May 29 2012

Examining California’s Propositions 28 and 29

By the time Californians vote on the nominees for President on June 5th the primary season will be in its 6th and final month with little question left as to who will head the national ticket for the two major parties. However, slipping under the radar of many voters are the local and statewide races and issues to be decided next Tuesday. Over the coming days Uprising will cut into our fundraising time to bring you vital coverage of what’s on your June 5th primary election ballot.

Today we’ll take a look at the two statewide propositions, 28 and 29, that have sparked debate about the hotly contested topics: term limits and taxes. A Yes vote on Proposition 28 would change term limits for elected officials in two ways. It would decrease the total time an elected official can serve in the state legislature by two years, but it would also remove term limits specific to the state assembly and the state senate. If it passes, an elected official could serve up to 12 years solely in one house of the state legislature or through a combination of service over the two houses. The Yes on 28 website cites its supporters as “Californians for a Fresh Start: a Coalition of Businesses, Businesspersons, and Working Men and Women to Support Prop. 28, with major funding by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.”

Proposition 29 has caused more of a stir by raising the ire of two powerful interests – anti-tax organizations and the tobacco industry. If Proposition 29 passes, an additional $1.00 tax would be added to every pack of cigarettes sold in the state, with all of the estimated $735 million raised annually going to a fund designated for cancer research, research facilities, and smoking cessation programs. Prop. 29 is also called The Cancer Research Act and its website credits funding for it to,Yes on 29, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Cancer Society Ballot Committee and the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Ballotpedia calculated that as of May 23rd, the Yes on prop. 29 coalition had raised about $11 million, while as of May 25th the No on prop. 29 campaign had raised over $42 million. The No on prop. 29 ad campaign includes radio commercials and mailers blanketing the state, ominously warning that it will create more bureaucracy and no new jobs. The Times Herald serving Solano and Napa Valley last week called the advertising blitz, “shameful, deceitful, [and] irresponsible,” following condemnations of the Big Tobacco lobbying campaign by the Sacramento Bee and the San Francisco Chronicle.

GUEST: Brian Lubitz, political consultant and blogger at

Read Brian Lubitz’ writings at

One response so far

One Response to “Examining California’s Propositions 28 and 29”

  1. Dolsot Bibimbapon 29 May 2012 at 9:03 pm

    Big new bureaucracy??? $15 million in administrative expenses to ensure $700 million in research money gets spent effectively makes sense to me. That is $6 million less than the $21.6 million the Phillip Morris CEO made in total compensation in 2011. Sounds like the only bureaucracy is in his bank account – made even bigger by addicting more smokers.