Misplaced Pages

2006 California Proposition 89

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
(Redirected from Proposition 89)

Elections in California
Federal government
U.S. President
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
State governmentExecutive
Governor
Lieutenant governor
Attorney general
Secretary of state
Treasurer
Controller
Insurance commissioner
Superintendent
Board of equalization

Legislature
Senate
Assembly

Judiciary
Court of appeals

Elections by year
State propositions
1910–1919
1960–1969
1970–1979
1980–1989
1990–1999
2000–2009
2010–2019
2020–2029

Full list
Los Angeles CountyLos Angeles County
Board of supervisors
Ballot measures
  • 1980
  • 2008
  • 2012
  • 2016
Elections

Los Angeles
Mayor
City attorney
Ballot measures
  • 1986
  • 2017
Elections

Long Beach
Mayor
Orange CountyOrange County
Board of supervisors
District attorney

Anaheim
Mayor

Irvine
Mayor

Costa Mesa
Municipal
Sacramento
Mayor
San Diego CountySan Diego County
Board of supervisors

San Diego
Mayor
City attorney
City council
San Francisco
Mayor
District attorney
Board of supervisors
Board of education
Ballot measures
  • 2024
Elections
San Jose
Mayor
Other localities
Bakersfield

Mayoral elections:

Fresno

Mayoral elections:

Oakland

Mayoral elections:

Riverside

Mayoral elections:

San Bernardino

Mayoral elections:

Stockton

Mayoral elections:

Proposition 89 was a failed 2006 California ballot initiative that would have offered clean elections centered on campaign finance reform.

Main points of Proposition 89

  • Would levy a 0.2% tax on all businesses to help pay for clean money elections
  • Limits corporations to spending no more than $10,000 on initiatives
  • Provides limited public funds for qualified candidates who agree to take no private money so they can serve their constituents free of obligation to the big donors.
  • Bans contributions from lobbyists to politicians.
  • Lawmakers can be removed from office or jailed for violating the policy, up to 5 years in jail and $25,000 fine.
  • A YES vote on this measure means:

Candidates for state offices could choose to receive public funds to pay for the costs of campaigns if they meet certain requirements. Candidates not accepting public funds would be subject to lower contribution limits than currently. The tax rate on corporations and financial institutions would be increased to pay for the public financing of political campaigns.

  • A NO vote on this measure means:

Candidates for state offices would continue to pay for their campaigns with private funds subject to current contribution limits. The tax rate on corporations and financial institutions would not change.

Election results

The proposition was defeated in the November 2006 elections.

  • Yes: 25.7% - 2,124,728
  • No : 74.3% - 6,132,618

See also

External resources


Stub icon

This article about the politics of California is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it.

Categories:
2006 California Proposition 89 Add topic