ENDORSEMENTS: State ballot measures - Page 2


Prop. 15 would create a pilot public financing program for the 2014 and 2018 races for California Secretary of State — and the program would be funded by a tax on lobbyists. Right now lobbyists pay only $12.50 per year to register with the state. This measure would increase that fee to $350 annually and use the money to create a fund of about $6 million that candidates for the crucial office overseeing elections in the state could tap after demonstrating their popular support by gathering a number of small contributions. All candidates who qualify would be given the same amount of money and left to compete on the issues. Ideally this public financing program would prove successful and eventually be expanded to other offices. Public financing of election campaigns, which is currently working well in Arizona and Maine, is certainly worth a try in California. Vote yes.





The deceptively titled "Taxpayer's Right to Vote Act" was dreamed up and funded entirely by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., the monopolistic utility that is worried it could face actual competition here in San Francisco (and elsewhere) from municipal electricity programs that would offer customers a greener energy mix and more accountability than PG&E executives will ever demonstrate.

Rather than accept some healthy competition, this sleazy corporation has opted to spend some $35 million to exterminate all possibilities of municipal electricity programs cropping up anywhere in the state in a bid to preserve its octopus-like grip on the energy market in Northern California. Prop. 16 would require a two-thirds majority vote at the ballot before any community choice aggregation (CCA) program — or any attempt at creating or expanding a public-power system — could move forward. That's an extreme hurdle — -and PG&E knows it.

In effect, PG&E is trying to buy public policy here, trying to pass a law that will protect its own monopoly interests.

In San Francisco, the CCA being proposed would offer customers 51 percent renewable power by 2017, which means it would blow PG&E out of the water in the green arena and mark S.F. as taking greater strides toward combating climate change than any other major U.S. city. This example could set a precedent for others, which, in turn, could create favorable market conditions for green energy startups that want to harness wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, tidal, and energy efficiency alternatives.

The very existence of Prop. 16 is already threatening the San Francisco CCA; the city's Public Utilities Commission is trying to delay a final contract until after the June 8 vote on the measure (see editorial, page 5)


The progressives keep losing at the election box and yet they still claim to be the voice of the people? That is some top shelf tail chasing logic.

Why do progressives think we are all so stupid? And why do they think telling us all we are stupid will make us vote for them?

Posted by glen matlock on May. 06, 2010 @ 11:07 pm

I think everybody gives that impression to the other side Glen... at least to some degree. Personally I think Americans in particular need to start being less sensitive about being disagreed with. Being wrong doesn't mean you're necessarily stupid, just that the process you followed was incorrect.

So let's get over the dared being questioned, an investigate the claims at hand.

Posted by Daws on May. 16, 2010 @ 2:43 am

All true believers think the rest of us are stupid and duped.

Born again Christians think we are all manipulated morons, instead of big business duping us, it's secular humanists with the born againers. There isn't a reason for all of us voting against our supposed best interests as both sides claim, its that we are all idiots without the benefit of their genius.

The yes on prop 14 stance proves that progressives like much of the way things are going, by not liking the last redistricting plan the progressives prove they like the way things are going in that area too. The progressives like the present system in California where they can keep left wing democrats in power, it bothers them that moderates of either party could win.

So this prop 15 position is really just part of their trying to get over, the people at the Guardian who write this shit up are not stupid, they just think we all are. They also support Carol Midgen who sued over campaign financing laws, so its doesn't bother them when its their side getting over.

Posted by glen matlock on May. 16, 2010 @ 9:33 am

What "Yes on prop 14" stance? They're advising No. Guessing you mean 15? If so, that has nothing to do with redistricting so I have no idea why you bring it up.

Prop 15 is about where you want your campaign funding to come from. You want candidates that need to appeal to special interests for money, or are able to do without it and act as they please, beholden only to the votes of the people? As it should be.

Posted by Daws on May. 26, 2010 @ 8:25 pm

You have to wonder. Does Fox News' website get this many trolls?

Posted by etherealite on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 10:31 pm

Well, maybe if you'd read a book every now and then, or perhaps take in information some other way, you wouldn't run around leaving messages on message boards that demonstrate beyond any remote question that you're a complete blithering imbecile. Dorh.

Posted by Lucy Lucknow on May. 27, 2010 @ 10:36 pm


Not agreeing with a progressive makes a person stupid.

Posted by glen matlock on Jun. 05, 2010 @ 7:54 am

This election is all about Props 16 & 17. I'm making the effort to get to the polls just so I can vote "NO" on both of these steaming piles! PG&E & Mercury Insurance can both F.O.A.D!
Prop 17 is a cash grab.
This is a blatant attempt to get more money from drivers who have any gap in their insurance coverage at all. Mercury's treatment of their policy-holders outside of California makes that interpretation hard to deny. Prop 17 would overturn key parts of Prop 103, which has prevented such gouging by insurers operating in the state since 1988.
Prop 16 is basically illegal.
per AB 117 (9): "All electrical corporations shall cooperate fully with any community choice aggregators that investigate, pursue, or implement community choice aggregation programs,".
Spending $44.2M in a bid make CCA more difficult to implement isn't cooperation.

Posted by InnerSunsetter on Jun. 05, 2010 @ 2:52 am

Also from this author