).

“Increased state revenues over the next seven fiscal years. Estimates of the revenue increases vary—from $6.8 billion to $9 billion for 2012-13 and from $5.4 billion to $7.6 billion, on average, in the following five fiscal years, with lesser amounts in 2018-19. These revenues would be available to (1) pay for the state’s school and community college funding requirements, as increased by this measure, and (2) address the state’s budgetary problem by paying for other spending commitments. Limitation on the state’s ability to make changes to the programs and revenues shifted to local governments in 2011, resulting in a more stable fiscal situation for local governments.”

Support

Jerry Brown
California Democratic Party
California Teachers Association (CTA)
California State Council of Service Employees (SEIU)
California School Employees Association (CSEA)
American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
California Federation of Teachers(CFT)

Donors

About $11 million has been contributed to the “yes” campaign as of August 10, 2012.

Eight different campaign committees have registered in support of Proposition 30. The two main campaign organizations supporting it are:

Donors of $250,000 and more to Proposition 30 are listed below. Two of the contributions–from American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America–came from organizations headquartered outside of California.

According to (SacBee columnist) Dan Morain, the state’s public employee unions, who could ordinarily be counted on to invest significantly in the campaign to pass Proposition 30, may find themselves torn between donations to support the tax hike, and donations to defeat another measure on the November 6, 2012 ballot, the “Paycheck Protection” Initiative. Morain says, “To help fund the campaign, Brown needs the help of organized labor. But unions will be busy trying to kill a separate initiative promoted by conservatives that would strip them of their ability to raise and spend money on campaigns.”

These numbers are current as of July 10, 2012:

Donor	$ Amount	Committee Number
California Teachers Association	$1,523,724	1346049
PACE of California School Employees Association	$1,250,000	1346049
American Federation of Teachers	$1,200,000	1346049
Service Employees International Union Local 1000 Issues PAC	$1,053,218	1346049
Democratic State Central Committee of California	$1,041,855	1346049
California State Council of Service Employees	$1,000,819	1346049
California Federation of Teachers COPE	$800,000	1346049
United Domestic Workers of America Operating Account	$800,000	1343257
California Hospitals Committee on Issues, Sponsored by CAHHS	$500,000	1343257
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America	$500,000	1343257
Educators and Working Families to Restore California	$360,000
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California	$350,000
American Beverage Association	$250,000
California Medical Association PAC	$250,000
California State Council of Laborers Issues PAC	$250,000

Opposition

Website banner of the HJTA’s “Don’t Sign” campaign

The arguments against Proposition 30 in the state’s official voter guide were submitted by:

Jon Coupal. Coupal is the head of theHoward Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Tom Bogetich. Bogetich has retired from the position of executive director of the California State Board of Education.
Doug Boyd. Boyd is a member of theLos Angeles CountyBoard of Education.^[15]
Joel Fox. Fox is the president of the Small Business Action Committee.
John Kabateck. Kabateck is the executive director of the California branch of the National Federation of Independent Business.
Kenneth Payne. Payne is the president of the Sacramento Taxpayers Association.^[16]
TheCalifornia Republican Party.^[17]
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Proposition 30 is opposed by columnist Debra Saunders, who says, “I fear [it will] drive golden geese out of the state. Sure, most families earning $500,000 or more aren’t going to move over a lousy $5,000, but moguls who make 20 times that and own multiple homes just might decide to migrate. And there go all their tax dollars.”
Some people who generally support tax increases in California say that they have problems with the specifics of Proposition 30. An example of this is Molly Munger, who says, “You sort of hope that the Democrats are the party that stand up for investment in children and in education. Those are two bedrock principles of the Democratic Party. It is a little bit ironic that so many elements of the Democratic Party are, you know, supporting an initiative that does not invest in the main engine we have for social mobility and opportunity in our society, which is our K-12 schools.” Another example is columnist George Skelton, who says, “Brown wants voters to believe that all the billions raised by his tax hike would go to K-12 schools and community colleges. They won’t. And he knows that as well as anyone.”
Molly Munger
While the top 1% earn roughly 21% of the income, they pay 41% of the tax. In 2007, before the stock market collapsed, they paid even more of the tax, 48%. In the next two years, their share declined to 37% as the state’s total income tax revenue fell by 25%.
In 2010, the top 10% earned 48% of the state’s income but paid 74% of the tax. You hit the top 10% after earning at least $129,000.
The logic: A lot of people should be paying more. On average, a family of four doesn’t owe any state income tax until their earnings reach $50,200, according to the finance department. Most everyone should kick in something and have a little skin in the game.
We are too dependent on the rich and their capital gains. Unlike the federal government, California treats capital gains as ordinary income. No reduced rates.
As a result, ups and downs in the economy are exaggerated into peaks and valleys in Sacramento, a perpetual cycle of boom and bust that plays havoc with budgeting.
In fact, California is too dependent on the income tax, period.
In the next fiscal year, the income tax is projected to provide 67% of the state’s revenue; the sales tax 23%. In 1980, it was about even: 35% income tax, 37% sales. But back in 1950, the income tax amounted to only 11% of revenue, the sales tax 59%.

Donors

Donor	Amount
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association	$10,000

California tax policies

The following table summarizes the proposed state income tax increases compared to existing tax policy. The table includes the following information:

The starting income for the bottom end of the tax bracket (for single-filer taxpayers)
The income for the top end of the tax bracket (for single-filer taxpayers)
The marginal tax rate for the income bracket under current policy
The new tax rate for the income bracket under the proposed tax hike
The rate increase (proposed_rate – current_rate)
The percentage increase in the rate over current policy ( (proposed_rate – current_rate)/current_rate )
The number of taxpayers that will pay an increased tax rate under the proposed tax hike. These estimates come from 2009 California Franchise Tax Board data. There were 14,638,204 individual income tax payers in 2009. The proposed tax hike affects approximately the top 400,000 taxpayers, about 2.7% of the taxpayer population.
The percentage of taxpayers that will pay more taxes under the proposed tax hike. Again, these estimates come from 2009 California Franchise Tax Board data.
The extra amount owed due to the tax increase for incomes at the bottom end of the tax bracket
The extra amount owed due to the tax increase for incomes at the top end of the tax bracket

