The Background

In 1992, 18-year-old Kimber Reynolds was attacked by two men who attempted to steal her purse outside a restaurant in Fresno. One of the men shot her in the head. She died 26 hours later. The  25-year-old shooter – who was killed shortly thereafter in a police standoff – was described by police as a hardcore drug user who had been repeatably jailed on gun and drug charges, and who just two months earlier had been released from state prison where he served a sentence for auto theft.

After his daughter’s death, Mike Reynolds began fighting for a statewide tough-on-crime policy to keep potentially violent criminals off the streets. His effort gained widespread support following the kidnapping, rape and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas just eighteen months later.

In 1994, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 184, known as the “Three Strikes and You’re Out Law,” which Reynolds helped author. In effect ever since, the law has significantly increased the length of prison sentences for second and third time offenders who had a serious or violent original conviction  Even if repeat convictions are minor – such as petty theft or drug possession – a second strike offense now results in double the normal prison term. A third strike gets a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life. Of the roughly 24 states with a three strikes type  law, California’s is widely considered the harshest.

Californians remain sharply divided over three strikes. Advocates like Mike Reynolds are quick to note the dramatic decrease in crime statewide since it was enacted: by 2004, the statewide violent crime rate had gone down by half.

But opponents argue that the law unfairly imprisons scores of low-level offenders for excessive periods at a huge expense to taxpayers. In the decade after the law’s passage, the state prison population increased by roughly thirty percent, and the prison budget skyrocketed. Today, of the more than 41,000 second and third strike inmates in California’s prisons, more than half are serving elongated sentences for non-violent crimes. Of these, more than 6,000 are for drug-related offenses.

All attempts to reform three strikes, including a ballot proposition in 2004 have failed. But on Nov. 6, California will again reconsider the issue, and vote on Proposition 36, a measure that which would significantly revise the three strikes law, resulting in shorter sentences for many non-violent, non-serious offenders.

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that if Prop 36 passes, it will save California roughly $70 to $90 million annually. Opponents of the proposition, however, warn that doing so will severely compromise public safety.

Additional Multimedia Resources

three-part series, and interactive timeline on California’s three strikes law.

More resources on the two tax propositions

So, what issues do young people care about? What are their ideas about government and the role it should play in our lives?

Well, rather than blindly hypothesizing, KQED decided to (gasp) actually ask them. Directly.

In partnership with three other public media organizations on the West Coast, we launched a series called “Voices of Young Voters”. This fall, we spent a bunch of time on college campuses around the Bay Area, asking young voters to weigh in on the issues they care most about in this election. Listen to to some of the responses below, and find many more here.

Dr. Jaus/Flickr

That’s the underlying question that Proposition 29 poses to California voters, who go to the polls in June to decide if smokers should pay an extra buck in taxes for a pack of cigarettes.

What would Prop 29 do?

If passed, the measure – called the California Cancer Research Act – would add an additional dollar to a pack of cigs and other tobacco products sold in California (amounting to five more cents/cigarette). It would more than double the current tobacco tax rate – the most dramatic increase in the state’s history.

The estimated $735 million (annually) in new revenue (adjusted for tax revenue lost from the projected decrease in sales) would go toward a special fund administered by an appointed committee to support research on cancer and other tobacco-related diseases, as well as prevention and enforcement initiatives. None of it would be used for medical treatment.

If the measure passes, tobacco sales in California are predicted to decrease by as much as $1 billion a year. If the measure does NOT pass, the current cigarette tax of 87 cents would remain as is.

Who likes it?

Californians for a Cure is the group behind Prop 29. Co-chaired by former State Senate Pro Tem Don Perata and cycling legend Lance Armstrong, both cancer survivors, the group consists of a host of large health foundations, namely the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association. The campaign argues that the new tax will save lives in California by significantly reducing smoking rates, especially among youth, and by funding cancer research. As of mid-May, it had raised about $8.5 million.

Who doesn’t?

Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes and Spending is the campaign trying to defeat Prop 29. Supported by a number of anti-tax groups, it is funded primarily by major tobacco companies to the tune of nearly $40 million (as of mid-May). The campaign, it’s worth noting, is not trying to argue that cigarettes aren’t bad for you or that there shouldn’t be government prevention programs and cancer research efforts. Rather, it argues that the measure is fundamentally flawed – especially in the midst of the state’s budget crisis -  because it doesn’t guarantee the additional revenue would stay in California, and creates a wasteful, unnecessary and unaccountable government bureaucracy.

The campaign to defeat the measure, and the strategy of spending millions on a statewide advertising blitz against it, seems to be effective. Since March, the measure’s approval rating among likely voters has dropped 14 points, according to a new statewide survey conducted by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.  As of late-May, 53 percent say they will vote yes, 42 percent say they will vote no, and 5 percent are undecided, the survey found. But back in March, before active campaigning around the measure began—67 percent supported it, 30 percent opposed it, and 3 percent were undecided.

Interestingly, though, when likely voters were asked the more general question about increasing taxes on cigarette purchases, 63 percent still said they were in favor and 33 percent were opposed. Responses to this question were similar in March (63% favor, 34% oppose).

“The large drop in support for Proposition 29 speaks loudly about how a well-funded opposition is able to raise voters’ doubts and distrust in state government, even when a tax increase is viewed favorably,” says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO.

Bring on the ad wars

Just a sample of the many ads recently aired by the opposing campaigns:

How does California’s tobacco tax compare to rates in other states?

California’s current cigarette excise tax (an excise, by the way, means a tax levied on specific commodities) is pretty low compared to most other states (18th lowest, to be precise): right now the tax here is 87 cents/pack, almost 60 cents lower than the national average and a whopping $3.50 less than in New York, whose tobacco tax is $4.35, the nation’s highest. (New York City has an additional $1.50 tax, so an average pack of smokes there costs more than $11!). Taxes on tobacco products in California haven’t increased in 14 years. We join Missouri and North Dakota as the only three states in the country that haven’t increased them since 2000.

Smokers throughout the U.S. also pay a federal excise tax of about $1/pack on top of state taxes.

How does California’s smoking rate measure up to other states?

Despite its low taxes, California actually has the second lowest smoking rate in the country: just over 12 percent of adults. Compare that to the national rate of nearly 20 percent or one in five (the smoking rate among California’s youth is slightly higher than it is among adults, but still far below the national average). The state’s adult smoking rate has declined consistently over the last two decades, sparing more than 1 million lives and $86 billion, according to state health officials. In 2010, California’s smoking rate reached a record low of 11.9 percent (it’s risen slightly since), down from almost 26 percent in 1984. The most significant decrease occurred among adults ages 25 to 44. But while California’s current smoking rate is significantly lower than many other parts of the country, there still are roughly 4.5 million adult smokers statewide.

U.S. smoking rates by state

Click on any state to see the percentage of adult smokers (2010 data) and the tobacco tax rate. The darker the shade of red, the higher the smoking rate.

Data sources: Centers for Disease Control; Tax Foundation

Why is California’s smoking rate so low?

There’s obviously no single answer, but a number of policy measures have received a lot of credit. California has long been a trendsetter in local and state government smoking reduction efforts. In 1995 it placed a statewide ban on smoking in restaurants and workplaces, the first state to do so. Three years later, the ban was extended to bars. California has also spearheaded significant smoking prevention and education efforts, particularly geared towards youth. A 25-cent cigarette tax in 1998 created the California Tobacco Control Program, the first of its kind in the nation, charged with leading aggressive anti-smoking campaigns.

What’s the history of tobacco taxes in California?

• 1959: the state’s first tobacco tax was passed by the legislature. It added 10 cents to the cost of a pack of cigarettes. The revenue went straight into the General Fund.
• 1988: voters approved Prop 99, which added an additional 25-cent tax to fund tobacco prevention, education, and research programs.
• 1993: a 2-cent tax enacted by the legislature created a fund for breast cancer research.
• 1998: voters approved Prop 10, adding a 50-cent tax to fund early child development programs.

