Support for Proposition 71 came from a broad range of individuals and organizations. Many venture capitalists, researchers, doctors, disease and patient advocacy organizations, and celebrities were vocal in their support of the resolution. Some organizations that supported Proposition 71 were:

• Christopher Reeve Paralysis Center
• American Lung Association of California
• Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research
• American Diabetes Association
• California Medical Association
• Prostate Cancer Foundation
• Cystic Fibrosis Research Inc.
• Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles
• American Nurses Association/California
• Sickle Cell Disease Foundation of California
• Alzheimer’s Association California Council
• Cures for California
• Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation

Proponents of Proposition 71 managed to raise more than 25 million dollars to lobby for their cause. About half of this came from venture capitalists, who stood to gain should further stem cell research result in successful startups. Other prominent donors to the campaign were: Pierre Omiydar, the founder of eBay who gave $2 million; Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, who gave $400, 000; William Bowes, a founder of Amgen, who gave $1.3 million in company stock; Senator Jon Corzine of New Jersey who gave $100,000; and John Doerr, a Silicone Valley venture capitalist who gave $974,000.

The Arguments They Gave in Favor of the Proposition

Supporters used emotional, moral, and financial arguments in favor of the proposition. The arguments took into account not only medical needs, but also the California economy as well as the national scene.

One of the strongest, and often most emotive, arguments used was that stem cell research could lead to cures for several debilitating illnesses, including diabetes, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s. It was estimated that stem cell research could impact the health of over 128 million Americans. While stem research is promising, many of these claims were exaggerated and ignored that so-called “miracle cures” would still take many years to develop.

Many also claimed that the proposition would save money in the long-run. If the stem cell research resulted in 1% reduction in healthcare costs, then proponents claimed the proposition would pay for itself. In addition, funding of stem cell research could stimulate the growth of biotech companies in California, strengthening the state’s economy. In fact, preceding the election, stock in many publicly traded stem cell companies rose in anticipation of the elections and passage of the resolution. For example, shares of StemCells rose from $1.24 on August 10, 2004 to $4.87 by October 25, 2004. However, many of the stem cell stocks dropped following the election and defeat of presidential candidate John Kerry.

Groups argued that the proposition also took into account California’s needs in the short-run. They pointed to the fact that money to fund the proposition would come from state bonds, which would be self-financing during the first five years. Thus, the proposition would give the California economy five years to recover before money had to be taken from the general fund.

Lobbyists also pointed to the need for stem cell research money in light of recent actions taken by the national government. President Bush’s limits on the types of stem cell research that can receive federal funding prevented some promising research from receiving the funds necessary to develop. Thus, proposition 71 neutralized some of the effect of the national government’s policy by providing money for groups that otherwise would remain unfunded. Thus, it was argued that the state of California needed to fund stem cell research due to the national government’s stance.