State Measures – 2022 General Election

Why we’re voting “YES“: Seriously, if this is a question, you are in the wrong place. We believe in reproductive freedom, but ever further, reproductive justice. Loretta J. Ross explains…

Favorite quote: Abortion bans are against my religion. Reproductive freedom is a religious right. 

YES on Prop 1: Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment
The FUND envisions “a region where power and resources are distributed equitably, empowering everyone to participate in making decisions that affect them.” The Supreme Court’s decision to limit women and pregnant people’s sovereign right to their bodies and health denies women and pregnant people the right to make their own decisions regarding reproductive health, and strips women and pregnant people of their dignity and right to their bodies. Prop 1 would protect the reproductive rights and bodily autonomy of women and pregnant people and contribute to “a community free of exploitation and oppression.”

Prop 1: Reproductive Freedom – YES

Prop 1: Reproductive Freedom

A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution does not protect the right to abortion. While access to abortion is no longer federally protected and is under attack across the country, we can safeguard access in California. Proposition 1 will amend the California Constitution to enshrine the fundamental right to choose an abortion, use or refuse contraceptives (birth control), and make individual decisions on reproductive health. These rights are consistent with existing state laws and our state constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection. Access to affordable, comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion, allows people to plan their lives, protect their health, and achieve their dreams. Prop 1 protects access to the care that will give individuals and families the freedom to make those choices.

MEASURE 1 -YES (cahighways.org) “…You might say: But California’s laws are strong enough. Alas, they aren’t. We’ve seen what a determined court can do. We’ve seen what a political breeze can do. Enshrining this in the constitution is the only way to preserve our freedom of choice.”

FOLLOW THE MONEY:

Supporting

Committee: Yes on Proposition 1, Protect Constitutional Abortion Rights, supported by health care organizations, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and Senator Toni Atkins Ballot Measure Committee – 1357909

Total from top contributors: $10,471,348

Opposing

No committee opposing this ballot measure raised enough money to reach the reporting threshold for this list.

Why we’re voting “NO“: Ugh. When there are good people on both sides of a proposition that obstensibly supports our tribal communities, it means that it was written badly or is crammed with questionable extras.

This particular mashup would breathe life back into four increasingly unpopular, privately-owned racetracks with no apparent Tribal affiliations — Santa Anita Park and Golden Gate Fields – both owned by the Stronach Group, Del Mar Race Track, and Los Alamitos Race Course. Over 1200 horses at sites regulated by the CA Horse Racing Board have died since 2012, and 72 horses died during the 2020-21 season (down from 144 in 2019). It’s no surprise that the Humane Society and other animal welfare groups are a “NO” vote on rekindling this dying (sometimes literally) industry.

It also sets the stage for a legal harrassment campaign against licensed cardroom competitors, hence all the minority-owned business community groups in the “NO” column. Said Julian Canete, Pres. of the CA Hispanic Chambers of Commerce: “We support the rights of Native Americans to be self-sufficient but we oppose Prop 26 because it will devastate other communities of color in California.”

We’re no fans of horseracing or cardrooms, but this proposition should have been a straight-up proposition written specifically for tribal casinos to increase their offerings. It’s not. So, no. Magic 8 ball says “Ask again later.”

(Indivisible Conejo) MEASURE 26 -NO ENDORSEMENT

Legalized sports gambling is the wave of the future, and this scheme for sorting out winners and losers (in gambling’s implementation) is preferable to its alternative (see below). Still, the measure is criticized for being designed to enrich certain gambling interests (those funding the initiative, unsurprisingly) while leaving others out of the money.

No on Prop 26: Legalize SPorts Betting on American Indian Lands
Negative impacts of gambling, which include addiction, mental health impacts, and increased poverty rates, disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, particularly working class communities of color. We are against Prop 26’s move to increase gambling opportunities through the legalization of sports betting and expansion of gaming, and are against gambling’s influence on creating and upholding cycles of poverty and addiction. While we support the sovereignty of Native peoples in their own economic pursuits and economic development, we envision “a community free of exploitation and oppression,” and believe that the gaming industry’s impacts reinforce exploitation of vulnerable communities.

