Explanation of Ballot Initiatives II, by Katy Watkins, League of Women Voters

Katy Watkins is a former senior software consultant for large complex computer programs.  She has been active in the League of Women Voters, speaking to groups on the pros and cons of the 11 Propositions on the California ballot in November.  The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan organization that does research on government policy positions but takes no partisan stand on Propositions or Candidates (although its government policy review committee occasionally produces advisories on public policy directions).  She reviewed the features of 3 of the Propositions tonight.

Prop 32 would prohibit unions, corporations, government contractors and state and local government employers from using payroll-deducted funds for political expenditures.  It would not limit a corporation’s or union’s ability to spend money on independent expenditures outside of payroll deductions.  Supporters say it would protect employees’ paychecks from political donations by either unions or corporations.  Opponents say that 99% of California corporations don’t use payroll deductions for their political contributions anyway, so Prop 32 would only affect unions, and it would exempt Business SuperPACs and Independent Expenditure Committees from these controls (unilateral disarmament?).

Prop 37 would require labeling of genetically-engineered foods, and prohibit marketing such foods as “natural”.  About 40-70% of foods now contain some genetically modified ingredients, designed for purposes such as improving a plant’s resistance to pests or to withstand higher levels of pesticides.  Exempted foods would include non-genetically-engineered animals given genetically-engineered feed, foods sold in restaurants, alcoholic beverages, and certified organic foods.  Supporters say that consumers deserve the right to know, and that genetic engineering of plants and animals may cause unintended consequences and adverse health and/or environmental effects, some of which may not become evident for many more years (as happened with past interventions such as DDT).  They also say that food already has to be labeled, and telling the truth on those labels would cost producers very little.  Opponents say this would require extra monitoring of foods and open the door to frivolous lawsuits, potentially making such foods more expensive.

Prop 39 would require multistate businesses to pay state income taxes based on the percentage of their sales in California.  (The option to avoid state taxes was a result of the 2009 state budget deal allowing out-of-state businesses to base their state taxes on the amount of their payroll and property in California, which creates an incentive for multistate businesses to move their property and jobs out of California to escape taxes while doing business here in competition with local businesses, and costs the state government about $1 billion in revenue annually.)  For the first 5 years, one half of this increased revenue would go to improve California energy efficiency and alternative energy projects.  About half of the remainder (and half of the entire amount after 5 years) are guaranteed under Prop 98 to go to K-12 schools, which are struggling with budget shortfalls now.  Supporters say that large corporations should pay their fair share at a time when there have been drastic state and local budget cuts, and that taxpayers will benefit by funding energy-efficient projects at schools and other public buildings.  Opponents say this $1 billion tax increase could cause a loss of jobs (although in-state businesses already pay these taxes).