Why is Lyft bankrolling this California ballot measure on electric cars (San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 8, 2022)? Following on the heels of Proposition 22, which precludes its drivers from receiving benefits, Proposition 30 will allow Lyft to continue to externalize its costs, this time to the rest of us. 

Will a subsidy for electric cars help the environment? EVs definitely reduce the carbon emissions created by gas powered vehicles. But the proliferation of single occupancy vehicles of any kind creates a host of problems, from habitat destruction caused by highway expansion to particulate pollution caused by tire wear. A much better use of public money would be to expand, improve, and electrify public transportation, and have fewer cars on the road.

Taxing high incomes at a higher rate is progressive taxation, a fair way to fund the things we need: public projects like transit systems, environmental restoration, universal health care, free child care and higher education. We should not use it to ensure profits for Lyft and the auto industry by subsidizing private cars. Vote NO on Proposition 30.

The Suds, Snacks & Socialism monthly forum series, co-sponsored by the Alamada County Peace & Freedom Party, the Oakland Greens, and Bay Area System Change Not Climate Change, in October focused on the topic California Propositions Demystified.

At the forum, three PFP State Central Committee members spoke on the various ballot propositions to be voted on in California on or by November 8, 2022: Marsha Feinland on Props 1, 28, 29 and 31; David Landry on Props 26 and 27; and David Campbell on Prop 30.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mZ_fbwG46o

The Peace and Freedom Party Alameda County chapter has announced its recommendations for voting on the following ballot measures which will be on November 8, 2022 ballots in the cities of Berkeley and Oakland. For more information on each ballot measure, click on the respective link.

Berkeley ballot measures

• Measure L: Affordable housing and infrastructure bond: Vote NO.
• Measure M: Vacancy tax. Vote YES.
• Measure N: Authorizing low-income housing. Vote YES.

Oakland ballot measures

• Measure R: Charter Amendment regarding non-gendered language. Vote YES.
• Measure S: Non-citizen voting. Vote YES.
• Measure T: Progressive and equitable Oakland gross receipts tax. Vote YES.
• Measure U: Affordable housing infrastructure board. Vote YES.
• Measure V: Expand Just Cause eviction ordinance. Vote YES.
• Measure W: Establish public financing for Oakland elections. Vote YES.

The Peace and Freedom Party Sacramento County Central Committee has decided to support one and oppose three measures on the November ballot in Sacramento County.

• Measure A: the Roads and Air Quality Sales Tax Initiative
While this measure provides money for needed causes, sales taxes are regressive and fall heavily on workers and the poor. Vote NO on Measure A.

• Measure B: the Marijuana Tax for Homeless Services Measure
Another bad tax for a good purpose. Cannabis is already taxed too much. Vote NO on Measure B.

• Measure D: the Low-Income Housing Measure
Even though this measure only “authorizes” the government to act on development of low-income housing, we support it anyway. Now let’s pressure government actually to do something! Vote YES on Measure D.

• Measure O: Homeless Persons Shelter and Encampment Measure
One part is good, and three or four parts are bad. Housing, drug, and mental health services are needed, but certainly not more “enforcement.” The cons outweigh the pros. Vote NO on Measure O.

Aaron Reveles is an at-large officer on the Peace and Freedom Party State Committee, as well as an active member of the Los Angeles County Committee & Statewide Media Committee. He has dedicated his party work to rebuilding bridges with old comrades that have once been burnt, as well as building new bridges with the plethora of socialist groups that have been popping up after the 2020 election cycle.

Aaron hails from the east side of Los Angeles, earning degrees in History from the University of California Santa Barbara and a Master’s of Science in Education (M.Ed.) from the Johns Hopkins School of Education. He is currently a teacher with the Los Angeles Unified School district.

On why he is running for a seat on the Montebello Unified School Board, Aaron states, “As a teacher and a community organizer, I see how both educational and political policy affects my students, whether inside or outside of the classroom. I have learned both in study and practice that students in poverty cannot learn until their basic needs are met.

“I am running because I can bring ideas to the table that will meet not only student's educational needs, but also their basic needs."

If you would like to help Aaron in our efforts to build a mass base of support for our party at the local level please follow his campaign, sign up to volunteer for phonebanking, and/or donate to his campaign via Linktree by clicking here.

In Solidarity,

Peace and Freedom Party of Los Angeles County

Proposition 29 would require a medical professional, specifically a physician, nurse practitioner or physician's assistant with relevant experience, to be present at dialysis clinics all times. Additionally, all dialysis clinics of which 5% or more are owned by any in-house physician would be required to disclose this information publicly.

