| Argument Against | This - 212 | Next Proposition (213) |

Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 212

Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

The statement opposing Prop. 212 is long on mudslinging, short on facts.

We encourage you to carefully read Props. 212 and 208. You'll confirm that 212 cracks down hard on special interests and self-interested politicians. 208 doesn't.

Please read the non-partisan summaries and official fiscal impact analysis in this Ballot Pamphlet. You'll confirm that 212 saves taxpayers $2 million annually; 208 costs $4 million.

The opposition statement misses the point of 212. They don't say one word about 212's real provisions:

None of these provisions in 212 has been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Nor does Prop. 212 legalize bribery. This claim is ridiculous. 212's sponsors are fighting for tougher ethics laws.

Nor does Prop. 212 help special interests. Critics don't mention that the only contributor committee allowed to give 100 times the low $100 contribution limit is a committee formed and supported solely by people giving a maximum of $25! This helps only citizens able to afford a small donation, not big moneyed interests or politicians.

We favor the tougher initiative that scares special interests the most. Vote Yes on 212.

Governor 1975-1983

Executive Director of the California Public
Interest Research Group (CALPIRG)

President, California Professional Firefighters

| Argument Against | This - 212 | Next Proposition (213) |