VOTE YES TO TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE
POWER OF SPECIAL INTERESTS AND LOBBYISTS IN
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT.
VOTE “YES” ON PROPOSITION 89, THE CLEAN
MONEY AND FAIR ELECTIONS ACT
We have a crisis of corruption in our government marked
by scandal after scandal and criminal investigations of
politicians from both parties. It is time for Californians to
clean up this corruption and make politicians accountable to
voters instead of big money campaign contributors.
THE PROBLEM
Right now, special interests like big oil companies, the
drug giants, the insurance industry, and HMOs can get their
way in Sacramento by donating millions to elect politicians
who will owe them favors. Lobbyists and special interests use
campaign contributions to pass their pork barrel projects and
create tax loopholes—costing consumers and taxpayers like
you billions of dollars each year.
THE SOLUTION: PROPOSITION 89
If you’re dissatisfied with the way campaigns are funded
in California and the effect of campaign contributions on
state government, Vote Yes on Prop. 89.
YOUR “YES” VOTE WILL:
- Help level the playing field and make our elections more
fair and competitive—so that candidates with the best
ideas have a chance to win, even if they are not rich or well
connected to wealthy special interest groups and lobbyists.
- Require candidates to adhere to strict spending limits and
reject special interest contributions in order to qualify for
public financing.
- Ban contributions to candidates by lobbyists and state
contractors.
- Set limits on outside, so-called “independent” campaign
committees created by big contributors to influence elections.
- Limit to $10,000 the amount corporations can spend
directly on ballot measure campaigns.
- Restrict contributions by corporations, unions, and
individuals to $500 for candidates for state Legislature,
$1,000 to candidates for statewide office.
- Establish tough penalties, including jail time and removing
candidates from office who break the law.
NOT FUNDED BY INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS OR THE
STATE BUDGET
Proposition 89 is specifically funded by a modest increase
in the corporate income tax rate—raising it from 8.84% to
9.04%. The resulting corporate income tax rate would still be
less than it was from 1980 until 1996. Corporations should
pay their fair share in taxes.
WHEN YOU HEAR THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST
PROPOSITION 89, REMEMBER:
- Opposition to Proposition 89 is being led and funded by
the big oil companies, drug companies, the insurance
industry, HMOs, and other entrenched interests.
- Proposition 89 was drafted and reviewed by experts in
constitutional and election law and put on the ballot and
backed by Democrats, Republicans, and independent voters.
- The opponents of Proposition 89 want to keep the system
exactly the way it is, because they know it works for
them, NOT for you. They are making false claims against
Proposition 89 because they want to keep political power
for themselves rather than having fair elections that make
politicians accountable to the voters.
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 89! RETURN ELECTIONS
TO THE VOTERS AND REDUCE THE POWER OF THE
SPECIAL INTERESTS.
DEBORAH BURGER, RN, President
California Nurses Association
HARVEY ROSENFIELD, Founder
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights
SUSAN LERNER, Executive Director
California Clean Money Campaign
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
OF PROPOSITION 89 |
Here’s what you should know before voting:
PROPOSITION 89 IS A TAX INCREASE TO PAY FOR
POLITICIANS’ NEGATIVE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS
The supporters of Proposition 89 won’t tell you that what
this measure really does, plain and simple, is raise taxes by
hundreds of millions of dollars so politicians can run their
campaigns at taxpayers’ expense.
Everything we don’t like about political campaigns—
negative television ads and junk mail in our mailboxes—
would still be there. The only difference is OUR TAX
DOLLARS would be paying for it.
AFFECTS SMALL BUSINESSES TOO
They claim that Proposition 89 is about reducing the impact
of big corporations in elections, but it also SEVERELY
LIMITS the ability of many small businesses from backing
candidates or impacting measures.
That’s why the California Small Business Association
opposes Prop. 89.
PROP. 89 IS COMPLICATED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
They say Prop. 89 was crafted by election experts, but they
don’t tell you that major portions of a similar measure were recently thrown out by the Supreme Court. The truth—Prop. 89
is a complicated, 55-page measure that won’t work.
PROP. 89 IS UNFAIR
And the biggest deception of all—the authors of
Proposition 89 are special interests too! They wrote Prop. 89
so they can still contribute BIG MONEY to ballot initiatives,
while small businesses, nonprofits, and others are virtually
SHUT OUT. Prop. 89 is a power grab by a single special
interest to dominate elections under the guise of campaign
reform.
DON’T BE FOOLED BY PROP. 89—IT’S PHONY
REFORM.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 89.
