A few choice tidbits from today’s rollout of a proposed ballot measure to hike the state’s cigarette tax by a dollar per pack to fund cancer research, for which I didn’t have room in the article I wrote for tomorrow’s editions…

Don Perata, who said he conceived of the measure while still in the state Senate and well before being diagnosed with and treated for prostate cancer earlier this year, said he’s not sure he wants to become the “face” of this campaign, a task better left to allies such as the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association. “Whatever I am, I’m still a politician. If you’re an old Catholic, it’s kind of like original sin.”

Nor will he serve on the “Californians for a Cure” campaign committee’s steering board, which will be made up of representatives from the health advocacy groups. “None of these people have vested self interests, none of these people are going to make a dime.”

Perata noted own cancer treatment seems to have been successful. “Some might question my mental health, but my physical condition is really good.”

And, from the nascent measure’s likely opponents…

From Bill Phelps, spokesman for Altria, the parent company of tobacco giant Phillip Morris USA:

“It’s important to remember that the Legislature just passed a budget a few months ago that includes more than $12 billion in tax increases, and this latest idea would raise taxes by almost a billion dollars. Given the state of the economy, we don’t think this is the time to be raising taxes again.”

From California Taxpayers’ Association communications director David Kline:

“We have not yet taken a position, but I anticipate that the California Taxpayers’ Association will oppose the measure based on our view that Californians already have been hit with major tax increases this year, and another tax increase would hurt the economy. With unemployment over 12 percent in California, we need to be looking for ways to improve the economy, not hold it back. Also, the tobacco tax is a declining revenue source, and we have historically opposed initiatives that base ongoing spending on declining revenue sources, because this is a recipe for more budget problems in the future.”

From Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jon Coupal:

“We have opposed tobacco tax hikes in the past and will almost certainly oppose this one as well.”

UC Berkeley cognitive linguistics professor George Lakoff’s ballot initiative calling for the reversal of the two-thirds voting requirement for a state budget and tax increases has been cleared for the signature-gathering process.

Lakoff describes the initiative as the restoration of democracy in California, a return to majority rule and end to tyranny of the minority.

According to the Secretary of State, Lakoff will need 695,000 signatures ofregistered voters in order to qualify the initiative for the November 2010 ballot.

Read on for the full press release.

Read the rest of this entry »

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen today announced proponents of a new initiative may begin collecting petition signatures for their measure:

REQUIRES PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO OFFER CHRISTMAS MUSIC. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Requires public schools to offer an opportunity for students to listen to or perform Christmas music during the holiday season. Requires schools to notify students’ parents or guardians twenty-one days before the music will be played or performed so that students can opt-out of listening to or performing the music. Provides that a civil lawsuit may be brought to enforce these requirements. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably minor annual costs to school districts. (09-0030.)

I see the cover letter for the initiative says it’s “allowing for Christmas music in the public schools,” and the new section of state law the measure seeks to enact would be entitled, “Freedom to Present Christmas Music in Public School Classrooms or Assemblies.”

But the measure’s actual language clearly states “shall provide opportunities to its pupils for listening to or performing Christmas music at an appropriate time of year.” (Emphasis added.)

That’s “shall” as in, “I’ll be able to sue you if you don’t.”

Proponents Merry Susan Hyatt – the cover letter says she “moved to Redding but I will keep my registration in Riverside County,” a neat trick – and David Joseph Hyatt – Merry’s brother, in Shasta County – must collect valid signatures from at least 433,971 registered voters by March 29 in order to qualify their measure for the November 2010 ballot.

S.K. Seymour LLC, the partnership that runs Oakstersdam University and its related “cannabusinesses,” last Tuesday gave $10,000 to Hope 2010, a ballot measure committee (formerly known as Leadership California) controlled by former state Senate President Pro Tem and 2010 Oakland mayoral candidate Don Perata. Perata in September publicly endorsed the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010,” the marijuana legalization ballot measure co-proposed by S.K. Seymour LLC partner and Oaksterdam University President Richard Lee. Hope 2010 is supporting the California Cancer Research Act, a proposed ballot measure that would raise the state’s tobacco tax to fund grants and loans for reaearch; to create, staff and equip California’s research facilities; and to boost efforts to reduce tobacco use. The measure is now awaiting preparation of its title and summary by the state Attorney General’s office; it looks like the campaign has a Web site being built but not yet ready for public viewing.

