Voters looked beyond the price tag of the initiative. At this moment, voters are approving Prop 1A (High Speed Rail Bond) with a 51% Yes vote. The taxpayer cost for Prop 1A is nearly twice that of Prop 10, and the Yes on 1A campaign had little money. The same voters are rejecting Prop 10 and its $23 million war chest in a landslide. Clearly voters considered not only the costs of bond measures – they weighed their merits and looked at the endorsements for and against the measures, and made discerning judgments.

“California voters didn’t fall for a Texas oil tycoon’s $10 billion money grab, no matter how much he spent camouflaging it as green,” stated Richard Holober, spokesman for the No on Prop 10 campaign, and Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. “Proposition 10 is the ultimate example of a wealthy special interest abusing the ballot initiative process to enrich itself.  We built a coalition of major environmental, consumer, business, labor, taxpayer and civic organizations that triumphed over Prop 10’s $23 million war chest.  The defeat of Prop 10 sends a signal that California’s ballot initiative process is not for sale to the highest bidder.”

Mr. Pickens’ Clean Energy Fuels Corporation contributed nearly $19 million to the Yes on Prop 10 campaign. Chesapeake Energy and its owner Aubrey McClendon donated $3.5 million to the Yes on 10 campaign. Clean Energy is the nation’s largest operator of natural gas fueling stations, and Chesapeake is the largest independent producer of natural gas in the U.S.  Both corporations would have made a fortune under Prop 10’s multibillion dollar giveaway program to create a market for natural gas-fueled trucks. The No on Prop 10 campaign raised about $170,000.

The defeat of Proposition 10 is the first test of voter support for the self-styled “Pickens Plan.”  News reports state that Mr. Pickens has spent $58 million on national television ads since July promoting his plan. One key component of his plan is the conversion of vehicles to run on natural gas. Pickens Plan ads do not spell out who pays for this conversion, and who benefits from it.

“Proposition 10 pulled back the veil from the Pickens Plan, and revealed that taxpayers would be hit hard with the cost of funding giveaways designed to put money in Mr. Pickens’ pockets.  The Pickens’ Plan flunked the smell test with California voters,” Holober stated.

Nearly 40 daily newspapers have editorialized against Prop 10, while not a single one has come out in favor.

In fact, the No on 10 coalition is one of the most broad based in history, including such diverse organizations as the League of Women Voters, the California Taxpayers Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Labor Federation, the California Federation of Teachers, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Latino Issues Forum, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association among many others.

The video can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_BDn4hiZY0

Of course the facts are quite different, and simple: Obama hasn’t taken a position on Prop 10, and it bears no resemblance to his energy plan. So, we issued a letter today to Yes on 10 Campaign Manager Marty Wilson and Chair Alison Hart demanding an immediate public retraction!

The email by the Yes folks was sent to Democratic voters, with the subject line: “From One Obama Voter to Another – Yes on Prop 10”. The email then goes on to say, “On November 4th, we will go to the polls and make history. Senator Obama has called for a $15 billion investment in alternative energy. You can support the Obama Energy Plan by voting Yes on Proposition 10.”

So we responded by stating, “Senator Obama has not endorsed Proposition 10. This email is a deliberate attempt by your campaign to mislead voters by associating Senator Obama with Proposition 10. It was timed to mislead voters in the closing days of the election, making it almost impossible for the misinformation to be corrected on the public record before Election Day. We demand that your campaign issue an immediate public retraction of this email message.”

Stay tuned!

Despite spending $22 million to buy an election, they can’t even rely on the support of the people who appear in their ads! The child actor who appears with a pinwheel in front of wind turbines in Prop 10 TV and print ads is asking voters to reject Prop 10. 

So there is no misunderstanding, Emma (her parents asked us not to disclose her last name) filmed some stock footage for a video library company three years ago. The Yes on Prop 10 campaign paid the video company to use this footage, and that is perfectly fine.

Watch her video in our multimedia section.

But when Emma and her parents saw that her image was being used for a campaign that they OPPOSED, they decided to speak out, and that is also perfectly fine.

Emma’s mother teaches special education in the Sacramento area. She and her family are concerned that the $10 billion price tag for Prop 10 will result in cuts to our schools and other vital services, while delivering only a false promise of environmental benefit.

They join a chorus of environmental, business, labor, taxpayer, consumer and civic organizations that are unanimous in OPPOSING Prop 10.

Prop 10 support consists of T Boone Pickens and his $19 million in donations funneled through his Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, Chesapeake Energy and its $2.5 million in donations, along with a handful of paid Yes on 10 spokespersons.

Clean Energy Fuels Corp. dominates the natural gas fueling station industry. Chesapeake is a major natural gas producer.  Both stand to make a fortune if Prop 10 is approved by voters.

T. Boone Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels Corporation (formerly Pickens Fuel). Clean Energy Fuels Corp. wrote Proposition 10. It dominates the natural gas vehicle fueling station business.

“Clean Energy Fuels is a small company that loses money every year. How can it afford to lavish $19 million on a ballot measure?” asked Richard Holober, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. “The answer is simple: Instead of investing in research and development, Mr. Pickens’ Clean Energy is investing in buying an election. This massive political spending by a small company is proof that passage of Proposition 10 would be a bonanza for Mr. Pickens.”

The central program in Prop 10 is a $2.5 billion giveaway to trucking companies to subsidize purchases of natural gas-fueled trucks. Trucks that qualify for rebates under Prop 10 are permitted to emit air pollution at levels identical to petroleum or diesel-fueled trucks. It is estimated that Prop 10 will increase natural gas vehicle sales in California by 500%. Most trucks subsidized by Prop 10 will fill up at Mr. Pickens’ gas stations.

