California Proposition 29, Tobacco Tax for Cancer Research Fund Initiative (June 2012)

California Proposition 29
Election date June 5, 2012
Topic Tobacco and Taxes
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 29 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on June 5, 2012. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported: increasing the state tax on cigarettes by $0.05 per cigarette or $1.00 per 20-count pack of cigarettes, thereby increasing the total state tax from $0.87 per pack to $1.87 per pack; using the additional tax revenue to fund the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund; establishing a nine-member committee to oversee the administration of the fund; and requiring the Board of Equalization to set an annual tax comparable to the additional cigarette tax on other tobacco products.

A "no" vote opposed increasing the state tax on cigarettes by $0.05 per cigarette or $1.00 per 20-count pack of cigarettes and using the additional tax revenue to fund the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund.

Election results

California Proposition 29
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		2,568,715	49.77%
No		2,592,791	50.23%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Measure design

Full text

The full text can be read below:

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure adds sections to the Revenue and Taxation Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

PROPOSED LAW

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

HOPE 2010: THE CALIFORNIA CANCER RESEARCH ACT

Section 1

Findings and Declarations

(a) Despite continuing advancements in medical treatment and prevention, cancer remains a leading cause of death in California, responsible for nearly one in every four deaths each year.

(b) Medical experts expect more than 140,000 Californians to be diagnosed with cancer each year.

(c) Cigarette smoking and other uses of tobacco remain the leading causes of cancer in California, as well as many other serious health problems, including cardiovascular disease, emphysema, and other chronic illnesses.

(d) The treatment of tobacco-related diseases continues to impose a significant burden upon California’s overstressed health care system. Tobacco use costs Californians billions of dollars a year in medical expenses and lost productivity.

(e) Given the urgent need for new and effective treatments for cancer and other tobacco-related illnesses, tobacco tax revenues are an appropriate source of funds for research into the causes, early detection, and effective treatment, care, prevention, and potential cures of lung cancer and other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema, and other chronic diseases, and to provide facilities for such research.

(f) HOPE 2010: The California Cancer Research Act will provide an ongoing source of funds to allow California’s leading researchers to advance human understanding and knowledge about the causes, early detection, effective treatment, care, prevention, and potential cures for cancer and other tobacco-related illnesses.

(g) Tobacco tax increases are an appropriate way to fund efforts to prevent and reduce tobacco-caused cancers and other diseases because increasing tobacco product prices directly reduces smoking and other tobacco uses. (h) In order to control cancer, sustained support for cancer research is paramount and must include all phases of cancer research, from basic and applied research to that which transfers technology from academic institutions and laboratories to use by medical providers and consumers.

Section 2

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this measure is to increase the tax on tobacco to fund the following:

(1) Grants and loans for biomedical, epidemiological, behavioral, health services, and other research in California to enhance the state of medical knowledge regarding lung cancer and other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema, and other tobaccorelated illnesses.

(2) Creation, staffing, and equipping of California research facilities engaged in biomedical, epidemiological, behavioral, health services, and other research whose primary focus is to identify and refine promising prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments, and potential cures of lung cancer and other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema, and other tobacco-related diseases.

(3) Increased efforts to reduce tobacco use in the state and prevent children from becoming addicted users.

Section 3

HOPE 2010: California Cancer Research Act

Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 30130.50) is added to Chapter 2 of Part 13 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read:

Article 2.5. HOPE 2010: California Cancer Research Act

30130.50. HOPE 2010 Cancer Research Cigarette Excise Tax

(a) In addition to any other tax imposed under this part, a separate excise tax is hereby imposed upon every distributor of cigarettes upon the distribution of cigarettes at the rate of 50 mills ($0.050) for each cigarette distributed on and after the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 90 days after the effective date of this section.

(b) (1) In addition to any other tax imposed under this part, every dealer and wholesaler, for the privilege of holding or storing cigarettes for sale, use, or consumption, shall pay a floor stock tax for each cigarette in his or her possession or under his or her control in this state at 12:01 a.m. on the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 90 days after the effective date of this section at the rate of 50 mills ($0.050) for each cigarette.

(2) Every dealer and wholesaler shall file a return with the State Board of Equalization, on or before the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 180 days after the effective date of this section, on a form prescribed by the board, showing the number of cigarettes in his or her possession or under his or her control at 12:01 a.m. on the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 90 days after the effective date of this section. The amount of tax shall be computed and shown on the return.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the tax created by the HOPE: 2010 Cancer Research Act and the revenue derived therefrom, including investment interest, shall be considered trust funds, to be expended solely for the purposes set forth in this act and shall not be considered to be part of the General Fund, as that term is used in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 16300) of Part 2, of Division 4, of Title 2 of the Government Code, and shall not be considered General Fund revenue for purposes of Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, and its implementing statutes.

30130.51. Definitions

For the purposes of this article:

(a) “Cigarette” has the same meaning as that in Section 30003, as it read on January 1, 2009.

(b) “Tobacco products” includes, but is not limited to, all forms of cigars, smoking tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff, and any other articles or products made of, or containing at least 50 percent, tobacco, but does not include cigarettes.

30130.52. Effect on Tobacco Consumption and Tax Revenue

(a) The State Board of Equalization shall determine within one year of the operative date of this article, and annually thereafter, the effect that the additional tax imposed on cigarettes by this article, and the resulting increase in the tax on tobacco products required by subdivision (b) of Section 30123, have on the consumption of cigarettes and tobacco products in this state. To the extent that a decrease in consumption is determined by the State Board of Equalization to be a direct result of the additional tax imposed by this article, or the resulting increase in the tax on tobacco products required by subdivision (b) of Section 30123, the State Board of Equalization shall determine the fiscal effect the decrease in consumption has on the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Surtax Fund created by Section 30122 (Proposition 99 as approved by the voters at the November 8, 1988, statewidegeneral election), the Breast Cancer Fund created by Section 30461.6, the California Children and Families Trust Fund created by Section 30131 (Proposition 10 as approved by the voters at the November 3, 1998 statewide general election), and the portion of the General Fund created by Section 30101.

