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 10.9.2006
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