Bottom of Income Bracket	Top of Income Bracket	Current Marginal Income Tax Rate	Proposed Marginal Income Tax Rate	Income Tax Rate Increase	Percentage Rate Increase Over Current Policy	Number of Taxpayers Affected by Tax Hike	Percentage of Taxpayers Affected by Tax Hike	Extra $$$ Owed at Bottom of Bracket	Extra $$$ Owed at Top of Bracket
$0	$7,142	1.0%	1.0%	0%	0%	0	0%	$0	$0
$7,142	$17,346	2.0%	2.0%	0%	0%	0	0%	$0	$0
$17,346	$27,377	4.0%	4.0%	0%	0%	0	0%	$0	$0
$27,377	$38,004	6.0%	6.0%	0%	0%	0	0%	$0	$0
$38,004	$48,029	8.0%	8.0%	0%	0%	0	0%	$0	$0
$48,029	$250,000	9.3%	9.3%	0%	0%	0	0%	$0	$0
$250,000	$300,000	9.3%	10.3%	1%	9.7%	156,000	1.07%	$0	$500
$300,000	$500,000	9.3%	11.3%	2%	17.7%	145,000	0.99%	$500	$4,500
$500,000	$1,000,000	9.3%	12.3%	3%	24.39%	65,000	0.44%	$4,500	$19,500
$1,000,000	no limit	10.3%	13.3%	3%	22.56%	34,000	0.23%	$19,500	$19,500 + 3% income over $1M

Proposition 31, Two-Year State Budget Cycle

Title: State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Recommended action: SUPPORT

Background:

The initiative is a project of California Forward. Nicolas Berggruen contributed over $1 million to fund the effort to gather signatures to qualify it for the ballot.

If enacted, it will:

Establish a two-year state budget cycle.
Prohibit theCalifornia State Legislaturefrom “creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified.”
Permit theGovernor of Californiato cut the budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if the state legislature fails to act.
Require performance reviews of all state programs.
Require performance goals in state and local budgets.
Require publication of all bills at least three days prior to legislative vote.
Give counties the power to alter state statutes or regulations related to spending unless the state legislature or a state agency vetoes changes within 60 days.

Official Summary

“Establishes two-year state budget cycle. Prohibits Legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified. Permits Governor to cut budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if Legislature fails to act. Requires performance reviews of all state programs. Requires performance goals in state and local budgets. Requires publication of all bills at least three days prior to legislative vote. Gives counties power to alter state statutes or regulations related to spending unless Legislature or state agency vetoes changes within 60 days.”

Fiscal impact

(This is a summary of the initiative’s estimated “fiscal impact on state and local government” prepared by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Director of Finance.)

“Decreased state revenues and commensurate increased local revenues, probably in the range of about $200 million annually, beginning in 2013-14. Potential decreased state program costs or increased state revenues resulting from changes in the fiscal authority of the Legislature and Governor. Increased state and local costs of tens of millions of dollars annually to implement new budgeting practices. Over time, these costs would moderate and potentially be offset by savings from improved program efficiencies.”

Support

Proposition 31 is a project of Nicolas Berggruen and California Forward.

Donors

These are the $40,000 and over donors to the “yes” campaign as of July 10, 2012:

Donor	Amount
California Forward	$1,789,567
Nicolas Berggruen	$1,505,087
Lenny Mendonca	$150,000
Barclay Simpson	$100,000
Thomas McKernan, Jr.	$100,000
Julie Packard	$50,000
Nancy Burnett	$50,000
Michael Marston	$40,000

Opposition

TheCalifornia Democratic Party ^[7]
Political columnistDan Walterssays, “California needs a top- to-bottom overhaul that connects political decision-making to its unique social and economic reality and creates cause-and-effect accountability for those we elect to office. Proposition 31 is akin to giving someone with a flesh-eating infection an aspirin to relieve the pain momentarily when the patient truly needs radical surgery or powerful drugs to stop the infection.”^[8]

Donors

These are the donors to the “No on 31” campaign as of August 14, 2012:

Donor	Amount
Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs	$30,000
Working Families Issues Committee(AFL-CIO)	$30,000
AFSCME	$5,000

Proposition 32, the “Paycheck Protection” Initiative

Title: Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.

Recommended action: SUPPORT

Background:

If approved, Proposition 32 will:

Ban both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates
Ban contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them
Ban automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics

A similar proposition, Proposition 75, was on the 2005 ballot. Proposition 226, on the 1998 ballot, also sought to enact paycheck protection.

Official Summary

“Restricts union political fundraising by prohibiting use of payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Same use restriction would apply to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Permits voluntary employee contributions to employer or union committees if authorized yearly, in writing. Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate-controlled committees. Other political expenditures remain unrestricted, including corporate expenditures from available resources not limited by payroll deduction prohibition. Limits government contractor contributions to elected officers or officer-controlled committees.”

Fiscal impact

(This is a summary of the initiative’s estimated “fiscal impact on state and local government” prepared by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Director of Finance.)

“Increased state implementation and enforcement costs of up to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, potentially offset in part by revenues from fines.”

Impact

Jerry Brown signed SB 202 on October 7, 2011. SB 202 mandates that elections on ballot propositions can take place only in the state’s November general elections. This changes a 50-year tradition in the state, begun in 1960, of voting on ballot propositions on the June primary ballot as well as the November general election ballot.

Several pundits speculated that Brown and the Democratic members of the California State Legislature who sponsored SB 202 were moved to action by the Paycheck Protection Initiative, and the possibility that it would gain a spot on the June 5, 2012 primary ballot in the state.

According to the Hoover Institution’s Bill Whalen, “…before Brown’s intervention, one such conservative idea – a big one – was headed for a showdown in June 2012: weakening Big Labor’s clout by preventing unions from collecting dues for political purposes without a worker’s annual consent. Under SB 202, that gets moved to November.”
Dan Walters, a leading political journalist in the state, said, “Everyone knows that California Senate Bill 202 (2011)|passing SB 202 was to diminish chances that voters would pass a so-called “paycheck protection” measure that would eat into unions’ ability to gather campaign funds from public employees – money that almost always goes to Democrats.”

Thad Kousser, a political-science professor at UC San Diego, says that the Paycheck Protection Initiative could have a strong impact on the public sector (government employee) unions in the state: “Defeating this has got to be the top goal of labor. If they don’t, they could become almost extinct in California politics.”

Analysts say that while it could dry up organized labor’s primary funding source, it contains a loophole that will allow corporate interests to continue doling out campaign donations.

That scenario has put the fear of Wisconsin into California unions, which have raised $8.2 million to fight Prop. 32, positioning it as one of the most high-profile, high-dollar battles this fall.

Unions don’t want to be weakened to the point where they could suffer a crackdown on their ability to bargain collectively, as happened in Wisconsin under Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

California’s labor unions are stronger than those in Wisconsin, but Prop. 32 would limit labor’s chief weapon for influencing the state’s politics – political donations – by preventing unions from using automatic payroll deductions from members without their permission.

Support

The main campaign supporting the measure isYES on 32, Stop Special Interest Money Now!
Gloria Romero Director of Democrats for Education Reform California and former Senator. She says, “As someone who has been on the political frontlines in Sacramento, I’ve seen first hand how special interests control the political process. Through their vast resources, special interests are able to hold lawmakers hostage to their agenda. This isn’t a partisan or ideological issue – all Californians deserve elected officials who will work for them, rather than special interests. By tackling the flow of money, Prop 32 would take a serious step in that direction.”
Bay Area Council
Former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz supports the initiative. He says, “This initiative gets to the heart of one of the most corrosive elements in politics: campaign contributions…For too long, special interest money has dominated our politics, muting the voice of average Californians.”
Charles Munger, Jr.
Richard Riordan, a former mayor of Los Angeles.