In other news, Palo Alto physicist Charles T. Munger Jr., son of Warren Buffett’s billionaire investor partner, last week put another $701,260 into his “Voters First Act for Congress” ballot measure, bringing his total so far to $1,003,030. The measure would remove authority for setting California’s 53 Congressional district boundaries from the state Legislature, and would give that authority instead to the same Citizens Redistricting Commission that will soon be setting state Legislative boundaries (as required by last year’s successful Proposition 11).

Pacific Gas & Electric on Friday put another $500,000 into its somewhat euphemistically named “Californians to Protect Our Right to Vote” committee, pushing a ballot measure which would require local governments to obtain the approval of two-thirds of their voters (rather than just a simple majority) before providing electricity to new customers or expanding such service to new territories if any public funds or bonds are involved, or before providing electricity through a community choice program if any public funds or bonds are involved. Critics say PG&E is playing on populist themes in order to block local governments from abandoning the utility giant in favor of power contracts with smaller, greener energy producers – a movement that’s been gaining steam in recent years. The proponents have until Dec. 21 to gather the 694,354 signatures needed to place this on the ballot next year. This contribution brings PG&E’s stake as the committee’s sole donor to $3.5 million so far.

And Livermore optometrist Scott Kamena on Friday put $23,000 into his own Kamena for Assembly 2008 committee, which had indicated in its mid-year report having $60,749.39 in outstanding debts. Kamena ran in the June 2008 Republican primary for the 15th Assembly District, coming in fourth behind nominee Abram Wilson and candidates Robert Rao and Judy Lloyd.

I’ll have a story in Sunday’s editions about what legalized marijuana might look like were any of the proposed ballot measures now circulating for petition signatures, or a bill now pending in the Legislature, to be enacted. In trying to characterize law enforcement’s opposition, I decided to check in with all of the candidates for California Attorney General. And, don’tcha know, all the folks who responded are dead set against legalization.

From Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico, D-Newark:

“Cannabis is a powerful medicine appropriate and necessary to treat the side effects of many serious illnesses, from HIV/AIDS to cancer. It is not, and should not be made into, a legal recreational drug or a new revenue source. We need to support the appropriate medical use of marijuana with strong new regulations and oversight of medical marijuana collectives.

“Even in the midst of this terrible fiscal crisis, the last way we want to balance our budget is by putting the state in the position of profiting from recreational drug use.”

From Brian Brokaw, campaign manager for San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, a Democrat:

“As a career prosecutor, District Attorney Harris believes that drug selling harms communities; it is not a ‘victimless crime,’ as some contend. While the D.A. supports the legal use of medicinal marijuana, she does not support the legalization of marijuana beyond that.”

From former Facebook Chief Privacy Officer Chris Kelly, a Democrat:

“California led the nation in passing the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Now that the U.S. Justice Department has said they will not enforce the federal law against states, we should ensure that existing state law in California on this specific issue is appropriately implemented, including building the necessary regulatory structure, before we take any next steps. Therefore, I oppose all 3 measures and the Ammiano bill.”

From Tim Rosales, campaign manager for state Sen. Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach:

“Tom Harman does not support any further liberalization of drug laws, including marijuana.”

Spokespeople for Assembly members Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, and Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, didn’t return my e-mail, nor did former Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo’s campaign.

The Secretary of State’s campaign finance database shows insurance giant Mercury General Corp. on Friday put $1 million into Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates, the campaign committee it set up to back “The Continuous Coverage Auto Insurance Discount Act” for next year’s ballot. This doubles the company’s total previous contributions, made in June and September.

