Many voters still undecided, confused

The statewide election is Tuesday, but Frederick Cugini of Stockton still hasn’t made up his mind about Proposition 87, the proposed tax on crude oil pumped from California wells.

Cugini, a registered Democrat, is one of a dwindling number of likely voters who are still undecided, a segment that may play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the costliest initiative battle in California history.

“This is still up for grabs,” said political science professor Shaun Bowler, an initiatives expert at UC Riverside. Just how tight the contest has become was demonstrated in a statewide Field Poll published Thursday.

The late October poll showed 44% opposed, 40% in favor and 16% undecided. Democrats in the poll tended to be for the measure and Republicans were strongly against it. Earlier polls had shown the proposition winning.

Proposition 87 could pass if undecided Democrats and independent voters, especially in the heavily populated coastal counties, vote for the tax, Bowler said.

After watching scores of television advertisements and studying the fine print of his official voter’s guide, Cugini is still unsure. “I haven’t looked deeply enough into it,” said the retired federal government worker. “I’ve seen the ads but still don’t know if the truth is being told.”

Television viewers this weekend should prepare themselves for a final massive advertising blitz by both sides.

The “no” campaign, Californians Against Higher Taxes, is being bankrolled by oil companies. The “yes” side, Californians for Clean Alternative Energy, is getting the bulk of its money from Stephen L. Bing, the scion of a New York real estate fortune.

The reclusive Bing has contributed close to 90% of the more than $57 million behind Proposition 87. Oil companies, led by Chevron Corp. and Aera Energy -- a joint venture of Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell -- have invested nearly $100 million to defeat the proposed tax on their California production.

Both sides have spent the money on advertisements with contradictory messages about the proposed tax, which would fund the development of clean energy and alternatives to fossil fuels.

The battle over Proposition 87, which would raise $4 billion over the next decade, has caught voters’ attention in a big way.

“It’s taken the life out of all else on the ballot,” said Mark Baldassare, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. But the wave of commercials has voters confused, he said.

“My read on the public is they like very much the idea of alternative energy being developed, and they are pretty open to the idea of taxing oil companies,” he said. “But I think they are very conflicted about whether it’s going to come back to haunt them at the gas pump. They don’t know what it’ll cost them and what the benefits would be.”

But with four days before the election, both campaigns are claiming that their advertising messages have created enough momentum to carry them to victory.

“It’s going to be a real horse race,” said Beth Willon, the spokeswoman for the “yes” campaign. She expects her side to make a strong finish with a heavy turnout of voters enthused by TV spots and appearances by former President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore.

Clinton is trying to convince Democrats, independents and Republicans that the tax is needed to develop alternative fuels, Willon said.

“Having ex-President Clinton and Vice President Gore for and oil companies against convinced me to vote for it,” said Ron Bernard, a Culver City Democrat who had been undecided in a Los Angeles Times poll in September.

But Lancaster teacher Cathleen Crosser, who was also undecided in the September poll, said she was turned off by Clinton. She’s gone from undecided to no.

“Anything he thinks is a good thing, I can’t abide,” said Crosser, a registered Democrat who says she votes her conscience.

No on 87 spokesman Al Lundeen dismisses the Clinton commercials as having no significant effect. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes Proposition 87 but is not actively campaigning against it.

The proposed tax, ranging from 1.5% to 6% depending on the price of a barrel of crude, would drive marginal producers to cap wells.

And even large producers may find it cheaper to buy foreign oil than to pay the tax on locally pumped crude. Such a shift would increase California’s dependence on imports from the volatile Middle East, say some economists and oil experts opposed to the tax.

Other critics contend that Proposition 87, if passed, would establish an unaccountable state bureaucracy and create potential conflicts of interest if the initiative’s venture capitalist backers apply for some of the hundreds of millions of dollars in suddenly available state funding.

What effect the tax will have on motorists is much debated. Opponents say it’s obvious that oil companies will pass along much of the tax with higher prices at the gasoline pump.

But supporters disagree. They counter that oil prices are set on an international market and that a local tax of a few cents a gallon on oil production shouldn’t show up at the retail pump.

Supporters also note that the initiative specifically contains wording that would make it illegal for oil refineries to pass along the cost of the tax to consumers.

Pushing an expensive initiative campaign to create a state agency may not be the best way to pay for research on alternative fuels, said James Sweeney, an economist and energy expert at Stanford University.

“The $150 million could be much better spent on energy efficiency research at Stanford, Berkeley, UC Davis or USC,” he said.

marc.lifsher@latimes.com