Propositions June 8

[Valley Oak]

How should we vote on the 5 ballot initiatives this June 8th? What's your opinion?

Here is the State of California's weblink listing the propositions, definitions, and the short arguments in favor and against:
Propositions | Voter Information Guide June 8, 2010 | California Secretary of State

I have posted my tentative position, by all means not firm, on each of them below:

13 Limits on Property Tax Assessment. Seismic Retrofitting
of Existing Buildings. Legislative Constitutional Amendment:
My position: YES.

14 Elections. Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections:
My position: NO.

15 California Fair Elections Act:
My position: YES.

16 Imposes New Two-Thirds Voter Approval Requirement for
Local Public Electricity Providers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment:
My position: NO!

17 Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices
in Part on a Driver's History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute:
My position: NO.

[someguy]

How should we vote on the 5 ballot initiatives this June 8th? What's your opinion?

I am inclined to agree with the positions you have taken, with one major exception. The California Fair Elections Act seems to be a trick. It allows for legislators to vote on whether to use general fund money for things such as education or public safety, or to use the same money to fund their own campaigns! Hmmmm.... which do you think they will choose? This proposition will make the taxpayers foot the bill for whichever campaigns the legislature decides, while leaving a loophole for candidates to collect money from lobbyists.

Here's an article discussing this problem:

Pay no attention to politicians behind Prop. 15 - Page 2 - SFGate

I am always skeptical of of bills with titles like this one. It's like the Patriot Act, or No Child Left Behind. They always do the exact opposite of what the title claims.

NO on Prop 15!

[Valley Oak]

Thank you for your amenable response. It is appreciated.

I politely disagree with you and here's why. A 'yes' vote on this measure means the state ban on public funding for political campaigns for elected offices would be lifted. For the 2014 and 2018 elections, candidates for the office of Secretary of State could choose to receive public funds to pay for the costs of campaigns if they met certain requirements. Charges related to lobbyists would be increased to pay for these costs.

A 'no' vote on this measure means the state ban on public funding for political campaigns for elected offices would continue. Candidates for the office of Secretary of State would continue to pay for their campaigns with private funds subject to current rules. Existing charges related to lobbyists would not change.

The amount of money in politics is outrageous and corrupts the system. The League of Women Voters of California says Prop. 15 will get politicians out of the fundraising game so they will focus on California's priorities. Elections should be won, not bought by special interests. www.YesOnProp15.org

I am inclined to agree with the positions you have taken, with one major exception. The California Fair Elections Act seems to be a trick. It allows for legislators to vote on whether to use general fund money for things such as education or public safety, or to use the same money to fund their own campaigns! Hmmmm.... which do you think they will choose? This proposition will make the taxpayers foot the bill for whichever campaigns the legislature decides, while leaving a loophole for candidates to collect money from lobbyists.

Here's an article discussing this problem:

Pay no attention to politicians behind Prop. 15 - Page 2 - SFGate

I am always skeptical of of bills with titles like this one. It's like the Patriot Act, or No Child Left Behind. They always do the exact opposite of what the title claims.

NO on Prop 15!

[someguy]

Thank you for your amenable response. It is appreciated.

I politely disagree with you and here's why. A 'yes' vote on this measure means the state ban on public funding for political campaigns for elected offices would be lifted. For the 2014 and 2018 elections, candidates for the office of Secretary of State could choose to receive public funds to pay for the costs of campaigns if they met certain requirements. Charges related to lobbyists would be increased to pay for these costs.

A 'no' vote on this measure means the state ban on public funding for political campaigns for elected offices would continue. Candidates for the office of Secretary of State would continue to pay for their campaigns with private funds subject to current rules. Existing charges related to lobbyists would not change.

The amount of money in politics is outrageous and corrupts the system. The League of Women Voters of California says Prop. 15 will get politicians out of the fundraising game so they will focus on California's priorities. Elections should be won, not bought by special interests. www.YesOnProp15.org

Thanks for the politeness, I can really use it today. My biggest problem with Prop 15 is that it still allows for lobbyists to give candidates money......just not to contribute directly to their campaign. They put money into "separate accounts", problem solved. Elections can still be bought by special interests. Meanwhile, taxpayers foot the bill for the campaign itself. In my opinion, this does nothing to solve the problem of unfair elections. All it will do is raise our taxes.

[LenInSebastopol]

Thank you both. I may be clerking for this election and will not be able to discuss it on that day, but it's about a month away and need to play catch up. Both of you are being very helpful. Thanks.