The state collects taxes on income made in California. In 2021, the state collected over $130 billion in income taxes. Most of this money goes into California’s main budget, which is called the General Fund. The money in the General Fund supports state services like public schools and healthcare.
State of CaliforniaProposition 30 — Income Tax on Millionaires for Electric Cars Initiative Statute - Majority Approval Required
State of California
To learn more about measures, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.
Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income over $2 Million.
— undefined
PROVIDES FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION AND PREVENT WILDFIRES BY INCREASING TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME OVER $2 MILLION.
Allocates tax revenues to zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives, vehicle charging stations, and wildfire prevention.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenue ranging from $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, with the new funding used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire response and prevention activities.
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures.
What is this proposal?
Easy Voter Guide — Summary for new and busy voters
Information provided by The League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
The way it is now
What if it passes?
- For every dollar a person makes over $2 million an additional 1.75% tax will be charged.
- The money from this tax would be put into a special fund that is separate from the General Fund.
- Most of this money would be used to increase the use of “zero-emissions” electric vehicles, and to keep the air cleaner. The rest of this money would be used to manage wildfires.
Budget effect
Prop 30 would raise between $3.5 and $5 billion each year.
People FOR say
- Greenhouse gas emissions from cars and other transportation are the largest contributors to climate change and we need to take action now.
- Wildfires are getting worse, and we need more money to manage them.
People AGAINST say
- High earners may leave the state if California increases its income taxes.
- If these new projects are really important, they should be paid for with the General Fund, not new taxes.
Pros & Cons — Unbiased explanation with arguments for and against
Information provided by League of Women Voters California Education Fund
The Question
Should the tax rate on personal income above $2 million be increased by 1.75 percent and the revenue dedicated to zero-emission vehicle subsidies, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging stations; and wildfire suppression and prevention programs?
The Situation
California is currently experiencing severe drought, increasingly devastating wildfires, and poor air quality. Gas-powered cars and wildfire smoke are the two largest sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the state. State law requires California to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. State law also requires that ride-sharing companies like Lyft and Uber have 90% of their drivers using zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2030. But ZEVs, like electric or hydrogen-powered cars, are expensive and therefore unaffordable for many residents, and the state lacks sufficient charging and fueling stations to support increased use of ZEVs. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the state agency responsible for wildfire suppression and, with other state agencies, prevention, is facing rising costs for its programs as fires become increasingly catastrophic.
The State recently committed to spending $10 billion over the next five years on ZEVs, and on average it currently spends $2–4 billion annually on wildfire response.
The Proposal
Prop 30 would increase the income tax rate by 1.75% on individual incomes above $2 million. These funds, net of expenses, would be allocated as follows:
-
45 percent of funds would promote the purchase of ZEVs, including subsidies and rebates for passenger vehicles (cars) and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles like trucks and buses;
-
35 percent of funds would increase the availability of ZEV infrastructure, including electric charging stations close to single- and multifamily dwellings;
-
20 percent would help fund wildfire suppression and prevention.
Prop 30 stipulates that at least half of the funds allocated for ZEVs and ZEV charging must primarily benefit low-income and disadvantaged communities. It also requires that CalFire make hiring and training additional firefighters a top priority for its funds.
The tax increase would end on January 1, 2043; or, earlier if there are three consecutive calendar years in which statewide GHG emissions are 80 percent below 1990 levels.
Fiscal effect
Prop 30 would generate $3.5–5 billion in revenue in most years, increasing over time. That would amount to $2.8–4 billion annually in ZEV funding and $700 million to $1 billion annually for wildfire response. The measure could help decrease state and local costs for wildfire suppression and prevention, though the size of the fiscal effects is difficult to predict.
Supporters say
- Existing programs are insufficient to address California’s poor air quality, which is largely caused by automobile exhaust and wildfire smoke.
- Prop 30 would make electric vehicles more affordable and would create well-paying green jobs.
- Prop 30 would fund critically needed programs to prevent catastrophic wildfires and protect homes.
- Strict accountability would ensure that these funds are spent as intended.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters:
Yes on 30: Clean Air California
yeson30.org
Opponents say
- California is already spending more than $50 billion for a multiyear climate investment, including $10 billion for ZEVs.
- There is no guarantee that Prop 30 will make ZEVs affordable for most California families.
- Prop 30 locks money from income taxes, normally a major source of school funding, into special interests.