(b) The Controller shall transfer funds from the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund to the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Surtax Fund, the Breast Cancer Fund, the California Children and Families Trust Fund, and the General Fund, to offset the revenue decrease directly resulting from imposition of additional taxes by this article.

30130.53. HOPE 2010 Funds

(a) The California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund, and within that fund, the Hope 2010 Research Fund, the Hope 2010 Facilities Fund, the Hope 2010 Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Fund, the Hope 2010 Law Enforcement Fund, and the HOPE 2010 Committee Account are hereby established in the State Treasury.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund and all funds, subfunds or subaccounts of that fund, are trust funds established solely to carry out the purposes of this act.

(c) All revenues from the excise and floor stock tax received by the state, or state officials, pursuant to the provisions of this act, shall be deposited into the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund.

(d) Revenue deposited into the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund shall be deposited and apportioned as follows:

(1) Sixty percent shall be deposited into the HOPE 2010 Research Fund for the purpose of grants and loans to support research into the prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments and potential cures of lung cancer and other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and other tobacco related diseases, including, but not limited to, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and chronic obstructive lung disease, which shall be awarded on the basis of scientific merit as determined by an open, competitive peer review process that assures objectivity, consistency, and high quality. All qualified investigators, regardless of institutional affiliation, shall have equal access and opportunity to compete for the funds in this act. The peer review process for the selection of grants awarded under this program shall be modeled on the process used by the National Institutes of Health in its grantmaking process.

(2) Fifteen percent shall be deposited into the HOPE 2010 Facilities Fund for the purposes of grants and loans to provide facilities, including, but not limited to, those buildings, building leases and capital equipment as may be found necessary and appropriate by the committee to further biomedical, epidemiological, behavioral, health services, and other research whose primary focus is to identify and refine promising prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments, rehabilitation and potential cures of lung cancer and other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and other tobaccorelated diseases, subject to the authority of the committee to redirect surplus funds, as provided in this act.

(3) Twenty percent shall be deposited into the HOPE 2010 Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Fund for carrying out comprehensive tobacco prevention and control programs, and apportioned in the following manner:

(A) Eighty percent of the HOPE 2010 Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Fund shall be allocated to the State Department of Public Health Tobacco Control Program to support the tobacco control programs described beginning at Section 104375 of the Health and Safety Code.

(B) Twenty percent of the HOPE 2010 Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Fund shall be allocated to the State Department of Education for programs to prevent and reduce the use of tobacco products as described in Section 104420 of the Health and Safety Code.

(4) Three percent shall be deposited into the HOPE 2010 Law Enforcement Fund to support law enforcement efforts to reduce cigarette smuggling, tobacco tax evasion, and counterfeit tobacco products, to reduce illegal sales of tobacco products to minors, and to enforce legal settlement provisions and conduct law enforcement training and technical assistance activities for tobaccorelated statutes, and apportioned in the following manner:

(A) Forty percent of the HOPE 2010 Law Enforcement Fund to the State Board of Equalization to be used to enforce laws that regulate the distribution and retail sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products, such as laws that prohibit untaxed cigarette and tobacco product smuggling and counterfeiting and sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products without a proper license.

(B) Forty percent of the HOPE 2010 Law Enforcement Fund to the State Department of Public Health to be used to support programs, including, but not limited to, providing grants to local law enforcement agencies to provide training and funding for the enforcement of state and local laws related to the illegal sales of tobacco to minors, increasing investigative activities, and compliance checks, and other appropriate activities to reduce illegal sales of tobacco products to minors, including, but not limited to, the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (STAKE) Act, pursuant to Section 22952 of the Business and Professions Code.

(C) Twenty percent of the HOPE 2010 Law Enforcement Fund to the Attorney General to be used for activities including, but not limited to, enforcing laws that regulate the distribution and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products, such as laws that prohibit cigarette smuggling, counterfeiting, selling untaxed tobacco, selling tobacco without a proper license and selling tobacco to minors, and enforcing tobacco-related laws, court judgments, and settlements.

(5) Two percent shall be deposited into a HOPE 2010 Committee Account which may be used by the committee and the State Board of Equalization for the costs and expenses of administering this act.

(e) Funds deposited into the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund or any subfund or subaccount of that fund, may be placed into the Pooled Money Investment Account for investment only, and interest earned shall be credited to the fund and deposited, apportioned, and expended only in accordance with the provisions of this act and its purposes.

(f) Funds deposited into the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund, together with interest earned by the fund or any subfund, are hereby continuously appropriated for the purposes of this act without regard to fiscal year, and shall be used solely for the purposes of this act and shall not be subject to appropriation, reversion or transfer by the Legislature, the Governor, or the Director of Finance for any other purpose and may not be loaned to the General Fund, or any other fund, for any purpose.

30130.54. HOPE 2010 Cancer Research Citizens Oversight Committee

(a) There is hereby created within the government of the state, the HOPE 2010 Cancer Research Citizens Oversight Committee. All references in this act to the “committee” are to the HOPE 2010 Cancer Research Citizens Oversight Committee. The committee shall consist of nine members, appointed as follows:

(1) Four members appointed by the Governor, as follows:

(A) One member affiliated with a California academic medical center who is a practicing physician with expertise in the prevention, treatment, or research of cardiovascular disease.

(B) Three members selected from among the cancer center directors of National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers located within the state. Each director may designate a person to attend meetings of the committee in his or her place, so long as that person is employed at his or her center and that employment provides background and experience in cancer treatment.

(2) The chancellor from each of the campuses of the University of California that is a member of the California Institute for Quantitative Biomedical Research. Each chancellor may designate a person to attend meetings of the committee in his or her place, so long as that person is employed at his or her respective campus and that employment provides background and experience in quantitative bioscience.

