Update November 8, 2006
Proposition 89 was rejected by 74.6% of voters.
Proposition 89 in Plain English
This measure would make sweeping changes to political campaigns in the state. First, it would pave the way for candidates seeking state-level offices to receive public financing for their election campaigns, if they qualify. To pay for the campaigns, taxes on corporations would be raised from 8.84 percent to 9.04 percent and taxes on financial institutions would be raised from 10.84 percent to 11.04 percent. This would bring in an estimated $200 million per year. Second, the measure places caps on donations from individuals, groups, corporations and political parties. These caps would apply to both candidates and ballot measures.
Official Title and Summary
Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute.
- 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 Fair Political Practices Commission, in amounts varying by elective office and election type.
- 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 by lobbyists, state contractors.
- Limits certain contributions and expenditures by corporations.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
- Increased revenues (primarily from increased taxes on corporations and financial institutions) totaling more than $200 million annually. The funds would be spent on the public financing of political campaigns for state elected officials.
Analysis
- Official Legislative Analysis, California Legislative Analyst’s Office (PDF)
- In Depth Nonpartisan Analysis, League of Women Voters Ca.
Articles
- Public Financing of Campaigns Is the Right Idea, but Prop. 89 Is Wrong Way to Do It. Los Angeles Times
- Taking Aim at California Election Funding Among other changes, Prop. 89 would limit corporate spending — but not that of tribes and trial lawyers — on ballot measures. Los Angeles Times
- Prop. 89: Good intentions, bad results, Measure promises ‘clean money and fair elections.’ Where have we heard that before? Orange County Register
- Editorial: Prop. 89 is a power play, not campaign reform. Sacramento Bee
- Donations lag for initiative on campaign finance. Prop. 89 could have profound impact on California politics. San Francisco Chronicle
October 20th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Prop 89 WOULD bring clean elections of legislators.
Opponents say it is not fair that corporations pay increased taxes to fund the publicly financed elections. However, the increase of taxes on corporations by .2% doesn’t even bring corporate taxes up to individuals rate of 9.3%. Funding Prop 89 by this modest amount, which still keeps corporate taxes below individual taxes, seems very reasonable to me.
A much more serious problem is that while Prop 89 brings clean money to elective offices, it does not do so with propositions. In fact, it sets up an unfair playing field in the state by restricting corporate money while allowing certain non-profits spend as much as they want on propositions. It is clear that this is a deliberate attempt by the California Nurses Association to increase their chances next year to pass a universal health care bill with hospitals and corporations prevented from funding any opposition.
However, I come down firmly on the side of Prop 89. It WILL bring us clean elections for government offices, and I figure that next year the legislators can amend the laws to make sure that propositions are also covered by clean money rules that keep the playing field even.