This ad is essentially correct. However, the explanation of the requirements of Prop. 4 is incomplete. Prop. 4 requires the notification of a parent or an alternate adult family member in cases of alleged abuse prior to a minor obtaining an abortion. Alternatively, the measure provides for an abortion without notification in the event of a life threatening medical emergency or through judicial bypass. Further, the ad implies that parental notification laws either discourage minors from engaging in sexual activity or encourages them to practice safe sex. The research shows that parental notification laws decrease the incidence of gonorrhea among teens, but increase birth rates and late trimester abortions among teens. Read more »

This ad tells the story of a girl who was raped and then taken for an abortion when she became pregnant. The ad says that a "yes" vote on Prop. 4 would help stop sexual predators. While some statements in the ad are accurate, other statements are misleading. Read more »

This ad says that passage of Prop. 4 would result in some teens seeking unlicensed abortions; and that they may be unable to approach their parents for help due to a fear physical abuse. The statements in this ad are accurate. Read more »

This ad says that Prop. 3 will provide funding to children's hospitals to help them save lives without raising taxes. Some statements are accurate, while others are debatable. Read more »

This ad says that Prop. 4 would result in the arrest and prosecution of predators and would reduce the sexual exploitation of minors. The ad asserts that California's laws assist in the covering up of the crime of statutory rape. Some statements are accurate, while others are debatable or misleading. Read more »

This ad against Prop. 4 says that the measure would force girls to notify an abusive or violent parent that they are pregnant. This statement is incorrect because Prop. 4 would provide a judicial alternative to parental notification for pregnant minors who do not wish to involve their parents in their abortion decision. Read more »

First aired on 11.4.2006

This ad for Prop. 86 says that Prop. 86 will reduce smoking and save lives and that 100 percent of the proceeds will fund critical health care programs. The ad is accurate. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $90

First aired on 10.31.2006

This ad against Prop. 86 says that ten percent of revenues from the measure would go to anti-smoking programs, and that the rest of the money would go to special interests sponsoring the measure and more government bureaucracy. Some statements are accurate, while others are debatable or misleading. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $3,686,377

First aired on 10.31.2006

This ad against Prop. 86 says that ten percent of revenues from the measure would go to anti-smoking programs, and that the rest of the money would go to special interests sponsoring the measure and more government bureaucracy. Some statements are accurate, while others are debatable or misleading. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $2,039,891

First aired on 10.20.2006

This "No on 86" ad says that only ten percent of Prop. 86 revenues would go to anti-smoking programs, and that the measure would increase tobacco smuggling and crime and deny schools more than $800 million in tax dollars. The ad contains accurate statements but omits important details. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $6,435,057

First aired on 10.27.2006

This “Yes on 86” ad says that the measure is sponsored by the Cancer Society and the Heart and Lung Association, adding that 100 percent of Prop. 86 revenues would go to health-related programs. The ad is accurate but leaves out some important details. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $1,947,422

First aired on 10.18.2006

This "Yes on 86" ad says that tobacco companies want to defeat Prop. 86 and asks viewers to join various health organizations in supporting the measure. The ad accurately portrays the largest donors for and against Prop. 86. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $2,981,035

First aired on 10.23.2006

This ad against Prop. 85 says that the measure would force girls to notify an abusive or violent parent that they are pregnant. This statement is incorrect because Prop. 85 would provide a judicial alternative to parental notification for pregnant minors who do not wish to involve their parents in their abortion decision. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.28.2006): $630,114

First aired on 10.9.2006

This “No on 86” ad says that only ten percent of Prop. 86 revenues would go to anti-smoking programs and that the rest would go to new bureaucracies, no-bid contracts, and more bureaucrats. The ad is somewhat misleading. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $3,526,942

First aired on 10.17.2006

This ad for Prop. 86 says that 100 percent of the money from the tobacco tax increase would go to health care, with 39 percent to emergency services, 24 percent to children’s health coverage, and 11 percent to anti-tobacco programs. The ad is accurate. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $2,443,294

First aired on 10.17.2006

This “Yes on 86” ad says that tobacco companies are spending $55 million to defeat Prop. 86 because it would reduce smoking by 312 million packs a year. The statements in the ad are accurate, although tobacco companies have not mentioned cigarette sales as a reason for opposing the measure. The ad is generally accurate. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $1,136,708

First aired on 10.9.2006

This ad against Prop. 86 says that the measure would deprive schools of more than $800 million that they are supposed to receive from new taxes, give hundreds of millions of dollars to special interests, create more bureaucracy, and allow contracts without public bidding. While many of the statements are true, some are misleading or in need of further details. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $1,384,621

