Editorial: Vote no on Prop. 16
To understand what's wrong with California's initiative process, all you need to do is look at Proposition 16 on the June 8 ballot. This outrageous measure is funded by more than $25 million from PG&E, and its sole purpose is to protect PG&E profits.
Voters must say no. If they do, it will show what's right with the initiative process — and it could discourage other corporations from spending millions on transparently self-serving initiatives that in no way serve the public interest.
Proposition 16 is a constitutional amendment that would require local governments to win the approval of two-thirds of voters before providing electricity to residents through a local utility, as Santa Clara does, or instituting a "community choice" program. PG&E calls it the Taxpayers Right to Vote Act, arguing that, though many cities do hold elections to decide whether to get into the power business, citizens should be constitutionally guaranteed a say.
In reality, PG&E's initiative would quash any such proposal. Requiring a two-thirds majority would discourage public officials fromeven attempting this kind of vote, especially in the face of a massive PG&E spending blitz.
This isn't just conjecture. In Sacramento in 2006 and San Francisco in 2008, PG&E's deep pockets enabled it to defeat simple-majority ballot measures that would have allowed or expanded municipal utilities. Government officials now know they'd have no chance against PG&E if the threshold were raised to two-thirds, allowing a small minority to block the change.
PG&E is capitalizing on mistrust of government and trying to convince voters that up is down. The company's CEO, Peter Darbee, essentially admitted as much in a March 1 meeting with shareholders.
Asked why the company was sponsoring the initiative, Darbee referred to the 2006 battle in which it spent more than $11 million to prevent Davis, Woodland and West Sacramento from defecting to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.
"So it was really a decision about could we greatly diminish this kind of activity for all going forward rather than spending $10 (million) to $15 million a year of your money to invest in this," Darbee told the shareholders. "The answer was yes."
If that wasn't proof of the cynical intent of Proposition 16, look at the state finance reports: Not a single organization or person other than PG&E has contributed a penny to the campaign. PG&E has said it will spend as much as $35 million to pass the measure. The organized opposition, lacking a wealthy backer, has raised about $20,000.
If Darbee is looking for a cheaper way to hold onto his customers, here's a suggestion: Instead of spending tens of millions of ratepayer dollars on political campaigns, PG&E could use that money to lower rates and find more sources of renewable energy — the main reasons cities consider breaking away in the first place.
But don't hold your breath. And don't miss the opportunity to send PG&E an unequivocal message by ignoring the barrage of misleading advertising and voting no on Proposition 16. The constitution of the state of California should not be for sale.
Facebook
Twitter