Opponents Say Public Financing Measure Benefits CNA
Opponents of Proposition 89 say it would benefit the California Nurses Association, tribal governments, trial lawyers and some not-for-profit organizations because the measure "would tilt the playing field" to reduce corporations' influence on ballot measure campaigns, the Sacramento Bee reports. CNA authored the initiative, which would:
- Require candidates seeking public financing to obtain a number of $5 contributions from voters;
- Increase state income taxes on corporations and financial institutions to fund candidate campaigns;
- Provide subsidies for publicly-financed candidates who are outspent by independent expenditure candidates or candidates who rely on personal funds; and
- Restrict contributions to candidates, political committees and ballot measure campaigns.
Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, said tax revenue should be used for health care, schools or other issues rather than political campaigns.
CNA spokesperson Chuck Idelson said opponents are intent on protecting their own interests rather than those of voters and added that the campaign against the measure is funded largely by insurers and other corporations (Sanders, Sacramento Bee, 10/16).
"[H]undreds of good government, consumer and community supporters" are in favor of Proposition 89, CNA Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro writes in a San Francisco Chronicle letter to the editor. "Chronicle readers may well wish to ask themselves which side they want to be on," DeMoro writes, noting that lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry, Blue Cross of California and a "host of other corporate interests who want to keep their stranglehold in Sacramento" are among the initiative's opponents (DeMoro, San Francisco Chronicle, 10/16).This is part of the California Healthline Daily Edition, a summary of health policy coverage from major news organizations. Sign up for an email subscription.