Title

Prop Cheat Sheet

UPDATED: Thursday, Oct. 28

A few individuals and special interest groups have spent nearly $80 million to influence how you vote on propositions that will appear on the upcoming Nov. 2 ballot in California.

More than 2,200 contributors have shelled out a total of more than $153 million as of Oct. 28. The top 25 of those donors accounted for more than half of all that money.

The initiative process was intended to establish direct democracy in California and give citizens power to determine the direction of governance in the state. But big money interests have hijacked the process. In many cases political action committess, or PACs, make it difficult to know where the money supporting propositions is coming from.

props-200x200

Over the next two weeks SoCal Connected will be exploring the business of propositions and several of the most controversial measures on the upcoming ballot.

Click here to see a graphic showing all of the donors to committees supporting or opposing propositions. The larger the circle, the more money the donor has given.


prop-19-200x200

Prop 19

A YES vote on this measure is a vote to allow anyone 21 or older to legally possess and grow limited amounts of marijuana for personal use. It would also give state and local governments authority to regulate and tax commercial marijuana-related activitites under certain conditions. These activities would remain illegal under federal law. A NO vote maintains the status quo: marijuana would remain legal only for medicinal use under prescription by a licensed doctor.

Click here to see an interactive graphic showing who is giving money to support each side of this issue.

www.yeson19.com
www.noonproposition19.com

Authors: Richard Seib Lee and Jeffrey Wayne Jones

Big Spenders: Yes on 19

1. S.K. Seymour LLC / Oaksterdam University - $1,523,766
2. George Soros - $1,000,000
3. Peter B. Lewis - $159,005
4. Philip D. Harvey - $100,000
5. Sean Parker - $100,000

Big Spenders: No on 19

1. Jane Schauer - $50,000
1. CA Police Chiefs Association - $50,000
2. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians - $25,000
3. Sebastian Musco - $25,000
4. CA Narcotic Officers' Association - $20,500
5. CAL BUS PAC - $16,000
5. CA Hospital Association PAC - $16,000


prop-20-27-200x200

Prop 20 and Prop 27 / Redistricting

Voting YES on Prop 20 is a vote to give the responsibility to determine the boundaries of California's districts in the U.S. House of Representatives to the Citizens Redistricting Commission, a commission established by Proposition 11 in 2008. Voting NO means the responsibility to determine the boundaries of California's districts in the U.S. House would remain with the Legislature.

Proposition 27 also concerns redistricting issues. A YES vote would abolish the Citizens Redistricting Commission altogether. A NO vote is to support the commission going forward. If both Proposition 20 and Proposition 27 are approved by voters, the proposition receiving the most number of "yes" votes would be the only one to go into effect.

The vast majority of the money being spent to support Prop 20 and oppose Prop 27 came from the same committee. Likewise, some of the contributors to the committee that opposes Prop 20 also gave to the committee to support Prop 27. That's why we've included contributions to both propositions on this one interactive graphic.

Prop 20 Author: Charles T. Munger, Jr.
Prop 27 Authors: Daniel Lowenstein c/o Fredric D. Woocher

www.yesprop20.org
www.noprop20.org
www.yesprop27.org
www.noprop27.org

Big Spenders: Yes on 20, No on 27

1. Charles Munger Jr. - $11,677,523
2. Charlotte Lowell - $956,000
3. Diane Wilsey - $100,000
4. CA Business PAC (CA Chamber of Commerce) - $85,000
5. Rebecca Morgan - $50,000
5. Susan Groff - $50,000
5. William Bloomfield - $50,000

Big Spenders: No on 20, Yes on 27

1. Haim Saban - $2,032,151
2. AFSCME - $1,250,000.00
3. American Federation Of Teachers - $1,000,000.00
4. Judy Chu Campaign Committee 2010 - $500,000.00
4. Working For Working Americans - $500,000.00
5. Democratic State Central Committee of CA - $375,000


prop-21-200x200

Prop 21

A YES vote on this measure supports a new $18 annual surcharge that would be added to the amount paid when a person registers a motor vehicle. The money raised would be used to provide funding for state park and wildlife conservation programs. Cars subject to the surcharge would have free admission and parking at all state parks. Voting NO on Prop 21 means state park and wildlife conservation programs will continue to be funded by existing state and local funding sources, and admission and parking fees could continue to be charged for vehicles entering state parks.

Click here to see an interactive graphic of the contributors to committees supporting and opposing Prop 21.

www.YesForStateParks.com


Big Spenders: Yes on 21

1. The Nature Conservancy - $2,226,489
2. Conservation Action Fund - $1,290,500
3. CA for Clean Air & Clean Energy (League of Conservation Voters) - $1,030,00
4. CA State Parks Foundation - $849,675
5. Save the Redwoods League - $750,000

Big Spenders: No on 21

1. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, INC - $49,000
2. Enterprise Holdings - $25,000.00


prop-22-200x200

Prop 22

Voting YES is to support significantly limiting the state's ability to use or redirect local property taxes and state fuel taxes for purposes other purposes. A NO vote on Prop 22 would leave the state's current authority over state fuel tax and local property tax revenues unaffected.

