The student-led campaign to pass an oil extraction tax in California via ballot initiative entered a new phase this week. The initiative, titled the California Modernization and Economic Development Act (CMED, for short), began gathering signatures in April and hit the signature gathering deadline set by the Secretary of State today. However, Californians for Responsible Economic Development, the student-led group that drafted the initiative, is announcing plans to strategically resubmit a revised measure: “This Summer has been busy for the CMED team,” said Aaron Thule, Grassroots Coordinator for the campaign, “after a lot of hard work, we have built a signature gathering coalition for Fall and Winter that will be ready to activate and qualify this initiative come November.”

The revised initiative will still utilize a tax on oil extracted from California to make investments in education and energy affordability, and authors have kept the same title. However, the authors made several key changes to the initiative. First, CMED will now feature a sliding scale tax of 2% to 8%, which proponents argue will protect small business owners and jobs. Proponents of the initiative predict that the oil tax would bring in 1 billion dollars a year in revenue for the state. Second, revenue in the revised initiative would be allocated as follows:

– 50% would be placed in a special 30-year endowment for education. After 3 years, the endowment would begin to payout in four equal parts toward K-12, Community Colleges, Cal State Universities and University of California. After 30 years of collecting interest, proponents predict it would bring in as much as 3.5 billion dollars a year (in today’s dollars) for California’s education system.

– 25% would be used to provide families and businesses with subsidies to help them switch to cleaner, less costly forms of energy

– 25% would be allocated toward rolling back the gas tax increase enacted last July, to make gas more affordable for working class Californians.

The growing coalition, which set signature gathering goals to qualify the measure by early Spring, includes the University of California Student Association (UCSA), groups at San Francisco State University, Sonoma State University, CSU Bakersfield and several community colleges. California College Democrats and Young Democrats, which have both endorsed an extraction tax for education and clean energy, are also lending support. “It’s hard to believe that California is the only state that practically gives away our energy – especially when, as a state, our schools and colleges continue to struggle and we have yet to provide adequate funding to meet our own renewable energy standards,” said Erik Taylor, president of the College Democrats, who added: “Cal College Dems aren’t the only ones focused on the problem. At the Democratic convention in April, the state party endorsed an extraction tax policy for California. At the Democratic eboard meeting in July, the Young Democrats took it a step further and endorsed an extraction tax for education, renewable energy and community development.”

The UCSA, which represents hundreds of thousands of students in the UC system, plans to organize across several campuses in order to ensure benefits for students. Kareem Aref, the President of the UCSA, commented, “Affordability and funding are critical issues at the UC and Prop 30 simply is not the solution in itself that we need. Our campaigns for this year are designed to ensure a stable and long term funding stream for the UC. We are excited to push CMED to the next level and see this initiative implemented.”

More information and updates from the campaign can be found at http://www.cmedact.org

SACRAMENTO, CA – Consumer Watchdog today called on state and local governments to quit spending taxpayer millions on Scott toilet paper, Kleenex tissues and other products from Kimberly-Clark Corporation. The global company is part of a corporate coalition battling to keep a tax loophole that benefits only out-of-state corporations—to the detriment of California schools, local governments and state services.

In letters to Gov. Jerry Brown and the mayors and executives of 21 cities and some large counties, Consumer Watchdog also urged governments to avoid Chrysler and GM auto and truck purchases. The automakers are also in the coalition of out-of-state corporations eager to evade corporate taxes in California.

The letter to Gov. Brown said in part:

“Every dollar of taxes evaded by large corporations is another dollar taken from our schools, fire and police protection and support for the impoverished and disabled.  We ask you to set an example by avoiding taxpayer-funded purchases from out-of-state companies lobbying to protect a state loophole that lets them pay less than in-state companies.

