Analysis: This is true, but it implies misleadingly that the tax increase would apply to all Californians when it would not.

Prop. 86 would increase the current state tobacco tax by $2.60 per pack. The Legislative Analyst estimates that the tax would bring in about $2.1 billion annually. Revenues would fall over time as smokers quit and fewer people start smoking.

These tax revenues would come solely from people who purchase tobacco products (about 14 percent of the state population smokes according to the California DHS).

Analysis: This is debatable.

Opponents calculated the ten-percent figure based on how much seven anti-smoking programs would receive directly from Prop. 86. The programs, which would receive slightly over ten percent of Prop. 86 revenues, include:

• A tobacco control media campaign (2.85 percent of Prop. 86 revenues),
• Tobacco control competitive grants (1.9 percent),
• Local health department tobacco prevention (1.8 percent),
• Tobacco education (1.48 percent),
• Tobacco control enforcement (0.95 percent),
• Tobacco cessation (0.92 percent), and
• Tobacco control evaluation (0.21 percent).

Although it cannot be quantified, smoking prevention and cessation may also be supported less directly in funding for several other categories of services. See where Prop. 86 revenues would go.

In addition, Prop. 86 proponents argue that the tobacco tax itself would help many smokers quit and keep many kids from starting. They cite a California DHS analysis of Prop. 86, which concludes that the $2.60 tax hike under Prop. 86 would cause 500,000 smokers to quit and deter 700,000 children from smoking. The DHS analysis is based on findings from several major state and national studies and reports.

Analysis: This statement is misleading in three ways.

First, while some Prop. 86 sponsors would receive revenues from the measure, others would not. Just under 40 percent of the revenues would go to emergency and trauma hospital services, and the initiative’s biggest sponsor by far is the California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. Meanwhile, many large donors to the campaign, such as the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association, would not receive revenues from the measure.

Second, this statement implies misleadingly that Prop. 86 would primarily benefit special interests and bureaucrats instead of patients. Many organizations, including hospitals and HMOs, would receive funding as a result of Prop. 86, and some of that money would go to their administrative costs rather than to delivering patient care. Also, many of the revenues would go to various new or expanded health-related programs and services. However, most of the money would benefit many Californians as well by funding health-related research and the delivery of patient services. For example, patients with certain types of cancer would see an increase in treatment services, and more children would receive health insurance coverage.

Third, Prop. 86 may actually decrease state bureaucracy in some cases. Proponents argue that 20 percent of Prop. 86 revenues would streamline and expedite the application process for low-income children’s health coverage and reduce the multiplicity of county insurance programs for children.

Analysis: This is accurate, although there are also many such groups that support the measure.

Some examples of Prop. 86 supporters include the California Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the chambers of commerce of eight major California cities.

Also, the ad does not mention that tobacco companies have given most of the $58.6 million against the measure as of October 21. See a list of the top ten contributors for and against Prop. 86.