California governor Gavin Newsom has launched a “Campaign for Democracy“ but he leaves out what democracy is all about. We can’t have democracy as long as poor people can’t afford to get on the ballot. We can’t have democracy if working class candidates can’t afford to get their message out to the voters through government produced voter information guides. And we can’t have democracy if most candidates can’t even get on the general election ballot because only two of the big moneyed candidates will be allowed on it. 

Further, we can’t have democracy as long as big money can buy elections by giving some candidates more speech than others. Money is not and should not be speech. We can’t have democracy as long as people can’t vote for their preferred candidate without the hope of winning. And we can’t have democracy when sizable groups of people are not represented or not represented in proportion to the number of votes received. Those are just some of the problems. 

Now, we need solutions. Let’s take big money out of politics. Abolish the thousands of dollars poor people need just to file to run for office. Abolish the $25 per word price required for candidates to inform voters what they stand for in the California Voters Information Guide, and abolish the thousands of dollars it costs for just one word in the county voter information guides. Let’s encourage candidates to avoid asking big money for a handout by introducing and passing a clean money type of equal public funding for all ballot-qualified candidates. 

And let’s put democracy in our voting system. Let’s create multi-winner districts where each voter has one vote in order to allow constituency groups or parties to be represented in proportion to the number of votes received in a general election.

In this way, people will know that their votes count for winning candidates, constituencies will be represented, and fewer votes will be wasted.

For example, if a party or independent candidate in a 10-member district gets 10% of the vote, that party or independent gets 10% of the seats – one, not none – from that district in the legislature. If a party gets 50% of the vote in the district that party gets 50% of the seats or five, not all of them. In this way, we can give voice and representation to the minorities and at the same time we protect the majority.

In addition, let’s save the taxpayers millions of dollars and just abolish the primary for all state races. Except for president, they’re not really needed. 

These are the issues that a real campaign for democracy should be talking about. Let’s organize and build real democracy.

– C. T. Weber

Why is Lyft bankrolling this California ballot measure on electric cars (San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 8, 2022)? Following on the heels of Proposition 22, which precludes its drivers from receiving benefits, Proposition 30 will allow Lyft to continue to externalize its costs, this time to the rest of us. 

Will a subsidy for electric cars help the environment? EVs definitely reduce the carbon emissions created by gas powered vehicles. But the proliferation of single occupancy vehicles of any kind creates a host of problems, from habitat destruction caused by highway expansion to particulate pollution caused by tire wear. A much better use of public money would be to expand, improve, and electrify public transportation, and have fewer cars on the road.

Taxing high incomes at a higher rate is progressive taxation, a fair way to fund the things we need: public projects like transit systems, environmental restoration, universal health care, free child care and higher education. We should not use it to ensure profits for Lyft and the auto industry by subsidizing private cars. Vote NO on Proposition 30.

The Suds, Snacks & Socialism monthly forum series, co-sponsored by the Alamada County Peace & Freedom Party, the Oakland Greens, and Bay Area System Change Not Climate Change, in October focused on the topic California Propositions Demystified.

At the forum, three PFP State Central Committee members spoke on the various ballot propositions to be voted on in California on or by November 8, 2022: Marsha Feinland on Props 1, 28, 29 and 31; David Landry on Props 26 and 27; and David Campbell on Prop 30.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mZ_fbwG46o

The Peace and Freedom Party Alameda County chapter has announced its recommendations for voting on the following ballot measures which will be on November 8, 2022 ballots in the cities of Berkeley and Oakland. For more information on each ballot measure, click on the respective link.

Berkeley ballot measures

• Measure L: Affordable housing and infrastructure bond: Vote NO.
• Measure M: Vacancy tax. Vote YES.
• Measure N: Authorizing low-income housing. Vote YES.

Oakland ballot measures

• Measure R: Charter Amendment regarding non-gendered language. Vote YES.
• Measure S: Non-citizen voting. Vote YES.
• Measure T: Progressive and equitable Oakland gross receipts tax. Vote YES.
• Measure U: Affordable housing infrastructure board. Vote YES.
• Measure V: Expand Just Cause eviction ordinance. Vote YES.
• Measure W: Establish public financing for Oakland elections. Vote YES.

