Green Party of California endorses just one ballot measure on June ballot;
Proposition 15 would reduce corrupting influence of lobbyists on elections,
GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS RELEASE
SAN JOSE (March 10, 2010) - The Green Party of California (GPCA) announced
this week it was officially supporting only one of five propositions on the
June 2010 ballot - a measure that would experiment with public financing of
some candidates in the 2014 and 2018 elections to avoid the corrupting
influence of lobbyists.
Voting at the party's state convention in San Jose last weekend, delegates
representing Green Party counties throughout the state agreed to support
Prop. 15, which would use fees paid by lobbyists to finance Secretary of
State candidates. It means smaller parties could receive up to $1.3 million
in public financing for that SOS race.
PROP. 14: No Support. The GPCA heavily criticized Prop. 14, the so-called
"top two" measure, which would, if passed, only allow the top two
winners in the primary to be on the ballot in the November general election.
The result, said the Greens, would result in fewer voter choices at time when
voters are dissatisfied with current choices; increased candidate spending;
muzzled smaller parties and their messages; and increased influence by the
same moneyed special interests bankrolling Prop. 14.
PROP. 16: No Support. The GPCA did not endorse Prop. 16, a private
utility-backed measure that would protect big utilities by requiring a
two-thirds majority vote of ratepayers before a public utility could be
created. Not coincidentally, public utilities are less expensive than private
utilities, note the Greens.
PROP. 17: No support. Green Party delegates said, if passed, this
proposition would punish the poor and middle class. The measure would allow
auto insurers to raise rates for those who, for whatever reason had a gap
PROP. 13: No position. Greens took no position on this measure. It would
allow a tax break for homeowners or commercial property owners for seismic
retrofitting. While some delegates believed the proposition is a
thinly-disguised attempt to benefit big business (as in the original Prop. 13),
others believe it will save lives by encouraging property owners to make their