(3) Two appointed by the State Public Health Officer, the appointments to be selected from among California representatives of California or national disease advocacy groups whose focus is tobacco-related illness, at least one of whom shall be a person who has been treated for a tobacco-related illness.

(4) No person who is required to register as a lobbyist under the provisions of any law of the United States, the State of California or any local government, is eligible for appointment to the committee. A member of the committee who registers with any governmental entity as a lobbyist is deemed to have resigned from the committee and his or her office is deemed vacant as of the date of registration as a lobbyist.

(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no member of the committee, or those persons appointed by committee members to attend meetings on their behalf, shall be an officer, employee, director, independent contractor, or grant recipient of any company or other business engaged in the manufacture, marketing, distribution, or sale of tobacco products, or have received any grants or payments for services of any kind from any such company or business during the past two years.

(6) The terms of office for appointed members shall commence on the effective date of this act and continue for four years, except that the initial appointment of two members by the Governor and one member by the State Public Health Officer shall be for two-year terms that shall expire two years after the effective date of this act.

(7) Except for vacancies that occur as set forth in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a), members appointed for a term shall continue to serve until their replacement is selected. If a vacancy occurs within a term, the appointing authority shall appoint a replacement member to serve the remainder of the term within 30 days of the date of the vacancy.

(b) The members, by majority vote, shall annually select one of their number to serve as chair of the committee and preside over its meetings and perform any other duties as may be delegated by the committee.

(c) Except for those members who are also public officers or employees, the members of the committee shall receive one hundred dollars ($100) per day for each day occupied with attendance at public meetings of the committee and reimbursement for their usual and ordinary expenses, as provided by the general law. Members of the committee who are public officers or employees shall not be otherwise compensated for their service on the committee.

(d) The committee is vested with the power and authority to do all of the following:

(1) Oversee the operations of the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund and its subfunds and subaccounts and to act as trustee of the trust funds created by this act.

(2) Appoint a chief executive officer who shall be exempt from the civil service pursuant to Section 4 of Article VII of the California Constitution. The chief executive officer shall have the power to appoint any employees as are necessary for the administration of the fund and the performance of those duties imposed upon the committee by law, except that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no officer or employee of the committee shall be an officer, employee, director, independent contractor, or grant recipient of any company or other business engaged in the manufacture, marketing, distribution, or sale of tobacco products, or have received any grants or payments for services of any kind from any such company or business during the past two years.

(3) Establish subfunds and subaccounts within the California Cancer Research and Life Sciences Innovation Fund, and apportion money in the fund into those subfunds and subaccounts, as is found necessary and appropriate for administration of this act.

(4) Establish a process for soliciting, reviewing, and awarding grants and loans for research, facilities and patient treatment.

(5) Establish and appoint committees and advisory bodies as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its duties.

(6) Develop annual and long-term strategic research and financial plans for the fund, including an annual budget for administration of this act.

(7) Make final decisions on the award of loans and grants, and to revoke or rescind loans and grants which do not conform to approved research standards. Employ auditors to prepare an annual financial audit of the fund’s operations.

(8) Issue, at least annually, public reports on the activities of the committee and the fund.

(9) Establish policies regarding intellectual property rights arising from research funded by the committee, which shall be consistent with those implemented by the University of California.

(10) Establish rules and guidelines for the operation of the fund and its employees.

(11) Periodically review the income and expenditures of the HOPE 2010 Facilities Fund. If the committee determines that there is a surplus in the fund it may redirect money in that fund to the HOPE 2010 Research Fund, the HOPE 2010 Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Fund, or the HOPE 2010 Law Enforcement Fund in the amounts and for the period determined by the committee.

(12) Reimburse the State Board of Equalization for the cost of services required by this act.

(13) Pursuant to Section 19990 of the Government Code, adopt rules governing the application of this paragraph, including a provision to provide notice of its requirements to all officers and employees.

The following activities are inconsistent, incompatible or in conflict with the duties of members of the committee or its officers or employees:

(A) Using the prestige or influence of the state or the committee for the officer’s or employee’s private gain or advantage or the private gain of another.

(B) Using state time, facilities, equipment, or supplies for private gain or advantage.

(C) Using, or having access to, confidential information available by virtue of state employment for private gain or advantage or providing confidential information to persons to whom issuance of this information has not been authorized.

(D) Receiving or accepting money or any other consideration from anyone other than the state for the performance of his or her duties as a state officer or employee.

(E) Performance of an act in other than his or her capacity as a state officer or employee knowing that the act may later be subject, directly or indirectly to the control, inspection, review, audit, or enforcement by the officer or employee.

(F) Receiving or accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift, including money, or any service, gratuity, favor, entertainment, hospitality, loan, or any other thing of value from anyone who is doing or is seeking to do business of any kind with the officer’s or employee’s appointing authority or whose activities are regulated or controlled by the appointing authority under circumstances from which it reasonably could be substantiated that the gift was intended to influence the officer or employee in his or her official duties or was intended as a reward for any official actions performed by the officer or employee.

(G) Subject to any other laws, rules, or regulations as pertain thereto, not devoting his or her full time, attention, and efforts to his or her state office or employment during his or her hours of duty as a state officer or employee.

(14) Adopt, amend, and rescind rules and regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of this article, and to govern the procedures of the committee, in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Article 6 (commencing with Section 11340) of Chapter 3.5 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code).

(15) Perform all other acts necessary or appropriate in the exercise of its power, authority, and jurisdiction.

(e) Meetings

The committee, and all subcommittees and advisory bodies created by it, are a “state body” as that term is used in Section 11121 of the Government Code, and all meetings of the committee, its subcommittees and advisory bodies, shall conform to the provisions of the BagleyKeene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code).

(f) Records

All records of the committee shall be public records as those terms are defined in the California Public Records Act (Article 1 (commencing with Section 6250) of Chapter 3.5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code) and may only be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with the provisions of that act.

