Molly Munger donated $44.1 million to pass Proposition 38, a measure to raise taxes for public education. The initiative failed.

Multimillionaire activists, big labor unions and major corporations combined to pump more than $363 million into political fights over 11 propositions on Tuesday’s state ballot, a California Watch analysis shows.

Prop. 38 backer Molly Munger. (neontommy/flickr)

That’s about $20 in political spending for each of California’s 18.2 million registered voters.By law, state ballot initiatives are exempt from the tough donation limits that otherwise apply in California elections.

In contests over proposed tax increases, car insurance rates, criminal justice reforms and political spending by labor unions, donors with deep pockets took full advantage.

Forty-seven donors – individuals, companies and political committees – donated more than $1 million apiece on initiative campaigns, a review of campaign finance data provided by MapLight.org shows.

Seven donors each gave $11 million or more.

The unprecedented spending spree was a sign of just how far the 101-year-old California initiative process has strayed from its origins. In the beginning, initiatives were a Progressive-era reform devised to allow ordinary citizens to sidestep a legislative process controlled by monied special interests.

This year, combined spending over the two most hotly contested ballot measures – Gov. Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30, which sought a tax increase to fund public education, and Proposition 32, a conservative attempt to bar unions from making political donations – topped $195 million, with special interest donors paying much of the freight.

Here, from campaign finance data, are some winners and losers in California’s initiative battles:

The Winners

Big labor

The state’s unions went all in for their successful effort to stop Prop. 32, the anti-union measure pushed by the Lincoln Club of Orange County and other conservative groups. Unions spent more than $60 million to block it. Much of the union money went to committees also pushing Prop. 30, the successful Brown tax measure. In addition to the California Teachers Association ($32.5 million), big donations came from the Service Employees International Union ($21.6 million) and the California Labor Federation ($6 million).

A Facebook tycoon

Chris Kelly, former chief privacy officer of Facebook and an unsuccessful candidate for state attorney general in 2010, gave $2.3 million to Proposition 35, which would toughen prison sentences for human trafficking. Kelly’s donation was more than 60 percent of the measure’s total budget. It had no formal opposition and won easily.

Agroscience

Proposition 37 would have required special labels on genetically engineered food. The unsuccessful measure, pushed by the organic food industry, drew multimillion-dollar opposition from Monsanto Co. ($8.1 million) and DuPont ($5.4 million), in addition to Bayer CropScience, BASF Plant Science and Dow AgroSciences ($2 million apiece).

The police lobby

The Peace Officers Research Association of California was on the winning side of four measures Tuesday and had only one loss. The association spent $192,000 to oppose the repeal of the death penalty, Proposition 34. Proponents countered with about $8 million, but the measure failed. The group also put $1.5 million into opposing the anti-union Prop. 32, which lost; more than $150,000 to back Prop. 35, the human trafficking measure, which won; and $150,000 to support Prop. 30, Brown’s successful tax measure. The cops’ only bad bet: $100,000 to oppose Proposition 36, the measure to reform California’s three strikes law, which was enacted.

The Losers

The Mungers: The adult children of billionaire Charlie Munger, vice chairman of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, emerged as California’s biggest donors – and losers – of all.

Molly Munger, a Los Angeles lawyer and liberal crusader, donated $44.1 million to her Proposition 38, to raise taxes for public education. The measure lost, while Prop. 30, Brown’s competing tax measure, was enacted.

Meanwhile, Charles Munger Jr., a Stanford physics professor, donated about $36 million, most of it to defeat Brown’s Prop. 30 tax increase and to boost Prop. 32, which sought to bar labor unions from making political donations. Prop. 32 also lost.

By way of contrast, each of the Mungers outspent one of California’s best-funded political operations, the California Teachers Association. It donated $32.5 million to support Brown’s Prop. 30 and defeat Prop. 32.

Out-of-state corporations

Thomas F. Steyer, a liberal activist and managing partner of San Francisco’s Farallon Capital Management, was a big winner with his Proposition 39, the measure to collect more income taxes from multistate corporations that do business in California. Steyer donated $29.5 million of the measure’s $31.4 million budget. General Motors, Kimberly-Clark and International Paper put up $45,000 before opposition to the measure collapsed. The state will collect an estimated $1 billion more in taxes as a result.

