Local ballot measures in Arizona, California, Idaho, Oregon and Wisconsin
Read the Tuesday Count!
Kimball Petition Management
| Petition Companies |
|---|
|
Contents |
Position on initiative rights
In July 2006, Kimball argued against legislative proposals in California to forbid paying petitioners by the signature.[2]
Petition drives conducted by KPM
2014
- Justification of Health Insurance Rates: $1,727,811.
2012
- Proposition 28: $1,424,087
- Proposition 30: $8,773,490
- Proposition 34: $1,418,122
2010
- Proposition 24: $1,587,364
- Proposition 25: $2,626,808
- Proposition 27: $3,031,085
2008
- California Proposition 11, $2,332,988.[3],[4],[5]
- California Proposition 93. $2,238,537.89.[6]
2006
- California Proposition 82. $1,616,513.[7]
- California Proposition 84. $1,043,484.[8]
- California Proposition 87. $2,217,617.[9]
2005
- California Proposition 79. $4,635,466.[10]
- California Proposition 80. $4,839,466.[11]
1996
- California Proposition 217. $207,521.[12]
Petition blocking alleged
In February 2010, Repair California sent a cease-and-desist letter to Kimball Petition Management, alleging that the firm was engaged in a petition blocking effort to make it harder for Repair California to collect signatures on its California Call for a Limited Constitutional Convention (2010) and California Electors Right to Call for Constitutional Convention Act (2010) proposals. Alleged petition-blocking activities include include "shouting down ... volunteers, destroying valid signatures and intentionally submitting fake signatures."[13]
Fred Kimball, owner of the firm, said that he does oppose the initiatives and indicated to a newspaper that he has warned "the independent supervisors who manage signature-gatherers that he will blacklist them if they work for the constitutional-convention measures."[14]
Petition drives for failed/withdrawn initiatives
According to Mike Antonucci, writing in 2005, the California Teachers Association "keeps paying Kimball's firm to go out and gather signatures for the same ballot initiative, which it then drops once the signatures are gathered. For the second time in 16 months, CTA spent millions in member money for signatures on a petition to place a commercial property tax hike on the state ballot – this time for June 2006 – only to ditch the idea with a lame cover story."[15]
External links
- Kimball Petition Management website of the firm.
References
- ↑ Washington Post, "Collecting Signatures for a Price", April 12, 1988
- ↑ Lawmakers try to reform signature gathering, July 21, 2006
- ↑ Expenditure detail for Voters First
- ↑ Expenditure detail for the California Dream Team
- ↑ The governor, the money, and Prop. 11
- ↑ Expenditures by 'Yes on 93'
- ↑ Expenditure detail for Yes on 82
- ↑ Expenditure detail for Yes on 84
- ↑ Expenditure detail for Yes on 87
- ↑ Expenditure detail for Yes on 79
- ↑ Expenditure detail for Yes on 80
- ↑ Public employee unions fuel Proposition 217 campaign
- ↑ Contra Costa Times, "Constitutional Convention advocates cry foul", February 5, 2010
- ↑ The Economist, "Sign here", February 4, 2010
- ↑ Education Intelligence Agency, "Union members pay $2.1 million for dropped CTA initiative", August 8, 2005