(g) Conflicts of Interest

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no member of the committee, or those persons appointed by committee members to attend meetings on their behalf, or those officers or employees employed by the committee, shall participate in an evaluation, review, recommendation, or decision upon an application or proposal for grant or loan, or other distribution of funds by the committee, if that person has a direct or indirect financial interest in the applicant or the subject of an application or proposal for a grant or loan or other distribution of funds. If such persons have a financial interest in the application or proposal, it shall be publicly announced at the first meeting of the committee following disclosure of the interest and recorded in the minutes of the committee meeting. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, where a financial interest is found to exist, upon disclosure and disqualification, the committee may otherwise consider and take action upon any application for grant, loan, or other distribution of funds.

(2) No member of the committee or those persons appointed to attend meetings on their behalf, its staff, contractors, or grant recipients shall receive funding or be employed by persons or business entities engaged in any aspect of tobacco growing, manufacturing, processing, distributing, marketing, or other activities within the tobacco industry.

(3) Nothing herein is intended to limit application of the Political Reform Act (Title 9 (commencing with Section 81000) of the Government Code) to the committee or its officers and employees.

(h) Annual Public Report

The committee shall issue an annual report to the public which sets forth its activities, grants awarded and in progress, research accomplishments, and future program directions. Each annual report shall include, but not be limited to, the following: the number and dollar amounts of research, facilities and treatment grants; the administrative expenses of the committee, the fund, and the State Board of Equalization; and a summary of research findings.

(i) Independent Financial Audit

The committee shall annually commission an independent financial audit of its activities from a certified public accounting firm. Any firm that provides consulting services to the committee shall be disqualified from providing audit services. The resulting audit shall be provided to the Controller, who shall review the audit and annually issue a public report of that review.

(j) Limitation on Administrative Costs

Not more than 2 percent of the annual revenues derived from this act shall be used for the costs of general administration of this act. The Controller shall provide the committee and its auditor with reports that set forth the allowable costs for general administration. The annual audit shall include a review of the costs of general administration of the committee, the fund, and the State Board of Equalization.

30130.55. Penalties

(a) Each officer or employee of the committee, and every other person charged with the receipt, safekeeping, transfer, or disbursement of trust funds as defined in this act, who does any of the following, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, and is disqualified from holding any office in this state:

(1) Without authority of law, appropriates the same, or any portion thereof, to his or her own use, or to the use of another.

(2) Loans the same or any portion thereof, makes any profit out of, or uses the same for any purpose not authorized by law.

(3) Knowingly keeps any false account, or makes any false entry or erasure in any account of or relating to the same.

(4) Fraudulently alters, falsifies, conceals, destroys, or obliterates any account.

(5) Willfully refuses or omits to pay over, on demand, any public moneys in his or her hands, upon the presentation of a draft, order, or warrant drawn upon these moneys by competent authority.

(6) Willfully omits to transfer the same, when transfer is required by law.

(7) Willfully omits or refuses to pay over to any officer or person authorized by law to receive the same, any money received by him or her under any duty imposed by law so to pay over the same.

(b) As used in this section, “public moneys” includes the proceeds derived from trust funds, as defined in this act and from loans or grants authorized by the committee from those trust funds.

30130.56. Statutory References

Unless otherwise stated, all references in this act refer to statutes as they existed on December 31, 2009.

Section 4

Severability

If the provisions of this act, or part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.

Section 5

Conflicting Measures

(a) It is the intent of the people that in the event that this measure and another measure relating to the taxation of tobacco shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall not be deemed to be in conflict with this measure, and if approved by the voters, this measure shall take effect notwithstanding approval by the voters of another measure relating to the taxation of tobacco by a greater number of affirmative votes.

(b) If this measure is approved by the voters but superseded by law by any other conflicting ballot measure approved by the voters at the same election, and the conflicting measure is later held invalid, this measure shall be self-executing and given the full force of law.

Section 6

Amendments

(a) Except as hereafter provided, this act may only be amended by the electors as provided in subdivision (c) of Section 10 of Article II of the California Constitution.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a), not earlier than 15 years from the effective date of this act, the committee, by majority vote of its members, may recommend changes in the structure and operation of the committee to the Legislature. The Legislature may amend the provisions of Section 30130.54 of the Revenue and Taxation Code to further the purposes of the act by a statute passed in each house by roll-call vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, that is consistent with the recommendations of the committee.

Cigarette tax

Proposition 29 would have increased the tax on a single cigarette by $0.05 for a total increase of $1.00 on a 20-count pack of cigarettes. At the time of the election, the rate was $0.87 per pack, and the measure would have increased it to $1.87 per pack. Proposition 29 would have generated about $735 million annually in new tax revenue according to a 2012 report by the California Legislative Analyst's Office. Additionally, Proposition 29 would have levied a one-time floor stock tax on every cigarette dealer or wholesaler for each cigarette in his or her possession at a rate of $0.05 per cigarette. The tax would have taken effect in October 2012.

Proposition 29 would have also required the Board of Equalization (BOE) to set an annual tax on other tobacco products comparable to the rate established by Proposition 29 to fund the purposes of Proposition 99 (1988), which include health education, hospital services, physician services, research and public resources.

The last time a cigarette tax was on the California ballot was in 2006 when Proposition 86 was defeated. Proposition 86 would have imposed an additional tax of $2.60 per pack of cigarettes.

California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund

The new tax revenue would have been deposited into a new fund—the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund. The additional tax revenue deposited into the fund would have been used to fund cancer research, smoking reduction programs, and tobacco law enforcement. The net revenue from the tax would have been allocated as follows:

• 60% (approximately $468 million annually) for the research fund,
• 20% (approximately $156 million annually) for the Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Fund,
• 15% (approximately $117 million annually) for the facilities fund,
• 3% (approximately $ 23 million annually) for law enforcement, and
• 2% (approximately $16 million annually) for the administration of the committee.

