Tag Archives: Prop 2

California

With California in Crisis Due to Drought, Some Want to Solve It By Seceding

2 Comments

Check out the New York Times article about two Californias:

“Those Hollywood types don’t have any idea what’s going on out here on the farms,” said Mr. Rogers, a retired dairyman from Visalia, the county seat in a Central Valley region where cows far outnumber people…

“They think fish are more important than people, that pigs are treated mean and chickens should run loose,” said Mr. Rogers… “City people just don’t know what it takes to get food on their table.”

Now, I agree that the “Hollywood-types” I saw in Beverly Hills who were watering their lawns with scarce water on a rainy day are pretty darn clueless when it comes to farming, but the CA secessionist quoted here said Prop 2 was his last straw. That was the proposition that passed last November to ban some of the cruelest livestock practices used on chickens, pigs, and veal.

As for me? I’m no Hollywood-type. I’m from Wisconsin. I hang out with farmers. And I think that pigs are treated mean and chickens should run loose. So do the farmers I hang out with, and those farmers are pretty confident that they are producing superior chickens, eggs, and pork because of it. And the Central Valley – the area these secessionists call the “real” California? It’s polluted like nobody’s business due to all of the agricultural chemicals. As a consumer, I don’t want that on my food but I also don’t want to force farmers to raise their children in that environment!

Rather far down the article, they present the other side:

Some farmers are also suspicious of the political direction in Sacramento, the state capital. In January the Senate Agriculture Committee was renamed the Food and Agriculture Committee, signaling a broader, more consumer-oriented approach to agricultural policy. The committee’s chairman, State Senator Dean Florez, Democrat of Fresno, finds the secession effort emblematic of larger tensions between food consumers and producers.

“Rather than split California, come sit at the table with consumers,” Mr. Florez said. “The agricultural industry is in this mode that says, ‘You will eat what’s put in front of you,’ and that’s a very condescending view of consumers and eaters. If customers are changing their preferences, the industry needs to change its ways.”

Food and animal rights activists here agree with Mr. Florez. “It’s unfair to say consumers don’t care about farmers,” said Rebecca Spector of the Center for Food Safety. “With the increase in food-borne illnesses, all eaters, both urban and rural, have the right to demand food that is grown in a safe and healthy way.”

I’m just shaking my head. I don’t see this effort going anywhere, but I was waiting for news of people getting pissed off with the new (wonderful!) direction the Senate Food and Agriculture Committee is taking under the leadership of Florez.

California, Environment

Surf Putah Election Endorsements

1 Comment

Elected Officials – straight party line this time, all good candidates.

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America

Mike Thompson for US Congress, first district

Lois Wolk for California State Senate, fifth district

Mariko Yamada for State Assembly, eighth district

California Propositions and Initiatives on the flip…

California Propositions and Initiatives

YES on Prop 1A

High speed rail is good for Yolo County, good for California, a good investment for the future. Click the link for the detailed argument.

YES on Prop 2

While I have friends who are moved to support 2 by the whole cruelty to animals aspect of this bill, the bottom line for me is the issue of safe food production. Right now, the crowded conditions in factory farms lead to stressed animal immune systems, a disease-prone environment, massive pollution problems because of the waste issues with that densely packed cage farm environment, higher use of antibiotics to try and control resulting diseases, and thus a much higher risk to the general human population of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Bills similar to prop 2 have been passed in several Western states, and their ag economies have not collapsed as some of the no on 2 ads have claimed. While this would have been a stronger bill had it also held imported eggs and meat to the same standards so as to avoid a race to the bottom undercutting CA farms, as well as some funding to ease the cost of transition, the fact of the matter is that the status quo is a health risk, and giving the animals enough room in their cages to turn around should make things better, both for the animals and (most importantly IMO) the people of California who eat them.

And if you haven’t read any of Michael Pollan’s books on the subject (Omnivore’s Dillemma for the in-depth take, In Defense of Food for the Cliff’s Notes version), I strongly recommend them. This is not like the sentimental “don’t eat horses” prop a few years back (which I opposed on grounds of absurdity – meat is meat), this has implications for the quality of the food we eat, and ultimately of whether we want to further the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria by giving them a perfect environment in our crowded factory farms. When those antibiotics stop working because we bred superbugs in those cramped cages, the cages will have to get a lot bigger anyway (if not outright abandoned), and it’ll hurt our ag economy a hell of a lot more.