MEASURE 26 -NO (cahighways.org) The Yes side emphasizes that this is highly regulated, and that it benefits the tribes. But it doesn’t benefit all tribes — which is why there is heavy advertising against this. The folks for this are the tribes that will benefit, and the politicians that will benefit. You’ll note these are the smaller tribes, with the smaller casinos. The big tribes — especially those that have been investing in Las Vegas — are against this and supporting 27 instead.

Further, although the carrot is there in terms of state revenue, look at the numbers: “According to a report by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst, Prop 26 will result in “increased state revenues, potentially reaching the tens of millions of dollars annually.” Tens of millions may sound large, but for the state budget — that’s miniscule. This really doesn’t help the state all that much. It benefits the tribes…

The No side argues: Five California tribal casinos sponsoring Prop 26 have become some of the wealthiest and most powerful special interests in the state. Now they are pushing Prop 26 to guarantee themselves a virtual monopoly on all gaming in California by giving private trial lawyers the powers of the Attorney General to bury their licensed cardroom competitors with frivolous lawsuits. Prop 26 opens the door to a massive expansion of gambling—allowing its sponsors to add exclusivity over roulette, dice and sports wagering to their current monopoly on slot machines.

In other words, this gores the ox of the card rooms. Who else is against it? Loads of progressive organizations, veterans organizations, social justice groups. Both Democratic and Republican groups are against this. Taxpayer associations are against this.

FOLLOW THE MONEY:

Supporting: Committee: YES on 26, NO on 27 – Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming, Sponsored by California Indian Tribes – 1424396

Total from top contributors: $128,748,346

Opposing: Committee: No on the Gambling Power Grab: A committee of local community leaders, licensed card clubs and their employees, law enforcement, and local businesses – 1425966

Total from top contributors: $7,000,000

Why we’re voting “NO“:

That would actually be “Hahaha. No!” . Meaure 27 has the unique position of being OPPOSED by both major parties. We oppose this too.

(Indivisible Conejo) MEASURE 27 – NO

This is a risky bet on tribal/corporate-run gambling. We’ll go with the 50-plus tribes who have endorsed against the measure, which would send the vast majority of profits out of state.

NO on Prop 27: Legalize Sports Betting and Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Fund Initiative
Negative impacts of gambling, which include addiction, mental health impacts, and increased poverty rates, disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, particularly working class communities of color. Prop 27’s move to establish a new gambling industry through legalizing online and mobile sports betting would have disastrous consequences, including increasing early gambling addictions, as online betting targets youth populations, as well as the gambling industry’s creation and upholding of cycles of poverty. Gambling addiction can contribute to homelessness – something acknowledged by Prop 27’s weak attempt to mitigate the disastrous consequences of an expanded gambling industry. While we support the sovereignty of Native peoples in their own economic pursuits and economic development, we envision “a community free of exploitation and oppression,” and believe that the gaming industry’s impacts reinforce exploitation of vulnerable communities. 

MEASURE 27 – NO (cahighways.org) “…The supporters of this proposition tout the money going to homelessness services and mental health, but the true is there isn’t all that much. Again, possibly in the hundreds of millions — and how much are the supporters making? This measure essentially makes online sports betting legal (and most of the companies doing such betting are out of state), with a percentage coming back to the tribes that contract with those large companies (and you know who gets the bigger end of that stick), and an even smaller percentage going to the state.

So now look at that hundreds of millions estimate. If that’s going to the state, how much are these out of state companies making?

So who is behind 27? They show the homelessness groups, and they present the proposition as an either-or with 26. The reality is that the biggest donors in support of Prop. 27 are sports betting and digital gaming entertainment companies, including FanDuel, BetMGM, and DraftKings. Not the native american tribes. That says quite a bit.

My answer here is the same as for 26: Measures 26 and 27 are not an “either-or”. You can vote both of them down. That’s what I plan to do. I don’t see any advantage in this gaming expansion. I would prefer it if we engineer ways for tribes to raise funds that isn’t at the expense of vulnerable individuals. No. I also don’t like businesses exploiting the California initiative process for their gain.”