California Cancer Research Act Oversight Committee

Proposition 29 would have created a nine-member governing committee charged with administering the fund. The California Cancer Research Act Oversight Committee would have consisted of:

• three chancellors from University of California campuses (Berkeley, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz),
• four governor-appointed members, three of whom must be directors of one of California cancer centers, and
• two members appointed by the director of the Department of Public Health, at least one of whom shall be a person who has been treated for a tobacco-related illness.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 29 was as follows:

“

Imposes Additional Tax on Cigarettes for Cancer Research. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Imposes additional five cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($1.00 per pack), and an equivalent tax increase on other tobacco products, to fund cancer research and other specified purposes. Requires tax revenues be deposited into a special fund to finance research and research facilities focused on detecting, preventing, treating, and curing cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other tobacco-related diseases, and to finance prevention programs. Creates nine-member committee charged with administering the fund.[

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

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

“

Net increase in cigarette excise tax revenues of about $735 million annually by 2013–14 for research into cancer and tobacco-related disease, and for tobacco prevention and cessation programs. These revenues would decline slightly each year thereafter. Increase in excise tax revenues on other tobacco products of about $50 million annually, going mainly to existing health and tobacco prevention and cessation programs. Net increase in state and local sales tax revenues of about $10 million to $20 million annually. Unknown net impact on other long-term state and local government health care costs.

”

Support

Facebook logo of the "Yes on 29" campaign

Californians for a Cure led the campaign in support of Proposition 29. This campaign was co-chaired by two cancer survivors: the 7-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong, and retired President pro Tempore of the California State Senate, Don Perata. Perata authored the measure.

Supporters

• American Cancer Society
• American Lung Association in California
• American Heart Association
• American Stroke Association
• Lance Armstrong Foundation (Livestrong)
• Laura Ziskin, co-founder of Stand Up To Cancer
• Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
• Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn, Nobel Laureate
• Dr. Balazs Bodai, Congressional Gold Medal Nominee
• Tom Torlakson, the former California Superintendent of Public Instruction

Arguments

• Antonio Villaraigosa, the mayor of Los Angeles, said, “We’ve worked hard to improve the health of our community and we need to take the next step. Prop 29 will save lives, keep our kids from smoking, and fund cancer research that may just lead us to cures."
• George Skelton, a Los Angeles Times columnist said, tobacco companies are "worried about whether Californians will continue to buy smokes and send money to out-of-state tobacco companies. Prop. 29 would increase cancer research. Reduce smoking. Save lives. Hurt the lying tobacco companies. Good plan."
• Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, stated, "Every day, tobacco kills. Right now, big tobacco is pouring tens of millions into California to defeat a common-sense measure that would help reduce tobacco use, and something has to be done about it."
• Joe Debbs of the American Heart Association said, "It's this simple: A no vote on Proposition 29 supports tobacco companies' strategy of singling out poor people and people of color for addiction and death. A yes vote on Proposition 29 is a vote for better health and life-saving research. From our perspective, there is no middle ground. You're either with us, or you buy big tobacco's lies."
• Jim Knox, a spokesperson for the American Cancer Society, said, "Using tobacco taxes to pay for cancer research makes sense. Tobacco use causes cancer. The connection is very direct."
• Kristiina Vuori, M.D., Ph.D., president and director of the Sanford-Burnham National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Center, and Sherry Lansing, chair of the University of California Board of Regents, former CEO of Paramount Pictures, and co-founder of Stand Up to Cancer, said, "In addition to saving lives and lowering health care costs, the passage of Prop 29 will help stimulate the state’s economy by creating and saving jobs in California. The biotechnology industry has been a shining example of stability and growth in our state over the past several decades, and is an area we should be turning to now to help our state recover from economic decline."
• Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Group said, "California has not raised cigarette taxes since 2000. It's simple really: some of the money that goes to tobacco should help fight addiction and cure disease. Prop 29 does both."

Donors

Total campaign cash
Support:	$12,300,000
Opposition:	$46,900,000

Approximately $12.3 million was contributed to the campaign for a "yes" vote on Proposition 29.

Three campaign committees registered with Cal-Access as supporters of Proposition 29. They were:

• Californians for a Cure, sponsored by the American Cancer Society California Division, Inc., American Lung Association in California, American Heart Association & Cancer Research Doctors
• The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network California Ballot Issue Committee
• The Hope 2010 Cure Cancer (Perata Ballot Measure Committee)

On February 15, Lance Armstrong announced that his Texas-based foundation would give a $1.5 million contribution to the "Yes on 29" committee.

These were the main donors to the "yes" side of the Proposition 29 campaign as of June 5, 2012:

Donor	Amount
American Cancer Society	$8,467,937
Lance Armstrong Foundation	$1,500,000
American Heart Association	$563,594
Michael Bloomberg	$500,000
American Lung Association	$421,986
Volunteers Organized for Community Empowerment	$152,188
ACS Cancer Action Network	$80,000
Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund	$65,000
University of California/San Francisco Foundation	$50,000
Irwin Mark Jacobs	$30,000
Alex Padilla's Ballot Measure Committee	$25,450
T. Gary Rogers	$25,000
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center	$25,000
National Dialogue on Cancer Foundation	$15,000
The Don Perata 2004 campaign fund	$13,504
Tench Coxe	$10,000
Mark Segal	$10,000
Delta Dental of California	$5,000
Malin Burnham	$5,000
James Falaschi	$5,000
Robert Klein	$5,000
Sharon Long	$5,000
Rubio for Senate 2014	$5,000

Paid consultants

See also: Vendors and consultants to California's 2012 ballot proposition campaigns

Political consultants who provided paid services to the "Yes on 29" campaign included:

• Olson, Hagel & Fishburn: $187,028 (through March 2012)
• Tramutola Advisors: $70,425 (through March 2012)
• Oakland City Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente received a $37,500 consulting fee in August 2009 from "Hope 2010," a ballot measure committee controlled by the supporting campaign's co-chairman, Don Perata. He was tasked with "contacting 10 labor groups for petition signatures and 10 business groups for campaign contributions in the Sacramento and Oakland areas." According to the San Francisco Chronicle in March 2012, "None of the payments was disclosed on De La Fuente's statement of outside earnings as a councilman and head of the Coliseum authority."

