"No" on 14 because it is a typical unproven idea.
14 could also lead to smaller political parties being eliminated from competition.
Elections could end up Democrat vs. Democrat... basically no choice at all.
With smaller political parties never making a final ballot, many of them would have no reason to exist.
"No" on 15
Public financing of campaigns could lead to an avalanche of unqualified candidates who are only jumping into an election to get their hands on public money. Bad idea. Bad, bad idea.
If you think you are worthwhile...get your own money to run for office.
Limiting spending is a limit on freedom. It is basically Communism, which is what the left really wants anyway.
No, thank you.
"No" on 16
I don't like the idea of governments injecting themselves into unnecessary situations, but I also don't like the idea that PG&E is the one spending all the money to promote this. Their benefit? It eliminates competition, allowing them to drive rates higher and make bigger profits. If small local governments elect people who unnecessarily get them involved in power projects, they can vote those politicians out and cancel projects.
Like most propositions, it is unnecessary.
We already have Constitutional limits on government power.
These limits are not followed because we have Socialist legislators in office.
"No" on 17
I also don't like the fact that Mercury insurance is selling their position on this as a way for voters to save money. It is also a way for them to crank up the rates on people who don't have an insurance history.
If they are paying to promote it, there is a huge benefit to them somewhere.
More government interference in the marketplace... which always makes things go sour.
No on Measure E
The LAUSD gets disastrous results with the money they already get. 50% graduation rates?
No, thank you.
Throwing more money at them will only lead to more money being wasted.
They have already shown that they produce an expensive, yet low-quality product.