Meh on Prop 3 – no recommendation

I’m torn on this one. On the one hand, it’s a vote for local pork, as one of the children’s hospitals the funds would be used for is the UCD med center hospital. And who could vote against sick children? On the other hand, I’m edgy about bonds, given how bad the credit situation is right now, and am less than pleased that public bond money would be used – 80% – to finance private children’s hospitals. Taxpayer money ought to be used for public goods.

NO on Prop 4

I am so sick and tired of having to beat back this stupid anti-abortion trojan horse every other election. Once again, this prop would force teenaged girls to ask their parents for permission to have an abortion, unless they ran through an intimidating and no doubt complex bureaucratic gauntlet by going to a judge and pleading their case. As with the last several times the fundamentalists threw this one up against the wall, the problem here is that the teens who are afraid to tell their parents about being pregnant in the first place often have reason to be, whether it’s because they were victims of incest, or are afraid of being physically beaten by their parents, are afraid of being thrown out on the street in punishment for their “sin,” or are just afraid of their parents forbidding the abortion and forcing the teenager to carry their child to term. Life is not perfect, and while many of us have happy families and adequate communication between parents and children, one does not write laws based on the best case scenario.

Rather, the law needs to be written with an awareness of the complexity of life and difficult situations that people – and yes, even minors – find themselves in. Prop 4, like its predecessors, is so fixated on the questionable “right” of parental authority over their children that it completely ignores the cruel way that this bill would heap suffering on vulnerable people in an already painfully difficult situation. Do we really want to be forcing pregnant teenagers in abusive or disfunctional families, possibly in an incest case, to be reporting their choice to have an abortion to those same people, being forced against their will to carry a fetus to term in their own body?

Prop 4 plays upon the anxieties of parents with teenage daughters, but gives little concern for the well being of those daughters themselves. It is wrong headed and cruel, and should be rejected just as the past two tries were.

YES on Prop 5

The drug war has been a colossal failure on all fronts. We have thrown so many people in prison that the courts have found California to be in violation of basic constitutional standards. Many of those prisoners committed no violent crime, but are in there as part of the “warehouse ’em all and forget about ’em” mentality that has sadly been a part of the fabric of California politics since at least the “law and order” Reagan Governorship. We pay more for prisons than universities in Calfiornia, even though it is far cheaper to send a kid to college than lock them away. Rates of drug use have not fallen, and drug use is common throughout all racial and economic classes, but rates of prosecution are highly racially biased all the same. Locking up nonviolent drug users is a failed solution to what was never a legal problem in the first place. Countries where drugs are not dealt with in this ham-fisted and draconian manner have far lower rates of drug use, ironically enough. Notably, those countries also have far better treatment options than California.

It isn’t working.

Prop 5 seeks to reverse that trend by diverting nonviolent drug offenders into treatment programs instead of prisons. The law and order industry, from police unions to prison workers unions to Yolo County’s very own ignore-state-law-when-he-disagrees-with-it DA Jeff Reisig is adamantly opposed to this because it cuts at their source of funding. That is to be expected, everyone fights for their meal ticket after all, and a lot of people make a lot of money off this costly and counterproductive war against the citizens of California.

But as a taxpayer and a human being, anything that dials back the use of incarceration as a dumb hammer to deal with complex social problems (and some that aren’t problems at all; in my opinion, drug use without antisocial behavior should not even be a crime, although prop 5 does not push things that far) is a good thing, and long overdue. No people that believe that they are, at heart, their brother’s and sister’s keeper have any business locking people away for petty offenses and leaving them to rot in prison.

The “law and order” incarceration-mad approach of the drug war has incontrovertibly failed, in California and nationwide. Prop 5 is a step away from a fiscal and moral abyss. Take it.

NO on Prop 6

The converse of prop 5, prop 6 is yet another in a long line of “tough on crime” initiatives locking in ever-expanding public funds for an ever-more draconian war against the poor and the nonwhite in this state under the guise of fighting crime. This time it’s gangs, with prop 6 increasing the penalty for any crime if the person who did it has been labeled as a gang member (which, as we saw in West Sac not too long ago, can be abused by ambitious DAs to label whole communities as “gangs” and then persecute them collectively for whatever crimes are committed in their midst). This whole “tough” mentality does not work, and is wrecking our budget while producing nothing of value to the state except fat payrolls for the prison workers union. Enough, no more money thrown down that hole, let’s try something different.