FOLLOW THE MONEY:

Supporting

Committee: Yes on 27 – Californians For Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support, A Coalition of Housing and Mental Health Experts, Concerned Taxpayers and Digital Sports Entertainment and Gaming Companies – 1440682

Total from top contributors: $169,131,190

Opposing

Committee: YES on 26, NO on 27 – Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming, Sponsored by California Indian Tribes – 1424396

Total from top contributors: $127,599,839

Committee: No on 27 – Californians for Tribal Sovereignty and Safe Gaming, sponsored by tribal organizations – 1443032

Why we’re voting “YES“: – Seriously. YES! All of us who had band practice and orchestra in school, and who brought home “masterpieces” in clay, macaroni and fingerpaint for our parents – imagine a childhood without art and music education.

(Indivisible Conejo) MEASURE 28 – YES

This measure guarantees that arts and music education will be funded in all TK-12 public and charter schools.

YES on Prop 28: Art and Music K-12 Education Funding Initiative
Every student in California deserves a complete education, one that feeds and supports all aspects of a complete person. Arts education must be a part of that complete education, but when such programs are cut, it is usually in lower-income communities, already those places less likely to have access to the arts. Proposition 28 would guarantee that 1% of the total Prop. 98 funding received by school districts be used for teaching arts. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, that 1% guarantee would increase spending on arts education by $800 million to $1 billion. One percent is the least we should do. We call for “A region where power and resources are distributed equitably.” Art is both a power and a resource that all children deserve.

Prop 28: Funding Arts and Music Education – NEUTRAL

The League strongly supports a high-quality public education system in California. Because of a variety of voter-supported initiatives which limit and prescribe state and local spending, California does not provide the level of financial support for its schools that the League considers adequate. This proposition would provide additional financial resources (about $1 billion per year), specifically for music and arts education. We recognize that arts and music education, which has been underfunded in California, is beneficial to student achievement, cognitive development, reading comprehension, attendance, and social emotional wellness. Furthermore, Prop 28 is designed to ensure that low-income schools and under-resourced  students, who are often kept the farthest away from arts and music education opportunities, will benefit from the increased funding. Despite these advantages, we remain neutral on Prop 28 because making decisions about budget expenditures through ballot measures is not a good policy. It reduces the flexibility our legislators need to react to future needs and makes less revenue available to other important state priorities like climate change, health care, and housing. Earmarking funds in this way also limits the ability of local school boards to respond to local needs. Finally, we are concerned that Prop 28 has extensive reporting requirements paired with an unrealistically low cap (1 percent) on administrative expenses.

FOLLOW THE MONEY:

Supporting

Committee: Yes on 28 – Californians for Arts and Music in Schools – 1442974

Total from top contributors: $10,137,715

Opposing

No committee opposing this ballot measure raised enough money to reach the reporting threshold for this 

Why we’re voting “YES“:

Watch John Oliver’s overview of the dialysis clinic system here.

“NO on 20”: “Nice little dialysis clinic you got here. Shame if anything should happen to it…”

Translation: The multi-million dollar “NO on 29” campaign, funded mostly by the two multi-BILLION dollar for-profit corporations who control of more than 75% of dialysis clinics for the +80,000 Californians suffering from kidney disease, is saying that voting “YES” would cause the closure of dialysis clinics, harming or even killing their patients.

“YES” ON 29″: You’d need PERMISSION FROM THE STATE TO CLOSE – THAT’S IN THE PROPOSITION. Maybe you missed that bit?

No, they didn’t, but they’re hoping you did. That’s why they’re trying to distract us with “life-risking closures” and union-bashing rhetoric. They are ALREADY closing clinics they deem “unprofitable to a degree that can’t be corrected,” leading to higher patient hospitalizations and deaths and handing out “involuntary discharges,” both issues affecting the poor, rural and minority patients the most.

How did we get to this dystopian reality where two corporations can make business decisions that kill people? Before Medicare was extended in 1972 to cover dialysis treatment for kidney failure to all, no matter what age, most dialysis centers were in hospitals. Afterwards, kidney specialists started their own clinics, which were then bought up by for-profit chains, and taxpayer money was diverted into shareholder pockets.

So, an inherently risky process that can cause bleeding, infection and clotting issues, along with permanent heart damage or cognitive loss, for an already medically-fragile population was de-medicalized for profit, despite evidence that more frequent patient-physician contact correlates to more postive outcomes.

Just for irony: forced-birthers in red states dictated that abortion clinics that serve young healthy people with minimal complications must conform with hospital-style facility, equipment and staffing requirements. Meanwhile we been lulled into believing that access to one actual medical provider, live or telehealth, is unnecessary for very sick patients undergoing an invasive process. Other countries, such as Italy, prove this to be self-serving propaganda, as do published studies here in the U.S.

