Notes
2. State of California, Governor's Office.
“Governor's budget summary, 1994-1995”
. Sacramento, January 7, 1994. 
4. State of California, Legislative Analyst's Office. Analysis of the 1994-1995 budget bill. Sacramento, 1994. 
8. State of California, Senate Rules Committee. Tobacco surtax programs. Sacramento, January 27, 1994. 
10. California Wellness Foundation. The future of tobacco control: California Strategic Summit. Los Angeles, December 15-16, 1993. 
12. Novotny T. Structural evaluation: California's Proposition 99-funded Tobacco Control Program. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, February 25, 1994. 
13. Scott S.
“Health Services holding up report on anti-smoking program”
. California Journal Weekly 1994 February 14;5. 
14. American Lung Association of California, Government Relations Office.
“AB 816 (Isenberg)—Reauthorization of Proposition 99”
. Action Alert, February 16, 1994. 
15. American Lung Association of California, Government Relations Committee.
“Minutes”
. Sacramento, March 4, 1994. 
21. American Lung Association of California, Government Relations Office.
“Memo to interested parties re: Reauthorization of Proposition 99”
. May 9, 1994. 
27. Glantz SA.
“Changes in cigarette consumption, prices, and tobacco industry revenues associated with California's Proposition 99”
. Tobacco Control 1993;2:311-314. 
29. California Medical Association.
“Some tobacco tax local anti-tobacco “Health Education.””
1994 May. 
31. Heiser PF, Begay ME.
“The campaign to raise the tobacco tax in Massachusetts”
. Am J Pub Health 1997;87(6):968-973. 
32. Koh HK.
“An analysis of the successful 1992 Massachusetts tobacco tax initiative”
. Tobacco Control 1996;5(3):220-225. 
33. Aguinaga S, Glantz S. Tobacco control in Arizona, 1973-1997. San Francisco: Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 1997 October. (http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/az/) 
34. Aguinaga S, Glantz SA.
“The use of public records acts to interfere with tobacco control”
. Tobacco Control 1995;1995(4):222-230. 
35. Bialous SA, Glantz SA.
“Arizona's tobacco control initiative illustrates the need for continuing oversight by tobacco control advocates”
. Tobacco Control 1999;8:141-151. 
38. American Lung Association of California.
“Statement on lawsuit re: Prop. 99 tobacco tax revenues”
. Press release, April 8, 1994. 
42. Southwest Regional Laboratory. California programs to prevent and reduce drug, alcohol, and tobacco use among in-school youth. Los Alamitos, 1994 March. 
43. Monardi FM, Balbach ED, Aquinaga S, Glantz SA. Shifting allegiances: Tobacco industry political expenditures in California January 1995-March 1996. San Francisco, Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 1996 April. (http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/sa/) 
44. California Medical Association.
“Report to the Board of Trustees from the Executive Committee”
. May 13-14, 1994. 
45. Foster D.
“The Lame Duck State: Term limits and the hobbling of California state government”
. Harper's 1994 February; 65-75. 
49. Knepprath P.
“Save Prop. 99 Coalition: Legislators to escalate attack on administration, opponents of anti-tobacco education and research programs”
. Press release, June 1, 1994. 
53. Koerner S.
“Legislature set to kill California's historic anti-tobacco campaign”
. Press release, July 6, 1994. 
56. Aguinaga S, MacDonald H, Traynor M, Begay ME, Glantz SA. Undermining popular government: Tobacco industry political expenditures in California 1993-1994. Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 1995 May. (http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/undermining/) 