YES on Prop 7

Prop 7 would require that all utilities – public as well as private – get a large and expanding % of their power generated by big renewable power projects in the decades to come. The only problem with this proposition is that they stepped on some environmental groups’ toes by not consulting them before they put it on the ballot, so the Sierra Club and others decided to fight against it out of pique. We desperately need big solar and wind projects in this state ASAP, if we are going to turn ourselves around on global warming and insulate us from what looks to be a rise in the price of natural gas in the decades to come. This will not solve all problems – there needs to be a place for small projects, especially solar roofs, in any comprehensive solution – and is not intended as such, but what it does do is serve as one big silver BB that can be used to get us closer to where we need to be with big power projects.

I have read all the criticisms, and they strike me as not particularly valid. We need to think big, and prop 7 does that by gibving us both needed regulation and funding to make it happen.

NO on Prop 8

My marriage and family have been a bedrock in my life. I cannot imagine trying to weather life’s storms alone, without that companionship, trust, and love. How could I ever tell two people in love that they aren’t as good as me, that they should not be treated equally under the law, that their marriage, their companionship, trust and love are inferior to my own, and that they should either divorce or not marry?

Please do the right thing and vote no on 8. Marriage is too precious, too important to be used as a cynical pawn in the culture wars. If you want to protect marriage, work on your own, Lord knows none of ours are perfect anyways.

No on Hate. No on 8. (Click the link for the full argument)

NO on Prop 9

This is yet another of these “law and order” bills, this time sold as a “victim’s rights” initiative. It would give the families of crime victims more grounds to object at parole hearings, make parole harder to get, and generally keep more people in jail for longer period of time.

It’s an effective emotional argument, but it cloaks the very dire financial consequences of continuing to put more and more people in jail for longer and longer periods of time. Something has got to give. If it had a tax hike connected to pay for the damn thing, at least it would be honest, but it doesn’t even go that far. Just another unfunded mandate that doesn’t make anything better for the money spent, except if you’re a prison guard.

NO on Prop 10

This is something that sounds pretty good until you read the fine print. Texas oil zillionaire T. Boone PIckens has funded this one in hopes of making a mint off of the natural gas market by subsidizing a fleet of natural gas-burning cars. This does nothing for global warming or carbon emissions, plays into our unsustainable suburban low density development model, will create a competitor with power plants for natural gas (thus bidding the price up and making electricity and heating more expensive), does little for the common good, and makes a rich Texan oilman even richer. While I have some grudging respect for T. Boone’s efforts to give visibility to the huge issue of Peak OIl, this prop is a total non-starter.

NO on Prop 11

It’s a scam to protect the Republican party and conservative democrats cloaked in good government nonpartisan “reform” language. While there might be a better way to draw districts, prop 11 isn’t it. Don’t fall for it. (Click the link for the extended argument)

YES on Prop 12

CalVet has been around forever, it works, it costs the state next to nothing, and it has helped out generations of Calfiornia veterans. Given the huge number of vets that Bush’s little imperial adventures have produced, and the economic strains the Bush administration’s VA cutbacks, miserly pay, stoploss backdoor draft, and extended tours of duty has posed to veterans and their families, we owe it to them to make it easier for them and their families to buy houses, farms and start businesses. It’s good for California, and it’s the right thing to do. The only way this could be improved as a bill is if it was expanded to the population at large, but even as is, it’s a no-brainer.

Local Ballot Measures

YES on Measure N

Measure N would give Davis an essentially blank city charter that could be amended in the future to adapt city law to whatever sorts of thing we as a community wanted to do. Right now, Davis is a common law city, which means that what we can do on a variety of issues is constrained by whatever the state legislature says we can. Personally, I think the Davis electorate is intelligent, educated and engaged enough to make a charter work, and have not found any of the arguments against a charter to be compelling at all. Besides, just think of all the fun letters to the editor battles in the Enterprise a charter could create!