And then there’s this…”patients at for-profit clinics are less likely to get kidney transplansts, more like to be hospitalized, and more likely to die.” Meanwhile, other kidney treatments, such as at-home peritoneal dialysis, used in other countries and which “tends to yield better outcomes”, is declining due to lack of physician training and awareness, financial disincentives and other factors.”

Here are the basics requirements of the proposition:

• ACCESS TO EXPERT HELP ONSITE: Clinics appear to be using pandemic staffing shortages as a permanent opportunity to cut costs and cheat on treatments. The Feds already require clinics to have at least one physician, or kidney specialist as a director, but not necessarily on-site. Prop. 29 allows the a nurse practitioner, or physician assistant on the payroll – onsite or via telehealth during patient treatments. This is NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK for a treatment that originated in a hospital setting for good reason (sooo many anecdotal stories about blood on floors and treatment chairs) and the mega-corps will still make a healthy profit.
• Report dialysis-related infections to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH); (No issue, – right? Clinics are already required to report infections, hospitalizations and deaths to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS))
• Require clinics to provide patients with a list of physicians with an ownership interest of 5% or more in the clinic; (YES, this! “If you really look at the corporation’s obligation to shareholders and you take that seriously, and you take the obligation to patients seriously, I think they’re fundamentally incompatible,” said Klemens Meyer, a nephrologist and director of dialysis services at Tufts Medical Center. “And I think that this is whitewashed over.”
• Requiring clinics to provide the CDPH with a list of persons with ownership interest of 5% or more in the clinic; (YES, see above!)
• Prohibit clinics from refusing to care for a patient based on the patient’s form of payment, whether the patient is an individual payer, the patient’s health insurer, Medi-Cal, Medicaid, or Medicare.
• Oh, and lastly, REQUIRE CLINICS TO OBTAIN THE CDPH‘S WRITTEN CONSENT BEFORE CLOSING OR SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING SERVICES TO PATIENTS. THIS ISSUE IS HUGE! CA is taking steps to make its own insulin to keep diabetics from dying due to its high cost, but telling a dialysis patient that the treatment center they need 3x/week is being closed seems to have slipped under the radar.

People keep saying – “Why doesn’t this just get taken care of in the legislature?” Good question! Maybe because it affects a multi-billion duopoly? Maybe SEIU has brought this proposition up for the third time, not to annoy voters, but to sound the alarm for patients who are in no condition to help themselves. Vote “YES!”

If you are scratching your head wondering why dialysis seems to be on the ballot election cycle, you’re not alone. This is the third such ballot measure in four years, and they’ve all seemed complicated. So, what’s the problem that this measure intends to solve?

Two companies, DaVita Dialysis and Fresenius, make up about 80% of the dialysis clinics in California and nationwide. They have a monopoly on a procedure that mimics the function of healthy kidneys for people with renal failure, and is medically necessary anywhere from several times a week to several times a day. 

Because of this monopoly, they can charge exorbitant rates for people with private insurance (in some cases over $1,000 per treatment). To make matters worse, these for-profit companies with enormous power and little oversight are often accused of using shoddy practices to increase their profits at the expense of patient care. They’re also often accused of dangerous understaffing and using aggressive anti-union tactics against their healthcare worker employees. 

Prop 29 prevents these companies from discriminating against patients who are supported by less-profitable Medicare insurance, implements minimum staffing requirements, and creates broad new disclosure requirements for what might be the biggest scam going in modern medicine. Voting yes would bring much-needed regulation to a vital procedure.

(Indivisible Conejo) MEASURE 29 – NO ENDORSEMENT

Here we go again with a measure very much like the ones rejected by voters in 2018 and 2020. It is meant to change regulations for dialysis centers, which have tailored their operations to resist union organizing. We support the goal, but many believe this remains a bad way to achieve it.

Neutral on Prop 29: Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative
While we appreciate the concerns of those organizations that support this measure, we can find no evidence that the primary demands of this meaure — that a doctor, nurse practitioner or physician assitant be present at all dialysis centers — is necessary to improve patient care. While we are sympathetic to the other demands of the measure — those requiring information disclosure, the prohibition on reducing patient services without state approval, and the prohibition on refusing patients based on source of payment — it would be more appropriate to achieve these goals through legislation rather than initiative.

