Prop 16 Does Not Protect Voters

California proposition 16 is a power grab by the Pacific Gas & Electric company in the guise of "protecting the right to vote."

If passed, this proposition would require 2/3 support of the voters before a city or county could use any money to form a public power entity. As it currently stands, state law requires a straight majority vote for that action.

Besides setting the standard at the nearly impossible 2/3 for forming the public power entity, there is a poison pill in that proposition that is even more insidious, It would also require a 2/3 vote for expanding the public power company. This creates a potential headache for the cities of Modesto and Turlock which have long established public power companies, (MID and TID respectively) as the proposition would seem to require them to expand to cover the new developments around their cities. With a failure to pass, the new developments would have to be served by PG&E.

Proposition 16 support is coming directly from PG&E to the tune of $35 million. They are the primary source of funding for the passage of this initiative, whose sole purpose is to stifle competition.

According to a breakdown published in the Manteca Bulletin, "One of the largest owners (of PG&E stock) is Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings, Ltd. This UK bank owns 14,449,248 shares of PG&E or 3.90 percent of the outstanding shares of the corporation. It is reported that PG&E has contributed over $6.5 million to date on Proposition 16 and are prepared to spend $30 million. This means that Barclays UK is going to spend $1,170,000 in order to amend the California Constitution. Another major PG&E shareholder, KBC Groep NV is based in Brussels. KBC Groep NV is investing $12,000 to amend the California Constitution."

Foreign entities with a vested interest in the profit motive and maintaining a near monopoly status are paying to manipulate the California political system to their advantage. A clear example of the initiative system run amok.

In a recent editorial, the Oakland Tribune states, "In recent years, there has been a growth in publicly owned and electric service providers, which are cutting into PG&E's market share. We conclude that the only reason PG&E is willing to spend up to $35 million of ratepayers' and investors' money is to thwart the growth of competing electricity service by nonprofit public utilities."

This initiative is not about the right to vote, as it claims, it is about maintaining profit margin. This is about the rights of Californians to protect themselves from international corporations manipulating the elections process.