“A ripe target is toilet paper and other janitorial products made by Kimberly-Clark, whose brands include Scott paper products and Kleenex. The global company is part of a corporate coalition battling against efforts to use the same corporate tax formula for all companies that sell products in California, as almost all other major states do. California’s “take-your-pick” loophole costs the state up to billions of dollars a year. Constituents would both smile and applaud your vow to “Flush Tax-Evader Toilet Paper.”

“We also ask you to avoid taxpayer purchases of Chrysler and GM autos and trucks for public safety and other state uses, as well as cardboard products from International Paper Co. They are in the coalition with Kimberly-Clark formed specifically to lobby against a legislative proposal and likely ballot initiative that would close the tax loophole.

(Click here to see the letter to Gov. Brown. The letters to localities are similarly phrased.)

A Consumer Watchdog analysis of California purchases through a state purchasing coalition in the current fiscal year shows that Kimberly-Clark products account for 20% to 25% of total “janitorial supply” orders, and over $1.6 million of taxpayer spending in a year. Only some counties, cities and state agencies use the purchasing contract, so the statewide total would be several times larger than  $1.6 million. However, the proportion of purchases is likely to be similar statewide, said Consumer Watchdog.

“We want local and state government to flush tax-evader toilet paper,” said Judy Dugan, research director for Consumer Watchdog. “State universities, local police departments and other agencies that buy Kimberly-Clark products are also buying themselves deeper cuts in essential services. There are plenty of better choices on the market.”

The Consumer Watchdog analysis looked at Department of General Services order lists for janitorial supplies during two quarters of 2011. On an annual basis, orders for Kimberly-Clark products would total more than $1.6 million. (see Excel charts for Q1 and Q3 of the 2011-12 fiscal year linked below.) Independent purchases by many cities and counties would likely at least triple the amount. For instance, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Sacramento do not list any purchases through the state contract.

Kimberly-Clark sells 122 products to state and local governments through the janitorial supply company Waxie, which has a multi-state contract for cleaning and janitorial supplies under the Western States Contracting Alliance. Purchases included several counties, small cities, state universities, transit and police agencies.

Kimberly-Clark is one of four global corporations in the deceptively named “California Employers Against Higher Taxes” coalition. The group was formed to fight elimination of an “alternative” corporate tax calculation that benefits out-of-state companies. The loophole costs California up to billions of dollars a year at a time when schools, protective services and aid to the disabled are being slashed.

Two other members of the pro-loophole group, Chrysler and General Motors, recently lost out on a large state contract for nearly 2,000 police cruisers and utility vehicles, for the California Highway Patrol and other agencies. The contract, worth close to $50 million over two years, went to Ford, which is not part of the pro-loophole coalition.

Click here to see Consumer Watchdog’s news release on the police cruiser contract.

“The state’s large contract for Ford vehicles sets a good precedent for putting taxpayer money in the right hands-a major automaker willing to pay its fair share of California taxes,” said Dugan.

The fourth member of the coalition is International Paper, which makes cardboard products including the boxes in which California produce is shipped. Its products, usually unbranded and sold through middlemen, are hard to track. A fifth member, Proctor and Gamble, dropped out of the coalition following public protests against its products.

Click here to see Consumer Watchdog’s analysis of federal tax evasion by members of the  pro-loophole coalition.

The two efforts to close the loophole are legislation by Assembly leader John Perez (AB1500) and a ballot initiative sponsored by tech multimillionaire Thomas Steyer, who fought successfully in 2010 against Proposition 23, which would have benefited oil companies. The proposals would shift California to the corporate tax system used in other major states–a single tax calculation that is primarily dependent on the amount of sales a company made in California.

Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group, does not support any particular proposal to fix the loophole as long as it stops the gaming of the state tax code.

Here are links to quarterly lists in xlsx format of janitorial purchases through state purchasing contracts.

Q1, 2011-2012

Q3

Cities and counties to which letters are being faxed include: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, San Diego, San Diego County, San Francisco, San Jose, Irvine, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Orange County, Sacramento, Riverside, Fresno, Oakland, Bakersfield, Stockton, Fremont, San Bernardino, Modesto, Oxnard, Fontana, Chula Vista and Santa Monica.