 The healthcare unions that are backing Proposition 29 hope to enact some long-overdue safety and health improvements at the clinics while stopping clinic owners from hiding their ownership and dodging reasonable regulation. 

The backers will be immensely outspent by the two corporations that own most California private dialysis clinics (DaVita Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care), who are using their usual tactic against the proposition:  telling outrageous lies.  These companies claim Prop 29 will shut down clinics (it won't), and they claim it will reduce the level of care (in fact, it will improve the level of care). 

Sadly, lying in advertisements against propositions is perfectly legal in California, and the tactic worked in 2018 and 2020 on the same issue. This is an entirely good and entirely positive proposition, and it would pass if voters understood it. 

Fight against the lies. Vote YES on Proposition 29.

In Election 2022 in California, Proposition 31 ia a referendum bankrolled by tobacco industry with the intention of overturning a law passed by the California legislature in 2020. Voting YES will allow the law to take effect.

Over the last few years, tobacco corporations have evaded the ban on selling tobacco products to minors by selling flavored preparations. They calculate that these are are so attractive to children that they will find ways to obtain them, and become addicted for life to nicotine.

In 2020, the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 793 (SB-793), which banned the sale of most flavored tobacco products. The few exceptions are products used almost entirely by adults, like expensive flavored cigars. As the bill’s sponsor said, “Using candy, fruit, and other alluring flavors, the tobacco industry weaponized its tactics to beguile a new generation into tobacco addiction.”

SB 793 was so popular with the public that only one legislator voted against it. But the tobacco corporations, knowing the public supported the ban, nevertheless found a way to delay its implementation. Under California law, if a referendum against a law qualifies for the ballot, the law cannot be implemented until the voters make their decision. So they paid professional signature-gatherers millions of dollars to get enough signatures to delay the law until the election of November 2022.

How did they get the signatures? They lied. The signature-gatherers told voters that their signatures would qualify for the ballot a law that would ban selling flavored tobacco products! And the disclosure form they are legally required to show potential signers, showing that Philip Morris USA and the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company provided almost all the funding for the referendum, was not shown to the voters.

This law is a good law and should be enacted by the voters now that the delay is over. The tobacco companies have already profited from the two-year delay they paid for, and they may or may not bother to spend more money on lying ads against Proposition 31. But a vote to uphold the law will keep these conscienceless corporations from continuing to sell these products, and an overwhelming vote may help convince the legislators to take further actions that will cut into their ill-gotten gains.

This health and safety measure is the sort of law that Californians need and support, and we urge a vote of YES on Proposition 31.

Ballot Proposition 28 would create a dedicated funding stream for arts programs in the public schools. It would not raise taxes, but instead require that the state match 1% of California’s prekindergarten-through-12th-grade school dollars from the general fund. The funding could not be used to supplant existing arts budgeting.

California’s legislative analyst estimates the set-aside would generate up to $1 billion. Seventy percent of the funding would be distributed to schools based on their enrollment. The remainder would provide additional funding for schools that serve low-income families.

The definition of arts programs is broad, including visual art, music, dance, video and computer art. The funding is for instructors for these programs, as well as for materials. Not more than 1% may be used for administrative purposes.

You could say that this is ballot-box budgeting and that school spending should be determined locally by elected boards or groups of teachers, parents, and students. But that is not how it works in reality. A combination of budget shortfalls and concentration on “teaching to the standardized test” have caused school districts to greatly reduce funding to arts programs.

California’s educational standards include arts instruction, which has known benefits for students’ intellectual and emotional development. At the same time, the state mandates either directly, by decree or indirectly, via rewards and penalties based on test scores, that schools concentrate on reading and math. School districts often require specific numbers of hours for such instruction, leaving little time for anything else. This is especially true in low-income areas where test scores tend to be lower.

Wealthier families can afford music and art instruction and experiences for their children outside of school. Music and art instruction have been demonstrated to help children learn in all areas.

Despite its imperfections, this ballot proposition gives voters a chance to decide whether they want California children to get more arts instruction in schools. Peace & Freedom Party urges a YES vote on proposition 28.

As worded on the Election 2022 ballot, Proposition 1 would enact an amendment to California’s constitution explicitly prohibiting the state from interfering with or denying an individual’s reproductive freedom. The California Supreme Court has in the past ruled that the right to abortion is implicit because the right to privacy is explicit in the state constitution. Recent events have shown that we need to make the right to get an abortion and to obtain and use contraceptives explicit.

