Proposition 70 -- NO
Vote Requirement to Use Cap-and-Trade Revenue
California
Proposition 70 is on the June ballot as a legislatively referred
constitutional amendment. If approved, this amendment will require a
one-time two-thirds vote in each chamber of the state legislature in
2024 or thereafter to pass a spending plan for revenue from the state's
cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases.
We
completely oppose this Proposition and urge a NO vote on it, because
this was a bill designed to give the Republicans in the California
Legislature more power on how to spend the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
proceeds that pour into the state coffers from the polluters. This
measure was only agreed to be put onto the ballot by the Governor in
order to gain a couple of Republican votes on the cap-and-trade bill
last year, and it is a terrible idea, essentially putting the fox in
charge of the henhouse. We see enough of that at the Federal level
these days, and do not need any more at the State Level.
Further,
at a moment where we need nimble investments in climate change
solutions, the 2/3 requirement this bill would impose would most
definitely lead to more gridlock and bad deals, vs. cleaning up the
state's energy, transport, food production, and other greenhouse gas
related sectors.
To quote
in this case the California Democratic party: "A two-thirds vote gives
polluters more leverage in how cap-and-trade funding is spent after
2024. The fact is, ACA 1 itself was a part of a deal to get a two-thirds
vote for the cap-and-trade extension. When a two-thirds vote was
required to approve California's budget, legislative hostage-taking,
gimmicks and pork barrel spending were part and parcel of the process."
A DEFINITE NO.
-- Sources:
https://lwvc.org/news/our- positions-june-5-2018- election-ballot-measures