Last year, total state revenues from taxes on tobacco products were just over $900 million. California’s last tobacco tax measure – Proposition 86 – appeared on the ballot in 2006, but was narrowly defeated. The opposing campaign spent nearly $67 million. The measure would have imposed an additional $2.60 per pack, giving California one of the highest tobacco tax rates in the country.

Does raising taxes on tobacco products actually reduce smoking?

Source: California Department of Public Health

Yes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Increasing the price of cigarettes is one of the most reliable and effective ways to reduce smoking and prevent youth initiation,” the agency reported in it Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on March 29, 2012. The report added: “The evidence indicates that further increases in cigarette excise taxes would continue to reduce the demand for cigarettes, thereby preventing youth initiation, reducing cigarette consumption, and decreasing the prevalence of smoking, particularly among youth and young adults. States can reduce cigarette use even further by investing excise tax revenue in tobacco prevention and control.”

Some economists, however, argue that high cigarette taxes can do more harm than good,  drawing smokers to buy cigarettes in nearby states with significantly lower taxes and resulting in lost tax revenue for California. High costs, it’s been noted, could also encourage a black market in cigarette sales, as has become common practice in New York City.

What are the economic and social costs of smoking in California?

Even with California’s relatively low smoking rate, the economic and social costs here are still pretty steep. In 2004 (when the adult smoking rate was14.6 percent), roughly 35 thousand deaths in California among adults aged 35 and older were attributed to smoking, according to the California Department of Public Health. That’s eight times the number of deaths from all infectious diseases combined. The department estimates that the total adult health-related cost of smoking that same year was more than $18 billion. That includes $9.6 billion in direct health care costs associated with smoking and $8.5 billion in productivity losses dues to smoking-attributed early death or illness. The department estimates that if smokers were to pay for these related costs, a pack of cigarettes would need to be increased by $9.70.

Additional non-partisan resources on Prop 29 and tobacco use

• CA Legislative Analyst’s Office 
• MapLight Voter Guide
• CA Secretary of State Voter Guide
• California Department of Public Health
• U.S. Centers for Disease Control

acgov.org

If California’s thorny elections process already had you in a bit of a tizzy, this year’s primary could be a bit of a doozy.

On top of sorting through the inevitably hefty batch of candidates and confounding propositions, voters will now have the added challenge of deciphering a brand new set of rules.

The new system, dubbed the “top-two or “open” primary, makes its debut in California’s statewide primary on June 5. It’s the result of Proposition 14 – the California Top Two Primaries Act – a measure approved by voters in 2010.

And as almost always happens when the rules of the game change, the new format is nearly guaranteed to cause a whole mess of confusion.

So let’s get right down to the nitty gritty:

Out with the old …

Until now, California’s statewide primary elections were considered “closed,” meaning you could only vote for candidates in your own political party (with the exception of non-partisan offices like county and education officials). So, for instance, if you were a Democrat, your ballot would only list Democratic candidates for national offices, or state senate, or governor or whatever other political races were happening in that particular election. Independent voters who declined to state a party preference were allowed vote in the general election, but could only participate in the presidential primary elections of the  Democratic and American Independent Parties (not the other four “qualified” political parties).

California’s six “qualified” political parties include:

• DEM = Democratic Party
• REP = Republican Party
• AI = American Independent Party
• AE = Americans Elect Party
• GRN = Green Party
• LIB = Libertarian Party
• PF = Peace & Freedom Party

The candidate with the most votes from each party then advanced to the general election, where he/she would face top candidates from all the other parties. For each political contest, every party participating in the primary election would be guaranteed a spot in the November general election.

For any given race, the process would generally look something like this:

acgov.org

And in with the new …

CA Legislative Analyst's Office

With California’s new “top two primary” system, political party affiliation is no longer a factor in choosing candidates. That’s because every candidate from every party is lumped together in one big political crock pot. And for most state races, any voter registered with any party can vote for any candidate from any party. Even if you’re not a registered party member, you can still vote for anyone you want.