Arguments in favor

According to Jake Suski, a spokesperson for the “yes” campaign, “This initiative is exclusively about the stranglehold that special interests have had over California’s political system and whether voters are ready to demand reform. Voters are demanding reform and change. They’re willing to do something, to say no to special interests.”

Donors

As of July 8, 2012, the “yes” campaign has raised about $4 million.

These are the $50,000 and over donors to the “yes” campaign as of July 8, 2012:

Donor	Amount
Thomas M. Siebel	$500,000
Charles Munger, Jr.	$357,169
Edward Bloomfield, Jr.	$300,000
Larry T. Smith	$260,000
Jerry Perenchio	$250,000
Citizen Power Campaign	$225,000
William Oberndorf	$150,000
Protect Prop 13 (HJTA)	$125,000
Lincoln Club of Orange County	$110,000
Frank E. Baxter	$100,000
Timothy C. Draper	$100,000
William L. Edwards	$100,000
B. Wayne Hughes	$100,000
Howard F. Ahmanson	$50,000
Charles B. Johnson	$50,000
Franklin P. Johnson, Jr.	$50,000
Nicoletta Holdings Company	$50,000
Robert J. Oster	$50,000
Richard J. Riordan	$50,000

Opposition

The main campaign against the measure isNo on 32, Stop the Special Exemptions Act.
The California Labor Federation
Dave Low, the executive director of theCalifornia School Employees Association
California Common Cause
California League of Women Voters

Arguments against

The main campaign against the measure is No on 32, Stop the Special Exemptions Act.
The California Labor Federation^[1]
Dave Low, the executive director of the California School Employees Association ^[15]
California Common Cause ^[16]
California League of Women Voters ^[16]
The California Democratic Party ^[17]

Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, says, “It’s not enough for them to have taken our houses and it’s not enough for them to make millions off the TARP funding and federal government support for the banks, now they want even more. They want us to not even have a voice in politics whatsoever.”
ColumnistThomas Eliassays, the “initiative’s ban on contributions to candidate-controlled committees is meaningless, merely a cover for another blatant attempt to reduce funds for liberal candidates while letting contributions to conservatives continue unfettered.”
Ron Lind, the president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5, says, “The measure is a wolf in sheep’s clothing designed to fool voters into approving a corporate power grab that will lead to even more corporate influence over our political system. What the backers won’t say publicly is that they’ve written a giant loophole to allow for unlimited corporate spending on campaigns while furthering their real agenda of silencing the voices of middle-class workers and their unions.”
State representativeLinda Sanchezsays, “This paycheck deception is the No. 1 target to silence the voices of hard-working families, and it’s a crime.”
State representativeJudy Chusays, “This is the most dangerous proposition of all time. It will silence the union members and their voices.”
Trudy Schafer of theCalifornia League of Women Voterssays, “It promises political reform but it’s really designed by its special interest backers to help themselves and harm their opponents.”
Derek Cressman ofCalifornia Common Causesays Proposition 32 backers are “trying to use our anger and mistrust to change the rules for their own benefit.”

Donors

The state’s public sector (government employee) unions are expected to provide up to $28 million to the campaign to defeat the Paycheck Protection Initiative. The Sacramento Bee reports, “Now, on the heels of an election that saw unions handed a major defeat in Wisconsin, the opposing camps in California soon will launch a campaign battle likely to consume $50 million or more in political spending.”

According to Sac Bee columnist Dan Morain, the state’s public employee unions may find themselves torn between funding the campaign to defeat the Paycheck Protection Initiative and funding the campaign to pass the Jerry Brown/”Millionaire’s Tax” initiative. Morain says, “To help fund the campaign, Brown needs the help of organized labor. But unions will be busy trying to kill a separate initiative promoted by conservatives that would strip them of their ability to raise and spend money on campaigns.”

This is a list of $50,000 and over donors to the “no” campaign as of July 8, 2012:




















Donor		Amount

California Teachers Association		$8,185,700
California Professional Firefighters		$2,100,000
California State Council of Service Employees		$2,037,500
AFL-CIO/Working Families		$1,300,000
Peace Officers Research Association of California PAC		$965,000
California School Employees Association		$550,000
SEIU		$502,762
California Faculty Association		$500,000
Thomas Steyer		$500,000
AFSCME		$450,000
California Federation of Teachers		$300,000
Los Angeles Police Protective League’s Public Safety First PAC		$250,000
United State Pipe Trades Council		$250,000
International Association of Firefighters		$200,000
Professional Engineers in California Government		$125,000
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association		$100,000
San Bernardino County Safety Employees’ Benefit Association		$100,000
John Perez Ballot Measure Committee		$100,000
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California		$100,000
United Domestic Workers of America		$100,000
California State Legislative Board		$50,000
United Food & Commercial Workers		$50,000

Need any more reasons?

Proposition 33, Automobile Insurance Persistency Discounts

Title: Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

Recommended action: Watch

Background:

Proposition 33 is similar toProposition 17, which was on theJune 8, 2010 ballot. Proposition 17 was narrowly defeated. UnlikeProposition 17, Proposition 33 exempts soldiers and those who have been unemployed for 18 months from paying more after a lapse in persistency.
If Proposition 33 is approved, it will allow insurers to offer discounts to new customers who can prove they were continuously covered by any licensed auto insurance company over the previous five years. These discounts are known as “persistency discounts” or “loyalty discounts” and under current California law, insurance companies can only offer them to existing customers.
The fight over Proposition 33, and automobile insurance persistency discounts in general, began in 1988, whenProposition 103was approved. Proposition 103 forbids the type of persistency discounts that #11-0013 would allow.

Official Summary

“Changes current law to permit insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows insurance companies to give proportional discounts to drivers with some prior insurance coverage. Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage. Treats drivers with lapse as continuously covered if lapse is due to military service or loss of employment, or if lapse is less than 90 days.”

Fiscal impact

(This is a summary of the initiative’s estimated “fiscal impact on state and local government” prepared by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Director of Finance.)

“Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues.”