Prop 29: Kidney Dialysis Clinics Requirements – NEUTRAL

This measure would require operators of chronic dialysis clinics to have a minimum of one licensed physician, nurse practitioner, or physician’s assistant at a clinic whenever patients are being treated, offer the same level of care to all patients regardless of how payment is being made, and make reports about dialysis-related infections to the state’s health department, in addition to submitting federal agency reports containing the same information. Consent of the California Department of Public Health would be required prior to any clinic’s closure or reduction of hours of operation. Prop 29 would also require that patients be informed if a physician owns five percent or more of a dialysis clinic. Under current law, clinics are required to have a medical director and are staffed with dialysis nurses and dialysis technicians. The patient’s personal doctor is required to see each patient once a month during the time the patient receives dialysis. Reporting of dialysis related infections is currently made to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There is disagreement about whether the presence of a doctor is always necessary and if requiring additional staff would exacerbate a medical provider shortage, and over whether costs are manageable or prohibitively high. Furthermore, the League of Women Voters of California questions why voters should be deciding questions of recordkeeping and medical staffing. The uncertainty of the costs and benefits of the measure leads us to take a neutral position.

MEASURE 29 -NO (cahighways.org) “…While Prop. 29 is far from perfect, it’s an attempt to address this problem while giving the overworked staff some countervailing power over their corporate overlords who care only about providing the best wealth care for their shareholders (and themselves). So it’s no surprise that the cartel are spending millions of dollars on scary commercials featuring patients terrified that the cartel will be forced to close their dialysis factory if the measure passes, and imploring us to spare their lives by voting no. In fact, the only real threat the measure poses is to the cartel’s executives and shareholders, who risk losing some profit because they would have to spend more money on staffing. The fact is that the industry is incredibly profitable, and will likely be even more so as an overweight population ages.”

I think those are good, or if not good at least intriguing, points. So I went looking to see where the arguments like this were. Calmatters indicated that no papers to date have endorsed 29. Both liberal and conservative papers are against it. The Yes side only shows the California Democratic Committee and the California Labor Federations. The sponsors in favor are only the healthcare unions.  The No side has loads of doctors and nursing organizations — not just the operators of clinics. Patient advocates are against this. Veterans groups are against this.

The conclusion seems to be that although there is a need to improve conditions at these clinics, this particular measure is not the way to do it. Further, trying multiple times is likely overdoing it, and the electorate will not believe future attempts — at least backed by the current backers of this.”

FOLLOW THE MONEY:

No committee supporting this ballot measure raised enough money to reach the reporting threshold for this list.

Opposing: $86,357,629

Committee: Stop Yet Another Dangerous Dialysis Proposition, sponsored by patients, doctors, nurses and dialysis providers – 1442293

Why we’re voting “NO“:

Seriously, F**K Lyft and the horses of toxic capitalism and libertarianism they rode in on! Last time they spent obscene amounts of money on politics – Prop. 22 – it was to strip newly-won employment benefits from CA’s gig workers. That particular bit of economic regression has been held up in court, but they and their buddy Uber are busy spreading their anti-worker campaign to a national stage. (Action for your legislators here.)

We agree with Knock LA’s review below – they want CA taxpayers to subsidize their cars and to allow “it to pay drivers less and make more money.”

Newsom calls it “A Trojan horse…A terrible, terrible initiative…a special interest carve-out — a cynical scheme devised by a single corporation to funnel state income tax revenue to their company.”

(Indivisible Conejo) MEASURE 30 – YES

California’s need to mitigate both the effects of climate change and the catastrophic damage from wildfires overwhelms any opposition to this measure. It would raise taxes on personal income above $2 million to subsidize zero-emission vehicles and infrastructure, and to fund the prevention and suppression of wildfires.

MEASURE 30 – NO: (knock-la.com) Proposition 30 sounds really good on its surface. It would impose an additional annual 1.75% tax on individual income over $2 million, with 80% of the resulting revenue to go toward funding zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) programs (like state-funded electric vehicle charging stations and funding for households to buy ZEVs), and 20% toward wildfire prevention and response programs. The state estimates that Prop 30 would generate $3.5–$5 billion annually.

