Summary
Institutes a $1.00 per pack increase in the price of cigarettes (and equivalent increase on other tobacco products) to fund research into cancer and tobacco-related diseases as well as prevention and education programs. Would be administered by a nine-member committee.
What your vote means
Yes
State cigarette taxes would increase by $1.00/pack (to $1.87); revenue earned would go to cancer research and prevention programs.
No
State cigarette taxes would remain at .$87/pack; no additional funds would go to research into tobacco-related diseases.
Financial effect
Yes
Net increase in cigarette excise tax revenues of about $735 million annually by 2013-14 for research into cancer and tobacco-related disease, and for tobacco prevention and cessation programs. These revenues would decline slightly each year thereafter. Increase in excise tax revenues on other tobacco products of about $50 million annually, going mainly to existing health and tobacco prevention and cessation programs. Net increase in state and local sales tax revenues of about $10 million to $20 million annually. Unknown net impact on other long-term state and local government health care costs.
No
No increase in funds for health research and tobacco-related programs, no increase in excise tax revenues, and no net increase in state and local sales tax revenues.
Campaign arguments
Yes
Summary argument
The American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and American Lung Association wrote Prop. 29 to save lives, stop kids from smoking, and fund cancer research. Big Tobacco opposes Prop. 29 because they know it will reduce smoking in California. Prop. 29 saves lives, but only with a YES vote.
No
Summary argument
Everyone supports cancer research, but Prop. 29 is flawed: $735 million annually in new taxes but doesn't require revenue be spent in California to create jobs or fund schools. Creates new government spending bureaucracy with political appointees, duplicating existing programs. More waste, no accountability to taxpayers. No on 29. ReadForYourself.org
Campaign information
Yes
American Cancer Society
Website: www.YesProp29.org
Email: info@CaliforniansForACure.org
Telephone: (916) 397-4618
Address: 980 9th Street, Suite 2550
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact: Tim Gibbs
No
No on 29 - Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes and Spending, a coalition of taxpayers, small businesses, law enforcement and labor.
Website: www.NoOn29.com
Email: info@NoOn29.com
Telephone: (866) 662-7016
Address: N/A
Contact: N/A
Additional information
Source
- "Summary" and "What Your Vote Means" provided by MapLight
- All other information: Secretary of State's Official Voter Information Guide
Last updated: 05/22/2012
Funding
Yes
| Rank | Contributor name | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY | $8,630,653 |
| 2 | LANCE ARMSTRONG FOUNDATION | $1,500,000 |
| 3 | HOPE 2012 (cash on hand as of 1/1/2009) | $605,265 |
| 4 | AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION | $570,952 |
| 5 | MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG | $500,000 |
No
| Rank | Contributor name | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | PHILIP MORRIS (ALTRIA) | $28,307,295 |
| 2 | R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY (REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC.) | $11,169,995 |
| 3 | U.S. SMOKELESS TOBACCO (ALTRIA) | $3,124,988 |
| 4 | AMERICAN SNUFF COMPANY (REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC.) | $1,750,000 |
| 5 | SANTA FE NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY (REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC.) | $1,148,000 |
Source: MapLight analysis of campaign contribution data from Secretary of State – Cal–Access.
Last updated: 8/22/2012
Endorsements
Last updated: 06/05/2012
News
- Santa Monica Mirror 50th Assembly District Candidates Comment On Tuesday's Close Primary Result June 8, 2012
Last updated: 06/08/2012
Editorials
Yes
- Huffington Post Suzanne Merkelson: Forget Wisconsin: Why California's Cigarette Tax Is The Big Money Story This Week (Op-Ed) June 7, 2012
- Blisstree Deborah Dunham: And This Is Why Lance Armstrong Is So Awesome: He Supports Proposition 29′s Cigarette Tax (Op-Ed) June 4, 2012
No
- The Daily Beast Joe Mathews: California’s Proposition 29 Is Yet Another Ballot Initiative That Could Hamstring the State (Op-Ed) June 6, 2012
Last updated: 06/08/2012