Seriously, though, from choice voting to district elections to financing solar panels on roofs like Berkeley did to creating a Davis Public Utility to broadening our tax base beyond just property and sales tax, to all other sorts of stuff, the freedom this would give Davis to choose its own path and experiment without asking permission from the utterly useless state government (thanks in no small part to prop 13) makes it a good idea in my opinion.

YES on Measure W

In short, as I say with with every election with a school bond on the ballot, you’re a bad person if you vote against a school bond. This bond would fund a whole bunch of teachers in the Davis Joint Unified School District that will otherwise be cut for a pittance, given the kind of money that flies aroiund this town. If you have the money to buy a house, if you have the money to drive a nice car, if you have a kid in Davis schools, if you plan on getting old and want talented educated doctors and nurses taking care of you, or a thriving knowledge economy keeping those tax coffers full so that you can retire in security with Social Security or your 401K, you have no excuse not to vote for W.

It reality is that simple. If you vote against this thing, your neighbors will be justifiably mad at you for wrecking their kids’ education and property values. Do the right thing, public schools are at the very foundation of modern society, and deliver tremendous value at a very low taxpayer cost.

originally at surf putah

Uncategorized

Prop 2: Humane Farms Producing Healthy Food

1 Comment

 In Charlotte’s Web, healthy animals romp around the farm, playing with their families, and enjoying a full life, fearful only of seeing their life reach its end. Many of us grew up believing farms were really like that, the image reinforced by commercials for burger joints and frozen foods. The reality of California’s factory farms, unfortunately, is quite different.

During pregnancy, pigs are locked alone in gestation crates – metal cells only two feet wide. Without enough room to turn around, they often develop joint disorders that leave them unable to walk. They will bite at the metal bars, desperate to escape, but of course they are helpless. Hens on egg farms are crammed into battery cages, never once enjoying the freedom to spread their wings, let alone engage in natural behaviors such as nesting or dust bathing. Veal calves are taken from their mothers, just hours after birth, to live in crates with their necks chained in place, never able to move, held in a single position until the day they are butchered.

The animals’ torment is bad enough, but these conditions produce meat and eggs that threaten consumers’ health. Such stressed animals become sick, and because they are unnaturally crowded together, they spread diseases to one another at an accelerated rate.  

Hens forced by their cramped conditions to defecate on their own eggs produce eggs that can spread Salmonella. More than 50,000 Americans fall victim to this disease every year, and a recent study found that facilities using battery cages were 20 times more likely to be contaminated than those that were cage-free.

As the Center for Food Safety put it, “Extreme intensive confinement can have potentially serious public health and food safety implications and should be phased out as is being done in the European Union.”

Next week, California voters will finally have a chance to see these conditions phased out here. Proposition 2, sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States and endorsed by an array of consumer health and safety groups, will guarantee, very simply, that all California farm animals get enough room to turn around, stand up, lie down, and stretch their limbs.

This proposal is modest enough. Similar laws have already passed in Arizona, Colorado, and other states. Though factory farms decry this as government regulation that will hurt their profits, many family farms already practice the ethical standards Prop 2 would set. By their success, these family farmers prove it is possible to earn a fair profit while treating animals humanely and protecting consumer safety.

Unfortunately, these ethical farmers suffer a disadvantage when their competitors are allowed to cut corners. The status quo rewards farms that feed us sick and suffering animals, and it punishes farmers who raise animals in a natural, healthy fashion. Prop 2 will solve this. By requiring all farms to raise their animals humanely, Prop 2 will help ethical farmers enjoy more competitiveness while helping consumers find safer food. It is no surprise that more than 100 family farms in California support Prop 2, even while their big-agribusiness counterparts spend millions trying to defeat it.

Bottom line for voters: Prop 2 will deliver healthier food from more compassionate farms. This one deserves to pass overwhelmingly. Please support Prop 2.

And a video made by students:

Uncategorized

Calitics Podcast: Kevin Johnson & Yes on Prop 2

Well, we know we’ve been a bit slow on the podcasts, but we’re going to try to do them more frequently. After all, the election is only a few weeks away.

So, tomorrow we’ll restart the thing at noon with Sacramento mayoral candidate, and former NBA All-Star, Kevin Johnson.  We’ll also talk with the Yes on Prop 2 Campaign Manager Jennifer Fearing. So join us tomorrow at the Calitics Show Homepage. You can also grab the podcast there, at iTunes, or stream right from the Calitics page there on the left.

