Getty Images

Chevron won't support Prop. 23 campaign

Fighting Proposition 23, which would suspend the state’s landmark global warming law, has been the top priority for California environmental groups this election season. Yet, with most of the latest recent polls indicating that Prop. 23 will be defeated, greens are now turning more of their attention to a lesser-known measure, Proposition 26.

“At first, there was a fear that the oil companies were going to spend $50 million or more to pass Prop. 23, and now it’s clear that’s not happening," said Bill Magavern, director of Sierra Club California, "and some of the oil companies are instead putting their cash into Prop. 26.”

Chevron and ConocoPhillips are among the oil companies that are the major financial backers of Prop. 26. The measure would amend the state’s constitution to require a two-thirds vote approval to enact some state and local fees, such as fees imposed on disposal of hazardous materials that pay for clean up of toxic waste sites. An analysis by the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found it could cost the state and local governments billions annually because it would be more difficult for fees to be approved. If Prop. 26 passes, it would apply retroactively to laws passed on or after January 1, 2010. 

Chevron has so far donated $3.75 million to the cause, while ConocoPhillips has kicked in $525,000, according to MapLight.org, which tracks political spending. Morgan Crinklaw, a spokesman for Chevron, framed the company’s support of the measure as a jobs issue: “As the largest company in California, Chevron is focused on rebuilding the state’s economy and creating jobs. Higher taxes and fees on services will delay job growth and hinder California’s economic recovery.”

But opponents of the measure fear that it would hinder efforts to make companies pay for the true societal costs of their products. “Twenty-six is basically polluters, tobacco companies and liquor companies trying to protect themselves from the damages that they do to society,” said Heidi Pickman, spokeswoman for the No on Prop. 26 campaign.

The proponents of the measure have raised some $16.2 million, while opponents have garnered $4.8 million, according to MapLight.org. Supporters of Prop. 26 have been running statewide TV and radio ads since Oct. 11, and they plan to continue ads through the election, according to Nick Garcia, a spokesman for Yes on 26.

Prop. 26 opponents have only been able to afford radio ads. Given the lopsided fundraising, in recent weeks, environmental groups and progressive activists have stepped up their efforts against Prop. 26, They’re now talking to voters about it when phone-banking, sending e-mails and creating signage around it. But the campaigns against the two measures remain separate, according to Steve Maviglio, spokesman for No on 23.

“There are many members of our coalition who oppose both, but there is no coordination among the campaigns and no funds from Prop. 23 going toward Prop. 26.”

Last Tuesday, Oct. 18, Becky Bond, political director at Credo Mobile, the San Francisco-based mobile phone company that advocates for progressive causes, was making calls to current and former customers and activists. “Every voter I talked to knew about 23, but not one of them knew about 26. That’s when we knew we really had to get the word out,” she said. Volunteers with Credo will call 6,500 voters this week to talk to them about Prop. 23 and Prop. 26.

Just last week, Prop. 26 started to play a starring role in the Sierra Club California’s phone calls and e-mails to potential voters. Over the past month, the California League of Conservation Voters has also stepped up its campaigning against the measure, according to Warren Chabot, the organization’s CEO.

“I think that there has been a growing realization in the environmental community that we’ve been successful in getting the word out against 23 and that we need to focus more on informing people about the dangers of 26,” said Bill Magavern, director of Sierra Club California.