California Proposition 86, Cigarette Taxes (2006)
|Voting on Tobacco|
|Not on ballot|
The ballot title was:
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?"
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.
- 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.
Arguments for the initiative
- Will prevent teen smoking
- Will lower amount of cigarettes consumed each year
- Will provide health insurance for children
- Is endorsed by major anti-smoking groups
Main proponent: Carolyn Rhee Chair American Cancer Society, California Division
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 
Donors for the campaign for the measure:
- 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
- Official California Voter Pamphlet information about Proposition 86
- PDF of the mailed November 7, 2006 voter guide for Proposition 86
- Proposition 86 in the Smart Voter Guide
- Analysis of Proposition 86 from the Institute of Governmental Studies
- Guide to Proposition 86 from the California Voter Foundation
- Summary of donors to and against 86 from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 86 from Follow The Money
- Official declaration of the November 7, 2006 results on ballot propositions
- Orange County Register, "Prop. 86 a tax increase nonstarter", August 18, 2006
- Robert A. Levy, Cato Institute, "High tobacco taxes won't make the problem go away", March 20, 1999