The catch? While this proposition is supported by several environmental and public health groups, its largest proponent by far is tech mega-giant Lyft. Lyft has spent $25 million (NOTE – now $45m) in support of the proposition, as highlighted by Governor Newsom in his aggressive “No on Prop 30” campaign. Currently, Lyft reimburses drivers for charging EVs out of its own pocket. And since the state will require Lyft to transition 90% of its fleet to zero-emission vehicles by 2030, the cost of that reimbursement will only go up. 

If this proposition passes, Lyft will pass that cost on to state-funded charging stations, allowing it to pay drivers less and make more money. Proposition 30 is, in essence, a corporate cash grab disguised in the trappings of environmental activism. California, and the rest of the country, badly need to reduce their emissions to keep our planet livable. This, however, is not the way to do it. 

No On Prop 30: Tax on Income above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative
Budget should be a legislative activity not a referendum. This prop would carve out spending for 20 years regardless how things change. Also it is sponsored by Lyft which is hoping to use tax dollars to electrify its fleet. This measure would circumvent the Prop 98 guarantee of 40% of the general fund budget for education, settling a bad precedent for future initiatives if it passes. The FUND’s vision statement calls for, “A region where power and resources are distributed equitably, empowering everyone to participate in making decisions that affect them.” Ballot measures funded by corporations to benefit corporations take the power from the people and their representatives.

MEASURE 30 – NO: “This is one of the more misleading propositions on the ballot. Proponents make it sound like the progressive dream: tax the wealthy, while supporting electric vehicles and fighting wildfires. When you go to their website, they tout the clean air benefit of the act. That’s their focus. That’s why the Lung Association supports this. It helps fights wildfires. That’s why firefighters support this. But where does the bulk of funding go? To provide subsidies for purchasing electric vehicles.

Loads of progressive organizations are behind this. Environmental. Health. Unions. They all will benefit.

But who else is supporting this? Who is providing the funding for the advertising? From the bottom of the Yes page: “Clean Air California, a Coalition of CalFire Firefighters, Working Families, Rideshare Companies, and Environmental Groups. Committee Major Funding from: Lyft, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Zinc Collective.” Lyft is almost singlehandedly behind this. As the No side notes: “The state of California recently ruled that 90% of rideshare vehicles must be electric vehicles by 2030. Lyft is trying to force the taxpayers to foot the bill – rather than spend their own corporate money to support their drivers and comply with the new law. Lyft wants voters to believe Prop 30 is about clean air and wildfires instead of what it actually is: Prop 30 is a flawed and corporate carveout scheme to further line the pockets of Silicon Valley tech billionaires.

Conclusion: This proposition is an example of “right idea, wrong execution”. As written, it primarily benefits a small number of organizations, locks the state in volatile funding sources with little oversight, and can hurt the state in the long run. They need to try again with something more balanced. No.”

FOLLOW THE MONEY: FOOL US ONCE…

Support – $47,352,479

Oppose –

• $9,043,851 – Committee: No on 30 – 1450340
  • Individuals here.
• $1,000,000 – Committee: No on 30 – Educators Opposed to Corporate Handouts sponsored by teachers and school employee organizations – 880873

Why we’re voting “YES“:

Seriously, is this stupid issue going to be a yearly thing? No, stop luring kids into a really bad habit that will eventually maim their bodies and kill them. Yeah, GOP-who-keep-defending-crap-like-this, this is a great example of literal “toxic capitalism.” (More below.)

(Indivisible Conejo) MEASURE 31 – YES

This measure will enable the state’s ban on sales of most flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, to take effect.

Yes on Prop 31: Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum
Flavored tobacco encourages tobacco addiction, in adult and youth populations alike. The FUND’s vision statement elevates that we envision “A community free of exploitation”, and this measure blocks the exploitation of some of the most vulnerable among us. Banning flavored tobacco products would stop special interests by tobacco corporations and contribute to prioritizing community health over corporation profits.

