GEORGE A. GONZALEZ - fieldi

86THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTION“proponents contend that the endorsement was half-hearted and came toolate to aid their cause” (Whitt 1982, 117).Whitt (1982), in the following, outlines the spending by both sides onthe Proposition 18 campaign:Opponents spen[t] about fifteen times as much as proponents ($333,455.69versus $22,721.81). Total contributions against and for 18 were $348,830.00and $17,714.20 respectively. The big money was overwhelmingly on theside of the opposition. Also, it was almost entirely (98.6 percent) businessmoney in opposition (i.e., from the highway lobby). (122)This anti-18 campaign funds total is probably a significant underestimationof opponents’ total expenditures. Robert Engler (1961; 1977), in discussingthe political activity of oil firms, in particular, explains that campaign reportingrules in the 1960s did not gauge the numerous ways this industry wouldgive to political campaigns. He (1961) specifically points to the fact thatextant campaign disclosure practices did not collect information about the“campaign offerings that are concealed and unreported through cash giving,misleading listings, padded expense accounts, and dummy bonuses for executives,with the understanding that the money is to go for politics.” Also,Engler correctly asserts that “institutional advertising, ‘educational’ and associationactivities are often essentially political, as are the quiet loan of corporatefacilities and personnel” (366; also see Olien and Olien 2000).Engler’s insights into the political practices of the petroleum industry arepertinent here because oil companies “played the predominant part in opposingProposition 18 not only in terms of money [75.1 percent of the reportedtotal], but also in terms of organization.” Specifically, “Harry Morrison, generalmanager of the Western Oil and Gas Association, and ex-public relationsofficer for Shell, Carl Totten,... worked on the opposition media campaign”(Whitt 1982, 124). With the anti-18 campaigners able to finance and manan aggressive media “‘blitz’ via television for the last seven days, newspapersfor the last five days, and radio for the last five days,” the proposed constitutionalamendment was defeated by a vote of 2.7 million (45.9 percent) to 3.2million (54.1 percent) (Whitt 1982, 121).In 1974 California voters did approve Proposition 5 (Whitt 1982,129–132). This amendment to the state constitution allowed governmentswithin California to ultimately divert 25 percent of their highway trust moniestoward mass transit, much like Proposition 18 in 1970 proposed to do. Thisapproved amendment allowed the state to take advantage of federal matchingfunds for mass transit projects. Significantly, unlike Proposition 18, Proposition5 only allowed the diversion of highway trust dollars for new mass transit capitaloutlays, and prohibits any expenditures for the maintenance or operationof mass transit systems. Such funds would have to be raised through other revenuemechanisms (e.g., fares [i.e., user fees], sales, income, or property taxes).