An insurance billionaire

Mercury Insurance founder George Joseph spent more than $16 million on Proposition 33, his latest attempt to reframe the state’s auto insurance laws to allow discounts for motorists changing insurance carriers. Opponents, including the Consumer Watchdog Campaign, said the measure would weaken consumer protections in present insurance law. Opponents spent only about $276,000 on their successful campaign.

Americans for Responsible Leadership

The Arizona political committee donated $11 million to boost the failed anti-union Prop. 32 and to oppose the governor’s successful tax measure, but those might not be the only losses for the group amid allegations that it illegally laundered the money to conceal its source.

Now, investigators are probing how the campaign cash moved to California from a Virginia-based nonprofit, Americans for Job Security, via a third political committee, the Center to Protect Patient Rights. An official with that committee, Sean Noble, is a Republican strategist with reported ties to Charles and David Koch, Kansas-based GOP megadonors.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris has vowed to continue investigating the affair.

Lance Williams is a senior investigative reporter focusing on money and politics for California Watch and the Center for Investigative Reporting.

(401(K) 2012: Flickr)

Here’s what we can glean about the groups that funneled $11 million into California to try to defeat Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax measure — Prop. 30 —  and to pass Prop. 32 — which would limit unions’ ability to raise political funds:

The state Fair Political Practices Commission announced earlier today that Americans for Responsible Leadership, the Arizona group that last month made the $11 million contribution to a California PAC, had identified the “true source” of the donation: a Virginia-based group called Americans for Job Security. That organization in turn funneled the money back to Americans for Responsible Leadership through yet another group, the Center to Protect Patient Rights. We cannot find a website for it. The Center’s address is listed as a P.O. box in Phoenix.

Completely lost? Let’s review the steps — steps which the FPPC characterizes as “campaign money laundering” under California law:

1. Americans for Job Security (Virginia) sent money to the Center to Protect Patient Rights (P.O. box in Phoenix)
2. The Center to Protect Patient Rights sent it to Americans for Responsible Leadership (Arizona)
3. Americans for Responsible Leadership in turn sent $11 million to the Small Business Action Committee PAC, here in California. One might assume the PAC lost no time in dumping the money into TV ads to defeat Prop. 30 and to pass Prop. 32. The Sacramento Bee’s Capitol Alert lays out the money trail, complete with dates.

Now we have the names of the committees involved. How about the people or companies who were the source of the money in the first place? We’re in the dark about that, thanks to federal law and court rulings that allow a wide spectrum of political donors to keep their identities secret.

But a few facts about Americans for Job Security and Center to Protect Patient Rights have come out:

Americans for Job Security in Alexandria, VA

• OpenSecrets a project of Center for Responsive Politics shows that Americans for Job Security has spent about $15 million this year against Democrats running for federal office and about $650,000 against Republicans.
• Little is known about Americans for Job Security (AJS) beyond the fact it is apparently run by Stephen DeMaura, a 20-something former head of the New Hampshire Republican Party. The New York Times pried open a window on the organization two years ago when AJS showed up as a major donor in a local initiative campaign in Alaska. Americans for Job Security spent $1.6 million to oppose expansion of a gold and copper mining operation near Bristol Bay — arguably fighting the creation of jobs. A subsequent state investigation found that a local millionaire whose fishing lodge might have been impacted by the mining operation recruited AJS’ help in promoting a local ballot measure to block the mine. As the Times reported:

The group ended up in Alaska through [the work of Michael Dubke, former head of AJS] for opponents of the proposed Pebble Mine, led by an Alaska financier, Robert Gillam, whose private fishing lodge could be affected. The opponents said the mine would endanger commercial fishing and pushed a ballot initiative aimed at imposing clean-water restrictions on it; its backers said the mine would create jobs.