Prop 31: Yes or No to Banning Flavored Tobacco Products – YES

In 2020, California passed a law banning the in-person sale of flavored tobacco products, like candy-flavored e-cigarettes and menthol cigarettes, at stores and vending machines. Sellers violating the law would be subject to criminal misdemeanor prosecution. A YES vote on Prop 31 is a vote to keep the ban in place. More than two million middle and high school students in the U.S. use e-cigarettes which deliver large doses of addictive nicotine. In California, 96 percent of high school e-cigarette users choose flavored products. Nationally, 80 percent of kids who use tobacco started out with a flavored product. In addition to the well-known dangers of tobacco-related disease and death, epidemic usage among youth poses risks to brain development, attention, mood, and impulse control.  Furthermore, for many decades tobacco companies have targeted Black communities with well-funded campaigns to promote menthol-flavored tobacco.  Now 85 percent of Black smokers using menthol cigarettes and deaths caused by tobacco-related diseases (including heart disease, lung cancer and stroke) among Black people exceeds deaths caused by AIDS, homicide and accidents combined. Prop 31 is an important step to protect the health and safety of Californians.

Prop 31: Yes or No to Banning Flavored Tobacco Products – YES

Cotton Candy. Mango. Menthol. These are some of the flavors that Big Tobacco is using to hook young people on their deadly product. Nearly 9 of 10 adults who smoke cigarettes daily first try smoking by age 18, and their first cigarette was likely flavored. According to the CDC, 80% of high school students and 75% of middle school students who smoked reported using a flavored tobacco product in the past 30 days. Over 130 cities and counties in California have already banned flavored tobacco products, including the city of LA this year.  

California passed a statewide ban on flavored tobacco in 2020, but tobacco and vape companies gathered enough signatures to suspend the bill until voters weighed in. Since that time, tobacco and vape companies have cynically portrayed the ban as an attack on Black Californians, because 85% of African American smokers smoke menthol cigarettes, far higher than other groups. Yet this preference, cultivated by decades of targeted advertising by Big Tobacco, has led to a health disparity whereby African Americans are more likely to die of smoking-related diseases, despite smoking less than other racial and ethnic groups. Studies confirm that menthol cigarettes lead to increased smoking initiation among youth and young adults, greater addiction, and decreased success in quitting smoking.

Unfortunately, approving this ballot measure will not ban flavored disposable vaping devices, which have surged in popularity in the past three years. We hope the state legislature acts swiftly to ban these devices once voters approve Prop 31. The ballot measure also excludes flavored hookah and premium cigars.

FOLLOW THE MONEY: :

Support – $17,370,099
Oppose – $23,226,819 – Wow! It’s all tobacco manufacturers. Who knew?

Indivisible Ventura: In case you missed this tale of toxic capitalism: In 2020, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) stated it would use its ability to create a special funding mechanism to issue up to $100 million in taxpayer dollars to tobacco farmers as part of the CARES Act, mostly benefiting famers in North Carolina, a swing state for the Nov. 3 election. (Trump carried the state by 1.34%). Then USDA Sec. Sonny Perdue, who was busy making sure hungry Americans stayed that way during the worst of the pandemic, noted that if Congress wanted to block tobacco farmers from this money, it would have specifically excluded them in the law.

Nothing more than normal graft to see here, folks. Move along…

Now, in a country that regulates all sorts of hazards for kids, including car seats, cribs, caps for bottles of medications and cleaning solvents, an industry built on selling a highly addictive and carcinogenic substance wants to be allowed to infuse it with flavors like “bubble gum.” Those who cry “nanny state” want us to ignore tobacco industry’s outright promises to addict youth, to replace the older smokers they’ve killed through heart disease, cancer and emphysema.

• RJ Reynolds: “Evidence is now available to indicate that the 14-18 year old group is an increasing segment of the smoking population. RJR-T must soon establish a successful new brand in this market if our position in the industry is to be maintained in the long term.” 
• Brown & Williamson: “Kool’s stake in the 16- to 25-year-old population segment is such that the value of this audience should be accurately weighted and reflected in current media programs . . . all magazines will be reviewed to see how efficiently they reach this group.” 
• Lorillard Tobacco: “[T]he base of our business is the high school student.” 
• U.S. Tobacco: “Cherry Skoal is for somebody who likes the taste of candy, if you know what I’m saying.” 
• “Younger adult smokers are the only source of replacement smokers… If younger adults turn away from smoking, the industry must decline, just as a population which does not give birth will eventually dwindle.”

Smoking costs the U.S. economy almost $900 BILLION dollars a year, almost 10x the cigarette industry’s $92 billion revenue. You want to STOP stoking this fire with the bodies of our kids, vote “YES” on Measure 31.