Stop Bush in CA

Yes on 85 calls this the "Parents' Right To Know" Act

No on 85 says that voting no means "Real Teen Safety"

We call it "Protect Teen Safety."

The proposal had two major financiers -- James Holman (a newspaper and magazine magnate and Roman Catholic activist from San Diego) and Don Sebastiani (former Republican legislator and now a winemaker in Sonoma County). Holman and Sebastiani have donated more than $1.6 million so far to the parental notification cause since the defeat of Proposition 73, a nearly identitcal proposal, in 2005.

If approved, Proposition 85 would require notification given to parents of a pregnant girl under the age of 18 when she seeks an abortion. Then, a 48-hour waiting period is mandated.

The issue of parental notification has a long history in California. To chip away at a woman's right to choose, abortion opponents use the idea that good parents should know about their children having an abortion. From this, they work to legislate good parenting.

Of course, good parents should be involved in a decision like this, but in reality, this law forces even girls who are scared of abuse to inform their parents of their pregnancy. Unfortunately, some children come from families where they just can't talk to their parents. Girls faced with the choice of an illegal, unsafe abortion or facing their abusive parents will often delay crucial medical care or perhaps even consider suicide. The real goal here isn't good parenting but rather a rollback of women's rights.

This is why nurses, doctors, and teachers all oppose Prop 85.

The potential for parental notification laws to endanger the lives of children, and the inability of government to impose good parenting means that you should vote NO on 85.

For more information, see:
www.parentsright2know.org
www.noon85.com
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/mar-monte/no-on-85-real-teen-safety.htm

Yes on 86 Campaign calls it "Stop Big Tobacco"

No on 86 Campaign calls it "Stop the $2.1 Billion Tax Hike"

We call it "Hold Big Tobacco Accountable"

Paid for by California's divisions of the Hospital Association, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and American Lung Association.

Will raise state cigarette tax $2.60 a pack and is projected to raise about $2.1 billion in 2007 to fund health insurance for uninsured kids, improved emergency care, tobacco prevention programs, and chronic disease research.

Big Tobacco is fighting this initiative tooth and nail and is trying to turn the tables to make people wonder which "special interests" are behind it, and who benefits from the tax revenue.

R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris are behind two committees formed to oppose Prop. 86, calling themselves "Californians Against Unaccountable Taxes" and the "Committee to Stop the $2 Billion Tax Hike."

Tobacco's #1 political campaign funding recipient in 2000 and 2004 was George W. Bush, who raked in over $250,000 according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Tobacco firms already have committed $40 million to defeat Proposition 86.

Proponents have seen the benefits of taxing cigarettes in California and in other states with reduced smoking rates, reduced unpaid healthcare costs (for uninsured smokers) and new revenue for health related programs.

For more information, see:
www.yesonprop86.org/
www.healthvote.org/

Yes on 87 Campaign calls it "Make Big Oil Pay for Cleaner Energy"

No on 87 Campaign calls it "No on $4 Billion Oil Tax. It's a Recipe For Waste, Not Progress"

We call it "Make Big Oil Pay Their Fair Share"

Right now, Big Oil pays California almost nothing to drill in our state, while they pay billions of dollars in drilling fees to every other oil producing state. Prop 87 will set California's oil drilling fees to 1.5 to 6% (depending on the price of oil per barrel) which is at levels similar to those in Oklahoma, Alaska, and Texas. The revenue raised ($4 billion over 10 years) will go towards research and producing alternative fuels and energy.

The California Attorney General has confirmed that Prop 87 makes it illegal for oil companies to raise gas prices or to pass the cost of the tax to consumers.

Prop 87 was funded by movie producer Stephen Bing ($16.5 million); Google co-founder Larry Page ($1 million), and venture capitalists John Doerr ($950,000) and Vinod Khosla ($1.1 million).

Big Oil has already poured millions into their "Stop The Oil Tax" campaign. Including Chevron Corp. ($13.1 million); Aera Energy LLP ($12.6 million), and Occidental Oil and Gas Corp ($4.75 million).

Big Oil was the top funder to George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns, contributing over $4.6 million dollars.

For more information, see:
www.yeson87.org/

Yes on 89 calls this the "California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act"

Californians to Stop Prop 89, a coalition of taxpayer groups, insurance companies, and corporations, says that this is "Phony Reform."

We call it the "Restore Democracy Act."

If enacted, Proposition 89 would reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests in California. This is why it's often called the "clean money" act. Currently, lobbyists and corporations can donate "dirty" money to the campaign funds of their favorite candidates. Prop 89 would restrict the ability of special interests to donate to campaigns, and would provide public financing for qualified "clean money" candidates.

The opposition to the proposition says that the rights of corporations to lobby government will be unfairly restricted. These conservatives also say that public funding is better spent on schools than on election campaigns. With a general anti-tax position, those who argue against 89 imply that the political system is just fine the way it is.

While the line that "schools are more important than elections" is true, the current election system means that the amount of dirty special interest money from corporations that goes to candidates makes education a low priority in our state. Prop 89 would clean up the system and make campaigns more about ideas rather than money.

A broad coalition of groups supports Prop 89 including labor unions like SEIU and UAW, environmentalists like the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, the Latino National Congress, and many others. The ballot initiatve was lead and funded by the California Nurses Association.

For more information, see:
www.cleanmoneyelections.org
www.89now.org

Yes on 90 campaign calls it "Protect Our Homes Act"

No on 90 campaign calls it "The Taxpayer Trap"

We call it "Leave No Real Estate Developer Behind"

Paid for by New York City based anti-government extremists and billionaire real estate developer Howie Rich, as part of an effort to change land use regulations in six different Western states so local business, residential and environmental zoning laws are wiped off the books. 

This is fake "eminent domain" reform. Prop 90's out of state backers are trying to capitalize on people's fears about government confiscating private property
(made infamous in the Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London decision) to inject their own anti-government ideals into our constitution. Prop 90 will destroy future environmental protections, responsible land-use planning and basic laws intended to protect the welfare of California's citizens.

Here's the deal:

Municipalities have basic zoning and land-use laws on the books to protect our communities. Restrictions on big box retailers, adult book stores or huge subdivisions, for example, are intended to maintain a community's integrity. 

What Prop 90 does is allow virtually anyone - including wealthy land speculators and developers - to sue our communities if any subsequent ordinances put on the books might cause them "economic harm."

For instance, if a developer wants to build 1000 homes but your city limits growth due to traffic to 250 homes, Prop 90 allows the developer to sue your city to recover his lost potential "profits" from the 750 other homes.  If the city can't pay then the land use law will be waived. And cities can't pay these frivolous claims if they want to pay for necessities like police, firefighters, parks and roads. 

But 90 isn't just limited to development. According to the state's Legislative Analyst's Office, "these laws and rules could include requirements relating, for example, to employment conditions, apartment prices, endangered species, historical preservation and consumer financial protection."

The results would be mind boggling. Lawsuits by restaurant owners for having to pay minimum wage, lawsuits by banks for having to limit ATM fees, lawsuits by nightclub owners for having to adhere to noise regulations.

And that's the point. These anti-government extremists don't want to be limited by laws. They don't care about the environment, traffic, your property, your community or the state of California if it stands in the way of them making a buck.

No on 90, Californians Against the Taxpayer Trap
1121 L Street, Suite 803
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact Phone: 1-800-628-9075
Email: info@NoProp90.com

For more information, see:
www.noprop90.com/
www.howierichexposed.com/