Governor Brown has begun a tax initiative campaign to rally support for tax increases in order to generate $7 billion in revenues (each year) over the next five years. The proposal would raise the state sales tax and impose higher income taxes on the state’s highest-earners. The governor is taking the initiative route for tax increases because he has been unable to find support from Republicans when it comes to placing a measure on the ballot through legislative action. Notably, it was reported that the governor’s campaign collected more than $1.2 million in two weeks. Here’s what you need to know: the money has come from quite a few high-profile donors, such as the following:

• California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems: $500,000
• State building trades PAC, named Members' Voice of the State Building Trades: $250,000
• Health Insurance Group Blue Shield of California: $100,000
• Casino Tribes: $300,000

Here is the official ballot title and summary for the governor’s tax plan:

STATE BUDGET. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Establishes two-year state budget cycle. Prohibits Legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified. Permits Governor to cut budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if Legislature fails to act. Requires performance reviews of all state programs. Requires performance goals in state and local budgets. Requires publication of all bills at least three days prior to legislative vote. Gives counties power to alter state statutes or regulations related to spending unless Legislature or state agency vetoes changes within 60 days. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Decreased state revenues and commensurate increased local revenues, probably in the range of about $200 million annually, beginning in 2013-14. Potential decreased state program costs or increased state revenues resulting from changes in the fiscal authority of the Legislature and Governor. Increased state and local costs of tens of millions of dollars annually to implement new budgeting practices. Over time, these costs would moderate and potentially be offset by savings from improved program efficiencies.(11-0068)