- Prop 30 is Lyft’s attempt to get taxpayers to help foot the bill for the requirement to increase the number of ZEVs used.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Opponents:
At press time, there is no known campaign in opposition to this proposition.
Details — Official information
YES vote means
- Taxpayers would pay an additional tax of 1.75 percent on personal income above $2 million annually.
- The revenue collected from this additional tax would support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire response and prevention activities.
NO vote means
- No change would be made to taxes on personal income above $2 million annually
Summary
Prepared by the Attorney General (p. 39 of the Official Voter Information Guide)
OFFICIAL SUMMARY (prepared by the Attorney General)
Increases tax on personal income over $2 million by 1.75% for individuals and married couples and allocates new tax revenues as follows:
- (1) 45% for rebates and other incentives for zero-emission vehicle purchases and 35% for charging stations for zero-emission vehicles, with at least half of this funding directed to low-income households and communities; and
- (2) 20% for wildfire prevention and suppression programs, with priority given to hiring and training firefighters.
Requires audits of programs and expenditures.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
- Increased state tax revenue ranging from $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, with the new funding used to support zero-emission vehicle programs (80 percent) and wildfire response and prevention activities (20 percent).
Background
Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (p. 38 of the Official Voter Information Guide)
California Personal Income Taxes. The state collects a tax on personal income earned within the state. Last year, the personal income tax raised over $130 billion in revenue. Most of the revenue helps pay for education, prisons, health care, and other public services.
Zero-Emission Vehicle Programs. The state has goals to limit greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, such as carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. To help meet these goals, the state has programs that promote zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs)—or vehicles that do not release pollution from the tailpipe. Examples of ZEVs include electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The state requires ride-sharing companies (such as Uber and Lyft) to use an increasing number of ZEVs for their services. The state also gives some funding to help households, businesses, and governmental agencies buy new ZEVs and install fueling infrastructure, such as charging stations for electric cars.
Wildfire Response and Prevention Programs. The state has the main responsibility for wildfire response activities—commonly known as firefighting—on about one-third of California’s land area. (The federal government and local agencies have the main responsibility for wildfire response everywhere else in California.) Wildfire response activities help limit the spread of large wildfires and stop them from damaging communities and harming residents. The state also runs wildfire prevention programs to reduce the chances that wildfires will start and to limit the damage they cause when they do occur. Some examples of wildfire prevention activities include removing trees from overgrown forests and clearing dead plants that are likely to catch on fire in areas near buildings.
Impartial analysis / Proposal
Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (pp. 39-40 of the Official Voter Information Guide)
PROPOSAL
CREATES A NEW TAX ON HIGH-INCOME TAXPAYERS
Beginning January 2023, Proposition 30 requires taxpayers with incomes above $2 million each year (annually) to pay an additional tax of 1.75 percent on the share of their income above $2 million. This additional tax would end by January 2043. The tax could end several years earlier if California is able to drop its statewide greenhouse gas emissions below certain levels before then.
USES REVENUE TO EXPAND ZEV PROGRAMS AND WILDFIRE ACTIVITIES
Proposition 30 requires that the revenue from the new tax go to increasing funding for ZEV programs and wildfire activities, as shown in Figure 1. The money would go to several state agencies to manage the programs and activities.
ZEV Programs (80 Percent). About 80 percent of the total revenue is for two ZEV program categories:
- Payments to Help Buy New Vehicles. Most of this money must be used to help households, businesses, and governments pay for part of the cost of new passenger ZEVs (such as cars, vans, and pick-up trucks). The rest of the money would be available for other programs. These include payments to businesses and governments to help buy large ZEVs (such as trucks and buses) and programs that encourage less driving and improve local air quality.
- Charging Stations. This money would be used to install and operate ZEV charging and fueling stations at places such as apartment buildings, singlefamily homes, and public locations.
For each category above, at least half of the money must be spent on projects that benefit people who live in or near heavily polluted and/or low-income communities. The rest of the money could be spent on projects anywhere in the state.
Wildfire Response and Prevention Activities (20 Percent). About 20 percent of total revenue must be spent on wildfire response and prevention activities. In general, the state would have to prioritize spending to hire, train, and retain state firefighters. The rest of the money could be used for other wildfire response and prevention activities.
Financial effect
Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (pp. 40-41 of the Official Voter Information Guide)
Increased State Tax Revenues From New Tax for ZEV Programs and Wildfire Activities. The new tax on high-income taxpayers typically would raise $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, growing over time. This range reflects the changes in the incomes of high-income taxpayers. Their incomes often change greatly due to changes in the economy and stock market. Based on the spending requirements in Proposition 30, this funding would support:
- ZEV Programs. The proposition would increase state funding for ZEVs by $2.8 billion to $4 billion annually. The state typically spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on ZEV programs and also recently committed to spending about $10 billion over a five-year period on these programs.