Uncategorized

Our Positions on the Statewide Propositions

25 Comments

Here we go again, another round of endorsements.  The bulk of these will be fairly uncontroversial here.  On Prop 7, Brian Leubitz did not vote due to the fact that he works for the campaign. See the flip for more information on our positions.

Proposition

 The Calitics Position

 Calitics Tag
Prop 1A (High Speed Rail)

 YES, YES, YES!

 Prop 1A

Prop 2(Farm Animal Conditions)

 Yes

 Prop 2

Prop 3 (Children’s Hospital Bonds)

 Yes

 Prop 3

Prop 4 (Parental Notification Again)

 No, NO, and NO AGAIN

 Prop 4

Prop 5 (Drug Rehab Programs)

 Yes

 Prop 5

Prop 6 (Runner Anti-Gang)

 NO

 Prop 6

Prop 7 (Renewable Power Standard)

 No

 Prop 7

Prop 8 (Anti-Marriage)

 NO!

 Prop 8

Prop 9 (Runner Victim’s Rights)

 No

 Prop 9

Prop 10 (Pickens Natural Gas)

 No

 Prop 10

Prop 11 (Redistricting)

 No

 Prop 11

12 (Veterans Bonds)

 Yes

 Prop 12

See the flip for more information on the props…

Prop 1A: High Speed Rail: YES!

Prop 1A, recently revised on the ballot by legislative action, will allow the state to purchase $10 Billion in Bonds for the purpose of creating a high speed rail system.  The money will also be leveraged to get federal dollars as well as attract private investments.  This is a no brainer, but if you need more information, check out Robert’s HSR Blog.

Prop 2: Farm Animal Conditions: Yes

This is a simple law that requires farm animals to be able to stand up and turn around in their cages. While there are lots of protests from factory farming interests, this measure could level the playing field for small farmers.  Polls show this one strongly leading. The campaign has also produced a cute video with a singing pig.

Prop 3: Children’s Hospital Bonds: Yes

While some of us are conflicted about the purchase of more bonds for another narrowly defined interest, this seems to be a net plus.  Simply put, this would allow the state to sell bonds to provide additional funds for our children’s hospitals, hopefully for capital improvements.  Our hospitals in general need a lot of work, but it would be even better if this money would go instead to ensure all county and other public hospitals remain viable. Not sure about that cheesy commercial though.

Prop 4: Parental Notification: No, NO, and NO AGAIN!

We’ve done this twice before, in the special election of 2005 and again in the general of 2006.  Enough already. We’ve said that we want to make sure that our teenage girls are safe, not use them as political pawns.  Prop 4 requires parental notification, which is fine if the teen has a functional family, but can be dangerous in an abusive home.  The proposition allows for a judicial bypass, but how many scared, pregnant teens have the wherewithal to go through that? This one is running close, so get the word out! As a sidenote, this is a good case for initiative reform to include a limit on how many times you can bring something to the ballot.

Prop 5: Drug Rehab: Yes

A sound policy reform to decrease the number of nonviolent offenders in our jails by placing them in rehabilitation facilities instead.  Prop 5 also reduces sentences for these nonviolent offenders based upon their successful completion of the rehab program. While not “ToughOnCrime”, it is SmartOnCrime.  This is a follow-up to the wildly successful Prop 36 of a few years back. Prop 36 saved us millions of dollars, this likely will as well. Unfortunately, today Senator Feinstein has come out against Prop 5 in a wildly speculative press release that merely rehashes the No on 5 campaign talking points. Let’s be smart, not pseudo-tough. Yes on 5.

Prop 6: Runner Gang Measure: NO

Another wasteful ToughOnCrime measure from the legislators Runner.  This is just plain bad policy that won’t actually reduce gang violence.  The measure increases prison sentences for young gang offenders (really, now?) and would likely cost about a billon dollars per year.  The Mercury News breaks it down:

It would require spending $965 million next year – and more every year

thereafter – on law enforcement, probation and police programs, with a

focus on gangs. That’s $365 million – 50 percent more – than last year.

And the amount will grow, because the initiative guarantees annual

increases for inflation, and higher prison expenses as a result of the

new or longer sentences it would impose for 30-plus crimes. Add in $500

million for jails that the initiative requires for more prisoners, and

it’s a daunting number, at a time that the overall crime rate has been

dropping.