Support

TheCalifornia Republican Partyvoted to endorse the measure at their annual state convention, held in February 2012.
Don Perata, formerCalifornia State Senatepresident pro tempore.. He says, “This initiative does what most states have done successfully and allows the consumer to control the discount. This is not a party issue.　 This is a fairness question, and as a legislator and policymaker, I always supported the portability of this discount. It just makes sense.”
Juan Vargas(D-San Diego), former Chair of theAssembly Insurance Committee.
Californians with car insurance earn a discount for following the law. But if you switch companies you lose the discount. Proposition 33 allows you the freedom to change insurance companies and keep your discount. Proposition 33 makes insurance companies compete, helps lower rates, and will insure more drivers.
Vote Yes on Proposition 33 because you should get the discount that you have earned, regardless of which insurance company you pick. If you are active military, Proposition 33 says you keep your discount. That’s why our military families, led by the American GI Forum and Veterans of Foreign Wars, say Yes on Proposition 33.
- Under Proposition 33, if you are unemployed for up to 18 months because of layoff or furlough, you still qualify for a discount.

Donors

George Joseph, who chairs insurance company Mercury General, is the dominant donor to the Proposition 33 campaign. Joseph, a billionaire, was the 385th richest man in American in 2011.

These are the $10,000 and over donors to the “yes” campaign as of July 14, 2012:

Donor	Amount
George Joseph	$8,227,127
Abernathy Insurance Agency	$14,000
Calgard Associates	$10,000

Opposition

Brian Stedge ofConsumer Watchdogsays, “Mercury Insurance is back with another costly ballot initiative which attempts to trick voters into giving insurance companies new power to increase premiums and punish consumers. Mercury Insurance has a terrible history of mistreating its customers, ignoring the law and trying to deceive voters, and Californians need to know that you can’t trust Mercury Insurance. The last thing Californians’ need is another self-serving ballot initiative by a corporation hell bent on increasing its profit margins on the backs of already struggling families.”
Richard Holober, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California, says, “When was the last time a billionaire insurance magnate spent a fortune to save you money? Never. This proposition is nothing more than an insurance tycoon’s self-enrichment scheme.”
The latest Mercury initiative, Prop 33, would allow auto insurance companies to raise rates on millions of Californians, including good drivers who did not purchase insurance during the preceding five years for legitimate reasons like a serious illness, long-term unemployment or going to college, even if they did not own a car. Under current law – enacted by the voters in 1988 as part of Proposition 103 – insurance companies are not allowed to set their prices based on whether or not a customer previously purchased auto insurance.
The fact that Prop 33 will give insurance companies new power to increase premiums for good drivers led the California Democratic Party to vote to oppose Prop 33 at its Executive Board meeting this past weekend.

Challenge to Attorney General Summary, Opponents’ Ballot Arguments

In its lawsuit, the Mercury Insurance campaign wants the court to change the first line of the Attorney General’s summary,

From:
Changes current law to allow an insurance company to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company.

To:
Changes current law to allow an insurance company to offer a continuous coverage discount based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company.

Mercury also wants the court to strike central points of ballot arguments signed by Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of California, California Nurses Association, California Alliance For Retired Americans and Consumer Watchdog. Among the facts about Prop 33 that George Joseph wants kept out of the voter pamphlet are:

“Proposition 33 unfairly punishes anyone who stopped driving for a good reason but now needs insurance to get back behind the wheel.”
“Proposition 33 raises insurance rates for students completing college who now need to drive to a new job.”
“Proposition 33 raises insurance rates for people who dropped their coverage while recuperating from a serious illness or injury that kept them off the road.”

Donors

These are the $30,000 and over donors to the “no” campaign as of July 14, 2012:

Donor	Amount
Consumer Watchdog	$40,616
Campaign for Consumer Rights	$30,000

Proposition 34, End the Death Penalty Initiative

Title: Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute.

Recommended action: Not Business Related

Proposition 35, Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery

Title: Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute.

Recommended action: Not Business Related

Proposition 36, Changes in the “Three Strikes” Law

Title: Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute.

Recommended action: Watch

Background:

Proposition 36 will modify elements of California’s “Three Strikes” Law, approved by the state’s voters in 1994. In 2004, voters rejected Proposition 66, which like the 2012 measure was an attempt to change some aspects of the original “Three Strikes” Law.

Proposition 36, specifically, will if enacted:

Revise the three strikes law to impose life sentence only when the new felony conviction is “serious or violent”.
Authorize re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not serious or violent and if the judge determines that the re-sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety.
Continue to impose a life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction was for “certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession”.
Maintain the life sentence penalty for felons with “non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation.”

If Proposition 36 is approved by voters, approximately 3,000 convicted felons who are currently serving life terms under the Three Strikes law, whose third strike conviction was for a nonviolent crime, will be able to petition the court for a new, reduced, sentence. Reducing the sentences of these current prisoners could result in saving the state somewhere between $150 to $200 million a year.

Altogether, about 8,800 prisoners are currently serving life terms in California prisons under the 1994 law.

24 states have a “Three Strikes”-type law.

California’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” Law was passed by both the California state legislature and the people of California through a voter initiative in 1994. California was one of the first states to pass such a sentencing scheme, which is now viewed as the harshest (non-capital) sentencing law in the United States. According to official ballot materials promoting the law, the Three Strikes scheme was intended to “keep murders, rapists, and child molesters behind bars, where they belong.” However, today, more than half of inmates sentenced under the law are serving sentences for nonviolent crime. The Three Strikes Project exclusively represents these individuals.

Official Summary

“Revises three strikes law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent. Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if third strike conviction was not serious or violent and judge determines sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety. Continues to impose life sentence penalty if third strike conviction was for certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession. Maintains life sentence penalty for felons with non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation.”

Fiscal impact

(This is a summary of the initiative’s estimated “fiscal impact on state and local government” prepared by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Director of Finance.)

“State savings related to prison and parole operations that potentially range in the high tens of millions of dollars annually in the short run, possibly exceeding $100 million annually in the long run. Increased state and county costs in the millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually in the first few years, likely declining substantially in future years, for state court activities and county jail, community supervision, and court-related activities.”

Support

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Dan Newman, who filed the language for the initiative says, “I think we will end up having a broad, bipartisan coalition this time. We will not allow this campaign to be pigeonholed, as past efforts [to change the law] have been. This will include law enforcement, Democrats, Republicans, civil right leaders and taxpayer advocates.”
Mike Romano, a Stanford University law professor who founded the “Three Strikes Project” in 2006. He says, “nonviolent third-strikers are the least likely to re-offend of any group in prison” and that offenders “will have to go before a judge and show they are not a danger to the community before their sentence can be reduced by one day”.
David Mills, a former investment banker who has pledged to support the initiative by donating funds sufficient to enable the collection of signatures to qualify it for the ballot.
Geri Silva of “Families Against California’s Three Strikes”. Silva supports the 2012 initiative but believes it does not go far enough: “We’re happy to have this initiative, but why should you get eight years for a petty theft. Hell no. We have got to stop compromising.”
“The state should not allow the misallocation of limited penal funds by having life prison sentences for those who do not pose a serious threat to society. The punishment should fit the crime.” Steve Cooley, Los Angeles District Attorney.
“Prop. 36 is good for public safety in California. It ensures just, fair and consistent criminal sentences. The policy has been in place in Los Angeles for over a decade and our crime rates are at record lows. Our limited prison resources should be directed at keeping violent offenders off the streets.” Charlie Beck, Los Angeles Chief of Police
Defendants who have ever been convicted of an extremely violent crime — such as rape, murder, or child molestation — will receive a life sentence no matter how minor their third strike crime. These dangerous criminals will receive no benefit whatsoever from Prop 36.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered California’s overflowing prisons to release tens of thousands of inmates. Under Prop 36, prisoners currently serving life sentences for non-serious, non-violent third strikes could have their life sentences reduced to a term of years no less than double an ordinary sentence if a judge determines that there is no risk to public safety. This will help ensure that there is room in our prisons for truly dangerous criminals and that the punishment fits the crime for non-violent offenses. Los Angeles’ District Attorney has effectively implemented this reform for a decade and crime rates in Los Angeles have dropped to historic lows.
“A life sentence for petty theft or drug possession is excessive.”