The two candidates – from any party – with the most votes in the primary face then each other in a runoff in the November general election.

Part of a sample ballot (California Legislative Analyst's Office)

These new rules apply to all legislative and state races (see the list above). They DO NOT, however, apply to the race for president (if you’re a Dem, for instance, Barack Obama will still be your only choice).

So, for some primary races this year, you may notice a surprisingly long list of candidates on your ballot. And that’s because you’re going to see the names of everyone from every party who’s running for that particular office.

For instance:

Let’s say, hypothetically that two Republicans, two Democrats, and one Libertarian are all running in the primary election for an open U.S. House of Representatives seat in your district. It used to be that you could only choose the primary candidates in your own party. But no longer! Now you can choose anyone you want. So, if you’re a Democrat, you can choose to cross party lines and vote for one of the Republican candidates or for the Libertarian. And no matter how many different candidates from different parties are in the primary race, there will only be two candidates in the general election. Guaranteed.

The process for any given race will generally look something like this:

acgov.org

One of the interesting potential outcomes of this new system is that some primary races could result in two candidates from the same party facing each other in the general election (if they respectively get the first and second most votes in the primary). So for any given race in the November election, there could conceivably be a Democrat facing another Democrat; a Republican facing another Republican; a Green facing another Green; yadda, yadda … you get the point.

That also means that candidates cannot participate in the general election unless they are among the top two vote-getters in the primary. Unlike the old system, this new rule eliminates the possibility of adding on write-in candidates in the general election. The exception is U.S. President election: write-ins for that position are still allowed during the general election.

For more on how the process works, Alameda County’s government site provides a really good explanation with visuals.

What’s the point, and who’s for/against it?

First passed by the legislature, Prop 14 was later trumpeted in 2010 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a means of reforming California’s bitterly divided political system and breaking the gridlock in the state capitol. With a war chest of nearly $5 million, proponents of the measure made the case that an open primary process would force candidates to appeal to voters across party lines and to reach a larger swath of the public, resulting in a more moderate, less partisan set of elected officials. Backers also argued that increasing the number of choices on the ballot would boost voter turnout and give more political voice to California’s growing contingent of independent voters (about 20 percent of the electorate).

On the other side of the debate, both the state’s Republican and Democratic party leaders, as well as a number of smaller parties and big labor unions, strongly denounced the measure on the grounds that it would make primary campaigns significantly more expensive (because of the need to appeal to more people) and thus benefit the richest candidates with the most name recognition. Opponents also argued that it would decimate the authority of individual political parties and nearly eliminate opportunities for third party candidates to advance to the general election (remember that in the old system, candidates from each of those parties were guaranteed spots in November).

In the end, though, nearly 54 percent of voters approved the measure, an indication of the public’s growing discontent with California’s political establishment. Some political analysts, however, suggested that many of the voters supporting the measure may not of really understood what they were voting for. And interestingly, San Francisco and Orange County, on opposite ends of California’s political spectrum, were among the only counties that opposed the measure.

The new law, which survived an initial legal challenge, went into effect last year.

What’ll be the impact?

It obviously remains to be seen, but a report by the Center for Governmental Studies predicts that the new system will have the most effect on state senate races, which often include well established candidates who have termed out of other offices. The report identified a handful of past legislative and congressional races in California in which a top-two system (had it been in place then) would have resulted in two candidates from the same party facing each other in the general election. The report also predicted that the new system’s biggest impact would be felt in “supermajority districts” where 25 percent or more voters belonged to either party (these make up about a third of the state’s legislative districts).

Is it just déjà vu, or have we gone through something like this before?

We have indeed (never a dull moment with California politics)!

In 1996, voters approved Proposition 198, which instituted the “blanket primary.” The system was similar to our new open primary, in that voters could choose any candidate they wanted regardless of party affiliation. The one crucial difference, however, was that rather than a top-two tier system, the blanket primary resulted in the candidate from each party with the most votes (regardless of where those votes came from) to advance to the general election.

