Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 37

The oil, tobacco, and alcohol companies who put this on the ballot are hiding their real goal: Polluter Protection.

THEY WANT THE TAXPAYER TO PAY, instead of those corporations responsible for environmental and health damage. That's what Prop. 37 is REALLY about.

Read their argument carefully. No facts. No law. No information. Just a SMOKESCREEN about taxes and politicians.

FACT: all local taxes and homeowner fees MUST be voted on by taxpayers, according to Proposition 13 and Proposition 218.

FACT: Proposition 13 ALREADY provides for 2/3 vote of the legislature on taxes.

FACT: the examples the proponents give are ABSURD. No one is suggesting such ridiculous fees, except the proponents. And they would be found ILLEGAL UNDER CURRENT LAW.

THE BOTTOM LINE: they don't want to pay to clean up toxic sites and other environmental and health damage they cause. Here's what the Supreme Court said in the case which Prop. 37 would overturn:

"A reasonable way to achieve Proposition 13's goal of tax relief is to shift the costs of controlling . . . pollution from the tax-paying public to the pollution-causing industries themselves."

FACT: Proposition 37 OVERTURNS THAT TAXPAYER PROTECTION, in favor of the polluters. They want to shift their costs to the tax-paying public.

As the Sacramento Bee framed Proposition 37:

"WHO PAYS? . . . If not polluters, then the rest of us." (July 6, 2000)

Join with:

– American Cancer Society

– Natural Resources Defense Counsel

– Children's Advocacy Institute

– Common Cause

– California Nurses Association

– California Tax Reform Association

NO on Proposition 37!

GAIL D. DRYDEN, President
League of Women Voters of California
LUCY CRAIN, M.D., M.P.H., District Chair
California District IX, American Academy of Pediatrics
MARGUERITE YOUNG, California Director
Clean Water Action