Opposition

Website logo of the "No on 29" campaign

Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes & Spending led the No on 29 campaign.

Opponents

• R.J. Reynolds
• Philip Morris
• California Taxpayers Association
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• FreedomWorks
• Americans for Prosperity
• California Republican Party
• Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.

Arguments

• Teresa Casazza of the California Taxpayers Association said, "There's no doubt that we all support cancer research. But like high-speed rail, stem-cell research and other ballot-box budget initiatives before it, Proposition 29's good intentions are overshadowed by the fact that California simply cannot afford another billion-dollar government boondoggle to create another wasteful spending program."
• Mark Paul, a former deputy state treasurer, argued that the state had more urgent financial needs: "Like many initiatives, this plays to people's emotions. Who likes cancer? Nobody does. But when we're raising tuition at universities and shortening the … school year and shutting down core services, is this where we should be spending our money?"
• David Kline, a spokesperson for the California Taxpayers Association, said, "We don’t think it makes sense to create a new body of political appointees to oversee this money when the money coming in simply won’t be enough to keep the program going. The fact that they are all political appointees raises the issue of whether there will be more politics involved than hard science or real budgetary expertise."
• Jay McKeeman of the California Independent Oil Marketers Association said, "While the goals of the proposition may be laudable, we believe state funding for such purposes should be integrated into the overall needs of the state and balanced with other important priorities. This proposition does not provide for that ability; it dictates revenue use without other important considerations."
• David Williams of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance said, "[T]he additional revenue will be used to expand an already bloated bureaucracy and do nothing to help the state out of its financial mess. The federal government already spends $6 billion a year on cancer research and any research on a serious disease like cancer should be coordinated at the national level rather than a patchwork of research done at the state level."
• Reed Royalty, the president of the Orange County Taxpayers Association, said, "Even worse for California taxpayers, Prop. 29 doesn't require the tax revenue to be spent in California. Tax dollars raised under the measure could go out of state or even out of the country. Our state faces an unemployment rate of 10.9 percent, one of the highest in the nation. Funding for schools and other critical services has been cut by billions, and we have long-term debt of more than $200 billion. California tax dollars should stay in California to help create jobs here, not to create jobs in other states and countries, as Prop. 29 allows."
• Debra Saunders, a columnist for Townhall, "I cannot help but look at Prop. 29 and wonder: If raising state cigarette taxes should reduce smoking all by itself, why not put the new money in the state's cash-starved general fund? When Sacramento has to implement further cuts or new taxes to fill a gaping hole, why did Prop. 29's authors insist on raising money to bankroll their preferred programs?"
• Thomas Briant, the executive director of the National Association of Tobacco Outlets, said, "California already faces a significant amount of contraband trafficking in cigarettes and a $10 per carton tax increase is likely to increase this kind of illegal behavior to the detriment of law-abiding tobacco retailers."

Donors

Total campaign cash
Support:	$12,300,000
Opposition:	$46,800,000

Approximately $46.8 million was contributed to the campaign for a "no" vote on Proposition 29.

Two campaign committees were established to support the campaign urging a "no" vote. They were called:

• "Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes and Spending, Major Funding by Philip Morris USA and UST LLC, with a Coalition of Taxpayers, Small Businesses, Law Enforcement and Labor."
• California Citizens Against Wasteful Taxes - No on Prop 29

The largest donors to either or both of these committees, and their donation levels, were:

Donor	Amount
Altria/Philip Morris	$27,531,416
R.J. Reynolds	$11,168,698
U.S. Smokeless Tobacco (Altria/UST LLC)	$3,039,818
American Snuff Company (a Reynolds division)	$1,750,000
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company (a Reynolds division)	$1,148,000
California Republican Party	$1,140,909
John Middleton Company (via Altria), an affiliate of Philip Morris	$737,201
Core-Mark	$75,032
McClane Company, Inc.	$50,000
Californians Against Unaccountable Taxes	$47,744
International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers	$40,000
Trepco West	$30,200
Pacific Groservice	$25,000
Prometheus International	$2,500
Tatuaje Cigars, Inc.	$2,500
Santa Barbara Cigar & Tobacco	$1,000

In 2006, about $66 million was spent to successfully defeat Proposition 86, which would have imposed an additional tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack to fund various health programs and tobacco use prevention programs.

Media editorials

2012 propositions
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

Support

• The Bakersfield Californian: "The cost of smoking-related illness in the state comes out to nearly $10.50 per pack sold. Who pays for these health costs? All of us. It's perfectly reasonable to require smokers to pay a token user fee for such a reckless habit. California is long overdue in taking this step."

• Chico News & Review: "Big Tobacco is going to spend whatever it takes to defeat Proposition 29. Voters should remember what this is really about: powerful, rich corporations trying to addict people to a deadly product."

• The Desert Sun: "On June 5, California voters have a chance to save 104,000 lives. We can prevent 228,000 youngsters from starting to smoke. We can generate $500 million for cancer research. And unless you're among the roughly 12 percent of Californians who smoke, it won't cost you a thing."

• Marin Independent Journal: "Opponents say the state has bigger financial problems and doesn't need more ballot-box budgeting, in which voters approve taxes for narrowly-defined purposes. Opponents are right, but a tobacco tax to promote public health makes sense."

• The Sacramento Bee: "...the potential benefits of raising the tobacco tax outweigh the uncertainties posed by Prop. 29 governance. And that's the bottom line. To discourage smoking and save lives, California must again raise the tobacco tax."