The Peace and Freedom Party Sacramento County Central Committee has decided to support one and oppose three measures on the November ballot in Sacramento County.

• Measure A: the Roads and Air Quality Sales Tax Initiative
While this measure provides money for needed causes, sales taxes are regressive and fall heavily on workers and the poor. Vote NO on Measure A.

• Measure B: the Marijuana Tax for Homeless Services Measure
Another bad tax for a good purpose. Cannabis is already taxed too much. Vote NO on Measure B.

• Measure D: the Low-Income Housing Measure
Even though this measure only “authorizes” the government to act on development of low-income housing, we support it anyway. Now let’s pressure government actually to do something! Vote YES on Measure D.

• Measure O: Homeless Persons Shelter and Encampment Measure
One part is good, and three or four parts are bad. Housing, drug, and mental health services are needed, but certainly not more “enforcement.” The cons outweigh the pros. Vote NO on Measure O.

Aaron Reveles is an at-large officer on the Peace and Freedom Party State Committee, as well as an active member of the Los Angeles County Committee & Statewide Media Committee. He has dedicated his party work to rebuilding bridges with old comrades that have once been burnt, as well as building new bridges with the plethora of socialist groups that have been popping up after the 2020 election cycle.

Aaron hails from the east side of Los Angeles, earning degrees in History from the University of California Santa Barbara and a Master’s of Science in Education (M.Ed.) from the Johns Hopkins School of Education. He is currently a teacher with the Los Angeles Unified School district.

On why he is running for a seat on the Montebello Unified School Board, Aaron states, “As a teacher and a community organizer, I see how both educational and political policy affects my students, whether inside or outside of the classroom. I have learned both in study and practice that students in poverty cannot learn until their basic needs are met.

“I am running because I can bring ideas to the table that will meet not only student's educational needs, but also their basic needs."

If you would like to help Aaron in our efforts to build a mass base of support for our party at the local level please follow his campaign, sign up to volunteer for phonebanking, and/or donate to his campaign via Linktree by clicking here.

In Solidarity,

Peace and Freedom Party of Los Angeles County

Proposition 29 would require a medical professional, specifically a physician, nurse practitioner or physician's assistant with relevant experience, to be present at dialysis clinics all times. Additionally, all dialysis clinics of which 5% or more are owned by any in-house physician would be required to disclose this information publicly.

 The healthcare unions that are backing Proposition 29 hope to enact some long-overdue safety and health improvements at the clinics while stopping clinic owners from hiding their ownership and dodging reasonable regulation. 

The backers will be immensely outspent by the two corporations that own most California private dialysis clinics (DaVita Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care), who are using their usual tactic against the proposition:  telling outrageous lies.  These companies claim Prop 29 will shut down clinics (it won't), and they claim it will reduce the level of care (in fact, it will improve the level of care). 

Sadly, lying in advertisements against propositions is perfectly legal in California, and the tactic worked in 2018 and 2020 on the same issue. This is an entirely good and entirely positive proposition, and it would pass if voters understood it. 

Fight against the lies. Vote YES on Proposition 29.

In Election 2022 in California, Proposition 31 ia a referendum bankrolled by tobacco industry with the intention of overturning a law passed by the California legislature in 2020. Voting YES will allow the law to take effect.

Over the last few years, tobacco corporations have evaded the ban on selling tobacco products to minors by selling flavored preparations. They calculate that these are are so attractive to children that they will find ways to obtain them, and become addicted for life to nicotine.

In 2020, the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 793 (SB-793), which banned the sale of most flavored tobacco products. The few exceptions are products used almost entirely by adults, like expensive flavored cigars. As the bill’s sponsor said, “Using candy, fruit, and other alluring flavors, the tobacco industry weaponized its tactics to beguile a new generation into tobacco addiction.”