Mr. Dubke’s work for Mr. Gillam was called Operation Trenchcoat, documents show, and involved finding out who was behind a pro-mine Web site called Bob Gillam Can’t Buy Alaska. Mr. Gillam testified that he spoke with Mr. Dubke about Americans for Job Security, and decided to join by giving $2 million in “membership fees,” and that he “had high hopes” the money would be used to oppose the mine. (The ballot initiative ultimately failed.)

State investigators found that the advocacy group quickly passed almost all the money to another nonprofit, Alaskans for Clean Water, set up to campaign for the referendum by a group that included Art Hackney, a local Republican consultant and board member of Americans for Job Security. Mr. DeMaura told investigators that while he may have talked to Mr. Dubke about the mine issue, he decided to spend the money “based upon his own research and judgment,” and that there was no prior agreement with Mr. Gillam or Mr. Dubke.

The Alaska Public Offices Commission’s staff report called this “completely implausible” and concluded that Americans for Job Security had violated state law by acting as an improper conduit. It also took a shot at the group’s explanation that it protects its members’ identities so they can speak out without fear of reprisals.

The Times also gave this description of Americans for Job Security’s operation: “The group’s Republican connections begin with location: While its public address is a drop box at a United Parcel Service store in Alexandria, Va., Mr. DeMaura actually works out of space that is sublet from a Republican consulting shop, Crossroads Media, whose other clients include the national Republican Party, the Republican Governors Association and American Crossroads, a Karl Rove-backed group raising millions to support Republican candidates.”

Center to Protect Patients’ Rights (CPPR)

The best quick writeup we’ve found on CPPR is also from OpenSecrets: Mystery Health Care Group Funneled Millions to Conservative Nonprofits. That piece identifies CPPR’s head as Sean Noble of Phoenix, a former congressional staffer. Politico says Noble is a key operative for billionaires Charles and David Koch, who provide deep pockets for a wide variety of conservative causes.

Here’s what OpenSecrets says about where CPPR’s money comes from:

The donors to the Center to Protect Patient Rights are almost entirely unknown. Such tax-exempt organizations must detail the groups to whom they gave grants, but not the sources of their own funds. A small grant of $200,000 came to CPPR from American Action Network, yet another 501(c)(4), according to the Form 990 tax return that American Action filed with the Internal Revenue Service this week.

And if its donors are unknown, so is much else about CPPR. According to its own 2010 tax return, which was filed last November, it is run by Sean Noble, who is listed as its director, president and executive director. Noble describes himself on his Twitter account as a “PR/Political consultant, conservative strategist/operative, former GOP Hill chief of staff, blogger, proud father, fighting for liberty.” Noble was chief-of-staff to former Republican Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona, for whom he worked for 13 years, and since then has worked as a political consultant and in public relations.

The Los Angeles Times also reported on the Center to Protect Patients Rights last May. Here’s how that story described the CPPR’s link to the Koch brothers – and how the brothers responded to questions about it:

San Leandro resident Patrick Jerome Forte came with the California Alliance for Retired Americans and said, “That’s not how the elections are done in California. You can’t buy our vote. You can not influence us to vote the way you want us to. Take your money back!”

Munger chairs the Santa Clara County Republican Party of Silicon Valley. He was not home during the protest.

A recent Field poll showed support for Prop 30 had slipped below 50 percent, which it needs to exceed in order for it to pass. But 14 percent of voters still remain undecided, and Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo told KQED that a majority of undecideds approve of the governor’s job performance and are concerned about potential budget cuts if the measure fails. “All these things indicate to me that the governor’s measure is in fairly decent shape,” DiCamillo said.

Charles Munger’s sister, Molly Munger, has contributed $44 million to a rival tax measure, Proposition 38. That initiative is trailing badly in polls.

Teachers at Angeles Mesa Elementary School in Los Angeles review voter information on Proposition 38 during a teacher union meeting. (Ana Tintocalis/KQED)

Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo says Proposition 38, a rival tax measure put on the ballot by education advocate Molly Munger, has drawn off some of Prop 30′s support. “Prop 38 is pulling some voters away from 30,” he told Capital Public Radio’s Ben Adler. “We’re measuring it at 9 percent.” Despite that switch, support for Prop 38 was measured at just 34 percent, down 12 percent from July.

