Green Party of Santa Clara County
- Ballot Measures 2006 -

RECOMMENDATIONS ON BALLOT PROPOSITIONS
ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2006

The pros and cons of Proposition 89, "Clean Money", are listed below.

Measure	Position	Title or Description
1A	YES	Transportation Funding Protection
1B	NO	Highways "Terrorism" Spending
1C	YES	Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act
1D	YES	Education Facilities Bond
1E	YES	Disaster Preparedness Bond
83	NO	Increase Sex Offenders Punishment and Monitoring
84	YES	Water Quality and Parks Bond
85	NO	Parental Notification Before Minor Can Obtain An Abortion
86	YES	Cigarette Tax Increase
87	YES	Alternative Energy Funding; Oil Companies Tax
88	No Position taken	Education Funding by Statewide Parcel Tax
89	No Position taken	Public Funding of Campaigns - "Clean Money"
90	NO	Eminent Domain Restrictions

Argument For Proposition 89

Despite its flaws, Proposition 89 would allow smaller parties' candidates who collect
their minimum number of $5 contributions to qualify for much larger funding.

That would provide more campaign funds than any Green Party candidate had
been able to raise in the past.

If a Green Party candidate received 10% of the votes in the General Election, the
Green Party candidate for the same office would qualify for the larger amount of
funding in the next election cycle.

Argument Against Proposition 89

While the proposition would be a step forward in reducing corruptive influence of
special interest money in elections we are troubled by the unequal treatment of
minor parties.

Under this proposal, minor parties have to cross a higher threshold than major
parties but would only receive half the funding. We have serious concerns over
the "second class citizen" treatment of minor party candidates.

Search > Green Parties > North America > California > Santa Clara County

Green Party of Santa Clara County - Ballot Measures 2006 -

Green Party of Santa Clara County
- Ballot Measures 2006 -