Today, the committee announced the state Attorney General’s office has released the measure’s title and summary, and gathering of petition signatures has begun; it needs 433,971 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, so the committee will seek about 700,000.

Current law lets insurance companies offer a discount to their customers who maintain “continuous” coverage, but drivers can’t take their continuous coverage discount with them if they change insurance carriers. The proposed ballot measure would change this so the discount is portable even if motorists change insurance companies, something most other states already allow.

The official title and summary:

ALLOWS AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES TO BASE THEIR PRICES IN PART ON A DRIVER’S HISTORY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Changes current law to permit insurance companies to offer a discount to drivers who have continuously maintained their auto insurance coverage, even if they change their insurance company, and notwithstanding the ban on using the absence of prior insurance for purposes of pricing. Establishes that lapses in coverage due to nonpayment of premiums may prevent a driver from qualifying for the discount. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: This measure would probably have no significant fiscal effect on state and local governments.

“The continuous coverage discount will benefit all drivers who follow the law and maintain insurance coverage. This simple reform will provide lower rates for more California drivers by encouraging competition and will provide them with more options and choices in their insurance coverage,” campaign committee co-chair Jim Conran of Orinda, president of Consumers First and former director of the California Department of Consumer Affairs, said in a news release today. “It encourages California drivers to not only keep their coverage current, but to go out and find the best rate without being forced to lose a discount. Consumers should not be penalized and lose discounts for maintaining coverage just because they change their insurance company.”

UPDATE @ 6:15 P.M.: Consumer Watchdog executive director Doug Heller says Mercury does not have your best interests at heart in pushing this ballot measure.

He says the initiative is a repackaging of Mercury-sponsored legislation invalidated by a state appeals court in 2005 after the court determined the bill would illegally surcharge drivers who had a lapse in coverage; the court’s ruling explained that an alleged discount given to drivers who have had continuous insurance coverage must be offset by a surcharge on people with a lapse in their coverage.

So this initiative, Heller says, would let insurers penalize people who’ve missed just one payment, or who decided not to drive for a time and let their insurance lapse during that time.

“Mercury is using the initiative process to raise rates on struggling families in the middle of an economic crisis,” he said in a news release. “Auto insurers shouldn’t be allowed to jack up your premium because you stop driving for a time, missed one payment or are simply struggling after losing a job.”

As more and more people let their insurance lapse during this economic crisis, Mercury’s proposed to penalize those who’ve stopped and then want to restart coverage will force many drivers to remain uninsured, Heller says, thus raising the cost of uninsured motorist coverage for everyone else and leaving California’s roads less safe.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen just announced that John Marcotte of Sacramento, the proponent of a new initiative, may begin collecting petition signatures for his measure:

ELIMINATES THE LAW ALLOWING MARRIED COUPLES TO DIVORCE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for support of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings. (09-0026.)

As a colleague who shall remain nameless just noted, the state might realize hundreds of millions in savings but “conversely, the homicide rate would soar.”

Marcotte must collect signatures of at least 694,354 registered voters by March 22 in order to qualify his measure for the ballot.

UPDATE @ 9:20 P.M.: Steve Weir’s comment (#2) is dead on; see the proponent’s Web site.

UPDATE @ 10:10 P.M.: And, this just in from Mr. Marcotte himself, in response to my query:

“Boy. It really hurts my feelings when people doubt my sincerity like that.

“I just think that sometimes other people have to sacrifice in order to protect my ideas about traditional marriage.

“I like to think I am just extending the good work of Prop 8 and taking it to its logical conclusions. Prop 8 wasn’t about taking away rights from gay people, it was about ‘protecting traditional marriage.’ That’s why I know that we’ll get all those Prop 8 supporters to back my initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that get diminished.

“To not support me would be hypocritical.”

And there you have it.

