Should eligible candidates for state elective offices receive public campaign funding that is supported by new taxes on corporations and financial institutions, and should contribution limits be imposed on those candidates that do not receive public campaign funding?
Provides that eligible candidates for state elective office may receive public campaign funding. Increases tax on corporations and financial institutions by 0.2 percent to fund program. Imposes new campaign contribution/expenditure limits.
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Increased revenues (primarily from increased taxes on corporations and financial institutions) totaling more than $200 million annually to pay for the public financing of political campaigns.
- A YES vote on this measure means:
- Candidates for state
offices could choose to receive
public funds to pay for the
costs of campaigns if they
meet certain requirements.
Candidates not accepting
public funds would be
subject to lower contribution
limits than currently. The
tax rate on corporations
and financial institutions
would be increased to pay
for the public financing
of political campaigns.
- A NO vote on this measure means:
- Candidates for state
offices would continue to
pay for their campaigns
with private funds subject to
current contribution limits.
The tax rate on corporations
and financial institutions
would not change.
- Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 89:
- Proposition 89 will curb
corruption in Sacramento and
reduce the power of special
interests and lobbyists over
our government. It will level
the playing field and assure
that elections are about ideas,
not money. It will enable
everyday people, like teachers,
nurses and firefighters, to
run for public office.
Full Text of Argument In Favor,
Rebuttal
- Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 89:
- Proposition 89 is phoney
reform. Prop. 89 increases
taxes for politicians to
finance their political
campaigns and negative ads.
The special interests behind
89 wrote it to give themselves
an unfair advantage,
limiting the voice of small
businesses and nonprofits
and damaging consumers.
It's too complicated and
unworkable. Vote No on 89.
Full Text of Argument Against,
Rebuttal
- Contact FOR Proposition 89:
- Michael Lighty
Californians for Clean Elections, Yes on 89
2000 Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94612
(800) 440-6877
info@yeson89.org
http://www.yeson89.org
- Contact AGAINST Proposition 89:
- Californians to Stop 89
1415 L Street, Suite 1250
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 708-7824
info@noprop89.org
http://www.noprop89.org
|
|
No Spin Information
League of Women Voters
Other Nonpartisan Sources
Voter Minutes
Events
Audio/Video
Official Information
Secretary of State
Campaign Finance Data
California Voter Foundation
Secretary of State
- Cal-Access
- how much money is being raised and spent on Prop 89
Around the Capitol - Election Track
News and Analysis
California Voter Foundation
Coverage by News Organizations
Google News Search
Partisan Information
Supporters
Opponents
Message to News Reporters
- If you use our website for your research, please encourage your readers to go to smartvoter.org!
|
This election is archived. Any links to sources outside of Smart Voter may no longer be active. No further links will be added to this page.
|
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.
|
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Fail:
1,847,919 /
25.5% Yes votes ......
5,394,826 /
74.5% No votes