On the heels of San Diego and San Jose’s vote against public employee pensions comes this article: California’s Bad Bet Makes JPMorgan’s Look Minor  

The key points were all aimed at a deal struck in 1999, at the height of the dot-com boom when California was flush with cash and Gray Davis was probably on the VP short-list.

Promising that “no increase over current employer contributions is needed for these benefit improvements,” and that the state pension fund

would “remain fully funded,” the proposal, known as SB 400, claimed that enhanced pensions wouldn’t cost taxpayers “a dime” because of

healthy investment returns. The proposal went on to assert that it “fully expects” the state’s pension costs to remain below $766 million a

year for “at least the next decade.”

The Legislature included cost projections provided by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System — or Calpers — in the description

of the bill and passed it with broad bipartisan support. Governor Gray Davis signed it.

Since then, the pension system has earned only 75 percent of what it had hoped.

Because the state is unconditionally on the hook, the state

budget has had to make up the difference. As a result, the state has spent $27 billion on pensions, $20 billion more than Calpers projected.

Because the boosted promises last for decades — for employees’ lifetimes — and because the pension fund amortizes the difference between

what it expected to earn and what it really earned during such a long period, just a small portion of the increased costs has so far been

recognized. Far larger increases are in store.

To finance the $20 billion of extra cost for pensions, the state has cut spending on services and raised taxes. As one example, spending on

the University of California and California State University systems declined 18 percent from 2002 to 2012, while state spending on pensions

rose 214 percent.

On top of the results in San Diego and San Jose and with a tax proposition coming in November look to hear more about the impact of SB400.

State, Cities Urged to Bar All Taxpayer Purchases From Chrysler, GM, Other Tax Dodgers While They Refuse to Pay Fair Share

The state’s award of a contract for up to 1,900 Ford vehicles for the California Highway Patrol and other state agencies is a snub to GM and Chrysler, which eagerly sought the prestigious contract.

Consumer Watchdog applauded the tentative award, noting that of the Big 3 U.S. automakers, only Ford is not in a coalition battling to keep a California tax loophole that benefits large out-of-state corporations to the tune of at least $1 billion a year.

The nonprofit, nonpartisan Consumer Watchdog calls on the state and major cities, which it will be contacting, to bar all non-safety-related purchases of Chrysler and GM products until they cease their campaign and pledge willingness to pay the same tax rate that in-state corporations pay.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying millions to automakers that are happy to starve California schools, police departments and disabled people of funding,” said Judy Dugan, research director for Consumer Watchdog. “What’s good for the CHP should be fine for other police departments and government agencies.”

Even with substantial state discounts, the contract for up to 1,800 Taurus-based police patrol cars and 100 Explorer-based police utility vehicles would likely be worth more than $50 million over time. Dealer prices listed online for the civilian models of the patrol car range from about $30,000 to $32,500, without costly additions like bulletproof doors.

The state is sharply cutting back its civilian auto fleet and the CHP has scaled back as well, but wear and tear force the CHP and other public safety agencies to replace vehicles at about 100,000 miles.

The state’s current tax loophole allows many out-of state companies with major sales in California to pay a lower tax rate than in-state companies, depriving the state of $1 billion or more a year, according to the state legislative analyst. Closing the loophole would help restore essential services axed in the current budget crisis, said Consumer Watchdog.

Two other major corporations, Kimberly-Clark (Scott, Kleenex, Huggies products) and International Paper have joined GM and Chrysler in the deceptively titled “California Employers Against Higher Taxes.”

Chrysler more than doubled its state lobbying expenses in the first quarter of this year, to $32,500, as it added two corporate tax reform bills, AB1500 and AB1501, to its lobbying list reported to the Secretary of State.  The larger General Motors spent more than $86,000 on state lobbying in the first quarter, and added the same legislation to its lobbying list. If a separately proposed ballot initiative to close the tax loophole qualifies for the ballot, the four companies are expected to up the ante on spending.

