Is anyone Prop 23’d out yet? The answer may be Big Oil.
By now, most voters in the environmental community know what Prop 23 is. If passed, it would suspend and effectively kill AB32 our landmark global warming law to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020. It’s no secret that Prop 23, the Dirty Energy initiative has been primarily funded by two Texas oil companies (Valero and Tesoro) along with the climate change-denier kings the Koch brothers. But after these three put in their combined $6.5 million dollars back in September, the money for the Yes on Prop 23 campaign oddly stopped coming in. Meanwhile, CLCV and our allies on the No on Prop 23 campaign have been steadily building a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and environmentalists that are standing united in our opposition to the deceitful measure. In fact, our work has been so effective that recent polling suggests the measure will lose.
The latest Field Poll, released on Sunday, suggests that despite millions in financial support from out-of-state oil companies, Proposition 23 is failing to gain ground.In the Field Poll, opponents of the measure outnumbered supporters by 11 points, 45 percent to 34 percent, which is very similar to the measure’s 12-point deficit seen in the Field Poll from July. Some 21 percent of voters surveyed this month remained undecided on the measure.
The tide has slowly been turning in our favor, and it hasn’t gone unnoticed. On Monday, Marathon Oil (another Texas oil company) gave $500,000 to the Yes on 23 campaign. But to the surprise of everyone, no other major money has come into the Yes campaign. If anything, there seems to be some shareholder backlash because Valero and Tesoro put so much money into the initiative to begin with.
Back in 2006, oil companies contributed $50 million in the final weeks of the election to the No on Prop 87, which would have created an oil extraction tax in California like there is everywhere else. The $50 million more than gave them enough money for a massive media blitz that Prop 87 proponents couldn’t financially fight back against. We know that Big Oil could essentially do the same now, but the question remains: why aren’t they? The answer could simply be that they don’t think Prop 23 is going to win. With the polling looking the way it is, and the large and diverse coalition against it, it simply might not be worth it for them to bother trying anymore.
But don’t celebrate yet.
Not only do we still have to beat Prop 23 whether or not they decide to continue funding it, there is reason to be concerned that Big Oil is going to turn its sights on passing Prop 26, the Polluter Protection Act. Prop 23 would effectively kill our global warming law directly and publicly. Prop 26 would do it in secret. If passed Prop 26 would require a two-thirds vote to impose a fee on a polluter. Right now, it only requires a majority vote. However, since it’s difficult if not impossible to get 2/3rds of California voters or legislators to do anything, polluters know that by passing Prop 26, it would kill any effective way of holding them accountable.
Don’t believe the lies. Fees are penalties on polluters that are used to pay for the harm caused by the pollution. That’s why Big Oil hates them. Without fees, Big Oil can pollute the air and water and not be forced to do anything that would make them clean-up their act -like what AB 32 would ultimately force them to do. Big Oil wants to rake in all the profits, but make the public bear the costs. Meanwhile, they want to starve the funding for AB 32, which would ultimately be paid for by these fees.
So here’s the problem. While everyone is talking about Prop 23, almost nobody is talking about Prop 26. Big Oil knows this. There’s a reason why Chevron and the Chamber of Commerce (who have several major Big Oil companies as members) have not taken a stand on Prop 23 -because they want public credibility for when they try to pass Prop 26, which would effectively kill AB 32 anyway.
Proposition 23 is easy to understand — FAQs here. Propositions 25 and 26, by comparison, are MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) propositions dealing with the state budget. Proposition 25 will end budget gridlock by requiring a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds vote, to pass a state budget; both the California Democratic Party and the Los Angeles Times recommend a “Yes” vote. Proposition 26 would amend the state constitution to require a two-thirds majority on certain business fees by declaring them “taxes”; both the California Democratic Party and Los Angeles Times recommend “No” votes.While officially remaining neutral on Proposition 23, California-based oil companies Chevron and Occidental, and the California Chamber of Commerce, have been quietly funnelling their cash into a No on 25/Yes on 26 political action committee (PAC). I’ve reviewed donations made through the end of September 2010.
So what Big Oil might not succeed in doing with Prop 23, they will try to do with Prop 26. And with all eyes on Prop 23, we may just see a massive $50 million media blitz funded by Big Oil to make sure Prop 26 passes.
We need to make sure Prop 26 fails!
So what can you do? Make a donation to the No on 26 campaign. Spread the word. Get on Facebook, Twitter, email your friends, call your friends. Vote No on 23. But don’t forget to also Vote No on Prop 26!
Proposition 23 is easy to understand — FAQs here. Propositions 25 and 26, by comparison, are MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) propositions dealing with the state budget. Proposition 25 will end budget gridlock by requiring a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds vote, to pass a state budget; both the California Democratic Party and the Los Angeles Times recommend a “Yes” vote. Proposition 26 would amend the state constitution to require a two-thirds majority on certain business fees by declaring them “taxes”; both the California Democratic Party and Los Angeles Times recommend “No” votes.
While officially remaining neutral on Proposition 23, California-based oil companies Chevron and Occidental, and the California Chamber of Commerce, have been quietly funnelling their cash into a No on 25/Yes on 26 political action committee (PAC). I’ve reviewed donations made through the end of September 2010.
Proposition 23 is easy to understand — FAQs here. Propositions 25 and 26, by comparison, are MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) propositions dealing with the state budget. Proposition 25 will end budget gridlock by requiring a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds vote, to pass a state budget; both the California Democratic Party and the Los Angeles Times recommend a “Yes” vote. Proposition 26 would amend the state constitution to require a two-thirds majority on certain business fees by declaring them “taxes”; both the California Democratic Party and Los Angeles Times recommend “No” votes.
While officially remaining neutral on Proposition 23, California-based oil companies Chevron and Occidental, and the California Chamber of Commerce, have been quietly funnelling their cash into a No on 25/Yes on 26 political action committee (PAC). I’ve reviewed donations made through the end of September 2010.
Proposition 23 is easy to understand — FAQs here. Propositions 25 and 26, by comparison, are MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) propositions dealing with the state budget. Proposition 25 will end budget gridlock by requiring a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds vote, to pass a state budget; both the California Democratic Party and the Los Angeles Times recommend a “Yes” vote. Proposition 26 would amend the state constitution to require a two-thirds majority on certain business fees by declaring them “taxes”; both the California Democratic Party and Los Angeles Times recommend “No” votes.
While officially remaining neutral on Proposition 23, California-based oil companies Chevron and Occidental, and the California Chamber of Commerce, have been quietly funnelling their cash into a No on 25/Yes on 26 political action committee (PAC). I’ve reviewed donations made through the end of September 2010.
The latest Field Poll, released on Sunday, suggests that despite millions in financial support from out-of-state oil companies, Proposition 23 is failing to gain ground.
In the Field Poll, opponents of the measure outnumbered supporters by 11 points, 45 percent to 34 percent, which is very similar to the measure’s 12-point deficit seen in the Field Poll from July. Some 21 percent of voters surveyed this month remained undecided on the measure.