• Santa Barbara Independent: "There may, in fact, be a lot of problems with the fine print of Proposition 29, but anything that discourages people from smoking by increasing the cost of cigarettes is a positive step."

• The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "And here's a significant benefit of raising tobacco taxes: It makes cigarettes and other tobacco products more expensive. Even though slightly fewer than 12 percent of the state's population still smoke, raising the cost makes it less likely young people can afford to purchase cigarettes."

• The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Any regular reader of the U-T San Diego editorial page knows that we do not often support tax increases. But we support this one. It’s good for public health. It’s good for San Diego and California. And it’s good for California kids."

• The San Francisco Chronicle: "California, once a leader in reducing tobacco use, is now 33rd in state tobacco taxes at 87 cents. Research has shown conclusively that price is one of the biggest factors in deterring young people from smoking. Our Legislature has shown no willingness to take on Big Tobacco, which has co-opted enough allies to reject any new tax measure. Prop. 29 is a well-crafted measure that will save lives. Voters should approve it."

• The San Francisco Examiner': "The harm done by cigarettes is costly, and it is time for smokers to start carrying the burden of research into smoking-related diseases such as cancer and heart disease. Proposition 29, which is on the June 5 ballot, would levy a $1 tax on every pack of cigarettes sold in the state. We encourage everyone to vote yes."

• The San Jose Mercury News: "Big Tobacco's ads against Proposition 29 would have you believe doctors are against it. That's a hoot. Dr. James T. Hay, president of the 35,000-member California Medical Association, says: "Doctors are dedicated to keeping people healthy and saving lives. Tobacco companies and their products aren't. Don't be fooled."'

• Santa Maria Times: "As we mentioned earlier, we aren’t big fans of budget decisions being made at the ballot box, but the potential to have fewer smokers — and therefore healthier citizens — in California easily trumps our concern about citizens possibly usurping the responsibilities of our elected leaders."

• The Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "The fact is nine out of every 10 habitual smokers in California started the habit before they were 18 years old. The time to prevent the habit is before it begins. This will help."

• Vallejo Times-Herald: "Smokers cost their families and the state billions each year in health costs, lost productivity and long-term care. The hundreds of thousands of smoking-related deaths each year is an intolerable evil and must be addressed more aggressively."

Opposition

• The Appeal-Democrat: They wrote two editorials opposing Proposition 29. In the first, they said, "[The] projected revenue assumes the new tax doesn't both suppress tobacco use — already at 15 percent in California, the second-lowest level among the states — while expanding black-market traffic in cigarettes. We have a better idea. Nix the taxes — at least until the economy starts growing everywhere, not just along the coasts." In the second, they said, "Taxes should be limited to paying for the legitimate functions of government, which should be limited to protecting the peoples' rights, not punishing their bad habits."

• The Chico Enterprise Record: "Only 60 percent of the millions to be gathered under Proposition 29 will go to researching cancer. The rest pays for other things — like new buildings, new equipment, a new committee and all the trappings that go along with it. We're not in favor of smoking but we're not in favor of hiking taxes just because it can be done."

• Eastern Group Publications (including the Eastside Sun, Northeast Sun, Mexican American Sun, Bell Gardens Sun, City Terrace Comet, Commerce Comet, Montebello Comet, Monterey Park Comet, ELA Brookyln Belvedere Comet, Wyvernwood Chronicle and the Vernon Sun): "It makes no sense to us to adopt a measure that will raise money to create ongoing programs when the source of the revenue is destined to diminish over time, as we have seen with other initiatives. We cannot support this tax measure during our current fiscal climate."

• The Fresno Bee: "Our beef with Proposition 29 is not that it would discourage people from smoking by making cigarettes and other tobacco products more expensive, but that instead of using this new tax revenue to address the state's unmet needs, it would create a new bureaucracy."

• Los Angeles Times: "Proposition 29 is well intentioned, but it just doesn't make sense for the state to get into the medical research business to the tune of half a billion dollars a year when it has so many other important unmet needs. California can't afford to retain its K-12 teachers, keep all its parks open, give public college students the courses they need to earn a degree or provide adequate home health aides for the infirm or medical care for the poor. If the state is going to raise a new $735 million, it should put the money in the general fund rather than dedicating it to an already well-funded research effort."

• The Merced Sun-Star: "Of even greater concern to us is that Proposition 29 is another example of ballot-box budgeting -- earmarking tax revenue that can only be used for a narrow purpose and ignoring higher and more pressing priorities for the state as a whole. Californians have too often bought into these emotional appeals...We, as voters, have to stop attaching so many strings to spending that there's nowhere near enough for truly vital services -- schools, universities, law enforcement and prosecutions. The midst of a prolonged recession is no time to be creating a major new state agency."

• The Modesto Bee: "This tax revenue would not be available for kindergarten-12th grade schools, community colleges, universities or even current health care services to the needy — including smokers. Instead, 75 percent of it would go to create Hope 2010 — a major new research effort into the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cures for cancer and tobacco-related diseases. Sixty percent of that would be for the research, which might or might not be conducted in California, and 15 percent for new buildings and equipment."

• The North County Times: "With the state facing an annual budget deficit measured in the billions of dollars per year, it is unconscionable to divert a three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollar stream to a new bureaucracy. If we are going to engage in regressive taxation, then that money should at least go toward maintaining the schools, roads and other state programs that benefit all of us."

• The Orange County Register: "...in California, taxes are ubiquitous, burdensome and even, one might argue, rampant. California's combined tax burden ranks it 48th-worse among the states. It is one of the primary reasons for the state's high cost of living, high rate of unemployment and stagnant economy."

• The Riverside Press-Enterprise: "Prop. 29 asks Californians to tie the state’s tangled finances in even bigger knots, to pay for services that are not a priority for the state’s limited public funds. The measure would repeat a mistake voters have made repeatedly, such as with Prop. 10 in 1998 and Prop. 49 in 2002: Those measures earmark public money for particular programs, regardless of how that spending fits into the larger budget picture."

