Don't Be Fooled By Proposition 34 - SB 1223 -- Campaign Contributions and Spending Limits Democracy means government by the people. We believe in a political process where people feel empowered by casting their votes. Democracy is a hard-won protection against tyranny. And in California, it's in trouble. In the 1998 California elections, of those eligible, only 35% voted. Why do 65% opt out? It's not because they don't care. It is because they feel they make a greater statement turning their backs than holding their noses. And that's dangerous. Lose your vote, you lose your democracy. We desperately need meaningful campaign finance reform in California. Proposition 34, sadly, doesn't deliver. Proposition 34 is Misleading This measure is an attempt to mislead the voters. Contribution limits are very high: $ 3000 for state legislature candidates, $ 5000 for statewide candidates and $ 20, 000 for the governor. Clearly, this funds special-interest candidates, not public candidates. The "limits" would not go to effect until after the 2002 statewide election, thus allowing Governor Davis to run for reelection without any reforms at all. (How convenient for the governor!) And since Prop 34 allows political contributions to and from political parties, it perpetuates the unfair advantage of the two party system the system responsible for the current crisis. Prop 34 Kills Real Reform Just when it appears that the federal courts will uphold Proposition 208 (a much stronger reform voters approved but partisan law suits have delayed) the state legislature and the Governor rushed Proposition 34 to the ballot. This dodges Proposition 208, which passed by more than 61% of the voters in 1996. The insurance commissioner fiasco shows how badly the public is hurt by the corruption of big money. Proposition 34 is an attempt to ensure that dirty politics as usual will prevail. Vote NO on 34.
Due to past scandals caused by improperly built roads and other structures, California law-makers have responded to public demands by creating a State workforce of professional engineers and scientists that serve the public interest. Prop 35 wants to change all that. Corporate Fox Seeks Position Guarding Henhouse This lobbyist-sponsored initiative is backed by huge corporations like Bechtel and CH2M Hill. They want State and local agencies (including cities and school districts) to contract with private firms for engineering services including architectural, environmental, construction project management, and regulatory permitting, instead of using government employees. This is an obvious conflict of interest. This initiative would allow vital public services to be performed
by private entities that are primarily responsible to the businesses
that employ them. Remember the Belmont Learning Center, built on land too dangerous for a school, but private contractors covered up the truth? When the hazards were finally revealed, the public was stuck with a $200 million loss. Don't invite more Belmont-style fiascoes. Vote NO on Prop 35.
Proposition 36 - Treatment, Not Prison This initiative requires drug treatment program and probation for certain non-violent drug possession offenses and similar parole violations. It is not "pusher protection" because it excludes offenses relating to sale, production or manufacture. It would save $1 billion dollars in six years, reduce the need for prison construction, and slow the war on youth and people of color masquerading as the "war on drugs." A Step Towards A Saner Drug Policy Drug use is a health care issue, not a criminal issue. Politicians have long understood this truth, but been afraid to act on it. We need adequate funding for drug treatment facilities. Treating drug abuse as a disease can often prevent addicts from acting like criminals. We have taken a giant step towards drug reform by admitting that the tobacco industry sells an addictive drug. Future steps should include an honest public dialogue to determine the most feasible way to decriminalize drugs. For now, vote Yes on Proposition 36.
California levies fees on some businesses to fund clean-ups of problems they cause. Proposition 37 redefines some of these fees and calls them taxes. If Prop 37 passes, these businesses will gain the advantage of demanding two-thirds vote of state legislature to approve such state fees, using the popular complaint against "high taxes." New charges that are necessary for the public good would require a much more difficult approval process. More Corporate Greed If corporate interests pass Prop 37, the people of California will lose. This is a polluter protection initiative, and a shrewd attempt at even more corporate welfare. Prop 37 will encourage big corporations and polluters to pollute more than ever, protected from the consequences of their irresponsible actions. This initiative will ultimately shift the cost of clean up of hazardous waste sites to the tax payers. Vote No on Prop 37.
According to the California Department of Education, in 1999-00, approximately 5,951,612 students were enrolled in California's schools, about 12 percent of all students in the U.S., kindergarten through grade twelve. California's budget, 38.1 billion ($436 increase per pupil from last year) still represents less money per student than the national average of $6,335 placing it 41st in per-pupil spending. This initiative authorizes annual state payments of at least $4000 per pupil for qualifying private and religious schools as grants for new enrollees. It would take much needed resources away from our public schools and further abandons public education, hurting minorities and poor worst. We need quality education to meet our commitment to the future generations. We must strengthen our public schools and invest our money towards better pay for teachers (Treat and pay teachers as valued professionals), give teachers the tools they need like functioning copy machines and text books, build schools on toxic free lands. This initiative would weaken our public education system. Vote No on 38.
California schools face many problems, but a key crisis rests
on We need safe, new schools and renovation of aging schools. Proposition 39 makes it easier to obtain necessary school funding by authorizing property taxes in excess of a 1% limit by 55% vote, rather than the current two-thirds necessary to pay school bonds. Prop 39 authorizes bonds for repair, construction or replacement of school facilities, classrooms, if approved by a 55% local vote. Kids Shouldn't Pay for the Failures of Adults Voters have been reluctant to approve this funding due to financial abuses and mismanagement by some officials such as the Los Angeles Unified School District. But punishing students for the failures of the adult bureaucracy is wrong. Along with the passage of this initiative, we must make our school administrators accountable for the way they spend our tax dollars. Vote Yes on Prop 39 |