LARRY McCARTHY, President
California Taxpayers’ Association
BETTY JO TOCCOLI, Chair
California Small Business Roundtable
JAMES M. HALL, Former Chair
California Fair Political Practices Commission |
Don’t be fooled by Proposition 89. Prop. 89 is NOT about
cleaning up politics. But, it is 56 pages of new, complicated,
confusing election rules that won’t work.
Proposition 89 was put on the ballot by a single special
interest group, the California Nurses Association, that wants
an UNFAIR advantage in California elections while small
businesses and individuals are effectively SHUT OUT of the
political process. Even other labor organizations like those
representing teachers, firefighters, and law enforcement do
not support Proposition 89, because it RESTRICTS their
participation in the political process as well.
PROPOSITION 89: NOT JUST ABOUT BIG
CORPORATIONS.
The authors of Prop. 89 say they are trying to stop
big corporations from having too much influence. But,
Proposition 89 restricts many small businesses from backing
candidates or supporting and opposing initiatives. Even a
mom-and-pop business, if it is incorporated like many are,
is restricted under Prop. 89.
Proposition 89 also restricts many nonprofit groups that
want to educate voters about the issues they care about. For
example, a group of crime victim advocates will be limited
in warning voters about a candidate who is soft on crime.
Teachers will be limited in helping elect candidates who will
support improving our schools.
PROPOSITION 89: INCREASES TAXES TO PAY FOR
NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNS.
California has many urgent priorities to get our state back
on the right track.
Proposition 89 contains a $200 MILLION TAX
INCREASE and gives that money to politicians to
spend on their negative TV ads and junk mail.
Proposition 89 places virtually no limits on how the
politicians spend their taxpayer-financed campaign funds. It
means that we, the taxpayers, will be paying for their negative
ads!
PROPOSITION 89: WON’T STOP WEALTHY CANDIDATES.
Proposition 89 puts no limits on wealthy candidates who
try to buy California elections.
Under Proposition 89, a politician using taxpayer funds
and running against a wealthy candidate can get up to ten
times the normal taxpayer money to run his campaign. A
candidate for Governor could qualify for up to $200 million
of taxpayer money to run his or her campaign.
PROPOSITION 89: IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
James Hall, past Chairman of the California Fair Political
Practices Commission, says:
“Proposition 89 is unconstitutional, unfair, and won’t
work.”
Supporters of 89 say it is modeled after measures in
other states. But, the United States Supreme Court recently
found the contribution and expenditure limits in a similar
measure from Vermont unconstitutional because they limit
free speech and violate the First Amendment.
PROPOSITION 89: WE ALREADY HAVE CAMPAIGN
LIMITS.
Californians have already passed a campaign finance
reform law, Proposition 34, which strictly limits contributions
to candidates. This law has survived several court challenges
and is working. We don’t need Prop. 89.
SAY NO to PROPOSITION 89!
Proposition 89 is unfair to small businesses, nonprofits,
and groups representing working Californians. It is a waste
of our precious tax dollars, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s
just another confusing measure that won’t work. Please join
small businesses, taxpayers, educators, organized labor, and
so many others in voting NO on Proposition 89.
ALLAN ZAREMBERG, President
California Chamber of Commerce
TONY QUINN, Former Commissioner
California Fair Political Practices Commission
LARRY McCARTHY, President
California Taxpayers’ Association
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST
PROPOSITION 89 |
Elections should be decided by voters, not special interests.
Elections should be about the best ideas, not who has the
most money. Vote YES on Proposition 89 for fair and clean
elections.
Proposition 89:
• Levels the playing field and makes our elections fairer and
more competitive. Advocates for crime victims, education,
healthcare, seniors, and other regular Californians will no
longer be drowned out by big campaign spenders.
• Saves taxpayers money by ending the incentive for
legislative giveaways on lobbyist-driven projects. The
$3.3 billion in corporate tax loopholes today cost each
California household $275 every year.
• Provides the antidote to negative advertising. Candidates
who accept public financing must participate in real
debates and cannot hide behind negative 30-second ads.
• Does not increase taxes on individuals. Small businesses
will not foot the bill.
• Creates a Clean Money public financing system like those
in other states that protects free speech and has been proven to be effective and constitutional.
• Opens our elections to a diversity of qualified candidates
from all walks of life, like teachers, nurses, and firefighters,
not just those with access to the most money.
• Sets tough penalties for those who violate the law.
The special interests oppose Prop. 89 because they like
the control they have over our political system today. As a Los Angeles Times headline said, “Prop. 89: So Good It’s
Scary—to Sacramento.”
It is time to put the voters back in charge. VOTE YES ON
PROPOSITION 89.
JACQUELINE JACOBBERGER, President League of Women Voters of California
RICHARD L. HASEN, JD, Ph.D., Constitutional Election
Law Professor
KATHAY FENG, Executive Director
California Common Cause |