Far too expensive for far too few results.

Prop 7: Renewable Power Standard: No

There already is a renewable power standard in California as part of recent anti-global warming legislation.  This bill would expand those requirements from 20% to 50% by by 2025 – but several small wind and solar power companies are opposed because the measure would essentially toss them out of the market by excluding plants smaller than 30 megawatts from even counting toward the standard.  That appears to cripple innovation and tilt the playing field away from sound renewable power development.  This is a noble goal which is poorly written to create winners and losers.  It’s a close call, but we’re voting no.

Prop 8: Anti-Marriage Amendment: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!

Not much to explain here. Prop 8 would eliminate marriage rights for same gender couples. It is time for Californians to stand up for equality. No on 8.

Prop 9: Runner Victim’s Rights: No

Another “ToughOnCrime” measure by the legislators Runner, this time funded by Henry T. Nicholas III, co-founder and former CEO of Broadcom. Why is that relevant? Well, Mr. Nicholas has himself been indicted for white collar fraud as well as drug charges including accusing “Nicholas of using ecstasy to spike the

drinks of industry executives and employees of Broadcom customers.” Classy.

The measure itself reduces frequency of parole hearings and allows victims and their survivors to be present. I’ll let the OC Register, which suggested a No vote, explain the prop:

Prop. 9 would place those rights into the state constitution rather

than into statutory law, the distinction being that the constitution is

much more difficult to change if problems develop. It would also give

crime victims and their families the constitutional right to prevent

the release of certain documents to criminal defendants or their

attorneys, and the right to refuse to be interviewed or provide

pretrial testimony or other evidence to a defendant. The constitution

would be changed to require judges to take the safety of victims into

consideration when granting bail. It would make restitution the first

priority when spending any money collected from defendants in the form

of fines. It would also extend the time between parole hearings from

the current one to five years to three to 15 years.

I’m fine with victim’s rights, but that shouldn’t extend to creating bad policy and increasing our already ridiculously high prison population. We already have a crisis, we don’t need to exacerbate it. Vote No on “Marsy’s Law.”

Prop 10: Natural Gas Giveaway: No

Prop 10 would sell $5 billion worth of bonds to help Californians buy cleaner cars.  The problem of course is that clean is defined as to mean natural gas, and not hybrids. Huh? Furthermore, it wouldn’t require that the commercial trucks purchased with the overwhelming majority of these funds stay in the state.  This is simply a boondoggle for Swift Boat Veterans Funder T. Boone Pickens to get his natural gas company a ton of new purchasers and to get the state to build his natural gas highway. Natural gas is slightly cleaner than gasoline, but it’s still a technology of yesteryear.  We need real renewable energy, not more fossil fuels. Prop 10 is a waste of money at a time when we can’t afford to fully fund our educational system. No on 10!

Prop 11: Redistricting: NO!

Another waste of time redistricting measure that accomplishes little other than guaranteeing Republicans additional power over the redistricting process.  Prop 11 would give equal power to Democrats and Republicans to draw the maps, and would exclude from the commission anybody who has had any experience relevant to the process.  It’s a flawed process that gives Republicans too much.  It’s opposed by leading minority organizations and the Democratic Party. 

For more information, see this diary here at Calitics. Our diary is actually recommend over the “official” No site, which is so hideous as to be nearly useless.  Anyway, Vote No on Republican Voters First!

Prop 12: Veterans Bond: Yes

These things always pass, and are always pretty small. This bond funds a program to help veterans purchase farms and homes.  It’s a decent program, and the bond has passed something like 20 times over the last 100 years.  It likely will again. Despite our concerns over ballot box budgeting, helping out our veterans is a worthwhile cause.

Marriage Equality

Polling Data on the Props































Prop Yes % No % Undecided %
Prop 2 72 10 17
Prop 4 52 36 12
Prop 8 44 49 8
Prop 11 27 25 49


With a kind hat tip to Shane at  CapitolAlert, we have some new data from SurveyUSA on a few of the propositions.  Keep in mind that I’m not in love with the data from SurveyUSA, and proposition numbers can be particularly volitile.  So, here they are.