Arguments in favor

Donors

The leading donor to Proposition 36 as of mid-July 2012 is David Mills. He is a professor at Stanford University.

These are the $100,000 and over donors to the “yes” campaign as of July 14, 2012:

Donor	Amount
David Mills	$953,000
George Soros	$500,000
NAACP Legal Defense Fund	$175,000
Peter Ackerman	$100,000

Opposition

Mike Reynolds, who wrote the language forCalifornia’s “Three Strikes” Law says, “Once someone has been convicted of two serious or violent offences, I suggest it’s pretty clear what they are capable of. If this passes, we are likely to see property crimes going up all over the state, and in very short order.”
California saw a 37% drop in crime n the first four years after implementing “Three Strikes”.
“If criminals are on the street, especially repeat offenders, what are they going to be doing?”
“While all states have seen drops [in crime], none have as much as in California.”

Arguments against

“In regards to my position on Proposition 36, I am opposed. After reviewing our current Three Strikes law and the proposed changes with Prop 36, I believe the current law already gives Prosecutors and Judges the power to implement “Three Strikes” fairly. In addition, Proposition 36 would reduce their ability to use Three Strikes to target dangerous repeat felons. If the intent of this proposition is to prevent alleged cases of individuals being unjustly incarcerated for life then that issue should be addressed in a much more narrow scope through judicial review.

This proposition if passed would cause about 3,000 convicted felons serving life terms the right to petition for a reduced sentence and if successful these individuals would be released without state parole or any law enforcement supervision. Not only would this be detrimental to the safety of our communities, but the potential 3,000 judicial proceedings would cause a substantial financial impact on County DA’s that are already severely impacted by State cuts.

Law enforcement statewide is feeling the effects of AB109- realignment of prisoners from the State to Counties. In my 30 years of law enforcement experience I have not seen a more irresponsible act by our State Legislature in regards to public safety. This is not to say that change from State control to the County level could not be more effective. It is the irresponsible manner in which this bill was introduced, with no plan or forethought for the consequences. In addition to AB109 the California Department of Corrections has been ordered by our Federal Government to reduce the prison population, these “FED Kick Outs” are in addition to AB109. Unfortunately, I believe the recent increase of criminal violence towards police and the spike in part one crimes is directly related and only going to get worse.

With this being said I believe the passing of Proposition 36 would be detrimental to public safety. Also, the California Chiefs of Police Association oppose Proposition 36.”

Mike Baray

Chief of Police

Murrieta Police Department

Proposition 37, Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food

Title: Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute.

Recommended action: Oppose (CalChamber OPPOSE)

Background:

If Proposition 37 is approved by voters, it will:

Require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
Prohibit labeling or advertising such food as “natural.”
Exempt from this requirement foods that are “certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.”

James Wheaton, who filed the ballot language for the initiative, refers to it as “The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.”

Official Summary

“Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.” Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.”

Fiscal impact

(This is a summary of the initiative’s estimated “fiscal impact on state and local government” prepared by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Director of Finance.)

“Potential increase in state administrative costs of up to one million dollars annually to monitor compliance with the disclosure requirements specified in the measure. Unknown, but potentially significant, costs for the courts, the Attorney General, and district attorneys due to litigation resulting from possible violations to the provisions of this measure.”

Support

California Right to Know
Organic Consumers’ Association
Nature’s Path
The Institute for Responsible Technology
The Huffington Postreports that around 90% of registered Democrats, Republicans and Independents support the labeling of GM food in California.
Pollster Mark Hellman pointed to the disconnect between popular opinion and government policy in an article forThe Hill. “Given this overwhelming public demand, it is hard to imagine why the FDA has, to date, refused to do what the entirety of the EU, Brazil, Russia, South Korea and even China have already done — require labels on genetically engineered foods.”
Digital Journal writerAnne Sewellhas produced many in-depth reports on issues surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including the risks presented byMonsanto’s “rootworm resistant” corn, themassive crop failuresthat have resulted from usage of Bt cotton in India, and the admission by the Polish Health Minister that GM maize could be responsible for bothhealth problems in humansand sharp declines in the honeybee population.

Donors

Joseph Mercola is one of the main financial supporters of the initiative. He is an osteopath who lives in suburban Chicago. According to Mercola, “Your health care, your food supply, everything you need to live a healthy life is now being taken away and controlled by a massive industrial complex and corrupt government.”

These are the $50,000 and over donors to the “yes” campaign as of July 10, 2012:

Donor	Amount
Mercola Health Resources	$800,000
Organic Consumers Fund	$535,030
Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps	$290,000
Nature’s Path Foods	$246,826
Wehah Farm (Lundberg Family Farms)	$200,000
Cropp Cooperative (Organic Valley)	$50,000

Opposition

Dr. Bob Goldberg. Goldberg is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Jamie Johansson. Johansson is a family farmer in California.
Betty Jo Toccoli. Toccoli is the president of the California Small Business Association.
Jonnalee Henderson. Henderson is affiliated with the California Farm Bureau Federation.
Dr. Henry I. Miller. Miller is a founding director of the Office of Biotechnology of the Food & Drug Administration.
Tom Hudson. Hudson is the executive director of the California Taxpayer Protection Committee.^[7]
TheCalifornia Republican Party.

