May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates

Skip To Content

MIPTC Author:


The Sled:

Listed in Latino Who's Who, June 2014
Locations of visitors to this page

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Weblog Comments

Return to the Weblog

Quote of the Day - Motto of the National Sarcasm Society: 'Like we need your support.' - Unknown

Who's Funding The Campaign Against Prop 87, The $400 Million Tax On Oil?

Regular readers know that MIPTC occasionally exhibits some small amount of sarcasm.  I'd say it shows up in just about every post, but that's just me.  Today's post, however, will be a model of restraint.  Let's get started.

Our players today include Californians for Clean Energy, the group that got Prop 87 on the ballot.  On the other side are Californians Against Higher Taxes.  Here's the primer for those among us who are consistently challenged by trying to remember what number stands for which Proposition and whether we're supposed to vote for or against it and which election we're supposed to vote in:  CCE is the link for those who support Prop 87, and CAHT is the link for those who oppose Prop 87. 

If you're measuring the effect of Prop 87 in dollars, it will impose a $400 million tax on oil companies.  Call me silly, but my guess is that the net effect of the tax will be passed on to you and me.  Sure, oil company profits are soaring, but perhaps a better alternative would be to buy stock in the oil companies, not tax them. 

I'm just looking out for our collective pocketbooks.

On the other hand, if you're measuring the effect of Prop 87 for the environment, it looks like the money will be well spent. 

I'm just looking out for our environment.


The Californians for Clean Energy want to clear up your confusion, so they sued to make Californians Against Higher Taxes reveal the two biggest entities who are donating money to the cause.

Now unless you've been on Pluto, which by the way is no longer a planet and plans to bring suit against the scientists who de-planetized it (another story for another day), the you likely already have the answer that Californians for Clean Energy want you to know.

Let's see.  What do we know so far?  Prop 87 wants to tax oil companies some $400 million dollars.  A group called Californians Against Higher Taxes opposes the Proposition and has started a media campaign to kill the Proposition.

Who do you think supports Californians Against Higher Taxes?  I'll go out a limb here and venture a guess that it's the OIL COMPANIES? 

Just a guess.

Posted by J. Craig Williams on 9/16/2006 at 12:17 Comments (1)



Comments by Ted Green from United States on Monday, September 18, 2006 at 00:23

Prop. 87 is a $4 Billion tax on oil production in California. Not $400 million and it's not a tax on oil company profits.
You are correct it's opposed by oil producers in California.
But you failed to mention its opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Taxpayers' Association, the California NAACP, the California State Association of Counties, the California Contract Cities Association, the California Professional Firefighters, the California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations and The Seniors Coalition.
According to California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst, passage of Prop. 87 would reduce California's state general fund and would reduce local property tax revenues.
87 would authorize a new state bureaucracy with 50 political appointees and allows them to operate outside the state budget review process and the normal checks and balances that govern other agencies.
It lets them sell billions of dollars in bonds they may not be able to repay, would could force a state bailout at taxpayer expense.
Moreover, Prop. 87 doesn't even require they spend all the new taxes in California, much less in the U.S.
It's a 30-plus page initiative and one worth reading.


Comments are now closed.

Send your comments directly to the author at jcraigwms at (remove spaces and add @ symbol in place of the "at").