2006 California Proposition 89

Elections in California
Federal government U.S. President 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 Dem GOP 2000 Dem GOP 2004 Dem GOP 2008 Dem GOP 2012 Dem GOP 2016 Dem GOP 2020 Dem GOP U.S. Senate 1849 1850 1852 sp 1856 1857 sp 1860 1860 sp 1868 1872 1873 1873 sp 1878 1880 1885 1886 sp 1887 1891 1891 sp 1893 1895 sp 1897 1900 sp 1903 1905 1909 1911 1914 1916 1920 1922 1926 1928 1932 1934 1938 1940 1944 1946 1946 sp 1950 1952 1954 sp 1956 1958 1962 1964 1968 1970 1974 1976 1980 1982 1986 1988 1992 1992 sp 1994 1998 2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2016 2018 2022 2022 sp 2024 U.S. House of Representatives 1849 1851 1852 1854 1856 1859 1861 1863 1864 1867 1868 1871 1872 1875 1876 1879 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 12th sp 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1987 5th sp 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 32nd sp 2002 2004 2005 5th sp 48th sp 2006 50th sp 2007 36th sp 2008 12th sp 2009 10th sp 32nd sp 2010 2011 36th sp 2012 2014 2016 2017 34th sp 2018 2020 25th sp 2022 22nd sp v t
State government (executive) Governor 1849 1851 1853 1855 1857 1859 1861 1863 1867 1871 1875 1879 1882 1886 1890 1894 1898 1902 1906 1910 1914 1918 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2003 (recall) 2006 2010 2014 2018 2021 (recall) 2022 Lieutenant governor 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Attorney General 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Secretary of State 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Treasurer 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Controller 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Insurance Commissioner 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Superintendent of Public Instruction 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 State Board of Equalization 2018 2022 v t
State government (legislative) State Senate 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Special State Assembly 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Special v t
State government (judicial) Court of Appeals 1994 1998 2002 2006 v t
Propositions 1910–1919 1911 4 7 8 1960–1969 1964 14 1970–1979 1978 6 8 13 1980–1989 1982 8 1986 64 65 1988 98 99 1990–1999 1994 187 1996 196 209 215 218 1998 6 10 227 2000–2009 2000 21 22 36 39 2003 53 54 2004 1A 55 56 57 58 59 60 60A 61 62 63 64 65 66 69 71 2005 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 2006 81 82 83 85 87 89 90 2008 91 92 93 94, 95, 96, and 97 98 and 99 1A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 2010–2019 2010 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2012 29 30 32 34 37 38 39 2014 47 2016 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 2018 68 69 6 7 9 10 12 2020–2029 2020 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Full list v t
Elections by year State elections 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2008 Feb Jun Nov 2009 2010 Jun Nov 2012 Jun Nov 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 v t
Anaheim Mayor 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 v t
Bakersfield Mayoral elections 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 v t
Fresno Mayor 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 v t
Irvine Mayoral elections 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 v t
Long Beach Mayor 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 v t
Los Angeles General 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2020 Mayor 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1909 (sp) 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1929 1933 1937 1938 1941 1945 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 2022 City Attorney 2009 Board of Supervisors 1980 1996 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Ballot measures 1980 A 1986 U 2008 R 2012 B J 2016 M 2017 S v t
Oakland Mayor 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 v t
Orange County District Attorney 2018 Board of Supervisors 2018 2020 v t
Riverside Mayor 1997 2001 2005 2009 2012 2016 2020 v t
Sacramento Mayor 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 v t
San Bernardino Mayor 2005 2009 2014 2018 v t
San Diego Mayor 1887 1889 1891 1893 1895 1897 1899 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1931 1932 1935 1939 1943 1947 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 (sp) 1984 1986 (sp) 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2005 (sp) 2008 2012 2013–14 (sp) 2016 2020 City Attorney 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 Municipal elections 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Special Board of Supervisors 2020 v t
San Francisco Mayor 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 (recall) 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2018 (sp) 2019 2023 District Attorney 2019 2022 (recall) Board of Supervisors 1977 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Board of Education 2018 2022 (recall) General elections 2004 Mar Nov 2005 2006 Jun Nov 2007 2008 Feb Jun Nov 2009 2010 Jun Nov 2011 2012 Jun Nov 2013 2022 Feb v t
San Jose Mayor 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 v t
Stockton Mayoral elections 2008 2012 2016 2020 v t
v t

Proposition 89 was a failed 2006 California ballot initiative that would have offered clean elections centered on campaign finance reform.

Main Points of Proposition 89[]

• Would levy a 0.2% tax on all businesses to help pay for clean money elections
• Limits corporations to spending no more than $10,000 on initiatives
• Provides limited public funds for qualified candidates who agree to take no private money so they can serve their constituents free of obligation to the big donors.
• Bans contributions from lobbyists to politicians.
• Lawmakers can be removed from office or jailed for violating the policy, up to 5 years in jail and $25,000 fine.
• A YES vote on this measure means:

Candidates for state offices could choose to receive public funds to pay for the costs of campaigns if they meet certain requirements. Candidates not accepting public funds would be subject to lower contribution limits than currently. The tax rate on corporations and financial institutions would be increased to pay for the public financing of political campaigns.

• A NO vote on this measure means:

Candidates for state offices would continue to pay for their campaigns with private funds subject to current contribution limits. The tax rate on corporations and financial institutions would not change.

Election results[]

The proposition was defeated in the November 2006 elections.

• Yes: 25.7% - 2,124,728
• No : 74.3% - 6,132,618

See also[]

Clean Elections

External Resources[]

• Yes on 89
• Analysis of Proposition 89

This article about the politics of California is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by .

• v
• t