- Wildfire Response and Prevention Activities. The proposition would increase state funding for wildfire response and prevention activities by $700 million to $1 billion annually. The state typically spends about $2 billion to $4 billion annually on wildfire activities, mostly on firefighting.
Potential State and Local Effects From Increased ZEV Spending. The additional funding for ZEV programs under Proposition 30 could impact the number of ZEVs, as well as gasoline- or dieselpowered vehicles, being driven in California. However, the actual effect the proposition would have is uncertain for a variety of reasons. Most notably, while this analysis was being written, the state was considering requiring that car companies sell an increasing share of ZEVs in future years until 2035 when they would only be able to sell ZEVs. (The state was scheduled to decide on this requirement by August 2022.) This requirement is sometimes called a “ZEV mandate.” The proposition’s potential transportation-related fiscal effects on state and local governments depend on whether or not the ZEV mandate is approved.
- If the state approves the ZEV mandate, then the additional funding from the proposition to help buy new ZEVs would not have much effect on the total number of ZEVs driven in California. This is because the ZEV mandate would already require a significant increase in the number of ZEV sales, even without the additional spending. Instead, the proposition’s main effect would be to shift who pays for the ZEVs. That is, more costs would be covered by revenue from the new tax on high-income taxpayers instead of by vehicle sellers and/or buyers. This would not have much effect on state and local finances.
- If the state does not approve the ZEV mandate, then the funding from the proposition to help buy new ZEVs would increase the number of ZEVs—and decrease the number of gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicles—driven in California. As a result, the amount of gasoline being used would be less. Over the long term, this change could have several different fiscal effects on state and local governments, including lower gasoline tax revenues that are used for transportation projects, higher revenues from electricity taxes, and other effects related to less air pollution. The net fiscal effect of these changes are uncertain, but likely minor compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars state and local governments spend annually on all activities.
Potential Decreased State and Local Costs for Wildfire Response and Recovery. Proposition 30 could somewhat decrease state and local government costs related to firefighting, clean-up, and recovery if the additional funding for wildfire activities ends up reducing the severity of future wildfires. However, any cost reductions would depend on
- (1) which specific wildfire activities end up being funded,
- (2) how effectively these activities reduce wildfire severity, and
- (3) the severity of wildfires that would have otherwise taken place in any specific year.
All of these factors are uncertain, which makes the size of the potential fiscal effects on state and local governments unclear.
Decreased State Revenue for Other Activities. Some taxpayers probably would take steps to reduce the amount of income taxes they owe. This would reduce existing state revenues used to pay for activities not funded by Proposition 30. The degree to which this would happen and how much revenue the state might lose as a result is unknown.
Potential Reductions to Other State Programs to Comply With State Spending Limit. With some exceptions, such as responding to emergencies and building infrastructure, the California Constitution limits how much the state can spend. In recent years, state spending has reached this limit. Some of the spending required by Proposition 30—likely an amount ranging from about $1.5 billion to $3 billion annually—would count toward this limit. As a result, when state spending is at the limit, the proposition would require the state to reduce an equal amount of spending from other programs to “make room” for the new required spending on ZEV programs and wildfire activities.
Published Arguments — Arguments for and against
Arguments FOR
Wildfires are devastating California. Prop. 30 taxes only the wealthiest Californians—annual income over $2 million—to fund wildfire prevention and clean air programs.
- Funds forest management, more firefighters and equipment.
- Helps consumers afford zero-emission vehicles; creates statewide charging network.
- STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY—audits, penalties.
State firefighters, environmental groups, energy experts support.
— p. 7 of the Official Voter Information Guide (published by the CA Secretary of State)
Arguments FOR
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 30
CALIFORNIANS DESERVE CLEAN AIR TO BREATHE
Climate change is fueling extreme heat, prolonged drought and catastrophic wildfires that are taking lives, destroying homes and costing California’s economy tens of billions of dollars.
Fire season is now year-round. The air quality in California is the worst in the country (2022 American Lung Association report). The toxic, polluted air exposes us—especially children and seniors—to increased health risks like asthma, heart attacks, lung cancer and strokes.