This will be one of five abortion-related measures on the ballot in 2022 nationally after the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in June. The amendment provided for in Prop 1 would read:

“The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”

Currently, millions of individuals in California have the right to an abortion and to choose their own contraceptives. If Prop 1 does not pass, millions of individuals will be at risk of being denied essential medicine: Common contraceptives used to treat inflammation, arthritis, psoriasis, and abnormal menstrual cycles will no longer be accessible. Pregnancy complications that could lead to maternal mortality are also expected to increase if a ban on abortion rights is passed.

The November vote comes on the heels of the victory in Kansas for abortion rights, which saw a 250% increase in early voter turnout compared to the 2018 midterm election. This huge victory is a success for gender equity and for the socialist movement everywhere in the U.S.

Unsurprisingly, Prop 1 has received opposition from conservative “pro-life” organizations such as Democrats for Life of America, California Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Republican Party of California, and various directors of the so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

Although California appears to be a progressive state, leaning towards accepting reproductive freedom as healthcare and a fundamental right, a NO vote will place millions of individuals in dangerous situations. Let’s go all-out for abortion rights, because abortion is healthcare and essential. Vote YES on Proposition 1!

Two propositions on the November ballot address the seemingly inevitable legalization of sports betting in California – 33 state governments have done so since the Supreme Court decision of May 2018 invalidating the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. The aims and ends of Propositions 26 and 27 could not be more different, however.

Proposition 26: Vote YES for Native American economic sovereignty
Under current California law, Native American tribes have a near monopoly on providing casino gaming. The tribal casinos are not privately owned; they are owned by the local tribal governments, and the profits go for their social needs. Proposition 26 would allow sports betting in the state of California, but only in locations currently providing casino games.

According to the OC Register of August 19, 2022, the California state government has established gaming compacts with 79 tribes; agreements with another four are pending. Sixty-six casinos operated by 63 tribes are currently open for business in California. In 2021, these 63 tribes paid approximately $65 million in regulatory fees and in support of gambling addiction programs and "tens of millions" in local taxation. Another $150 million is redistributed from the state’s bigger gaming providers to those tribes who host 350 slot machines or fewer.

Proposition 27: Vote NO to keep revenue in California
Proposition 27 would allow online sports betting within California state limits, while putting a 10% tax on sports betting revenues and licensing fees. It is written, sponsored and bankrolled by some private gambling corporations, and these corporations would take in at least 90% of the money from web-based sports betting that would represent a huge expansion of gambling in California. An undefined portion of the 10% will be divided 85/15 and devoted to the California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Account and the Tribal Economic Development Account, respectively.

Pragmatically speaking, if Proposition 27 were to pass, online sports betting would be available to all Californians with an internet connection as soon as January 1, 2023. As has typically been the case in the state-by-state legalization of sports betting, certain New Jersey-based operators have a massive head start over any competition with their turnkey sportsbook sites.

And, since a maximum of 1.5% will be peripherally invested in California’s Tribal Economic Development Account, we can easily calculate that for every $100 million in profit that online sports betting generates, the state’s tribes will get to share $1.5 million. For comparison’s sake, the state of New York, with a similar-sized sports betting market, receives about $110 million in its share of revenue from online sports betting per month. Similar numbers would result in a total of about $20 million to the tribal account and about $112 million for homelessness. To put this in perspective, the state of California has spent an average of $6 billion per year on the homelessness issue for the past five years. And that has not put much of a dent in the housing shortage.

To top everything off, a group of interests funded by Penn Interactive Ventures, FBG Enterprises Opco LLC and Bet MGM are backing a mammoth advertising campaign loaded with Orwellian-style mistruths. For example, they claim that there is strong protection against under-age gambling in Prop 27 (there isn’t) and say that Prop 26 provides no such protection. Nonsense: under-age people are not allowed into the tribal casinos. Further, Prop 26 would not expand the gambling locations, just the nature of some of the games.

The truth is that at least 50 Native American tribes, six homelessness/low-income advocacy groups, three workers’ unions along with dozens of organizations from across the state oppose Prop 27.

A majority of the states now have some form of legal sports betting. There are two models for it: the tribal model and the corporate model. This choice between Props 26 and 27 gives us a vote on which model will be adopted in California. Sports betting is coming, sooner or later. Let’s keep it in the tribal casinos, and freeze the corporate liars out.

Stand with the Native American tribes of California and for their economic sovereignty. Vote YES on Proposition 26 and vote NO on Proposition 27.