The system was challenged in federal court and ultimately struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision, on the basis that it violated a political party’s First Amendment right of association.

And more recently, yet another attempt to institute open primaries in California, which appeared on the ballot in 2004 (Prop 62), was rejected.

Facebook CEO announces his company's plan to go public (credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

When Facebook filed for an Initial Public Offering (IPO) in February, Mark Zuckerberg wrote a public letter outlining Facebook’s mission: to bring the world closer together. With the additional investment money that an IPO would bring, he explained, Facebook would have the resources to better reach that goal.
Or, to put it another way, when Facebook goes public, it stands to make a whole lot of money. IPO’s can be a good way for companies
to have access to a lot of funding fast, expand their businesses quickly and, in theory at least, make even more money (remember that whole “you gotta spend money to make money” thing?).

Think about some of the recent Facebook features like Timeline, Newsfeed, or video-chatting. More investment in Facebook means more innovations that can be more quickly designed, implemented, and, most importantly, turned into profitable applications.

So what’s Facebook actually worth?

Keep in mind that the “I” in IPO refers to just the initial chance that a company going public has to raise cash. Facebook is hoping to get as much as $10 billion from their upcoming IPO (the company will likely go public by early summer). Not too shabby, right? But that’s only a fraction of what the company actually thinks it’s worth. And therein lies the big question … How much?

No one really knows for sure. The company made $3.7 billion in 2011, but that’s nowhere near how much industry experts think the company is actually worth or what it will be worth in the near future.

In going public, Facebook has to open its accounting books and let outsiders finally get a better sense of how much the company makes and how it makes it. From there, investors will speculate its actual worth. Experts are already anticipating that Facebook’s actual value will be somewhere between $75 billion and $100 billion.

To put that number in perspective (assuming it’s reasonably accurate): if Facebook were a country, it’d have the 59th highest gross domestic product (GDP) in the world, putting it between Vietnam and Morocco!

Why will this make some Facebook staffers very rich?

Similar to what happens in many start-up companies, Facebook offered some of its first wave of employees a small percentage of ownership (shares) in the company in lieu of big salaries (which it couldn’t afford to pay at that point). The idea rests on the hope that some day the business becomes really successful and goes public, and those employees then get to cash in.

And that’s exactly what seems to be on the verge of happening. Big time..

As long as Facebook remains a private company, those stock options aren’t worth diddly  because the company has no stock market value. But with its likely very lucrative IPO in sight, that $100 billion price tag suddenly becomes relevant. And all of a sudden, those employees who for years have been sitting on seemingly worthless stock have really big smiles on their faces.

The Breakdown

Imagine if you were one of those early Facebook workers and were given, say, 1% ownership in the company? If the company actually ends up being  worth $100 billion, you’d suddenly be sitting on $1 billion in shares. Not too shabby!

Now to be clear, not all Facebook employees will get super-rich. A majority of the company’s roughly 3,000 staff don’t have hefty stock options built into their contracts. But, a lot of them do! It’s been widely estimated that Facebook’s IPO will create about 1,000 millionaires and a dozen billionaires among its employees and early investors  … pretty much overnight!

So, for instance, take Mike Schroepfer, Facebook’s vice president of engineering. He owns a little over 2 million shares in the company, which sounds like a lot, but it’s only about .1 percent of the total. Now assuming the company is actually worth between $75 and $100 billion (let’s split the difference and call it $87.5 billion), that’d make Schroepfer’s holdings worth about $98 million! (source: Business Insider). And then you have Zuckerberg himself – the majority shareholder, who owns almost 30 percent of the company. What does that amount to in stock? Try $25 billion.

The world’s richest graffiti artist?

Remember that not all of these people are actually Facebook employees. Some of them are early investors in the company (those guys who took the initial risk and gave Zuckerberg and his pals a bunch of start-up funding). And then there are a handful of folks with some random, quirky connection to Facebook and now stand to cash in big. Take, for instance, graffiti artist David Choe who was hired in 2005 to paint some wall murals in Facebook’s first headquarters. Back then, though, the company hadn’t made much money, so offered to pay Choe in stock instead of cash. He did the job, got some stock, and now stands to make about $200 million. So much for the starving artist.