Existing programs are not enough to address this growing threat to California’s economy, environment and public health. We must act urgently to reduce the top two sources of air pollution and greenhouse gases in California: wildfires and vehicles.
PROP. 30 WILL REDUCE CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES AND AIR POLLUTION FROM VEHICLES
Prop. 30 provides funding to improve California air quality by:
- Preventing and fighting wildfires.
- Providing consumers rebates to help them afford clean, zero-emission electric vehicles.
- Creating a statewide network of affordable, convenient charging stations for electric vehicles.
The measure is funded by a 1.75% tax increase on the roughly 35,000 Californians who make more than $2 million annually. PERSONAL INCOME BELOW $2 MILLION IS NOT TAXED.
Only the wealthiest 0.2% will be impacted. Small business revenue is NOT taxed.
PREVENTING WILDFIRES AND PROTECTING HOMES
Prop. 30 funds critically needed programs to prevent catastrophic wildfires and protect homes, including:
- Managing forests to reduce dry vegetation that fuels extreme wildfires.
- Improving protective space around homes and businesses to reduce the risk wildfires spread through communities.
- Hiring and training state firefighters and increasing firefighting equipment to stop wildfires before they grow out of control.
Our firefighters put their lives on the line to protect us—they deserve more help as they face increasingly dangerous fires.
PROP. 30: STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY
- Caps administrative expenses.
- Requires independent audits by the State Auditor and State Controller to ensure funds get spent as intended.
- Prohibits the Legislature from appropriating funds for other purposes.
- Provides criminal and financial penalties for misuse of funds.
MAKING ELECTRIC VEHICLES A MORE AFFORDABLE CHOICE
Gas is too expensive. Consumers want options, but many can’t afford an electric vehicle. Prop. 30 provides DIRECT REBATES AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO CONSUMERS to make sure low- and middle-income families who want an electric vehicle can afford one. School buses, farm equipment and big rig trucks are also eligible to help reduce diesel pollution.
EXPANDING CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE STATEWIDE
Prop. 30 develops the network of affordable charging stations throughout the state that we need—creating thousands of good-paying green jobs. Homes, apartments, businesses and local governments are eligible to ensure charging a car is more convenient than buying gas: available at work, home and in commercial and public spaces. The measure will upgrade the electric grid to ensure reliability as we transition to more electric vehicles.
OUR KIDS DESERVE A FUTURE WITH CLEAN AIR
With Prop. 30, we can reduce extreme wildfires and restore clean air to California. Please join state firefighters, nurses, doctors, scientists, environmental groups and businesses across California in support.
Tim Edwards, President
CalFire State Firefighters
David Tom Cooke, M.D., FACS
American Lung Association
Sherry Jackman, Vice Chair
Coalition for Clean Air
— pp. 42-43 of Official Voter Information Guide
Arguments AGAINST
Prop. 30 raises taxes by up to $90 billion for as long as 20 years, increasing costs for every Californian.
Prop. 30 will severely strain our struggling electricity grid already at risk of rolling blackouts.
Join taxpayers, teachers, and small businesses to reject this unnecessary tax increase.
No on Prop. 30!
— p. 7 of the Official Voter Information Guide (published by the CA Secretary of State)
Arguments AGAINST
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 30
PROP. 30 WILL INCREASE TAXES FOR UP TO 20 YEARS BY AT LEAST $30 BILLION AND AS MUCH AS $90 BILLION, DRIVING UP COSTS FOR EVERY CALIFORNIAN.
California families are feeling the pinch from high inflation, and rising gas, food and housing prices. The last thing we need now are higher taxes, especially if the recession predicted by many economists hits families and threatens their livelihoods.
Californians already pay the highest state income taxes and highest gas taxes, one of the highest sales taxes, and grapple daily with among the highest costs of living in the nation. Prop. 30 will be the largest tax increase in California in over a decade—as utility rates skyrocket for homeowners and small businesses, and higher taxes get passed on to consumers.
PROP. 30 WILL SEVERELY STRAIN A STRUGGLING ELECTRICITY GRID ALREADY AT RISK OF ROLLING BLACKOUTS.
Prop. 30 would add up to three million new zero-emission vehicles in California over the next ten years, which means the state would need to increase the capacity of the current electricity grid to handle this massive increase. This expense is NOT included in Prop. 30 and could be paid for by regular utility ratepayers (who already pay some of the highest rates in the nation). Utility costs could skyrocket, and ratepayers could pay much higher electricity bills each month.
