Is Newsom’s opposition to Prop. 30 driven by political donors?
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desire to defeat Proposition 30 still confuses Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters, an organization that advocates for policies to curb climate change.
He has been a leader on environmental initiatives, Creasman said. So why would he oppose a new tax on wealthy residents that could help the state more quickly get electric vehicles on the road and reduce catastrophic wildfires?
Creasman’s hunch: “I think it comes down to political money.”
A review of campaign contributions provides some insight into Creasman’s claim. It shows that Newsom is joined by some of his major donors in opposing the proposal, which would add a 1.75% tax on people making more than $2 million annually.
As of Wednesday, a handful of entities and people who have contributed the legal maximum ($64,800) to Newsom’s 2022 re-election bid have also dropped at least $50,000 each to defeat Prop. 30.
Two gave $1 million each, the most by any single donor: Reed Hastings, the co-CEO of Netflix, and Mark Heising, the founder of a San Francisco-based investment company. Heising is also chairman of the board of trustees for the Environmental Defense Fund, a major environmental advocacy non-profit.
An online message to a Netflix media contact was not returned. Heising did not respond to an emailed request for an interview or a follow up call to his company. A spokesperson for the Environmental Defense Fund said the organization has not taken a position on Prop. 30, adding: “We don’t generally engage in ballot measures in California or elsewhere. As for our board, members, of course, have the right to free expression.”
Mark Pincus, founder of Zynga, the social and mobile gaming company, gave a $490,000 non-monetary contribution to defeat the proposition. It is not clear what the contribution was and a Zynga spokesperson did not make Pincus available for an interview.
Another top donor is Sierra Pacific Industries, a lumber company which owns and manages more than 2 million acres of timberland in California, Oregon and Washington, according to its website. It has contributed more than $950,000. Andrea Howell, a company spokesperson, in an email declined to comment.
None of Prop. 30’s supporters had “maxed out” on Newsom’s re-election bid.
Any claim that the governor was opposing the proposition as a way to help major campaign contributors is “absurd, illogical, and objectively false,” Dan Newman, a political strategist for the “No on 30” campaign, said in an email.
The Governor’s Office directed questions to Newman, who has advised the governor in the past. Newman noted supporters of Prop. 30 also include donors to the governor’s re-election effort.
“Clearly the politically ‘easy’ thing for the Governor to do here would be to take a pass or support it, but he’s sticking his neck out for what he knows to be right in order to oppose corporate self-dealing, prevent special-interest ballot box budgeting, and protect our economy and our taxpayers,” Newman said.
He also pointed to Lyft, which has poured $45 million into supporting Prop. 30. That is more than three times the combined contributions from donors looking to defeat it.
The proposition’s opponents say Lyft is all in because it stands to save money long-term. In 2030, California will require rideshare companies to have 90% of their passenger miles come from electric vehicles. In an ad, Newsom said the company was trying to “grab a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy.”
A portion of the revenue from the tax increase would go toward incentives for Californians to buy zero-emission cars, trucks and buses. But the proposition does not explicitly mention Lyft, or its drivers. Its CEO contends the company is behind the proposal because of the need to reduce emissions.
Lyft has also contributed $32,400 to the governor’s re-election effort.
Newsom’s public statements against the proposition also include economic concerns. He has said it could hurt the fiscal strength of the state at a moment of worrying signs about the nation’s economy.
Bill Magavern, policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air and a proponent of Prop. 30, said he did not want to speculate on Newsom’s motivation for opposing it.
When asked about the argument that now is not the right time for the new tax, he responded: “For people who want to protect the wealthy, there’s never a right time to ask them to pay their fair share.”
Other major Newsom donors trying to defeat Prop. 30 are the California Federation of Teachers, which has contributed $250,000 against the proposal, and the California Teachers Association, which has pitched in $750,000. In July, Newsom and the CTA released a joint statement against the proposition.
“While we can’t speak directly to the Governor’s entire rationale beyond what has been in press releases and statements, we share the concern that Prop 30 is a Trojan horse, designed to benefit one corporation at taxpayers’ expense,” Lisa Gardiner, a spokeswoman for the union, said in an emailed statement. The CTA is also opposed to the new tax because the revenue it generates would be exempt from a state law that guarantees a minimum level of funding for public schools.
Opponents of the proposal have raised their own questions about contributions. Newman, in an email, noted Lyft gave $450,000 to political committees connected to California Environmental Voters.
When asked about those contributions, Creasman said companies should be celebrated for trying to invest in and elect “climate champions across the state.” She said Prop. 30’s detractors were “trying to point at everything but the policy.”
This story was originally published October 10, 2022 at 6:00 AM.
