Peruse the contributor list to the Yes on 26 campaign, and you’ll see a who’s who of corporate “baddies”. Tobacco, oil, you get the gist. If there was a company that I’ve written about with “Big” preceding the name, I’m pretty sure that they contributed to the campaign. And to the other side, they got few, if any, grassroots contributions. It was a campaign of, by, and for the big corporations. Unfortunately, the No on 26 campaign just didn’t have the resources to get that message out. I’m not sure that would have been enough to change the final outcome, but it definitely would have pushed some votes.<\/p>\n
So, now that we are stuck with it, what does it mean for the state. Well, to put it bluntly it really, really stinks. That being said, it looks like fees currently in place will probably remain unscathed. But not all:<\/p>\n
Initial word is that many fees won’t be affected. But veteran municipal lawyer Michael G. Colantuono said the proposition is likely to bring significant change in a handful of cases.<\/p>\n
Colantuono, part of a League of California Cities task force analyzing Proposition 26, said the measure could affect fees charged by public power utilities, park districts and business improvement districts, to name a few.(SacBee<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
But, want to use a fee to help out some poor folks? Well, screw you. It starts getting very murky in this realm, with the potential for a lot of litigation to come on these questions. What counts as a benefit? How much of the benefit has to go to the payors? And so on…<\/p>\n
Oh, and as an added bonus for PG&E and CalEdison, it just gave them a boost over muni providers. Because muni electric providers fees are government fees, they can’t charge a fee to provide service for the poor, like private providers can. Yatzee for them I suppose.<\/p>\n
Look for a lot more to come out about what this breaks, and what it doesn’t over the next few years.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Peruse the contributor list to the Yes on 26 campaign, and you’ll see a who’s who of corporate “baddies”. Tobacco, oil, you get the gist. If there was a company that I’ve written about with “Big” preceding the name, I’m pretty sure that they contributed to the campaign. And to the other side, they got few, if any, grassroots contributions. It was a campaign of, by, and for the big corporations. Unfortunately, the No on 26 campaign just didn’t have the resources to get that message out. I’m not sure that would have been enough to change the final outcome, but it definitely would have pushed some votes.<\/p>\n
So, now that we are stuck with it, what does it mean for the state. Well, to put it bluntly it really, really stinks. That being said, it looks like fees currently in place will probably remain unscathed. But not all:<\/p>\n
Initial word is that many fees won’t be affected. But veteran municipal lawyer Michael G. Colantuono said the proposition is likely to bring significant change in a handful of cases.<\/p>\n