California’s power grid is already stressed to the brink each summer—just two years ago many Californians suffered rolling blackouts. Our electricity grid is already at the limit in the summer months, and Prop. 30 will increase demand so the risk of rolling blackouts will become even worse.
CALIFORNIA IS CURRENTLY POURING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO ELECTRIC VEHICLE PROGRAMS.
More new tax revenue is unnecessary. The State budget surplus grew to $97.5 billion this year. The state has already developed a spending plan to ensure the rapid adoption of zero emission vehicles without raising taxes and without threatening the stability of the electricity grid, and has already budgeted $10 billion to achieve these goals. If more funding is needed, the state’s budget surplus can be tapped—instead of raising more new taxes.
MORE SPENDING ON WILDFIRE PROTECTION CAN EASILY BE PAID USING THE STATE’S BUDGET SURPLUS. California currently spends billions of dollars annually on wildfire prevention and suppression. Using part of the state’s $97.5 billion surplus, this year spending nearly $4 billion on wildfire protection—with more than a thousand new fire fighter positions. This initiative would make a small increase to their budget, an amount that could easily be funded from the state’s budget surplus.
JOIN TAXPAYERS, TEACHERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES TO REJECT THIS UNNECESSARY TAX INCREASE THAT COULD PUT OUR ELECTRICITY GRID AT RISK!
Jon Coupal, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Betty Jo Toccoli, President
California Small Business Association
Joe Coto, President
United Latinos Action
— pp. 42-43 of Official Voter Information Guide
Replies to Arguments FOR
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 30
CALIFORNIANS DESERVE CLEAN AIR. That’s why California is spending more than $50 billion for a multi-year climate investment, including $10 billion to accelerate the transition for zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). California is working to protect our neighborhoods, farms, and communities from the impact of climate change, fight pollution and suppress wildfires.
CALIFORNIANS FACE HISTORIC INFLATION RATES. We don’t need to face billions in higher taxes. Proposition 30’s narrow focus puts a special interest lock box on these new income taxes—normally the largest source of funding for California’s K–12 schools and community colleges, making them unavailable in the future. This tax provides no funding for healthcare, public safety, agriculture, or services for the elderly and homeless; and does little to help state and local governments save for the future.
LOW INCOME CALIFORNIANS ARE NOT GUARANTEED ZEVs WILL BE AFFORDABLE. While many Californians are struggling to pay rent and put food on the table, Prop. 30 does not guarantee low income families will be able to buy ZEVs. Most ZEVs are purchased by wealthy and upper middle-class Californians. Prop. 30 doesn’t resolve this deep inequity.
THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD RULED RIDESHARE COMPANIES, INCLUDING LYFT, MUST GO 90% ZERO EMISSION BY 2030. Rather than pay its fair share, LYFT lobbied the state to pay for ZEV infrastructure and corporate subsidies.
Now, LYFT has spent more than $15 million to fund Proposition 30. Why? So that taxpayers will pick up the tab for billions of dollars in ZEV upgrades LYFT needs.
VOTE NO.
E. Toby Boyd, President
California Teachers Association
Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ret.
— pp. 42-43 of Official Voter Information Guide
Replies to Arguments AGAINST
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 30
PROP. 30: FEWER WILDFIRES, CLEANER AIR. FUNDED BY TAXING BILLIONAIRES.
Climate change is fueling catastrophic wildfires that pose a growing threat to our lives, property and economy. California’s air is polluted, threatening our health.
Our state government is not doing enough—even with a budget surplus!
Prop. 30 asks the wealthiest 0.2% to pay their fair share for programs to prevent wildfires and reduce air pollution—so Californians have clean air to breathe.
Here are the facts about Prop. 30:
ONLY TAXES PERSONAL INCOME OVER $2 MILLION.
Taxpayers earning below $2 million annually will not pay higher taxes or costs. [Section 2, 17044(a).]
IMPROVES ELECTRIC GRID RELIABILITY
- Provides billions in funding for grid upgrades and infrastructure to ensure reliability.
- Prohibits actions that could compromise the grid. [Section 1, 80211]
“Electric vehicles store electricity that could be put back on the grid when it is stressed, helping prevent blackouts.”— Ethan Elkind, Climate Program Director, UC Berkeley School of Law Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment
SAVES CONSUMERS MONEY ON ELECTRIC CARS
A 2020 Consumer Reports Study found consumers save $6,000–$10,000 on lower maintenance and fueling costs over the life of an electric vehicle, compared to gas-powered cars. Prop. 30 helps consumers afford electric vehicles, so they can SAVE MONEY ON GAS and maintenance. [Section 1, 80221]
PROP. 30: SUPPORTED BY STATE FIREFIGHTERS, OPPOSED BY BILLIONAIRES
The billionaires and CEOs behind the opposition will say anything to avoid higher taxes—even for wildfires and clean air.