Now comes the serious money. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. on Friday contributed $1.5 million to its somewhat euphemistically named “Californians to Protect Our Right to Vote,” doubling the $1.5 million with which it already had seeded the committee in July and August. As reported here at the times of the earlier contributions, the “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act” that this committee is pushing would require local governments to obtain the approval of two-thirds of their voters before providing electricity to new customers or expanding such service to new territories if any public funds or bonds are involved, or before providing electricity through a community choice program if any public funds or bonds are involved. Critics say PG&E is playing on populist themes in order to block local governments from abandoning the utility giant in favor of power contracts with smaller, greener energy producers – a movement that’s been gaining steam in recent years. The proponents have until Dec. 21 to gather the 694,354 signatures needed to place this on the ballot next year.

Other sizeable chunks of change contributed in recent days include $25,900 from Oracle heiress and real estate agent Nicola Miner of San Francisco to Gavin Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign; $25,900 from former FTD Group CEO Michael Soenen of Chicago to Meg Whitman’s gubernatorial campaign; $25,000 from the Mercury Trust (apparently controlled by financier Saul Fox) in Foster City to Tom Campbell’s gubernatorial campaign; and $10,000 each to Whitman’s campaign from venture capitalist and former Motorola Chairman and CEO Christopher Galvin of Winnetka, Ill., and from retired investment banker James Love of Healdsburg, all last Thursday.

Yesterday I wrote about another big money dump into the controversial proposed auto-insurance ballot measure; this morning the proponents announced they’ve submitted to the Attorney General a new version which, according to them, addresses many of the critics’ concerns.

From Jim Conran, Cal-FAIR coalition co-chair, president of Consumers First and former director of the California Department of Consumer Affairs:

“Californians for Fair Insurance Rates was formed to pass a ballot measure in 2010 that will extend a discount to drivers who maintain continuous auto insurance coverage, even if drivers switch insurance companies. Under current law, drivers receive this discount with their existing insurer, but an inconsistency in the law prohibits them from receiving this discount if they switch insurers.

“There seemed to be some confusion about language in our original measure that was being misinterpreted to do more than simply make the continuous coverage discount portable. Specifically, the Attorney General questioned whether a provision would allow the absence of prior insurance coverage to more generally be a factor in determining rates.

“Since the sole purpose of our ballot measure is to make the continuous coverage discount portable, we have revised the language to clarify these issues and prevent any confusion or misrepresentation. We are also removing another provision in the measure relating to the evaluation of not-at-fault accidents when calculating the discount.

“Our sole intent is to make the continuous coverage discount portable. The new measure does just that.

“We will move forward with a signature gathering campaign and are confident voters will pass this measure at the ballot in 2010 to increase competition and ensure responsible drivers can get a continuous coverage discount they deserve, even if they switch insurers.”

UPDATE @ 1:13 P.M.: Click here to read the updated ballot-measure language.

Los Angeles-based insurer Mercury General Corp. on Tuesday put another $500,000 into Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates, the same sum it had put down at the end of June. The committee supports the Continuous Coverage Auto Insurance Discount Act, which according to the state Attorney General’s summary would alllow “insurance companies to increase or decrease the cost of auto insurance based on a driver’s coverage history” – that is, whether the driver has been insured before, with better rates available to those who’ve continuously maintained coverage even if they switch insurers. It also would allow insurers to consider “claims experience” when calculating the amount of such a reduction or when determining who’ll be eligible for it.

Critics say the measure would penalize people who miss one payment or who decide not to drive and let their insurance lapse but later change their mind, and would let insurers penalize drivers simply because they file a claim, even if they are not at fault; currently only accidents where a driver is at fault can be used to increase his or her premium. The proposed measure’s proponents have until Jan. 11 to gather the 433,971 signatures required to put the measure on the ballot.

UPDATE @ 9:15 A.M. THURSDAY: Looks as if the proponents have revised the proposed measure’s language to try to address critics’ concerns.

In other campaign finance news this week, Change to Win – the progressive public policy coalition of the Teamsters, Laborer’ International Union of North America, Service Employees International Union United Farm Workes, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and UNITE HERE – on Monday put an inaugural $1 million into the United Farm Workers’ Committee to Oppose Statewide Water Bonds, said bonds being pushed predominately by agribusiness concerns, Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislative Republicans.