“The state and cities of California owe taxpayers the respect of shunning companies that are driving the state further into a hole of debt,” said Dugan. “The CHP contract is a great start. Other agencies should quickly and publicly pledge to stay away from the tax dodgers at Chrysler and GM.”

Resources:

State announcement of tentative award (no other bidders protested the award during the protest period)

Bid pricing list from the state’s request for proposals

Consumer Watchdog’s previous press release on the tax evasion history of the corporate coalition (from which founding member Proctor and Gamble has since departed)

Out of State Corporations Fighting to Keep Tax Loophole Are Top U.S. Tax Dodgers, Says Consumer Watchdog

Companies With Major Sales in California Can Game Current System to Pay Lower Taxes Than Many In-State Businesses

Three of the five global corporations behind a coalition aimed at protecting $1 billion a year in California tax loopholes are among the nation’s top tax evaders, said Consumer Watchdog. They are:



• International Paper Co., whose outlandish deductions and credits gained through Congressional earmarks left it with less-than-zero federal taxes on $198 million dollars in 2010 profit. The company’s refund of $249 million exceeded its profits.
• Procter and Gamble, described by Fortune Magazine as in a class with GE when it comes to tax manipulation. It structured more than $6 billion in sell-offs since 2002 to avoid billions in federal tax and hundreds of millions in state taxes.
• GM, which is still partly owned by taxpayers and paid only $570 million in federal taxes on a net profit of $9 billion-a 6% corporate tax rate. That made it one of the lowest-taxed among high-profit corporations, according to Forbes Magazine.

The other two members of the deceptively named “California Employers Against Higher Taxes” are bailout recipient Chrysler and Kimberly Clark, which Wisconsin researchers found was evading state taxes. (See details on all members below)

“The real business of this coalition is to protect global corporations’ unfair and lucrative tax loopholes that deprive Californians of good schools and services,” said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog. “It’s especially galling coming from tax evaders or automakers that abandoned their plants and employees in California, took billions in taxpayer bailout money and in Chrysler’s case, kept $4 billion of it as a gift.”

The out-of-state coalition was recently organized to fight proposed legislation that would eliminate a two-tiered system in California, passed in 2009 over consumer objections, that allows national corporations to pick which California tax calculation they use. By picking one or the other based on how much profit they made in California, companies can evade millions of dollars in state corporate taxes. A 2009 study by the state legislative analysts’ office found the system unfair to many in-state companies, confusing and subject to corporate gaming.

LAO report

“It’s like letting children pick which parent they’ll obey, or companies to pick which regulator will oversee them,” said Dugan. “Obviously they’ll go for the most lenient.”

The current legislative plan (Perez, AB1500) would shift California to the system used in all major states–a single tax calculation that is primarily dependent on the amount of sales a company made in California. Consumer Watchdog said it does not support any particular proposal to fix the loophole, as long as it stops the gaming of the state tax code.

The aim of the “California Employers” is obvious in their corporate histories:

International Paper: A study by the Institute for Policy Studies found that in 2010 the company paid zero taxes on $198 million in profits, and in fact ended up with a $249 million credit. At the same time, CEO John Faraci got a 75% pay hike to $12.3 million. The company’s tax deductions came from two subsidiaries in tax havens and from large deductions and credits for its longtime use of a waste byproduct at paper mills, known as “black liquor,” for fuel. The company lobbied heavily for this boondoggle, even though it did not reduce International Paper’s use of fossil fuels. Conservationist and environmental groups cried foul, but the company prevailed. While the company has several locations in California, they are mostly low-paid box-making facilities and warehouses. It is trying to sell but could also close a pulp plant with higher-paying industrial jobs in Port Hueneme.