Arguments against

The arguments in opposition to Proposition 37 presented in the state’s official voter guide include:

“It’s a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions–without providing any health or safety benefits.”
“It’s full of special interest exemptions.”
“It authorizes shakedown lawsuits.”
The wording is ambiguous and could be interpreted to bar companies from calling any product “natural” if it has been subject to “processing such as canning, smoking, pressing, cooking, freezing, dehydration, fermentation or milling.”
It contains a provision permitting consumer suits if a product is improperly labeled. That would open farmers and food producers to litigation.
“Rich people with a cause cannot seem to resist inflicting their world views onCalifornia politics no matter if they are levelheaded or wacky, and no matter where they reside. It’s generally not a good thing for those of us who do live here.” Dan Morain, SacBee Columnist
Joseph Mercola is the latest guy seeking to improve theGolden State.Mercola is an osteopath who lives in suburban Chicago and runs a website, Mercola.com, which promotes his alternative, though generally unproven, health-related products and ideas.
Mercola has run afoul of the FDA, which has issued him three separate warnings telling him to cease making unproven claims, most recently about a device he apparently claimed could detectbreast cancer.
Several opponents have already spoken out against the measure, including GM food giant Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents ConAgra, Kellogg and other industry leaders.
Foodmakers, like carmakers, know that what starts in California has a fair chance of becoming the national law, or at least the national norm.
Unbeknownst to many Americans, some of the most popular U.S. GMO crops — corn, soybeans and canola — have been staple ingredients for years in virtually every type of packaged food, from soup and tofu to breakfast cereals and chips.
“If a company like Kellogg’s has to print a label stating that their famous Corn Flakes have been genetically engineered, it will be the kiss of death for their iconic brand in California…and everywhere else,”

Proposition 38, State Income Tax Increase to Support Education

Title: Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.

Recommended action: Oppose (Cal Chamber OPPOSE)

Background:

Supporters of Proposition 38 refer to it as the “Our Children, Our Future: Local Schools and Early Education Investment Act”.

If enacted, Proposition 38 will:

Increase state income tax rates for most Californians, resulting in increased revenues to the state of about $10 billion a year.
The state income tax increase would end after 12 years, unless voters reauthorize it.
Earmark most of the new revenue of $10 billion for public school districts and early childhood development programs.

Molly Munger is the primary advocate behind the initiative. Munger indicated that she would fund the approximately $2 million cost of gathering the signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. As of early May, she had donated $7.2 million to the campaign.

Competing tax initiatives

Proposition 38 is one of several competing tax increase measures that will be on the November 6, 2012 ballot. The others are:

Munger’s Proposition 38 and Proposition 30 (Jerry Brown’s Tax Increase) are viewed by many pundits and political operatives in California as competing with each other. Why? Because it is conventional wisdom, buoyed by polls done in the spring of 2012, that with more than one tax increase on the November 2012 ballot, they collectively have a greater chance of losing than if just one tax hike proposition had qualified for the ballot.

Steve Glazer, who is working for theJerry Browntax hike: “When voters are offered choices among competing [tax] measures, it depresses the support for each of them. The likely result will be all of them failing.”
Darrell Steinberg, thePresident Pro Temof theCalifornia State Senate: “The real problem is that if you have multiple measures on the ballot, you dramatically increase the likelihood that they will all fail. That’s not an acceptable outcome.”
Harold Meyerson, an op-ed columnist for theWashington Post, said, “…a look back at state history reveals numerous episodes in which Californians essentially championing the same cause have put rival measures on the same ballot, only to create a sea of voter confusion that doomed the proposals on election day.”

Munger came under fierce pressure to withdraw her initiative. Joe Mathews of Prop Zero described the pressure thusly: “if she doesn’t drop her measure, she’ll find herself on the business end of an unrelenting campaign of personal attack.”

Munger, an experienced litigator and political activist, made it clear she wouldn’t back down. She said, “Under our proposal, virtually all the cuts that the schools have suffered in the last four years would all be restored—and under the governor’s initiative, virtually none would be.”

Official Summary

“Increases personal income tax rates for annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from .4% for lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, ending after twelve years. During first four years, 60% of revenues go to K-12 schools, 30% to repaying state debt, and 10% to early childhood programs. Thereafter, allocates 85% of revenues to K-12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs. Provides K-12 funds on school-specific, per-pupil basis, subject to local control, audits, and public input. Prohibits state from directing or using new funds.”

Fiscal impact

(This is a summary of the initiative’s estimated “fiscal impact on state and local government” prepared by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Director of Finance.)

“Increased state personal income tax revenues beginning in 2013 and ending in 2024. Estimates of the revenue increases vary from $10 billion to $11 billion per fiscal year beginning in 2013-14, tending to increase over time. The 2012-13 revenue increase would be about half this amount. Until the end of 2016-17, 60 percent of revenues would be dedicated to K-12 education and 10 percent would be provided to early care and education programs. These allocations would supplement existing funding for these programs. In 2017-18 and subsequent years, 85 percent would be provided to K-12 education and 15 percent to early care and education. General Fund savings on debt-service costs of about $1.5 billion in 2012-13 and $3 billion in 2013-14, with savings tending to grow thereafter until the end of 2016-17. In 2015-16 and subsequent years with stronger growth in state personal income tax revenues, some of the revenues raised by this measure—several hundred million dollars per year— would be used for debt-service costs, resulting in state savings.”

Support

Our Children, Our Future
Molly Mungeris the initiative’s main financial backer. According to Munger, “We’re going to get this on the ballot and we’re going to win.”^[2]In response to comparisons between her measure and theJerry Brown Tax Increase Initiative (Proposition 30), Munger said, “I don’t think we’d have a very good functioning democracy if we always just did what one person at the top wanted. In fact, one of the reasons we have democracy is because that old method, which is to just do what the king says, led to some very bad decisions over time.”
The California State PTA supports Proposition 38.
Munger’s team purchased TV spots in San Francisco and Los Angeles in late March to make the case that her initiative will generate “real money that really goes to schools, money that you can count, that you can trace and enforce, and that you can be sure will get to every school and every child.”
In response to the attacks on her initiative from those who support theJerry Brown’s Tax Increase (Proposition 30), Munger said, “You sort of hope that the Democrats are the party that stand up for investment in children and in education. Those are two bedrock principles of the Democratic Party. It is a little bit ironic that so many elements of the Democratic Party are, you know, supporting an initiative that does not invest in the main engine we have for social mobility and opportunity in our society, which is our K-12 schools.”

Donors

These are the $50,000 and over donors to the “yes” campaign as of July 10, 2012:

Donor	Amount
Molly Munger	$8,277,754

Opposition

Munger’s proposal is opposed bysupporters of Jerry Brown’s tax hike proposal.Steve Glazer, an adviser to the governor, tweeted on February 5, “When u have competing tax measures on the ballot, voters make choice. Likely result- all lose and children u claim to be protecting lose.”
David Kieffer of theSEIUsaid in late February 2012 that although he is sympathetic to the aims of the Munger proposal, its supporters should withdraw it from contention in favor of theJerry Brown Tax Hike Initiative. Keiffer said, “From a public policy point of view, we’re going to end up with a big mess, where three competing tax initiatives will collide at the ballot box and we won’t get any of them passed.”
Gov.Jerry Brownsat down with the editorial board of theSan Francisco Chroniclein early March 2012 and argued that because the Munger Tax earmarks the money it would raise for education, it will do nothing to alleviate California’s overall multibillion-dollar budget deficit.
The California Business Roundtable announced on March 8 that it opposes the measure. Jerry Carnahan of the group said, “We are aggressively moving forward to raise money and oppose these initiatives. We will ensure by the November election that the voters of California will understand their real impacts on our economy and jobs.”