Get the facts and decide for yourself: www.Yeson30.org/getthefacts
Join state firefighters, environmental groups, consumer advocates and energy experts: YES on 30.
Mary Creasman, CEO
California Environmental Voters
Max Baumhefner, Senior Attorney on Climate and Clean Energy
Natural Resources Defense Council
Dr. Jose Pablo Ortiz Partida, Senior Climate Scientist
Union of Concerned Scientists
— pp. 42-43 of Official Voter Information Guide
Read the proposed legislation
Who gave money?
Contributions
Yes on Proposition 30
Total money raised: $50,806,800
No on Proposition 30
Total money raised: $32,845,307
Below are the top 10 contributors that gave money to committees supporting or opposing the ballot measures.
Yes on Proposition 30
1
Lyft
$48,099,865
2
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
$1,000,000
3
JOSEFOWITZ, NICHOLAS
$600,983
4
ZINC COLLECTIVE LLC(RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: REBECCA LEAL )
$200,000
5
California State Association of Electrical Workers
$151,000
6
Rocky Mountain Institute
$132,604
7
SANBERG, JOSEPH
$100,000
8
California Democratic Party
$78,218
9
Natural Resources Defense Council
$70,123
10
ELECT CLIMATE CHAMPIONS FUND SPONSORED BY CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
$51,000
No on Proposition 30
1
California Teachers Association
$5,000,000
2
Newsom for California Governor 2022
$1,617,217
3
Moritz, Michael
$1,333,008
4
Heising, Mark
$1,250,000
5
Fisher, John J.
$1,180,000
5
Fisher, William S.
$1,180,000
6
Sierra Pacific Industries
$1,105,000
7
Baker Jr., Leonard G.
$1,066,957
8
California Business PAC
$1,020,000
9
Dean, Catherine
$1,000,000
9
Hastings, Reed
$1,000,000
More information about contributions
Yes on Proposition 30
By State:
California 97.71%
District of Columbia 1.97%
Colorado 0.26%
New York 0.06%
Other 0.00%
By Size:
Large contributions (100.00%)
Small contributions (0.00%)
By Type:
From organizations (98.06%)
From individuals (1.94%)
No on Proposition 30
By State:
California 96.10%
Colorado 2.94%
Florida 0.30%
Texas 0.30%
Other 0.36%
By Size:
Large contributions (100.00%)
Small contributions (0.00%)
By Type:
From organizations (35.62%)
From individuals (64.38%)
More information
News (7)
Prop. 30 explained: The numbers you need to know — October 27, 2022 KPBS
Tax the rich for more EVs? California Democrats split — October 17, 2022 KPBS
Explainer: Proposition 30 — Income Tax on Millionaires for Electric Cars — October 10, 2022 KPBS
Explicación: Proposición 30 — Impuesto para autos eléctronicos — October 10, 2022 KPBS
Proposition 30 has voters deciding on a tax for zero-emission vehicles. What you need to know — October 26, 2022 San Diego Union-Tribune
Hear both sides of Prop. 30, which would tax millionaires to fund climate programs — October 3, 2022 San Diego Union-Tribune podcast
Opinions & Analysis (1)
Videos (2)
Educational
— August 23, 2022 CalMatters
Prop. 30 would impose a tax on any individual's income above $2 million to support zero-emissions vehicles and wildfire prevention. CalMatters reporter Nadia Lopez explains Prop. 30 in 1 minute.
*The 2022 CalMatters Voter Guide is sponsored by the California State Library.
Educational
— September 29, 2022 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
This video explains Proposition 30.
------------------
LWVCEF Video Series Explaining the 2022 Statewide Ballot Measures | cavotes.org
Additional Resources (1)
More Nonpartisan Resources
Prop 30 entry in CalMatters Voter Guide — CalMatters
A brief summary of what Prop 30 would do and why it is on the ballot, followed by a one-minute video explanation.
Use tabs to select your choice. Use return to create a choice. You can access your choices by navigating to 'My Choices'.
Who supports or opposes this measure?
Yes on Proposition 30
Organizations (143)
Elected & Appointed Officials (26)
No on Proposition 30
