Monday, November 06, 2006

RCB's Election Ho-Down

Governor: Phil Angelides. Arnold is a phony who favors image over substance. Phil hasn't proven himself to be reprehensible yet.

U.S. Representative: Barbara Lee. Duh.

And the Rest: Democrats down the line, though some are more supportable than others.

Propositions 1A-1E: No. I like the principles behind each initiative (what kind of clod votes against money for battered woman shelters?), but let's be selective with our bond measures.

Proposition 83: Double No. This is the one called "Jessica's Law" that would put further restrictions on convicted sex offenders. These laws are expensive to enforce, ineffective, invasive, and an affront to civil liberties. Plus, I'm with Kenny.

Proposition 84: Yes. Again, nobody likes bonds. But I care enough about natural resource protection to think that $10.5 billion over 30 years is worth the expense. Think of it as mortgaging the state of California. Besides, as any businessperson will tell you, a little government debt isn't inherently bad.

Proposition 85: Triple No. Forcing minors to notify their guardians before having an abortion will prevent zero (0) unwanted pregnancies. It will probably contribute to many more dangerous self-administered abortions. As the ad with the floating bubble reminds you, not all girls have a functional relationship with their guardians. This law will endanger teenage girls in so many ways.

Proposition 86: Double Yes. If passed, this law would mean a massive tax increase ... to people who buy cigarettes. Cigarettes hurt people and drive up non-smokers' health care costs. All the revenue will go health care or anti-smoking campaigns. The only three groups opposing this bill are smokers, convenience store owners, and tobacco companies; two of those are highly unreputable sources, and the other is just under the mind-control of sweet, sweet nicotine.

Proposition 87: Triple Yes. What Tom said. It's a long-term investment whose payoff you will live to experience (assuming you'll be alive 20 years from now, which you might not be if you don't quit smoking).

Proposition 88: Yes. Who doesn't like schools? Apparently the homeowners who can't shell out $50 a year to fix them. Dude, it costs less than two weeks' worth of lattes.

Proposition 89: Yes. Yay for publicly funded campaigns. But does that mean that Peter Camejo and Arnold Schwartzenegger get the same amount of taxpayer money? I'm confused.

Proposition 90: Triple No. (Not yes. Whoops.) From the CLCV: "Prop 90 includes fine print that would erode our ability to pass laws that protect natural resources, wildlife and habitat; ensure water quality and adequate water supplies; and regulate growth and development. The far-reaching provisions allow virtually anyone to sue claiming a new law or regulation has impacted the value of their property or business - no matter how far-fetched the claim. These new "pay to protect" provisions mean taxpayers pay, or state and local governments would be unable to enact even the most basic protections of our environment and quality of life."

Whew! Don't forget to vote.


Tommaso Sciortino said...

I think you mean triple *no* on prop 90.

Zack said...

Yah seriously Rebecca

Rebecca C. Brown said...

Duely noted and corrected.

Tommaso Sciortino said...

Rebecca and I have proven that it's difficult to write up a run-down of the propositions without some errors.

Thinker said...

If Prop 89 rules were in effect for this election cycle, and both Arnold and Phil had agreed to its restrictions, yes they would start out with the same payments. However, if one (say Phil) was hit with a negative ad campaign financed by an independent group, the law provides that he would be given sufficient funds to respond. Assuming that no independent groups financed a hit campaign on Arnold, he could receive less money overall as a result.

Thinker said...

After rereading your post, I see you asked about Camejo and Arnold. But my answer is the same, if they agreed to the financing restrictions, both would receive the same initial campaign kitty.

Thinker said...

It is important to remember though, that any qualified candidate can opt out of Prop 89 funding and continue raising and spending money the old fashioned way - contributions from their personal fortunes or taking corporate contributions. The real change with Prop 89 would be its restrictions on corporate contributions to initiative campaigns. Under it, they would be limited to a max of $10,000 from corporate funds. However, like unions, they could seek shareholder agreement to spend more.