For the good news, we see Prop 8 trailing, and Prop 2 leading.  That 62 point lead for Prop 2 is actually quite staggering. It’s rare to see such agreement on any issue, let alone one that has been blocked by big farming interests for so long.  Other polls have showed 8 trailing more substantially, but this again confirms what we’ve been seeing.

On the not so good side, we have Prop 4.  While we’ve beaten this twice before, it’s been close both times.  And there’s nothing in this version that is any better than Props 73 or 85.  One hope is that the turnout model that S-USA used for this poll has under counted youth voters.  And that may be true for many of these polla, but a lot of work will (and $) will need to go to Prop 4 if we are to beat this once again.

Finally, Prop 11.  Oh Prop 11, does anybody have a clue what you are? Not so much, as almost 50% of voters are undecided.  I’d expect there to be a bunch of voting-day decisions on this one as many voters just don’t have the time to analyze these things.  

By the way, NO ON 11! It’s fake reform opposed by minority organizations and labor that simply gives too much to Republicans that haven’t earned it at the ballot box. Just in case you haven’t heard that enough around here…

Uncategorized

American Egg Board Illegally Set Aside $3 Million in Federal Funds to Campaign Against Prop 2

Cross-posted on the California Majority Report.

We knew the larger egg producers were desperate to kill Prop 2, a proposition that would prohibit battery cages. After all, housing six-to-eight egg-laying hens in a space so narrow that they cannot turn around or extend their wings may be excessively cruel, but it’s slightly more profitable for the 30 factory farms that control the bulk of egg production in California. It’s no surprise that the American Egg Board would search nationwide for the funds they need to defeat a measure presently supported by 63 percent of Californians. But illegally funnelling $3 million in federal funds to combat the initiative, as the Yes on Prop 2 campaign alleges? That’s one golden egg!

Yesterday, the campaign filed a lawsuit in federal district court, alleging that the American Egg Board set aside $3 million in federal funds to help defeat Prop 2, which would be a violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2707(h), which prohibits using the money “for the purpose of influencing governmental policy or action.” Sadly, it appears George Bush’s Department of Agriculture may be complicit in this action, so the USDA is also party to the suit.

“Agribusiness firms are already spending millions to defeat Proposition 2, and they hardly needed an illegal infusion of check-off funds authorized by the USDA to supplement their political campaign,” explained Humane Society president Wayne Pacelle “Expending these funds within 90 days of the election is a transparent attempt to influence the vote on Proposition 2. The egg industry and USDA had 49 other states in which to spend this money, but it chose to do so in California right before the election and that’s unethical and illegal.”

Regardless of how the federal district court decides, big money has already been laid down in this fight, and more is on the way. The largest donors to squash humane farming practices include Moark, LLC, “America’s premier marketer, distributor, processor and producer of fresh shell eggs and egg products,” which donated $289,234.60, Demler Enterprises and Demler Eggs, which donated $241,000, Gemperle Enterprises, which donated $216,287.50, and United Egg Producers, which donated $185,000. When Gemperle Enterprises last garnered this much attention, they were exposed in an undercover investigation by ABC 7 in 2006 for their cruel farming practices, leading to a landmark decision by Trader Joe’s to stop selling Gemperle eggs. But I guess you can’t teach an old factory farm new tricks, not without changing the laws that allow them to flagrantly abuse the animals in their care anyway.

Uncategorized

Monday Linky Thread

• Prop 2, the factory farm measure, was the subject of a favorable op-ed by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. Prop 2 would likely end the use of cages for hens in egg production. In very quick terms, it would require that the animal (e.g. chickens, pigs, and baby cows) could stand up and turn around in its cage.

• The lobbyists are gearing up to fight AB 583, Asm. Hancock’s (D-Berkeley) bill to make the 2014(?) Secretary of State race a publicly-funded clean campaign. AB 583 was originally intended to fund the 2010 governor’s race and some legislative races, but it was amended down.  Either way, lobbyists just aren’t thrilled about the increase of their fee from $25 to $700.

• A good story about Jackie Speier’s first few months in Congress.

• The SF Chronicle reads far, far too much into the VP selections of both candidates. Once again, I strongly disagree with former Lieberman for President strategist Garry South. The VP pick is a public executive decision and gives an indicator of who the candidate is, but a good pick can’t save a campaign. And a bad pick won’t kill it either. I refer you to Lloyd Bentsen v. Dan Quayle.

What’s on your mind?