Bloomberg on “black liquor” earmark

IPS study

Chrysler: The automaker took $13 billion in federal taxpayer bailout money in 2009. It kept $4 billion as a gift in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Another $3.5 billion that was counted as Chrysler payback was actually a loan to the Italian company Fiat in a complicated deal. Most galling, Chrysler’s bankruptcy deal gave it a free pass on liability for defects in pre-2009 vehicles. For instance, a California family badly injured in fire that destroyed their Jeep vehicle was banned from seeking any accountability for or damages from Chrysler. Chrysler’s only significant presence in California is its franchise auto dealers, many of which were shut down by the company in its bankruptcy. Chrysler’s auto assembly plant in Los Angeles, which once made 40,000 vehicles a year, closed in 1971.

Liability cancellation

Fiat loan

Procter and Gamble: The global corporation is also a giant in tax avoidance. It evaded $2 billion in U.S. federal taxes and hundreds of millions in state taxes since 2002 through complex manipulation of its more than $6 billion in sell-offs of brands. The buyers also evaded taxes at least temporarily and perhaps permanently. Procter and Gamble has subsidiaries and some plants in California, but its U.S. jobs are concentrated near its Ohio corporate headquarters.

Tax evasion:

GM: Taxpayers shoveled nearly $60 billion into bailing out General Motors, and are still on the hook for up to $27 million, depending on the future price of GM stock. And in 2011, GM paid only $570 million in federal taxes on a net profit of $9 billion-a 6% corporate tax rate. Taxpayers also still own at least a quarter of the company, which puts its opposition to fair taxation in California in a darker light. As for being a “California Employer,” GM exited its last auto plant in the state, a joint venture with Toyota in Fremont, in 2009.

Kimberly Clark: State researchers in Wisconsin found that Dallas-based Kimberly Clark paid Wisconsin state taxes in only three of the 10 years from 2000 through 2009, despite a large corporate presence in the state. At the same time, its CEO pay soared 339%, from $2.6 million to $12.4 million. The current tax system makes it easier for the Kleenex giant to do the same in California.

Wisconsin

The Courage Campaign (where I am employed) launched a video tonight that is getting covered by a number of political bloggers. It's a cheeky piece that aims to get Kim Kardashian to support the Millionaires Tax of 2012, a ballot initiative recently unveiled by the Restoring California Coalition, which includes Courage, the California Federation of Teachers, and California Calls.

We thought the public would find it curious that millionaires like Kim — who made more than $12 million in 2010 — only paid 1% more in income taxes than a middle class Californian. So, we made this video to explain the situation. It's just the sort of fun video that can educate people who aren't politically engaged how much is at stake next November. In our focus groups, independent voters tended to think of celebrities (rather than CEOs, bankers, or Silicon Valley execs) when asked who should pay more in taxes. By the way, our initiative actually polls at 67%, the highest support our pollster has ever seen or a tax measure. More on that here.

We're going to start a campaign to get Kim to endorse the Millionaires Tax of 2012. If she gets on board, we'll reach people who never would have learned about the ballot measure otherwise. But most importantly, we have to show people why it's time for people like Kim to pay their fair share. See the full video by clicking below:

Regarding the LA Stadium effort:

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) was talking to colleagues about extending the same proposal to other job-producing projects, possibly including sports facility projects in Sacramento, Santa Clara and San Diego, as well as renewable energy developments.

Anschutz Entertainment Group sought the special treatment after a competing stadium proposal in the City of Industry won an environmental waiver from the Legislature in 2009. Its backers argue that it deserves special treatment because it would create tens of thousands of jobs.

I’ve see articles (obviously from the right) claiming that Calirfornia is dominated by “Green Jihadis” and its destroying the economy.  Usually these articles call for the reform (mostly removal) of California’s environmental laws and link the 12% unemployment as justification. But based on what’s happening above are the Democrats coming around to that line? Do they see a link between enivornment and unemployment here?  Or are they desperate enough for votes in 2012 since California’s economy has barely nudged and the Democrats have a full sweep of state government?