First aired on 10.9.2006

Este aviso está en contra a la Proposición 86, que aumentaría el impuesto al tabaco. Dice que la Prop. 86 privaría a las escuelas de más de $800 millones que deberían recibir de nuevos impuestos, le daría cientos de millones a intereses especiales, crearía más burocracia, y autorizaría contratos sin licitación pública. Mientras que algunas de las declaraciones sean verdaderas, algunas son engañosas o necesitan mas detalles. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $1,384,621

First aired on 10.4.2006

This “No on 86” ad quotes editorials by five major news outlets, from the Orange County Register to the Sacramento Bee. The ad quotes all five editorials accurately, but some of the editorials themselves make debatable statements. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $4,448,936

First aired on 9.28.2006

This “No on 86” ad says that hospital corporations would get hundreds of millions a year out of Prop. 86 by billing taxpayers for emergency care for the uninsured, adding that hospitals often charge the uninsured many times more than they charge people with insurance. The ad makes some accurate statements, but it is misleading about the effects Prop. 86 would have. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $1,368,686

First aired on 9.25.2006

This “No on 86” ad says that the measure would raise taxes by $2 billion a year, that hospitals would “reap the benefit themselves,” and that bureaucrats could award contracts without competitive bidding. The ad is misleading: Although most statements are technically accurate, many of them leave out important details. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $2,849,520

First aired on 9.13.2006

This ad for Prop. 86 alleges that the tobacco industry has lied and says that the measure’s cigarette tax increase would reduce smoking and save lives. The ad’s first assertion is an overstatement; the second is true. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $1,277,338

First aired on 9.13.2006

This ad for Prop. 86 says the measure will reduce smoking and save lives, and that it is supported by health-related organizations and opposed by tobacco companies. These statements are accurate. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $1,285,037

First aired on 9.5.2006

This “No on 86” ad says that less than ten percent of revenues from the measure would go to helping smokers quit or keeping kids from starting, while hundreds of millions would go to hospitals and HMOs. The ad is generally accurate, although the ten-percent figure is debatable. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $2,446,548

First aired on 9.4.2006

This ad against Prop. 86 says the measure exempts hospitals from antitrust laws, lets them divvy up and limit medical services without worrying about competition, and lacks provisions to ensure accountability for how tax revenues from the measure would be spent. The ad is generally misleading. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $3,418,099

First aired on 8.22.2006

This ad for Prop. 86 says that tobacco industry executives want to defeat Prop. 86 because it would reduce smoking by increasing cigarette taxes. The ad is generally accurate. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $3,096

First aired on 8.14.2006

This ad against Prop. 86 says that hospitals would reap hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues from the measure and be exempt from antitrust laws. Some statements are accurate, while others are misleading. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $3,381,485

First aired on 8.14.2006

This ad against Prop. 86 says that only 15 percent of revenues from the measure would go to tobacco-related programs, while hundreds of millions of tax dollars would go to hospital corporations. Although the ad is generally accurate, this statement is debatable. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.7.2006): $3,089,001

With fewer corporations paying for health care insurance and more working people heading to taxpayer funded emergency rooms, it seems that caregivers are sometimes more worried about how people are going to pay, than their ailments. Prop. 72 will set "standards for health coverage like the minimum wage law does for pay."

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $128,260

This ad is an indictment against large corporations, saying that taxpayer dollars are, in effect, subsidizing their employees because they are not paying for health insurance. These same organizations, the ad argues, are funding the opponents of Prop. 72. It ends with "It's tough enough to pay your own bills, you shouldn't have to pay Wal-Mart's too."

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $214,278

The California state insurance commissioner takes a stand on 72, saying that he sees a trend: large corporations either forcing employees to pay more for health care or cutting their employees' insurance altogether, thus sending more working families to taxpayer funding emergency rooms. Garamendi compares Prop. 72 to the minimum wage law, suggesting that both set standards.

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $518,939

Dr. Francisco Prieto cites that only 42 percent of working Latinos actually have insurance through their employer. Thus, the public clinics become the option of choice for many people. Prop. 72 makes large and medium size companies pay for health insurance with only 20 percent being paid by employees. Dr. Prieto urges voters to make "health insurance your right."

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $214,014

According to Prop. 72 opponents, passage of the initiative will cost workers and employers over $7 billion a year and render 150,000 workers jobless. The ad uses quotes from California newspapers and Governor Schwarzenegger.

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $2,666,110

This ad argues that Wal-Mart is asking taxpayers to subsidize their employees' health care to the tune of $32 million. Prop. 72 would make Wal-Mart and other large corporations responsible for their employees by requiring them to pay "at least 80 percent of the premiums, so we don't have to." The tagline is "Health care for workers, not handouts for Wal-Mart."

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $2,822,019

Many working families have lost health insurance because their employers no longer offer it. Not being able to afford a visit to their doctor, they flood emergency rooms at taxpayer's expense. Voting "Yes" on proposition 72 makes sure large and medium employers cover their workers.