Environmental groups including the California League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Environment California have urged voters to Vote No on Proposition 10.  Over 30 daily newspapers have editorialized against Prop 10.

Prop 10 has not earned the endorsement of a single newspaper editorial board, and is opposed by a broad based coalition of environmental, consumer, business, taxpayer, labor and civic organizations, including: the League of Women Voters, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Labor Federation, the California Federation of Teachers, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Latino Issues Forum, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association among many others.

“While Proposition 10 appears to be a measure to improve our air and protect the global environment, its public subsidies are heavily skewed toward building markets for an energy source that could increase global warming emissions. 

Under Proposition 10, natural gas cars and trucks would be exempt from air pollution and greenhouse gas reduction requirements, placing them first in line for billions of dollars in taxpayer-financed rebates.  Because U.S. natural gas reserves are declining and natural gas will soon be imported from Asia in liquid form, Proposition 10 is likely to result in higher carbon and smog-forming emissions than other domestic fuel strategies now being developed by researchers and industry engineers, such as cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells and renewable electricity.

It gets worse. Proposition 10 provides no assurance that taxpayer-subsidized vehicles will remain in California.  The measure requires us to finance rebates of up to $50,000 per vehicle with no safeguard that any vehicle or accrued benefit will remain in California.  The proposition requires the rebates to be processed in a few days with minimal government oversight.  That is no deal for California taxpayers who will be paying off this measure’s $10 billion dollars in added debt over the next 30 years.

Unlike many other vehicle incentive programs already in effect throughout the State, Proposition 10 does not require that older, higher polluting vehicles be retired or replaced in exchange for rebates.  That is an obvious and serious flaw, further indicating to me that Proposition 10’s real motive is not reducing air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions, but building markets for natural gas vehicles.”

Background:

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency. The mission of CARB is to promote and protect public health, welfare and ecological resources through the effective and efficient reduction of air pollutants while recognizing and considering the effects on the economy of the state.

Mary D. Nichols was appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as Chair of the California Air Resources Board in July 2007. She returns to the Air Board 30 years after serving as CARB Chair from 1978 to 1983. Nichols has devoted her entire career in public and private, not-for-profit service to advocating for the environment and public health. She has held a number of positions, including: assistant administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Air and Radiation program under the Clinton Administration, Secretary for California’s Resources Agency from 1999 to 2003, and Director of the University of California, Los Angeles Institute of the Environment.

Prop 10 is a $5 billion bond measure on the November ballot. The taxpayer cost to repay the bonds is $10 billion over 30 years. Prop 10 was written and paid for by Clean Energy Fuels Corp, a company owned by Texas oil tycoon T. Bone Pickens. A broad based coalition of environmental, consumer, business, taxpayer, labor and civic organizations opposes Prop 10. 29 newspapers have editorialized against Prop 10. Prop 10 has not earned the endorsement of a single newspaper editorial board or independent environmental group.

Learn more at:  www.stopprop10.org

The editorial reads in part: “T. Boone Pickens is a shrewd investor; you don’t become a billionaire if you’re not. And right now, Pickens is betting on the gullibility of California voters. Last week, Pickens contributed an additional $3 million to Proposition 10, the clean-energy initiative that would make the oilman turned green energy promoter even richer. That brings the contributions he’s made through his company, Clean Energy Fuels Corp., to $10 million.

…Opponents of Proposition 10 include many environmental groups, labor unions and consumer groups. But their voices are being swamped by the TV ads paid for by Pickens. Pro-Proposition 10 has raised $13 million, 200 times the amount contributed by the opponents defending the taxpayer. That’s why we feel compelled to say once again: No on 10.’

Click here to read the entire editorial.

“In our judgment as California’s chief financial officers, Proposition 10 is harmful to California’s financial health. Every major conservation group agrees that Proposition 10 is misguided environmental policy.  But Proposition 10 is worse than that. Proposition 10 is an unwise effort to put our state government five billion dollars further in debt.

California is facing record deficits and soaring public bond debt.  It is always bad policy to use long-term bonds to fund generous short term private benefits going to a relative handful of corporations and individuals, as Proposition 10 proposes to do. General obligation bonds with a thirty year repayment period should be used for capital improvements that benefit all Californians – for building schools, universities, roads, bridges and other permanent structures that serve the general public – not to pay for non-durable products for fewer than one percent of Californians, as Proposition 10 would do.

Today, especially given our state government’s precarious financial situation, Proposition 10 is a very bad investment.  We urge a NO vote on Proposition 10.” 

Bill Lockyer                                                  John Chiang
California State Treasurer                           California State Controller

Background: Proposition 10 is a $5 billion bond measure that will appear on the November ballot. The taxpayer cost to repay the bonds is $10 billion over 30 years. Prop 10 was written and paid for by Clean Energy Fuels Corp, a company owned by Texas oil tycoon T. Bone Pickens. A broad based coalition of environmental, consumer, business, taxpayer, labor and civic organizations opposes Prop 10, pointing out that the initiative does nothing to clean up our environment, and that it will enrich Mr. Pickens and interstate trucking companies at the expense of our schools, public safety, health and other vital services that must be cut to pay for the bonds.

“The attempt by California’s Prop10 to legislate into existence a market for natural gas vehicles would unnecessarily add pressure to drill and is a poor investment in times of scarce public dollars,” said Roland Hwang, NRDC’s vehicles policy director.