Yesterday I penned a column making the case for why Meg Whitman should endorse Proposition 23, the California Jobs Initiative that would suspend former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulatory Bill until such a time as California’s economy is doing a heck of a lot better than it is today.
Thanks to a lot of help from FR strategic partners (thanks, all!) that piece also went out via email to well over 100,000 people! I took the liberty of sending it out as an email myself to over 30,000 Republicans.
I can tell you that I was stunned by the response. There is no doubt that Proposition 23 is not only popular with Republican activists — its a major motivating factor for this November’s elections. I received countless e-mails from GOP grassroots leaders, donors (big and small), legislators, county supervisors, city councilmembers and many others.
Two things were obvious to me from all of the responses — the first is that a broad group of people are knowledgeable and engaged in trying to stop the implementation of AB 32, and the other is that Meg Whitman has the potential to tap into a big vein of support for her campaign — and certainly of increasing intensity of support from the GOP base.
Right now Whitman is neutral on 23 — but she has a lot to gain by moving to a supportive position. I urge her to join with the California Republican Party, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and as I said above, so many people around the state that are focused on reviving California’s morbid economy.
Prop. 23 creates some jobs in a small sector of our economy — but it does so at the much greater expense of every other sector — and of course the general costs to all Californians through higher electricity bills and higher gas prices will be detrimental to economic recovery…
(In the time it took me to write this blog post, I received 37 more pro-Prop. 23 emails!)
September 14th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Sorry to see you pimping for Valero and Texas oil companies. According to the latest filings, 89 percent of the money for this ballot measure is from out-of-state. With all seriousness, when is the last time that Texas oil companies cared about the California economy. Was it last year, when they charged us $5.16 at the pump?
The reason that Meg Whitman and other Republicans are opposing Prop 23 is that it’s a job killer. More than $10 billion in venture capital investment has been put into California businesses since 2006 thanks to our state’s clean energy and clean air policies. Republicans are supposed to be pro-business, right?
Prop 23 would be the first state law that is linked to an unemployment rate. How can any business operate in such a climate of uncertainty?
The California Chamber is staying out of this, Chambers in Sacramento, LA County, Silicon Valley, and San Diego, as well as dozens of Republican-dominated communities are all saying NO on Prop 23 because they know it’s a deceptive initiative that will kill jobs and pollute the air.
September 14th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Steve, I think it is unfair to say I am pimping for oil companies after I took the time to lay out what I think is a very clear rationale for why I think Prop. 23 is a good idea, Steve.
But on the subject of “pimping” — it would be appropriate for you to disclose on your comments that you a lead consultant being paid by the No on 23 campaign, although I know you well enough to know that you do not oppose 23 because you are being paid.
I think you know me well enough to know that neither am I. You can see who “pays” me by reviewing our site’s advertisers — which (unfortunately for me) do not include oil companies OR the Yes on 23 campaign.
I will close by adding that it is an unfortunate statement that many of the specific businesses that dominate chamber boards are busy trying to take advantage of the wealth redistribution in AB 32 regulations. These are the same business leaders who embraced the largest tax increases in state history, in return for tax breaks for themselves.
September 14th, 2010 at 12:00 am
I would love to hear Mr. Maviglio’s rationale for:
1) How AB 32, which calls for CA to go it alone in reducing carbon emissions while everyone else watches, will materially reduce climate change;
2) How saddling just CA businesses and communities with ever increasing and onerous AB 32 regulation, and associated litigation for each proposed growth project, will add jobs. Our manufacturing base is nearly gone.