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $2,312,311

In this advertisement, a couple discusses how Prop. 72 may impact individuals with good pre-existing health plans.

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $1,565,086

The owner of a family-run restaurant that currently provides benefits to her workers says Prop. 72 could cost the business over $100,000. This cost will translate to either higher prices or worker lay-offs.

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $2,460,823

Dr. Richard Corlin of the California Medical Association says that he has spent his career trying to keep government out of health care. Prop. 72, he argues, is not government-run health care, but a requirement for medium and large employers to pay for private health care.

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $2,783,848

In this ad, the supporters of Prop. 71 want to show just how much backing they have. Among their endorsers are over 40 Nobel Prize winning scientists, top medical organizations and more than 70 patient disease foundations and advocacy groups for patients. They ask voters to support "stem cell research, to save lives."

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $93,554

Dr. Keith Black, director of Neurosurgery at Cedars Sinai Hospital, says there is near total support for Prop. 71 within the medical community and asks voters to stand with them by passing Prop. 71.

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $260,669

A young woman suffering from a rare form of multiple scleroris says, that although millions may benefit from stem cell research, the issue has become politicized. It shouldn't be, because "this isn't a political issue. This is a national crisis."

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $64,274

Christopher Reeve and his foundation support Prop. 71, saying that stem cell research has already proven to cure animals with paralysis and such research is the "future of medicine."

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $628,412

In support of Proposition 71, Michael J. Fox states that an unprecedented 70 patient and medical organizations have joined in a coalition to support Prop. 71 and cure diseases through stem cell research.

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $1,104,972

Parkinson's sufferer, Michael J. Fox advocates for a "Yes" vote on 71, saying that research will help millions of people and help cure serious diseases like cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $2,149,367

Nobel prize winning scientist, Dr. Paul Berg, reassures that stem cell research will occur under "strict ethical guidelines with the prospect that we'll be able to cure serious human diseases."

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $1,227,622

Twin brothers, one with cerebral palsy, talk about the difficulty of life with the disease. They advocate for stem cell research, admitting that "we don't know the whole promise of stem cells, but we're never going to know unless we do this research."

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $965,701

Dr. Irving Weissman, a cancer researcher at Stanford University and California Scientist of the Year, believes that the chances for stem cell research to cure diseases are high, but only if we start.

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $1,610,550

A multiple sclerosis sufferer and mother of a spinal cord injured child believes that stem cell research can lead to cures for many people. She reminds us that her circumstances are not unique, for "it can happen to anybody."

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $1,738,667

Dr. Paul Berg, Nobel Prize Winner and professor of cancer research at Stanford University, states that politics have stymied areas of important stem cell research and Prop. 71 will "break the political log jam."

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $83,915

A Parkinson's disease sufferer says that the passage of Proposition 71 would give him a "tremendous sense of hope." He and his wife argue that half of all American families have someone with a disease like Alzheimer's or diabetes; conditions that could benefit from stem cell research.

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $352,400

Dr. Jeff Bluestone, a juvenile diabetes researcher at UCSF talks about the prospect for a 7-year old girl with diabetes that might eventually benefit from stem cell research. He believes it would be a shame to neglect this great opportunity and bemoans having to tell this same girl in twenty years that “we missed it.”

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $2,063,938

Firefighter Mark Steen advocates for Prop. 67 saying that 65 California emergency rooms have closed and more are likely to follow suit if funding is not found. Prop. 67 will give all but 5 percent of its funds to both keep emergency rooms running and support the people who save lives in emergency situations. According to Skeen, "it will cost about 50 cents a month."

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $1,656,933

This ad claims that the supporters of Prop. 67 are misleading. Instead of a modest increase in taxes, we'll get a 400% increase. Although seniors are said to be exempt, one million seniors will be affected. Finally, although there is a cap on land lines, there is no such cap on small businesses and cell phones.

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $2,827,457

Darrell Steinberg, assemblyman and author of Prop. 63, says that a successful program for the severely mentally ill can become available to all adults and children through a 1 percent tax on incomes over $1 million.

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $138,746

This first ad by proponents of Prop. 63 states that there are many more mentally ill individuals than we are aware of and they include our friends and family. In order to help adults and children with disabling mental illnesses, the ad argues for passage of Prop. 63 and the addition of a 1 percent tax on personal incomes over a million dollars. The funding would be then be used for "a proven treatment program for those in need."