DiCamillo said there is still hope for Brown’s measure, as undecided voters could be more likely to vote yes in the end. DiCamillo cited the survey’s finding that a majority of undecideds approve of the governor’s job performance and are concerned about potential budget cuts if the measure fails.

“So all these things indicate to me that the governor’s measure is in fairly decent shape,” DiCamillo said.

More on Prop 30 vs Prop 38….

• Explaining the Difference Between Props 30 and 38, Dueling Tax Initiatives

If you want to sport this sticker, you'll have to decipher the state ballot and then vote. (EVA HAMBACH/AFP/Getty Images)

by Lisa Aliferis and Jon Brooks

It’s getting down to the wire — just seven days to make up your mind on a plethora of issues and races … and then ya gotta vote.

Lucky you: We’re here to help.

Our reports about Props. 30 and 38 (education and taxes); the nine-item Prop. 31 (governance) and Prop. 37 (labeling GMO foods) are attracting a lot of attention online. So either we’ve really figured out this SEO thing, or you’re genuinely interested in those initiatives in particular.

Thus, we’re compiling the best-of-the-best of our coverage on these props so that you don’t have to stand in the voting booth pondering whether numerological concerns aren’t going to be the one determining factor after all in how you vote on these things, complex as they are, yet sold, packaged and soundbited by opponents and proponents alike direct to your Id.

So read up!

-Proposition 30 and Proposition 38 both promise to fund schools, but in different ways.

• Explaining the Difference Between Props 30 and 38
• Gov’s Prop. 30 Tax Hike: More for Schools … or More Money Misspent?
• Video: This Week in Northern California recently devoted its full program to the dueling propositions

-Proposition 31 will do nine (yes, 9) different things, attempting to overhaul state governance. God knows California governance needs overhaul, but is Prop. 31 the right approach?

• Making Sense of the Very, Very Complicated Prop. 31
• Supporter and Opponent Explain Prop. 31′s ‘Community Strategic Action Plans’

-Proposition 37 requires the labeling of genetically modified ingredients in foods.

• California’s Prop. 37: Are GMO Labels a Scarlet Letter?
• Fact-Checking the Arguments on Prop. 37

On Friday, KQED’s This Week in Northern California examined the competing propositions.

Voters in Redwood City approved a local tax for district schools earlier this year. (Ana Tintocalis: KQED)

Redwood City is a suburb just south of San Francisco. In recent years, the city has restored its historic downtown area and cleaned up its neighborhoods. But one thing remains the same: the Redwood City school district still gets the lowest amount of state education funding compared to neighboring communities — a result of the state’s complex school funding formula. That rubs 78-year-old Redwood City education advocate Margaret Marshall the wrong way. “It’s not fair and it’s wrong,” she says.

Marshall served on the district’s school board back in the 1980s. But when the state cut millions from education funding over the last two years, she took action. Marshall and an army of volunteers spent hours drafting a local parcel tax for Redwood City schools this past spring. Parcel taxes have become extremely popular among public school districts because the money raised goes directly into local campuses and teachers.

Redwood City tried three times before to pass a parcel tax, but this time Marshall says voters were finally ready to listen. “I had more coffee and cups of tea in the little coffeehouses locally,” she tells me. “But when you take the time to explain it to someone, one-on-one, you feel better about it. I think lots of times people distrust because they don’t understand what is happening.”

That grassroots effort paid off in the June primary. Redwood City schools will now get $1.7 million extra every year for the next several years.

It’s not just this community. Voters across California approved a record number of local school parcel taxes in elections earlier this year. Now, in the November election, a whopping 131 local school tax initiatives will appear on ballots across California.

Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California, says voters’ recent inclination to support such measures could spell trouble for the two statewide tax hike initiatives Propositions 30 and 38. “If [voters] see the money being spent on their block, on their street, in their child’s school, they’re at least willing to consider that tax increase,” Schnur said.

