Prop 23 Opponents Take To The Streets

With roughly 400 volunteers between San Francisco and San Jose, organizer Spencer Olson is confident about his grassroots effort to kill Proposition 23, a move to boost job growth by suspending California's landmark law to curb global warming. 

Olson was beating the pavement Friday in Palo Alto. As the head local organizer with the CREDO Victory Fund Against Prop 23, he staged a demonstration with the Raging Grannies Action League in front of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation at 12 p.m. and zipped off to a phone banking event shortly after. 

"We're winning," Olson said, carrying  signs reading 'Stop Texas Oil.' "It's important for California's future and it's important to show the rest of the country that we're leading the fight against global warming." 

The 15 activists rallied around the plight they claimed asthmatics and victims of other respiratory ailments might face should the proposition pass on Nov. 2. If it does, Sacramento's 2006 legislative effort to stall greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 will shift into limbo until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent for a year.

But the state's jobless rate recently hit 12.4 percent and is not likely drop seven points anytime soon, opponents of the measure claim. So a yes vote will essentially kill the 2006 law, Olson said.

That considerable gap in productivity, however, is spurring the organizers behind Proposition 23. During the process of meeting California's climate change quotas, many small businesses will suffer and some might even fail, said Anita Mangels, the communications director for Yes on 23.

Citing the California Legislative Analyst's Office, she said some business might benefit after the 2020 deadline, but only if they survive the transition.

"We agree that global warming is a serious issue that needs to be addressed," she said. "But California's current law is not the answer."

The election battle has largely pitted environmental groups opposed to Prop. 23 against business interests and status quo energy companies, such as the Valero Energy Corporation and the largest contributor to the yes campaign. The San Antonio-based company has poured more than $4 million into passing Proposition 23 so far. 

Valero's Texas home base and profile as an oil company gave opponents the catch phrase "Stop Texas Oil" and also moved the Palo Alto grannies to claim Proposition 23's approval will lead to more air pollution and worsened respiratory problems. 

Menlo Park resident and granny Gail Sredanovic already suffers from what she described at the rally as "messed up lungs," and it gets worse when the smog settles according to her doctor, she said.

"My ups and downs have to with the ups and downs of air pollution," Sredanovic said.

Despite Valero's deep pockets,  the yes campaign points to a diverse endorsement roster, which includes business, agriculture and labor. Many of those groups couldn't afford to contribute to the campaign, but nevertheless support it, Mangels said.

A recent Reuters poll published on Oct. 6 had the opposition leading 47 percent to 39 percent. But the yes campaign has fought back against the results, claiming the pollsters used language from an older Proposition 23 draft that a judge threw out. Reuter's should have used the revised language, Mangels said.

"Respondents were misled from word one because they were told they were hearing the exact ballot language of Proposition 23," she said, citing a press release the campaign sent out Friday.

She pointed to a Los Angeles Times and University of Southern California poll two weeks ago that pegged 40 percent of Californians in favor, 38 percent in opposition in 21 percent undecided.

Even if it sits at a statistical dead heat, opponents of 23 have raised more money and have 13 separate committees working the ground. The largest contributors are Thomas Steyer of Farallon capital management who poured in $5 million and John and Ann Doerr, who gave $2 million together, according to finance disclosure forms. 

Despite the campaign rhetoric proponents and opponents do agree on one aspect of the debate: it boils down to short term versus long term growth, Olson and Mangels both said.

"It may be expensive in the short term, but we're investing in California's future," Olson said.