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): $1,219,809

This ad for Prop. 79 and against Prop. 78 says that drug companies are trying to confuse voters with an $80 million ad campaign, and that these companies want to keep cheaper prescription drugs out of your hands and more money in their pockets. The ad also says, "Proposition 78 is a sham brought to you by the same folks who gave you Vioxx." Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $5,000

This ad for Prop. 78 says that Prop. 78 would "make medicine more affordable for the most vulnerable among us: the poor, the elderly, the uninsured and children." Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of ): $472,989

This ad lists several Prop. 78 supporters, including Californians for Patient Care, the Seniors' Coalition, the California Chamber of Commerce, the American Nurses' Association of California, the California Healthcare Institute and local chapters of the NAACP across the state. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $524,552

This ad against Prop. 79 repeats statements made in previous ads. The ad says that Prop. 79 “creates a costly new bureaucracy,” and that with Prop. 79, “patients could be denied access to medicine their doctor prescribes. The ad also says that Prop. 79 “encourages unlimited lawsuits, allowing trial lawyers to sue without a client and keep all the money for themselves.” Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $1,897,040

This ad says that on November 8th, voters have an opportunity to make medicine more affordable for millions of Californians, and that Prop. 78 will provide direct discounts of up to 40 percent on prescription drugs without red tape or raising taxes. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $1,704,253

This ad cites a report by the Western Center on Law and Poverty, which calls Prop. 79 a "wolf in sheep's clothing." The ad says that the measure hurts the poor, elderly and disabled by denying them access to medically necessary drugs.

Note: this ad has been withdrawn from the air at the request of the Western Center on Law and Poverty. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $143,826

This ad for Prop. 78 and against Prop. 79 says that every drug doctors prescribe under Prop. 78 would be eligible for a discount of up to forty percent for millions of Californians. The ad also says that, with Prop. 79, bureaucrats in Sacramento could deny patients access to medicine their doctor prescribes. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $2,024,631

This ad against Prop. 79 says that Prop. 79 reopens a legal loophole Californians voted to close, encouraging "unlimited lawsuits" and "allowing trial lawyers to sue without a client and keep all the money for themselves." Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $2,484,438

This ad against Prop. 79 says that, with Prop. 79, patients on Medi-Cal could be denied medicine their doctor prescribes. The ad also states that 79 allows Sacramento to decide what drugs will be authorized, which could restrict access to the latest medications for the most vulnerable Californians. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $1,632,216

This first ad by Prop. 79 proponents shows a woman angry about the rising cost of prescription drugs. She says that "all the big drug companies have gotten together and chipped in a record-breaking $78 million for an expensive political campaign to fool us into thinking that they are doing something about the cost of prescription drugs in California." Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $10,000

This ad against Proposition 79 states that Prop. 79 could cost the state general fund hundreds of millions of dollars according to respected former legislative analyst Bill Hamm. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $4,097,014

This first ad by the proponents of Prop. 78 and opponents of Prop. 79 says that Prop. 78 would provide direct prescription drug discounts, and that Prop. 79 “creates a big new government program that lets bureaucrats decide what medications are covered.” Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $5,018,845

This ad opposes Prop. 79 and supports Prop. 78. In it, Dr. Chang says that Prop. 79 creates a costly new bureaucracy that imposes restrictions on pharmaceutical companies and could limit patient access to prescription drugs. Prop. 78, he says, will provide discounts without red tape or restrictions. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $1,276,115

Actress Jamie Lee Curtis speaks out for the Children's Hospital Bond saying that this initiative "won't raise taxes, but saves lives." Surrounded by small children, she asks that voters join her and other moms in supporting this measure.

Estimated expenditure (as of 10.30.2004): (30-second ad): $3,378,701;
(50-second ad): $10,641

This ad mainly repeats in Spanish statements made in the "Spokesperson" ad. However, the ad also says that only Prop. 78 will provide prescription drug discounts to millions of Californians, a statement that has not yet been made in any English-language ads.

Este aviso, apoyado totalmente con contribuciones de fabricantes de farmacéuticos, está a favor de la Proposición 78 y en contra a la Proposición 79, dos iniciativas que compiten la una contra la otra en las elecciones de noviembre. El aviso contiene algunas declaraciones que son verdaderas, y otras que no lo son; además, necesitamos más información para mejor comprender completamente otras declaraciones. Una guía con información en español sobre las elecciones del ocho de Noviembre de 2005 está disponible. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $704,379

This ad criticizes Proposition 79, saying that it creates an expensive new Sacramento bureaucracy and could deny patients’ access to medicine that doctors prescribe. Also, the ad claims that Prop. 79 “could jeopardize as much as $480 million dollars a year in drug rebates for California, making taxpayers make up the difference.” Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $5,441,260

This first television ad against Prop. 73 says that the measure cannot force teens to talk with their parents, and that some teens can’t do that. The ad also says that Prop. 73 could force some teens to have unsafe, illegal abortions, or even try to end pregnancies on their own. Read more »

Estimated expenditure (as of 11.6.2005): $1,385,705