Of the two statewide tax proposals, Gov. Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30 has greater public support, but voters are still not convinced the money it raises will get to local classrooms. Schnur says Brown’s biggest political roadblock is deep-rooted voter skepticism — which is why Brown has pushed so hard for pension and welfare reform, and even cut down on cell phones that state employees have at their disposal.

“Almost everything he has done has been designed to say to voters, ‘Hey look! You can trust me with your tax dollars,’” Schnur says.

The governor’s Prop. 30 television ads reflect his ‘you can trust me’ message. In the ads Brown has softened his take-charge tone and is shown chatting with students in colorful classrooms and libraries.

Prop. 30 would raise about $6 billion by both taxing California’s wealthiest and increasing the sales tax for all. Roughly half of the new money would go toward public schools and community colleges. The rest would help tackle the state’s structural deficit.

Critics say the governor is misleading voters by claiming Prop. 30 is an education tax measure when it also raises revenue for other uses.

Brown’s campaign, however, says stabilizing the state’s overall budget is essential for school funding. Educators and parents who support Prop. 30 emphasize what will happen if the measure does not pass — a $6 billion spending cut halfway into this school year.

Cuts Would Hit Small Districts Especially Hard

The Pajaro Valley Unified School District, which serves the agricultural community of Wastonville, needs all the money it can get to provide extra resources for its students who are learning English as a second language.

The district’s chief business officer Brett McFadden says that is why the Pajaro Valley school board, the local teachers union, and community groups have endorsed Prop. 30. However, McFadden says the governor’s measure is still not a perfect solution.

“Prop. 30 would just stabilize us. We don’t get anything extra from it. [The measure] just protects us against a further cut. To that extent, it isn’t a magic bullet. It’s a temporary fix.” McFadden said.

Still, the statewide tax hike proposal remains Watsonville’s best hope. Most immigrant parents here don’t earn a lot of money, and many are not registered voters. As hard as it was for Redwood City to pass a local parcel tax, Watsonville would face an even steeper climb to securing a two-thirds vote. The statewide measures need just a simple majority vote: 50 percent plus one.

A poll this week by the Public Policy Institute of California shows the governor’s Prop. 30 measure with 48 percent support, and Prop. 38 with 39 percent.

The challenge over the next week-and-a-half will be whether either campaign can bridge the “tax-trust” divide.

Through the studio glass: Michael Krasny hosts KQED's daily call-in show "Forum."

Here at KQED, we take elections pretty seriously. It’s a time when our mission of educating the public comes to a head — the messages coming from the campaigns are unrelenting and taken as a whole can present a confusing picture. So helping you cast an informed vote is our aim.

That was the philosophy behind our state proposition guide. Some people, however, prefer listening to reading. For those folks we present a complete archive of Forum’s 2012 state proposition shows. Some are an hour long, some are half an hour, but all present views from both sides and include community input we received via calls, emails, Facebook and Twitter. So sit back, turn up your speakers, and take a listen…

Prop. 30: Gov. Brown’s Tax Increase for Education, Public Safety

Prop. 31: Revises the State Budget Process

Prop. 32: Campaign Finance Reform or an Attack on Unions?

Prop. 33: Changes to Auto Insurance

Prop. 34: The Death Penalty in California

Prop. 35: Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery

Prop. 36: Should Three Strikes Be Changed?

Prop. 37: The Fight Over GMO Labeling

Prop. 38: Molly Munger’s Tax Initiative for Education

Prop 39: How We Tax Multi-State Businesses

Please note: Forum did not produce a show on Proposition 40. You can find more information on that here.

The Arizona group that dumped $11 million into California’s ballot measure melee this week is led by a Republican activist who calls labor unions “the parasite that is killing our jobs.”

Americans for Responsible Leadership was formed last year by three Arizona businessmen, including Graham. The other directors are Eric Wnuck, who ran an unsuccessful campaign in the Republican primary in a 2010 congressional race, and Steve Nickolas, a bottled water entrepreneur. 

“These are not household names even to politicos like me,” said longtime Arizona political analyst Michael O’Neil. “This is not the political A-team.”

O’Neil added: “It sounds like they are a front organization, and the real question is where do they get their money from.”