CalChamber Signs Ballot Arguments Opposing Proposition 38

(July 25, 2012) California Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Allan Zaremberg has signed the ballot arguments in opposition to Proposition 38, the Munger initiative on the November 6 General Election ballot.

The CalChamber Board of Directors voted to oppose the measure because it heavily impacts small businesses, which are the source of most new jobs, by imposing steep, new taxes.

CalChamber believes that targeting taxes on job creators will hinder job growth in California at a time when unemployment in the state is 10.9%. The Munger initiative is a virtually permanent tax increase that would make California’s top marginal income tax rate the highest in the country. This proposal would further hurt California’s competitiveness and discourage capital formation and business growth.

Joining Zaremberg in signing the anti-Proposition 38 arguments are Ken Williams, a member of the Orange County Board of Education, and Thomas Hudson, executive director of the California Taxpayer Protection Committee.

Following is the text of the ballot arguments:

No on Prop. 38:

$120 Billion Income Tax Hike on Most Californians

If you earn $17,346 or more per year in taxable income, Prop. 38 raises your California personal income tax rate by as much as 21%, on top of what you pay the Federal government.

The Prop. 38 tax increase continues until 2024. If you have a child entering first grade, you’ll be paying higher income taxes until that child graduates from high school.

Even as the economy improves and more people get back to work, the tax increases continue. Even without necessary reforms to our education system, like the ability to fire bad teachers, the tax increases still continue. Prop. 38 locks us into higher income tax rates for the next 12 years—no matter what!

The politicians and bureaucrats get billions of dollars in new taxes, with virtually no accountability on how the money is spent and how much actually gets into the classroom.

Targets Small Business and Kills Jobs

Approximately 3.8 million California small businesses pay individual taxes on their earnings, rather than corporate taxes. Consequently, small businesses will be devastated by these higher taxes—even businesses making as little as $30,000 or $40,000 a year.

Instead of creating jobs and improving the economy, Prop. 38 will force family businesses to cut jobs, move out of state, or even close. If they can stay in business, they’ll raise prices to pay the higher taxes, which will ultimately be passed on to consumers.

No Requirements to Improve School Performance

Under 38, there are no requirements to improve school performance or get rid of bad teachers. Too much money will continue to be spent on administration, consultants, pensions, benefits and overhead and too little will be spent in the classroom. Currently, 24% of California students don’t graduate from high school. Prop. 38 pours more money into a system that is failing our kids without requiring improvements in outcomes for students.

No Changes, Even for Fraud or Waste, for 12 Years

Prop. 38 contains a special provision hidden in its 27 pages of fine print that prohibits any changes in the measure through 2024 (without another vote of the people), even in the case of waste, fraud or abuse.

$120 Billion in New Taxes, but Nothing to Reduce Our Deficit

Prop. 38 allows the politicians in Sacramento to keep spending. There is nothing in Prop. 38 that requires any of the funds to be used specifically for deficit reduction and nothing that stops the politicians from getting us back into the same mess we’re in now, even with $120 billion in new taxes.

– 27 pages of fine print and flaws

– $120 billion in higher taxes

– Increases income taxes for taxable incomes above $17,346

– Damages small business and kills jobs

– No requirements to improve school performance

– Can’t be changed for 12 years—even for fraud or waste—without another vote

No on Prop. 38—Another flawed, costly and misleading initiative.

Polling information

A Field Poll in February 2012 showed that a majority of likely voters oppose the measure. An internal poll paid for by backers of the Jerry Brown Tax Hike Initiative indicated that the Munger proposal had the least public support of the three tax hike measures that are headed for the November 6, 2012 ballot. That internal poll also suggested that if all three are on the ballot, none of them willwin.

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and American Viewpoint jointly conducted a poll for USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll from March 14-19, 2012.^[27]

A Field Poll conducted in late May showed support in the low 40s.^[28]

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
February 14-18, 2012	Field	45%	48%	7%	344
February 17-19, 2012	Jim Moore	31%	60%	9%	500
February 17-19, 2012	Jim Moore	17%	78%	5%	500
March 14-19, 2012	By GQR & AV for USC Dornsife/LAT	32%	64%	4%	1,500
May 21-29, 2012	Field Poll	42%	43%	15%	710

Proposition 39, Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses

Title: Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

Recommended action: Oppose

Background:

The corporate tax increase would come from repealing one of the few tax breaks of recent years, a $1 billion break for corporations that was part of the deal for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s $13 billion tax increases in 2009. The tax increases have expired.

The proposal would require all companies in California to calculate their corporate income tax based solely on their proportion of sales in the state. Under a tax law change pushed by Republicans as part of the 2009 budget compromise for temporary tax hikes, corporations won the ability to choose between the sales-based tax formula or a separate equation that also considers employees and property.

The latter formula is more beneficial to out-of-state firms who can lower their tax rate because they have relatively few employees or property in the state. California is one of only two states that allows companies to choose their tax formula.

Large business groups who oppose the measure say it would cost jobs in the state. But California-based biotech firms have lobbied for the change because they say they are at a competitive disadvantage compared to companies based elsewhere.

If approved, Proposition 39 will:

Require multistate businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California.
Repeal an existing law that gives multistate businesses an option to choose a tax liability formula that provides favorable tax treatment for businesses with property and payroll outside California.
Dedicate $550 million annually for five years from the initiative’s anticipated increase in revenue in order to fund projects that “create energy efficiency and clean energy jobs” in California.

John Perez of the California State Assembly is sponsoring very similar legislation. The California State Assembly passed it in early August and it has been sent to the California State Senate. If they pass it, and Jerry Brown signs it, Proposition 39 will essentially become moot. Its supporters have said they would stop actively campaigning for Proposition 39, in that event.^[3]

Official Summary

“Requires multistate businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California. Repeals existing law giving multistate businesses an option to choose a tax liability formula that provides favorable tax treatment for businesses with property and payroll outside California. Dedicates $550 million annually for five years from anticipated increase in revenue for the purpose of funding projects that create energy efficiency and clean energy jobs in California.”

Fiscal impact

(This is a summary of the initiative’s estimated “fiscal impact on state and local government” prepared by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Director of Finance.)

“Approximately $500 million in additional state General Fund revenues in 2012-13 and $1 billion each year thereafter from requiring a single sales factor formula for corporate taxes, with about half of the additional annual revenues from 2013-14 through 2017-18 supporting energy efficiency and alternative energy projects. Increased Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee for K-14 schools of roughly $225 million annually from 2012-13 through 2017-18 and by roughly $500 million each year thereafter, as a result of additional state General Fund revenues.”