Does California stand to benefit?

Facebook’s headquarters are located in Palo Alto, and most of the overnight millionaire/billionaire employees live

in state. As a company based in California, Facebook will pay taxes to the state, and as residents, it’s employees will pay a state income tax, which is proportionate to what they make.

For cash-strapped California, this is potentially really good news. The state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office predicts that California could receive as much as $2.45 billion in taxes from Facebook over the next 3 years after the company goes public.

Watch Facebook IPO: Putting a Value on Social Media Giant on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

Watch Outside Super PACs Poised to Dominate 2012 Spending on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

If there’s anything you should remember about U.S. campaign finance law, it’s this:

For almost every set rule, there is most likely a loophole for getting around that rule.

Keeping track of America’s campaign finance laws is really difficult. Why? Because they change so much!

Take a quick scroll through this NPR timeline to get a sense of just how ridiculously fickle the process has been over the last century. It’s an epic and confusing ping-pong match between advocates of spending limits and clever political strategists who find ways to get around – or flat-out challenge – those rules.

And in this corner … the Super PAC!

The most recent, and controversial, example of doing a reverse course on once-established campaign law comes in the form of the super PAC (political action committee). Illegal as recently as the 2008 presidential election, super PACs came into legitimate existence after the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that corporate campaign contributions are indeed a form of free speech (read more about that here), and have already played a major role in the current presidential race. Essentially, they allow candidates to carry out what is best described as the “Tony Soprano strategy”: keep your hands clean and let your friends in the shadows beat the crap out of your rivals for you.

Super PACs are  loosely regulated independent organizations that can accept UNLIMITED contributions directly from  corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals. The groups can then use as much of that money as they want to buy political ads that support a particular candidate -  usually in the form of attacks against that candidate’s opponent – as long as the money is spent independently of the candidate’s campaign.

Super PACs open the floodgates to what is being considered the biggest wave of unlimited corporate spending and influence ever seen in the American political system. While there are still strict contribution limits for giving directly to a candidate or a political party, the super PAC pretty much allows wealthy people and organizations – aka special interests – to get around existing spending rules so as to significantly influence the outcome of elections. Super PACs are popping up like weeds, and the big one’s are almost all generously funded by a very small number of super wealthy Americans and corporations. And while the groups do have to eventually disclose who their donors are, they can delay doing so for long periods of time, often until after the election.

Everyone’s Doing It

All the current Republican candidates in this election have active Super PACs working on their behalf, with intentionally vague names that bear no mention to a candidate. For instance, the biggest super PAC, which supports Mitt Romney, is simply called Restore Our Future. It’s already raised more than $30 million and spent over half of that. In Iowa, before the caucus vote there, the group saturated the local airwaves with millions of dollars of attack ads aimed primarily at Newt Gingrich, the initial front runner. In the end, Gingrich came in fourth place in Iowa. Check out a selection of Restore our Future’s many attack ads here (NY Times).

There are currently 318 super PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. They’ve collectively raised close to $100 million almost half that amount already (with  eight months remaining the general election!).  Even President Obama, who spoke out strongly against Super PACs when they were first allowed, just announced that he’s encouraging his supporters to form one and start raising money for it.

Fuzzy Rules

So what’s the catch? The only major stipulation is that the super PACs are not allowed to “coordinate” with the candidates or campaigns they’re helping out. It’s a pretty fuzzy line, though, because a candidate can still help raise money for a super PAC, as long as he doesn’t tell it what to do with the money. And in almost all circumstance, super PACs are run by the same people who have spent years working for the candidate. Yet, because of the required disconnect, candidates can remain completely unaccountable when one of their Super PACs produces an attack that presents potentially false information about a rival.

Some fun interactive resources

• A guide to political donations (NY Times)
• Tracking what the super PACs are spending (Pro Publica)
• Tracking independent spending (NY Times)
• A chart of week-by-week campaign spending (NPR)