The group is organized as a nonprofit organization that doesn’t have to disclose its donors. The group’s directors did not respond to requests for comment.

Beth Miller, spokeswoman for the Small Business Action Committee, which received the $11 million donation, said the committee does not know who funds the group.

“You’ll have to ask them as to where their funding is coming from,” she said.

Americans for Responsible Leadership has also injected money into two of Arizona’s ballot measures this year. It gave $500,000 to oppose a 1-cent sales tax for education funding. And it spent $75,000 to oppose a measure that would create an open primary system where voters could vote for candidates of any party and the top two vote-getters would advance to the general election. California has a similar top-two system that voters approved in 2010.

“Outside special interest groups are trying to take away our freedoms,” Graham said in a video opposing the top-two initiative. “Do you want California politics in Arizona? … I don’t want Arizona to have to deal with the same mess California is in.”

Graham, who has a wealth management company in Scottsdale, is running to lead his state’s Republican Party with a pledge to “respect the grassroots conservatives and Tea Party members who have infused our Party with energy and recommitment to conservative ideals.”

Graham also ran an unsuccessful campaign in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary, as a relative unknown. He has a company called Freak Show Racing. And he is the author of “Job Killers,” a book about “How Labor Unions are Destroying American Jobs and the Economy.”

“Striking labor unions out of the business model is imperative to the economic success of today’s ever-changing marketplace,” he said in a video promoting the book. “Then, and only then, will we truly be able to free ourselves of the parasite that is killing our jobs.”

Labor unions in California are pouring tens of millions of dollars into the same state ballot measures that Americans for Responsible Leadership is targeting – but on the opposite side.

The California Teachers Association and the Service Employees International Union combined gave $16.5 million to Prop. 30, the governor’s tax increase, according to campaign finance tracker MapLight.org. The two labor giants also gave $32 million to defeat Prop. 32.

Unions have much at stake. While Prop. 32 prohibits both labor and corporations from using payroll deductions for political purposes, critics say it would disproportionately hit unions, which commonly use member dues to finance robust political operations.

A new report by public policy group California Common Sense found that labor unions fund far more independent expenditures in state political races than other sectors.

Special interests can spend unlimited money on political ads if they are independent of candidate campaigns, and such expenditures have shot up over the past 12 years. Since 2000, unions spent $90 million in this way, compared with $27.7 million by the business sector, according to the report.

Businesses, however, tend to outspend unions when it comes to direct candidate contributions, said report co-author Mike Polyakov.

“I think the influence that money generally and independent expenditures specifically have on our political system is something that should cause concern to the public,” Polyakov said.

Will Evans is an investigative journalist for California Watch.

Teachers at Angeles Mesa Elementary School in Los Angeles review voter information on Proposition 38 during a recent teacher union meeting. (Ana Tintocalis: KQED)

Education advocates in California say public schools will either sink or swim based on the outcome of two competing tax initiatives on the November ballot — Proposition 30 and Proposition 38. While both aim to protect students from more devastating budget cuts, they go about it in very different ways.

To better understand what is at stake for California’s public schools, I started off by visiting the headquarters of the Los Angeles Unified School District, the largest district in the state.

LAUSD has had to cut about half a billion dollars from its budget every year for the past five years because of the state’s money problems. Class sizes have swollen to more than 40 students; the school year was cut by five instructional days, and teachers have lost their jobs.

The person behind every difficult financial decision is Megan Reilly, the district’s Chief Financial Officer.

Her office is perched on the 26th floor of a skyscraper in downtown Los Angeles. Stacks of papers and financial reports are piled on and around her desk. Although she has a sweeping view of the city, she can’t take her eyes off of a series of large monthly calendars on the wall.

November 6th, Election Day, is circled, underlined and highlighted.

“I don’t think you can not think about it,” Reilly says. “We’re just in limbo because everything is critical about what is going to happen at the November election.”

Reilly views the election as a watershed moment for schools, because if voters do not approve Prop. 30 or Prop. 38, L.A. Unified — along with most other districts in California — will be pushed further down the road toward insolvency.

