Difference between revisions of "California Proposition 86, Cigarette Taxes (2006)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Arguments for the initiative)
(Support)
Line 50: Line 50:
 
==Support==
 
==Support==
  
 +
[[File:Yes on 86.PNG|thumb|500px|Website banner of the "Yes on 86" campaign]]
 
===Supporters===
 
===Supporters===
  

Revision as of 06:14, 10 July 2011

Voting on Tobacco
Tobacco money.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
California Proposition 86 was on the November 7, 2006 ballot in California as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute, where it was defeated.

Proposition 86 was intended to increase the tax on cigarettes with revenues from the tax going to various services such as hospital care for children and anti-smoking campaigns.

Election results

Proposition 86
Result Votes Percentage
Defeatedd No 4,425,689 51.7%
Yes 4,136,358 48.3%


Ballot language

Title

The ballot title was:

Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Question

Proposition 86 2006.PNG

The question on the ballot was:

"Should the state impose an additional tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack to fund new and expanded health services, health insurance for children, and expanded tobacco use prevention programs?"

Summary

The official summary provided to describe Proposition 86 said:

  • Imposes additional 13 cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($2.60 per pack), and indirectly increases tax on other tobacco products.
  • Provides funding to qualified hospitals for emergency services, nursing education and health insurance to eligible children.
  • Revenue also allocated to specified purposes including tobacco-use-prevention programs, enforcement of tobacco-related laws, and research, prevention, treatment of various conditions including cancers (breast, cervical, prostate, colorectal), heart disease, stroke, asthma and obesity.
  • Exempts recipient hospitals from antitrust laws in certain circumstances.
  • Revenue excluded from appropriation limits and minimum education funding (Proposition 98) calculations.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:

  • Increase in new state tobacco excise tax revenues of about $2.1 billion annually by 2007–08, declining slightly annually thereafter. Those revenues would be spent for various health programs, children’s health coverage, and tobacco-related programs.
  • Unknown net state costs potentially exceeding $100 million annually after a few years due to provisions simplifying state health program enrollment rules and creating a new pilot program for children’s health coverage.
  • Unknown, but potentially significant, savings to the state Medi-Cal Program and counties from a shift of children from other health care coverage to the Healthy Families Program (HFP); potential state costs that could be significant in the long term for ongoing support of expanded HFP enrollment.
  • Unknown, but potentially significant, savings in state and local government public health care costs over time due to various factors, including an expected reduction in consumption of tobacco products.

Support

Website banner of the "Yes on 86" campaign

Supporters

The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 86 were signed by:

  • Carolyn Rhee, chair, American Cancer Society (California Division)
  • P.K. Shah, M.D., president, American Heart Association (Western States Affiliate)
  • Timothy A. Morris, M.D., board member, American Lung Association of California
  • Mila Garcia, R.N., member, American Heart Association (Western States Affiliate)
  • Willie Goffney, M.D., FACS, president, American Cancer Society (California Division 2006–07)
  • Rick Donaldson, Ph.D., RCP, chair, American Lung Association of California

Arguments in favor

The arguments presented in the official voter guide in favor of Proposition 86 were:

  • According to the California Department of Health Services, Proposition 86 will "prevent nearly 180,000 deaths due to smoking among California kids now under the age of 17" and "prevent approximately 120,000 additional deaths due to smoking among current California adult smokers who quit smoking."
  • The Proposition 86 tax increase will "prevent more than 700,000 kids now under the age of 17 from becoming adult smokers" and "120,000 high school students and 30,000 middle school students would either quit or not start smoking."
  • "More than half a million smokers in California would quit smoking."
  • "Californians would consume 312 million fewer packs of cigarettes each year."
  • Because of these declines in the rate of smoking, "nearly $16.5 billion [would be] saved in healthcare costs."
  • State revenues would be increased "by over $2.2 billion per year."

Donors

Arguments against the initiative

  • 40% of money goes to hospitals while less than 10% goes to anti smoking programs
  • Tax increase excessive and unfair
  • Will encourage smuggling of cigarettes, an already large source of income for gangs

Main opponents: Larry McCarthy; President California Taxpayers’ Association, James G Knight MD; Past President San Diego County Medical Society [1]

Campaign finance

Donors for the campaign for the measure:[2]

  • YES ON PROPOSITION 86: $16,357,128
  • TOBACCO FREE KIDS ACTION FUND (YES ON 86): $250,000
  • Total: $16,607,128

Donors for the campaign against the measure:

  • NO ON 86-STOP THE 2 BILLION TAX HIKE: $39,352,501
  • CALIFORNIANS AGAINST UNACCOUNTABLE TAXES: $27,177,258
  • CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF LIBERTY AND CHOICE NO ON PROP 86: $123,140
  • CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ELECTIONS: $30,000
  • Total: $66,682,899
  • Overall Total: $83,290,027

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

As an initiated constitutional amendment, 598,105 valid signatures were required to qualify Proposition 86 for the ballot.

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

Additional reading

References