There isn't much of a campaign against Prop 10, the California initiative, strongly backed by a company of oilman T. Boone Pickens, to sell $5 billion in general obligation bonds to subsidize alternative fuels, mainly through direct to buyer rebates on certain kinds of vehicles. I was assured for months that the No campaign would find money to launch ads, but that kind of money never materialized. In the meantime a nasty, personal fight has broken out over the measure. At the center is Anthony Rubenstein, a consultant who is working for No on 10. Capitol Weekly has details.

It's hard to make an argument against California's Proposition 12, a $900 million bond ot provide housing aid to California veterans. But there's one aspect of the campaign that makes me nervous. It's being led by a state agency.

State agencies should not be involved in any way, shape or form in the campaigns for or against a ballot measure.  That goes double when the state agency in question offers the program being funded. But in looking for information on Prop 12, the official state ballot guide directs you to the California Department of Veterans Affairs. (www.cdva.ca.gov).

The state government needs to fix this and make clear it's not taking sides in the matter. It's bad precedent. In the case of Prop 12, the measure is uncontroversial. But we should make clear this sort of thing doesn't happen again, when the issue is tougher.

Every time a school bond is voted down in Southern California, we hear recriminations about selfish voters or older people or white people who are unwilling to pay to educate our state's immigrant children. Well, voters in Los Angeles have been among the more generous, approving four multibillion dollar school bonds in the past decade. But I suspect the $7 billion LA Unified School District bond just placed on the ballot is in deep trouble.

Check out this LA Times story on how the bond was put together -- or, more accurately, it became a Christmas tree of political goodies that more than doubled in size in the next two weeks. There is actually no plan at all for $2 billion of the $7 billion; they'll just use it to fund what they like. That's dangerous. The real question is why the school district, which has been unable to provide accurate checks to its teachers, thinks it deserves another blank check. Other questions is this really a good time to borrow? And why do we need more borrowing now, with enrollment flat and headed south? It would be better for the board to reconsider, pull this measure from the ballot before it is defeated, and try to come up with a reasonable, fiscally responsible plan for the district.