“I can’t face counselor ratios going even higher,” Reilly says. “I can’t face class sizes going even higher. It’s really hard for anyone to face the public saying, ‘I’m going to have to take more away from the schools.’ There’s nothing more to take.”

Reilly and other school administrators across the state believe Gov. Jerry Brown’s initiative, Prop. 30, offers the most immediate relief.

It would raise roughly $3 billion for public schools and community colleges by taxing the wealthiest Californians for seven years and it would increase the sales tax by a quarter-cent, a hike that everyone would have to pay. Overall, the measure would raise $6 billion for education and to balance the state budget.

However, should voters reject Prop. 30, schools will get hit with a $6 billion spending cut halfway through this school year. Many districts would be forced to lop off three full weeks of instruction.

“These are horrific cuts,” says Dan Schnur, director of the Jess Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.

Schnur says that given the constant cuts to public education, taxpayers may finally be ready for the first time in almost 20 years.to reach into their pockets to help schools.

“The biggest challenge for Governor Brown is convincing them that state government can be trusted to spend their tax dollars wisely and effectively.” The governor faces a trust issue because for the past five years, lawmakers have tapped into the state’s special pot of education funding to balance the budget.

The $3 billion raised annually by Prop. 30 would go back into that education pot, refilling it to the same level as before all of the cuts. This move would stabilize school funding and  eventually  even expand it. It would also free up existing general fund dollars for other needs because that is part of the governor’s larger plan to fix the state’s structural budget deficit.

One person who doesn’t trust the governor’s strategy is Molly Munger, the wealthy civil rights attorney who is bankrolling Proposition 38 — the competing education tax initiative. Munger’s name has been splashed across the news because she’s been criticizing the governor and Sacramento lawmakers for squandering education dollars.

“[Voters] are willing to pay the tax. But they insist, rightly, that the money not go to Sacramento, because they know if it goes there, bad things will happen to it,” Munger said in a recent interview with San Francisco’s KNBC Channel 3.

Unlike the governor’s initiative, Prop. 38 would tax the income of almost every Californian for 12 years. Under the initiative, public schools could receive as much as $10 billion the first year, which would be set apart from the state’s general fund. Some of the money would also go to preschools and to paying down bond debt.

Scott Kaplan has three children in the Redondo Beach Unified School District, just north of Long Beach. He’s backing Prop. 38 because he believes it would give communities more control of how the extra money is spent.

“It’s a huge amount of money for our district of 11 schools,” Kaplan said. “What we can do with those funds at the local level … is phenomenal.”

But the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office points out there is more to Prop. 38 than meets the eye. Because the money is earmarked for education, the initiative would do nothing to help California’s overall budget deficit. The measure also comes with a myriad of funding rules that school administrators say would be difficult to navigate.

And then there is the issue of timing. The Legislative Analyst states Prop. 38 tax dollars may not flow into schools until sometime during the next school year.

Erica Jones teaches 3rd grade at Angeles Mesa Elementary School near Inglewood. She backs the governor’s plan, Prop. 30, because she doesn’t want schools to get hit with that $6 billion spending cut should the initiative fail.

“I can’t wait for a great solution. We need help now,” Jones says.

Like many Californians, Jones feels the state’s wealthiest should kick in more to help the state and to get the school system back on track. “I’m all about shared responsibility,” she say,  “but there’s been a lot of responsibility put on the lower class and the middle class. So at this point we’re already struggling.”

Because the outcomes of these initiatives are so critical for education, a growing number of parents and educators are urging a yes vote on both.

However, only one can win — because Prop. 30 and 38 would increase the income tax on Californians. The state’s constitution views that as a conflict, so only the measure with the most votes can prevail.

And state taxpayer groups, of course, don’t want either one to succeed. They believe that giving more money to government simply encourages out-of-control spending. Here’s a chart of how much more Californians would pay under Prop 30 and Prop 38, respectively. The data is from the LAO; the dollar amounts represent the marginal tax rate for single-file taxpayers…

Listen to Ana Tintocalis’ story:

Update Oct 30: Here’s a great infographic comparing the two propositions, from EdSource. Click on the image to see the full graphic.