• The San Bernardino Sun: "The goals may be noble, and the measure has a certain feel-good appeal, but it would add to bureaucracy and funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into an effort that is not among the state's highest priorities right now."

• The Santa Clarita Valley Signal: "Opponents claim $125 million of the new taxes raised will be spent annually on overhead costs, buildings and real estate and bureaucracy. In our minds, that is $125 million too much, and it’s money that should be devoted exclusively to cancer prevention and treatment. Yet, actually treating people stricken by cancer is not a part of this proposition. The tax dollars raised are only to fund research and research buildings. Tax dollars may even go to for-profit corporations engaged in research activities."

• The Union Democrat: "Well, once again, the state is relying on a regressive tax to pay for programs. To boot, only a share of the tax revenues will go to cancer research, the rest going to maintain a governor-appointed oversight board and toward law enforcement expenses intended to curb smuggling and tax evasion, both of which seem more likely as the cost of cigarettes rise."

• The Ventura County Star: "While no one is against cancer research, as far as government is involved it's an area traditionally and appropriately dealt with at the national level. It's a poor idea for the state to embark on a costly, new burden like this at a time when California can't afford to fulfill its present obligations — and when the federal government already spends billions of dollars a year in this area of research."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

A poll taken in late February 2012 by Public Policy Institute of California showed that a majority of likely voters support Proposition 29. The same group measured sentiment on the measure from May 14-20, and reported that "Two weeks before the June primary, just over half of likely voters say they will vote yes on a proposition to impose an additional $1 tax on cigarettes—a big decline in support from March."

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and American Viewpoint jointly conducted a poll for USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll from March 14-19, 2012.

Heading into the election, Field Poll surveyed 608 likely voters; this poll showed that support for Proposition 29 was tailing off as the election approached. A poll conducted a week earlier of 1,002 voters between May 17-21 by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and American Viewpoint for the Los Angeles Times showed much greater support for Proposition 29 than was found in the Field Poll.

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
February 21-28, 2012	PPIC	67%	30%	3%	2,001
March 14-19, 2012	By GQR & AV for USC Dornsife/LAT	68%	29%	3%	1,500
May 14-20, 2012	PPIC	53%	42%	5%	2,002
May 17-21, 2012	By GQR & AV for USC Dornsife/LAT	62%	33%	5%	1,002
May 21-29, 2012	Field	50%	42%	8%	608

Background

Tobacco taxes in California

At the time of the election, California’s cigarette tax was 87 cents per pack (with an equivalent tax on other types of tobacco products) and was levied on cigarette distributors who supplied cigarettes to retail stores.

At $0.87 per pack, California had the 33rd highest (or 17th lowest) tobacco tax in the United States in 2012. The average state tax on tobacco in the United States was $1.45. In 2012, California was one of three states (North Dakota and Missouri) in the United States that had not raised the tax on tobacco since 1999.

The additional $1.00 levied by Proposition 29 would have made California tobacco taxes the 15th highest (or 35th lowest) in the United States.

The total $0.87 per pack tax was made up of the following components in 2012:

• $0.50 per pack pursuant to Proposition 10 to support childhood development programs.
• $0.25 per pack pursuant to Proposition 99 (1988).
• $0.10 per pack for the state General Fund.
• $0.02 per pack enacted through a separate measure approved by the Legislature and Governor in 1993 to create the Breast Cancer Fund, which supports research efforts related to breast cancer and breast cancer screening programs for uninsured women.

Sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products also were subject to the sales and use tax, which was imposed on their price including excise taxes.

In addition, the federal government imposed an excise tax. As of 2012, it was $1.01 per pack. According to the California Voter Guide, this was to help fund the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

• On September 22, 2009, the law firm of Olson, Hagel & Fishburn filed a request with the Office of the California Attorney General for an official ballot title for the initiative.
• The measure was given an official ballot title on December 17, 2009, with a petition circulation deadline of May 17, 2010.
• Arno Political Consultants was hired to collect the signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.
• In June 2010, supporters of the measure submitted 633,453 raw signatures. The number required was 433,971 signatures.
• On August 24, 2010, the California Secretary of State confirmed that Proposition 29 had qualified for the February 5, 2012 ballot. The California State Legislature voted to terminate the February 5, 2012 election date. This moved Proposition 29 to the June 5, 2012 ballot.
• On October 7, 2011, Gov. Brown signed Senate Bill 202. SB 202 prohibited holding ballot proposition elections during June primaries. However, it applied only to ballot propositions that qualified on or after the date SB 202 was signed. Thus, the vote on Proposition 29 remained on June 5, 2012.

Signature gathering costs

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

• The campaign behind Proposition 29 dispersed $663,867 to Arno Political Consultants for signature-gathering.

Reports and analyses

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here.

Tobacco tax's effect on public universities' research funding

Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at UC San Francisco, released a study about the potential impact of Proposition 29 on February 6, 2012. According to the Glantz study, "It’ll have a direct impact on UC Berkeley and UCSF because there will be a lot of money put into research, and some part of that will be done at the University of California and at UCSF."

The full report is available here.

See also

2012 Measures

• 2012 Measures
• Taxes on the ballot
• Tobacco laws on the ballot
• 2012 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Suggest a link

• California Voter Guide: Proposition 29
• Letter to Attorney General requesting ballot title
• Proposition 29 on Smart Voter
• Proposition 29 on California Choices

Supporters:

• Website of "Californians for a Cure"
• Californians for a Cure
• Hope 2010 Cure Cancer
• American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network California Ballot Issue Committee

Opponents:

• Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes & Spending campaign website
• No on 29 - Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes and Spending campaign finance reports
• California Citizens Against Wasteful Taxes - No on Prop 29 campaign finance reports