Support

Thomas Steyer, the founder and co-senior managing partner of Farallon Capital Management, supports Proposition 39. He says, “We have a loophole. It is worth over $1 billion a year. We should close the loophole, and that is what we are doing.”

Steyer is an environmentalist who founded San Francisco-based Farallon Capital Management in 1986. Forbes magazine lists his net worth at $1.3 billion as of March.

“Yes on 39”

The Contra Costa Times favors Proposition 39. They write, “State lawmakers have refused to correct the mistake they made in 2009 when, in a late-night budget session, they created a tax incentive for companies to locate outside California. Voters need to fix it for them on Nov. 6 by voting for Proposition 39.”^[9]

Donors

Thomas Steyer is the primary financial backer of Proposition 39.^[3]

These are the $10,000 and over donors to the “yes” campaign as of July 14, 2012:

Donor	Amount
Thomas Steyer	$21,900,000
Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs	$325,000

Opposition

Peter DeMarco, a spokesperson for a coalition of businesses that oppose the initiative, said that if approved, Proposition 39 is “going to drive workers and jobs out of California.”
The editorial board of theAppeal-Democratopposed Proposition 39 in an editorial in May, writing, “Steyer said the initiative would create green jobs. But taxes kill jobs by sucking money out of the private sector. Similar green-jobs claims were made about Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. But A.B. 32 didn’t prevent state unemployment from soaring well above the national rate. California’s real employment problem is not a lack of green jobs, but the state’s severe anti-jobs climate, to which A.B. 32 and the specter of Steyer’s initiative contribute.”^[5]
The tax increase is advancing on two fronts, in the Legislature and as a November ballot measure. Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, is sponsoring Assembly Bill 1500, which would cancel the lower tax option. (Opposed by SWCLC in May)
He’s also sponsoring a companion piece, A.B. 1501, which would go into effect only if A.B. 1500 passes. A.B. 1501 would spend the increased tax money on middle-class college scholarships.
With the cross-over vote of Representative Brian Nestande – AB 1500 passed the Assembly. A.B.1500 requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature because it’s a tax increase. Republican legislators have been solid in opposing tax increases in this legislative session, and likely won’t break ranks as an election approaches. But the Perez proposal does show how dangerous California will be for taxpayers should Republican ranks fall below the one-third level in both houses of the Legislature, which they well could do after November.
Making an end run around the legislative process is an initiative for the November ballot by yet-another wealthy Californian who wants the government to raise taxes. The initiative, which aims to raise more than $1 billion a year from companies, directs about half the additional tax money for the first five years “toward energy conservation efforts at schools and other public buildings,” reported the Sacramento Bee. The rest would go to the general fund. After five years, all the money would go to the general fund.
Steyer said the initiative would create green jobs. But taxes kill jobs by sucking money out of the private sector. Similar green-jobs claims were made about Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. But A.B. 32 didn’t prevent state unemployment from soaring well above the national rate.
California’s real employment problem is not a lack of green jobs, but the state’s severe anti-jobs climate, to which A.B. 32 and the specter of Steyer’s initiative contribute.
These bills and the Steyer initiative should be opposed. One of these days, California is going to have to stop chasing businesses and jobs out of the state.

Proposition 40, Referendum on the State Senate Redistricting Plan

Title: Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

Recommended action: Oppose

Background:

Proposition 40 is an attempt to use California’s veto referendum process to nullify the California State Senate redistricting plan approved by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Note: A “yes” vote on this veto referendum is a vote to maintain intact the work of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, while a “no” vote is a vote to overturn the commission’s lines. The sponsors who put this on the ballot are thus its opponents, or were until they withdrew their opposition. Sponsors/opponents of Proposition 40 announced on July 12 that they are throwing in the towel and will not campaign against the referendum. Proposition 40 will remain on the ballot, however.

A separate referendum, the Referendum on California’s U.S. Congressional District Boundaries Plan, was also filed but signatures were not submitted to qualify it for the ballot.

In January 2012, the California Supreme Court ruled that the State Senate redistricting maps generated by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission pursuant to 2008’s Proposition 11 must be used throughout the elections of 2012, even if it ultimately turns out that #11-0028 qualifies for the ballot.^[3]

After leading a successful $2.3 million signature-gathering campaign to place a referendum challenging California’s newly drawn Senate districts before voters, proponents have decided not to seek its passage.

Proposition 40 will remain on the November ballot, but sponsors will not raise funds or campaign for the referendum, said Dave Gilliard, a GOP strategist who led the drive that placed the Republican-backed measure before voter

Official Summary

“State Senate districts are revised every ten years following the federal census. This year, the voter-approved California Citizens Redistricting Commission revised the boundaries of the 40 Senate districts. This referendum petition, if signed by the required number of registered voters and filed with the Secretary of State, will: (1) Place the revised State Senate boundaries on the ballot and prevent them from taking effect unless approved by the voters at the next statewide election; and (2) Require court-appointed officials to set interim boundaries for use in the next statewide election.”

Support

Supporters are those working for “Yes on 40” to have the Redistricting Commission lines upheld.

Proposition 40 is supported by:

Its original opponents/submitters in theCalifornia Republican Party, who have withdrawn their opposition.
TheCalifornia Democratic Party
Charles Munger, Jr.

Donors

These are the donors to the “yes” campaign as of July 14, 2012:

Donor	Amount
Charles Munger, Jr.	$208,294

Opposition

Opponents are those working for “No on 40” to throw out the Redistricting Commission lines and include the sponsors who submitted this veto referendum to be on the ballot.

Charles H. Bell, Jr. filed the official request for a ballot title on behalf of Julie Vandermost.

The official campaign committee is called “Fair Districts 2012”. According to their website, “We are a citizens group aimed at holding the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC) accountable for creating fair districts in California. The committee is made up of individuals, businesses, elected officials, and community leaders who are concerned that a well-intentioned process of drawing legislative districts has put Californians in danger of being misrepresented regardless of race, culture or political party.”

Donors

Prior to the mid-July decision by the “No on Proposition 40” campaign to abandon their efforts, they had raised about $2.3 million to qualify the measure for the ballot.

These are the $50,000 and over donors to the “no” campaign:

Donor	Amount
California Republican Party	$1,739,437
Friends of Mimi Walters for Senate 2012	$75,500
Frank Greinke	$50,000
Senator Bob Dutton for Supervisor 2014	$50,000

Graphs & charts courtesy of: Ballotpedia

Additional info from Maplight, Citizen Voice & other sources.

The Southwest California Legislative Council Thanks Our Partners:

Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Near-Cal Corporation
Economic Development of Southwest California
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
The Gas Company
Abbott Vascular
The Murrieta Temecula Group
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce
Wildomar Chamber of Commerce
Southern California Edison
Loma Linda University Medical Center
Southwest Healthcare Systems