Southern California → Re: I voted!

Right here but posted very late last night so I gave up on spreading the word. Sorry :-(

I voted NO on 29. Although most of the proposed law practically set in stone for 15 years, the part creating the oversight committee is subject to abuse in a couple of ways. One is that some members of the committee can designate an employee to attend meetings. The restriction "employment provides background and experience in..." is quite open, and I can see a lab assistant, or better yet someone owed political favors, attending the committee meetings. Another problem is that this committee can become a way for the governor to pay back political favors by placing retiring or termed-out politicians or other well connected people on the committee. In the real world the governor will get to choose not just the first four appointees as described in 30130.54(a)(1) but also, through political pressure if nothing else, the two appointments made by the State Public Health Officer. Let's see if any termed-out politicians are suddenly appointed to administrative spots with the Red Cross, Lung Cancer Society, etc.

There will be alot of money to play around with and as always that will attract scum. One other possibility on my mind is that since the money can be granted or loaned to a wide ranging description of organizations connected with research, prevention, detection, etc. that we may see obscure new organizations created to make requests for anything vaguely connected to cancer research, only to find out later that they accepted a six-figure sum to study the mating habits of an insect. Or maybe I'm just overly cynical.

That Big Tobacco is all over this didn't sway me, after all they are The vested interest in this game. Nobody in my family smokes, and an immediate family member is a cancer survivor so I'm hoping for the best outcome with this new tax, but not holding my breath. Time will tell.