PROP
67

BAN ON SINGLE–USE PLASTIC BAGS. REFERENDUM.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 67

YES on 67 to REDUCE LITTER, PROTECT OUR OCEAN and WILDLIFE, and REDUCE CLEAN-UP COSTS.

Single-use plastic shopping bags create some of the most visible litter that blows into our parks, trees and neighborhoods, and washes into our rivers, lakes and ocean. A YES vote will help keep discarded plastic bags out of our mountains, valleys, beaches and communities, and keep them beautiful. The law also will save our state and local communities tens of millions of dollars in litter clean-up costs.

PLASTIC BAGS ARE A DEADLY THREAT TO WILDLIFE.

“Plastic bags harm wildlife every day. Sea turtles, sea otters, seals, fish and birds are tangled by plastic bags; some mistake bags for food, fill their stomachs with plastics and die of starvation. YES on 67 is a common-sense solution to reduce plastic in our ocean, lakes and streams, and protect wildlife.”—Julie Packard, Executive Director, Monterey Bay Aquarium

YES on 67 CONTINUES CALIFORNIA’S SUCCESS IN PHASING OUT PLASTIC BAGS.

A YES vote will keep in place a law passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor that will stop the distribution of wasteful single-use plastic shopping bags. This law has strong support from organizations that are committed to protecting the ocean, wildlife, consumers, and small businesses.

It will be fully implemented statewide once voters approve Prop. 67.

Many local communities are already phasing out plastic bags. In fact, nearly 150 local cities and counties have banned single-use plastic bags. These laws have already been a success; some communities have seen a nearly 90 percent reduction in single-use bags, as well as strong support from consumers.

OUT-OF-STATE PLASTIC BAG COMPANIES ARE OPPOSING CALIFORNIA’S PROGRESS.

Opposition to this law is funded by four large out-of-state plastic bag companies. They don’t want California to take leadership on plastic bag waste, and are trying to defeat this measure to protect their profits.

Don’t believe their false claims. We should give California’s plastic bag law a chance to work, especially with so much success already at the local level.

YES on 67 to PROTECT CALIFORNIA’S PLASTIC BAG LITTER REDUCTION LAW.

JULIE PACKARD, Executive Director

Monterey Bay Aquarium

JOHN LAIRD, Chairperson

California Ocean Protection Council

SCOTT SMITHLINE, Director

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 67

WE ALL WANT TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT PROP. 67 IS A FRAUD.

It is a $300 million per year HIDDEN BAG TAX on California consumers who will be forced to pay a minimum 10 cents for every paper and thick plastic grocery bag they are given at checkout.

AND NOT ONE PENNY WILL GO TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

Instead, the Legislature gave all $300 million in new bag tax revenue to grocers as extra profit.

THAT’S $300 MILLION EVERY YEAR!

STOP THE SPECIAL INTEREST SWEETHEART DEAL.

In a sweetheart deal brokered by special interest lobbyists, Proposition 67 will grow profits for grocery stores by up to $300 million a year.

Big grocery store chains get to keep ALL of the new tax revenue.

Grocers will grow $300 million richer every year on the backs of consumers.

DON’T BE FOOLED: NOT ONE PENNY OF THE BAG BAN TAX GOES TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

The Legislature could have dedicated the new tax revenue to protect the environment, but their goal wasn’t to protect the environment . . . IT WAS ABOUT GROWING PROFITS FOR GROCERY STORES AND LABOR UNIONS.

The measure SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES GROCERS TO KEEP ALL OF THE NEW TAX AS PROFIT!

STOP THE SWEETHEART DEAL AND HIDDEN BAG TAX.

VOTE NO ON PROP. 67.

DOROTHY ROTHROCK, President

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

THOMAS HUDSON, Executive Director

California Taxpayer Protection Committee

DEBORAH HOWARD, Executive Director

California Senior Advocates League

ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 67

DON’T BE FOOLED BY PROP. 67.

It is a $300 million per year HIDDEN TAX INCREASE on California consumers who will be forced to pay a minimum 10 cents for every paper and thick plastic grocery bag they are given at the checkout.

And not one penny goes to the environment.

Instead, the Legislature gave all $300 million in new tax revenue to grocers as extra profit.

Stop the sweetheart special interest deal . . . VOTE NO ON PROP. 67.

STOP THE BAG TAX

Prop. 67 bans the use of plastic retail bags and REQUIRES grocers to charge and keep a minimum 10 cent tax on every paper or thicker plastic reusable bag provided at checkout.

Consumers will pay $300 million more every year just to use shopping bags grocery stores used to provide for free.

TAX REVENUE GOES TO GROCERS, SPECIAL INTERESTS

Proposition 67 will grow profits for grocery stores by up to $300 million a year.

Big grocery store chains get to keep all of the tax revenue.

Grocers will grow $300 million richer on the backs of consumers.

NOT ONE PENNY OF THE BAG TAX GOES TO HELP THE ENVIRONMENT

The Legislature could have dedicated the new tax revenue to protect the environment, but it did not.

Instead, it REQUIRED grocery stores to keep the new bag tax revenue.

STOP THE SPECIAL INTEREST BAG TAX DEAL

Prop. 67 is a deal cooked up by special interest lobbyists in Sacramento to grow profits for grocery stores.

The Legislature passed SB 270 and hidden in the fine print is a NEW BAG TAX on consumers—a minimum 10 cents on every paper and thick plastic reusable bag provided to shoppers—all dedicated to grocer profits.

STOP THE SWEETHEART DEAL AND HIDDEN BAG TAX

VOTE NO ON PROP. 67.

DOROTHY ROTHROCK, President

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

THOMAS HUDSON, Executive Director

California Taxpayer Protection Committee

DEBORAH HOWARD, Executive Director

California Senior Advocates League

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 67

A YES vote on 67 confirms that California can move forward with its ban on plastic grocery bags. It’s that simple.

Don’t be fooled by the deceptive campaign waged by plastic bag corporations from Texas and South Carolina, who claim they are looking out for our environment. Phasing out single-use plastic bags brings major benefits to California.

These bags kill wildlife, pollute our oceans, ruin recycling machines, and cause litter that is expensive to clean up.

Many local communities across California have already phased out plastic grocery bags, and a YES vote would continue this progress.

"Don’t buy the industry spin! . . . shoppers can avoid the 10-cent fee on paper or reusable plastic bags simply by bringing their own.”—The Los Angeles Times editorial board

"Across California, small local grocery stores like ours support a YES vote on Prop. 67. In our local community, we have a ban on single-use plastic bags that is working well. Our customers are bringing their own reusable bags, and are happy to do their part to reduce unneeded plastic litter. It’s good for small businesses and consumers.”—Roberta Cruz, La Fruteria Produce

“Californians are smarter than the plastic bag makers, especially those from out of state, seem to think .”—Sacramento Bee Editorial Board

Vote YES on 67 to protect California’s success in phasing out plastic bag litter and waste.

DOLORES HUERTA, Co-Founder

United Farm Workers

SAM LICCARDO, Mayor

City of San Jose

MARY LUÉVANO, Commissioner

California Coastal Commission

Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Back to top Back to the Top