Click here to see the contributors to committees supporting and opposing Prop 22.

www.SaveLocalServices.com
www.votenoprop22.com

Authors: Joshua Shaw, Christopher K. McKenzie, and James N. Earp

Big Spenders: Yes on 22

1. League of CA Cities (Non Public Funds) - $1,970,000
2. League of California Cities Citi PAC - $1,375,000
3. CA Alliance for Jobs - Rebuild CA Committee - $500,000
4. CA Transit Association (Non Public Funds) - $283,623
5. Members' Voice of the State Building Trades - $150,000.
5. CA Public Securities Assoc. Public Policy Issues Fund - $150,000

Big Spenders: No on 22

1. CA Professional Firefighters Ballot Issue Committee - $878,250
2. CA Teachers Association Issues PAC - $604,240
3. Service Employees International Union Local 1000 Issues PAC - $100,000
4.PACE of CA Schoole Employees Assoc. Issues - $50,000
5. CDF Firefighters Issues Committee - $25,000


prop-23-200x200

Prop 23

A YES vote on Prop 23 supports suspending certain existing and proposed regulations authorized under state law ("Assembly Bill 32") to address global warming. The regulations would remain suspended until the state unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or lower for one year. Voting NO allows the state to continue to implement the measures authorized under Assembly Bill 32 to address global warming.

Click here to see who is spending heavily to influence how you vote on Prop 23.

www.yeson23.com
www.factson23.com

Author: Thomas W. Hiltachk

Big Spenders: Yes on 23

1. Valero Services, INC. - $5,075,315
2. Tesoro Companies - $2,040,636
3. Flint Hills Resources - $1,000,000.00
4. Marathon Petroleum Company LLC - $500,000.00
5. Adam Smith Foundation - $498,000.00

Big Spenders: No on 23

1. Thomas Steyer - $5,049,000
2. National Wildlife Federation - $3,000,000
3. No On 23 Committee Of The NRDC Action Fund To Stop The Dirty Energy Proposition - $1,890,250
4. CA For Clean Energy and Jobs - $1,400,000
5. Environamental Defense Action Fund - $1,100,000


prop-24-200x200

Prop 24

Voting YES on Prop 24 will return three business tax provisions to what they were before 2008 and 2009 law changes. There would be three main results: (1) a business will be less able to deduct losses in one year against income in other years, (2) a multistate business will have its California income determined by a calculation using three factors, and (3) a business will not be able to share tax credits with related businesses. A NO vote supports continuing with the recent changes to business tax law.

Click here to see which of campaign 2010's heavy spenders are shelling out on Prop 24.

www.yesprop24.org
www.stopprop24.com

Authors: Robin Johansen and Karen Getman

Big Spenders: Yes on 24

1. California Teachers Association Issues Pac - $8,483,867
2. America's Families First, Inc. - $2,150,000
3. National Education Association - $2,125,000
4. Alliance For A Better California 2010 - $487,763
5. American Federation Of State, County Municipal Employees CA Issues - $100,000
5. California Federation Of Teachers Cope Prop/Ballot Committee - $100,000
5. PACE Of California School Employees Association - Issues - $100,000
5. Service Employees International Union Local 1000 Issues PAC - $100,000

Big Spenders: No on 24

1. Genentech, Inc. - $1,600,500
2. Cisco Systems, Inc. - $1,600,000
2. Viacom Inc. - $1,600,000
3. Time Warner - $1,500,000
4. The Walt Disney Company - $1,400,000
5. Fox Group, A Division Of News America Inc. - $1,325,000


prop-25-200x200

Prop 25

A YES vote on this measure would reduce the vote requirement for the state legislature to send the annual budget bill to the Governor from two-thirds to a majority of each house. Voting NO keeps the vote at two-thirds of legislators in each house

See an interactive bubble chart of who is spending to sway your vote on Prop 25.

www.yesprop25.org
www.no25yes26.com

Authors: James C. Harrison and Thomas A. Willis

Big Spenders: Yes on 25

1. California Federation Of Teachers Cope Prop Ballot Committee - $2,927,240
2. American Federation Of Teachers, AFL-CIO - $1,500,000
3. California Teachers Association Issues PAC - $1,305,092
4. American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO - $1,175,000.00
5. PACE Of California School Employees Association - Issues - $1,050,000

Big Spenders: No on 25***

1. Chevron Corporation - $1,875,000
2. California Business Political Action Committee, (California Chamber Of Commerce) - $1,536,161
3. American Beverage Association - $1,225,000
4. Small Business Action Committee PAC - $715,000
5. Phillip Morris USA, INC. $625,000


prop-26-200x200

Prop 26

Voting YES on Prop 26 would support broadening the definition of taxes to include many payments currently considered fees or charges. More state and local proposals to increase revenues would require approval by two-thirds of each house of the Legislature or by local voters as a result. A NO vote on this measure would maintain current constitutional requirements regarding fees and taxes.

Click here meet the big money behind Prop 26.

www.no25yes26.com
www.stoppolluterprotection.com

Authors: Allan Zaremberg c/o Steve Lucas

Big Spenders: Yes on 26***

1. Chevron Corporation - $1,875,000
2. California Business Political Action Committee, (California Chamber Of Commerce) - $1,536,161
3. American Beverage Association - $1,225,000
4. Small Business Action Committee PAC - $715,000
5. Phillip Morris USA, INC. $625,000

Big Spenders: No On 26

1. Democratic State Central Committee Of California - $1,326,674
2. Thomas Steyer - $1,000,000
3. CA For Clean Air & Clean Energy Jobs (League of Conservation Voters) - $900,000
4. CA Business Political Action Committee, (California Chamber Of Commerce) - $515,000
5. California Teachers Association Issues PAC - $504,240


***NOTE: Some committees spend money on more than one proposition. In these cases, since it’s difficult to know how much goes to each, we divided the money evenly among the propositions. For example, if a donor contributes $10,000 to a No on 25, Yes on 26 campaign, his or her donation would appear as a $5,000 donation to each proposition. Because it’s nearly impossible to determine how a committee allocates these dollars, we believe this is a crude, but fair way to represent a donor's influence on the campaign.

Home page image: Denise Cross, Flickr

Story continues below

We are dedicated to providing you with articles like this one. Show your support with a tax-deductible contribution to KCET. After all, public media is meant for the public. It belongs to all of us.

Keep Reading

Full Episodes