SB 793 was so popular with the public that only one legislator voted against it. But the tobacco corporations, knowing the public supported the ban, nevertheless found a way to delay its implementation. Under California law, if a referendum against a law qualifies for the ballot, the law cannot be implemented until the voters make their decision. So they paid professional signature-gatherers millions of dollars to get enough signatures to delay the law until the election of November 2022.

How did they get the signatures? They lied. The signature-gatherers told voters that their signatures would qualify for the ballot a law that would ban selling flavored tobacco products! And the disclosure form they are legally required to show potential signers, showing that Philip Morris USA and the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company provided almost all the funding for the referendum, was not shown to the voters.

This law is a good law and should be enacted by the voters now that the delay is over. The tobacco companies have already profited from the two-year delay they paid for, and they may or may not bother to spend more money on lying ads against Proposition 31. But a vote to uphold the law will keep these conscienceless corporations from continuing to sell these products, and an overwhelming vote may help convince the legislators to take further actions that will cut into their ill-gotten gains.

This health and safety measure is the sort of law that Californians need and support, and we urge a vote of YES on Proposition 31.

Ballot Proposition 28 would create a dedicated funding stream for arts programs in the public schools. It would not raise taxes, but instead require that the state match 1% of California’s prekindergarten-through-12th-grade school dollars from the general fund. The funding could not be used to supplant existing arts budgeting.

California’s legislative analyst estimates the set-aside would generate up to $1 billion. Seventy percent of the funding would be distributed to schools based on their enrollment. The remainder would provide additional funding for schools that serve low-income families.

The definition of arts programs is broad, including visual art, music, dance, video and computer art. The funding is for instructors for these programs, as well as for materials. Not more than 1% may be used for administrative purposes.

You could say that this is ballot-box budgeting and that school spending should be determined locally by elected boards or groups of teachers, parents, and students. But that is not how it works in reality. A combination of budget shortfalls and concentration on “teaching to the standardized test” have caused school districts to greatly reduce funding to arts programs.

California’s educational standards include arts instruction, which has known benefits for students’ intellectual and emotional development. At the same time, the state mandates either directly, by decree or indirectly, via rewards and penalties based on test scores, that schools concentrate on reading and math. School districts often require specific numbers of hours for such instruction, leaving little time for anything else. This is especially true in low-income areas where test scores tend to be lower.

Wealthier families can afford music and art instruction and experiences for their children outside of school. Music and art instruction have been demonstrated to help children learn in all areas.

Despite its imperfections, this ballot proposition gives voters a chance to decide whether they want California children to get more arts instruction in schools. Peace & Freedom Party urges a YES vote on proposition 28.

As worded on the Election 2022 ballot, Proposition 1 would enact an amendment to California’s constitution explicitly prohibiting the state from interfering with or denying an individual’s reproductive freedom. The California Supreme Court has in the past ruled that the right to abortion is implicit because the right to privacy is explicit in the state constitution. Recent events have shown that we need to make the right to get an abortion and to obtain and use contraceptives explicit.

This will be one of five abortion-related measures on the ballot in 2022 nationally after the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in June. The amendment provided for in Prop 1 would read:

“The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”

Currently, millions of individuals in California have the right to an abortion and to choose their own contraceptives. If Prop 1 does not pass, millions of individuals will be at risk of being denied essential medicine: Common contraceptives used to treat inflammation, arthritis, psoriasis, and abnormal menstrual cycles will no longer be accessible. Pregnancy complications that could lead to maternal mortality are also expected to increase if a ban on abortion rights is passed.

The November vote comes on the heels of the victory in Kansas for abortion rights, which saw a 250% increase in early voter turnout compared to the 2018 midterm election. This huge victory is a success for gender equity and for the socialist movement everywhere in the U.S.

Unsurprisingly, Prop 1 has received opposition from conservative “pro-life” organizations such as Democrats for Life of America, California Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Republican Party of California, and various directors of the so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

Although California appears to be a progressive state, leaning towards accepting reproductive freedom as healthcare and a fundamental right, a NO vote will place millions of individuals in dangerous situations. Let’s go all-out for abortion rights, because abortion is healthcare and essential. Vote YES on Proposition 1!