We've relayed previously that unions are gearing up for an expensive fight in an attempt to defeat Propsoition 32. As a reminder, this initiative would prohibit corporations and unions from making any contributions to candidates or candidate-controlled committees and also would forbid unions and corporations from making any automatic payroll deductions that would go toward political purposes.

The San Diego County Taxpayers Association has released a comprehensive report on Proposition 32 (please keep in mind the organization has come out in support of the initiative).

The report presents arguments both in favor and against the measure and which organizations have taken stances. You can also find details about policy discussion, fiscal impact, case law, campaign contributions, and background information.

Read the full report here.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has come out swinging in a television ad against California’s state government. It points out that the state is suffering from the weight of "huge deficits," "high taxes" and "overregulation," all of which are fueling opposition to Proposition 30, a $47 billion tax hike. 

The California Republican Party released its stances on November's initiatives over the weekend:

Proposition 30: Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. OPPOSE
(Note: The Party officially opposed this initiative at its Spring 2012 Convention)
Proposition 31: State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute (Two-year state budget cycle). SUPPORT
Proposition 32: Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. SUPPORT
(Note: The Party officially endorsed this initiative at its Fall 2011 Convention)
Proposition 33: Changes Law to Allow Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute. SUPPORT
(Note: The Party officially endorsed this initiative at its Spring 2012 Convention)
Proposition 34: Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute. OPPOSE
Proposition 35: Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute. SUPPORT
Proposition 36: Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute. OPPOSE
Proposition 37: Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute. OPPOSE
Proposition 38: Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. OPPOSE
(Note: The Party officially opposed this initiative at its Spring 2012 Convention)
Proposition 39: Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficient Funding. Initiative Statute. OPPOSE
Proposition 40: Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum. SUPPORT
 

Want to know how much campaigns have received in donations for November’s ballot measures? Then you’re in luck, as the Fair Political Practices Commission is ensuring transparency will be on full display by publishing a report of the major donors of $10,000 or more to state ballot measures voted upon in 2012. The report tracks donors beginning January 1, 2010 based on data electronically filed and posted on the Secretary of State's website. It will now be that much easier to track who is spending money and on which campaigns.

Note that at the end of June, committees had raised more than $84 million to fight or support November’s 11 ballot measures. Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the FPPC, commented that “Although there are limitations on the amount a state candidate may receive from a single contributor, there are no such limits for committees that are formed to support or oppose a ballot measure. It is crucial that we provide the voters with tools to see where the money is coming from so they can make informed choices.''

Check out all the donation information here.

As expected, supporters of Proposition 8 (the ban on gay marriage) have asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the terms of the measure after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit made its ruling earlier this year but the law has remained on the books because it is widely thought the Supreme Court will rule on the matter. The Supreme Court’s next term is in the fall.

Supporters of the ban argue that traditional marriage should be maintained. Andy Pugno, Proposition 8's general counsel, commented that "Our Constitution does not mandate the traditional definition of marriage, but neither does our Constitution condemn it. Rather, it leaves the definition of marriage in the hands of the people, to be resolved through the democratic process in each state."

Mercury News notes that David Boies of the group American Foundation for Equal Rights, who has defended the right of gays to marry, commented the following: “The Supreme Court has long held that the freedom to marry is one of the most fundamental rights -- if not the most fundamental right -- of all Americans. As we have said from the very beginning of this case, the denial of that fundamental right seriously harms gay and lesbian Americans and the children they are raising."

See more here.