Vote for Chevron

When Californians go to vote in November for their governor and congressmen, they will also vote for or against a ballot initiative titled Proposition 87 which aims to raise $4 billion to support development of alternative energy by taxing state oil production over the next 10 years (California produces about 12% of domestic oil). The proposition will prohibit producers from passing on the tax to consumers (i.e., no increase of gas prices).

There is a good amount of campaigning being done by both the Yes and No groups through radio-TV and print ads. Like any other election in this country, this vote too is being decided by who is able to pour more money into the campaign, and newspaper analysts gleefully compare campaign inputs in $$, as if that itself is a sound measure of how worthy the proposition is.

Anyway, recently I heard the "No to Prop 87" radio ad and at the end of the ad, the spokesman spelled out who the sponsors of the ad were. Lo and behold, one of the sponsors was none other than....Chevron! The fact that Chevron has funded the anti-87 campaign is itself a walking-talking plea to voters' reason to vote otherwise. But given the fact that the pro-87 campaign is funded by "greentech" speculators (Vinod Khosla among them?) , what would one vote for - the emerging vested interests or the existing ones?

Update: Stephen Bing, a Hollywood-producer donated $40 million to the 'Yes to Prop 87' campaign, making it the biggest single contribution in California's history. Bing is a regular contributor to Democratic party and enviornmental causes. He is also said to have financial stakes in green energy.