Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
California Proposition 28, Cigarette Tax Repeal Initiative (March 2000)
| California Proposition 28 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date March 7, 2000 | |
| Topic Tobacco | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 28 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on March 7, 2000. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported eliminating the $0.50 per-pack excise tax on cigarettes and the equivalent tax on other tobacco products imposed by Proposition 10 of 1988 and eliminate the California Children and Families First Trust Fund once all previously collected taxes under Proposition 10 were appropriated and expended. |
A "no" vote opposed eliminating the $0.50 per-pack excise tax on cigarettes and the equivalent tax on other tobacco products imposed by Proposition 10 of 1988 and eliminate the California Children and Families First Trust Fund once all previously collected taxes under Proposition 10 were appropriated and expended. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 28 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 2,017,425 | 27.83% | ||
|
|
5,230,734 | 72.17% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 28 would have eliminated some provisions of Proposition 10, the "First 5 Early Childhood Cigarette Tax" approved by voters on November 3, 1988.[1]
Specifically, Proposition 28 would have:[1]
- eliminated the California Children and Families First Trust Fund once all previously collected taxes under Proposition 10 were appropriated and expended;
- eliminated the 50 cents per pack excise tax on cigarettes and the equivalent tax on other tobacco products imposed by Proposition 10, which were effective January 1, 1999; and
- prohibited additional surtaxes on cigarettes or tobacco products unless enacted by the state legislature.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 28 was as follows:
| “ | Repeal of Proposition 10 Tobacco Surtax. Initiative Statute. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• Repeals additional $.50 per pack tax on cigarettes and equivalent increase in state tax on tobacco products previously enacted by Proposition 10 at November 3, 1998, election. • Provides for elimination of funding for Proposition 10 early childhood development and smoking prevention programs. • Prohibits imposition of additional surtaxes on distribution of cigarettes or tobacco products unless enacted by state legislature. • Provides for termination of California Children and Families First Trust Fund once all previously collected taxes under Proposition 10 are appropriated and expended. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 28. That estimate was:
- Reduction in annual state special fund revenues of approximately $670 million that would otherwise be allocated for early childhood development programs and activities.
- Relatively small annual increases in Proposition 99 revenues of a few million dollars.
- Annual decreases in state General Fund revenues of approximately $7 million and local government sales tax revenues of about $6 million.
- Loss of potential long-term state and local governmental savings that could otherwise result from Proposition 10.
Support
Supporters
- Ned Roscoe, president of Cigarettes Cheaper! stores[1]
Arguments
Official arguments
The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide for Proposition 28:[1]
| “ |
‘‘What’s best for children?’’ That’s the essence of Prop 28. Prop 28 repeals Prop 10. It stops a $700,000,000 per year bureaucracy that is supposed to work on ‘‘early childhood development.’’ Prop 28 cuts taxes on citizens who smoke. It sends the issues to the Legislature. When can $700,000,000 per year be bad for children? 1) When the money is wasted. The Office of the Independent Legislative Analyst stated that neither county nor state officials oversee or control the spending. The Analyst concluded ‘‘it will be a challenge to ensure that the funds will be spent effectively’’.
Prop 10 participants have been told that no idea is too expensive or too crazy. In Los Angeles County, agencies already spend $3.8 billion annually on over 200 programs for children and parents outside of Prop 10. 2) When the money is spent to subsidize the rich and powerful. The primary use for Prop 10 funds has been to publicize Rob Reiner. A political infrastructure is being built for his use. Local politicians fight over who gets to dispense this money. 3) When the money is used to drive people out of business. Private child care providers can’t participate in Prop 10 deliberations. Socialized child care—along with loss of choice, more bureaucracy and rules, and a decline in quality—appears to be the goal of Prop 10 participants. 4) When the money is used in ways that do harm. Prop 10 advocates talk about ‘‘new brain research’’ that enables bureaucrats to be better parents than parents. This Brave New World approach to raising children contradicts what loving parents know about babies. Babies need love and attention. Money can’t buy love and attention. Babies are best when parents find ways to shower them with love and attention. Optimists believe Prop 10 money will be used to make $700,000,000 per year in suggestions. Suggestions soon become rules. Do you want Hollywood and 58 commissions to make the rules for how to raise children? The tax itself is also bad.
Their legislators didn’t vote on this. Prop 10 passed because many voters thought they were taxing Big Tobacco. Actually, Big Tobacco doesn’t pay this tax. California citizens pay it all. Prop 10 is a bad law. That’s why over 705,000 Californians signed petitions to place this initiative on the ballot. Big Tobacco hasn’t helped the effort to repeal Prop 10. Who do you want to be your kids’ mom? You? Then vote YES! On Prop 28![2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
- Paul Murata, president of the American Cancer Society, California Division[1]
- Willliam D. Novelli, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids[1]
- Kay McVay, president of the California Nurses Association[1]
Arguments
Official arguments
The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide for Proposition 28:[1]
| “ | THE MOST IMPORTANT THING VOTERS SHOULD
KNOW ABOUT PROPOSITION 28 IS THAT IT’S SPONSORED AND SUPPORTED BY TOBACCO COMPANIES. When it comes to the health and welfare of California families, can you think of anyone you trust less? In 1998, California voters passed Proposition 10—The California Children and Families Initiative—which raised the tobacco tax to support a wide range of programs to protect children’s health and help young children enter school ready to learn. The tobacco companies spent $30 million to defeat Proposition 10, but failed. Now they are trying to thwart the will of the voters and repeal Proposition 10 by passing Proposition 28. Time and again, the tobacco giants have shown that they’ll do anything to protect their profits—including lying to Congress, covering up the health facts about tobacco, marketing cigarettes to children, and using false advertising. The tobacco interests don’t care that the tobacco tax they want to eliminate with Prop 28 is already helping ensure a brighter future for our children. Proposition 28 will slash over $680 million a year from critical programs that benefit our children, including:
Proposition 28 is strongly opposed by these leading health care, education, and community organizations:
*Wu Yee Children’s Services. Who do you think cares more about the health and well-being of our children—the tobacco companies or these nonprofit, independent groups asking you to Vote NO on Proposition 28? The tobacco companies have millions of dollars on the line—since Proposition 10’s passage, tobacco sales in the state have been cut by 30 percent. That is why the tobacco companies will try every trick in the book to get you to vote for Prop 28. They’ll try to scare you. They’ll try to change the subject. Some will even spend hundreds of millions of dollars on ‘‘image’’ ads to convince you that they care about the health and welfare of your community. You know better. Say NO to the tobacco companies. VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 28.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
To qualify for the ballot, proponents needed to submit 419,260 valid signatures.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
