Among 13 propositions on California’s ballot this Nov. 7, two that have attracted particular attention deal with “clean money elections” and incentives for alternative energy.

Under Prop. 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2006, candidates could qualify for public campaign funding by giving up private fundraising except for a small amount of seed money, and limiting their spending to public funds they are provided. They would show broad public support by gathering signatures and $5 contributions, ranging from 750 donors of $5 for an Assembly candidate to 25,000 $5 donations for a candidate for governor.

Qualified “clean money” candidates would receive public funding on a sliding scale according to the office they seek. Clean money candidates who are being outspent by privately funded candidates could receive extra funding to help level the playing field.

The measure would limit donations to nonparticipating candidates by individuals, corporations, unions, political action committees and donor committees.

It would be funded by raising the corporate tax rate by 0.2 percent — leaving it still below the tax rate of 1980-1996.

The effort to get Prop. 89 on the ballot was spearheaded by the California Nurses Association. Supporters include the California Labor Federation, League of Women Voters, California Common Cause, the National Latino Congress, California Black Chamber of Commerce and Congress of California Seniors. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides has joined Sen. Barbara Boxer, Rep. Barbara Lee and other elected officials in supporting the measure.

Not all organized labor supports Prop. 89 — the California Teachers Association says the measure is poorly crafted, would take funds from education and other needs, and wouldn’t level the playing field.

Prop. 87, the California Clean Energy Initiative, would raise $4 billion through fees on oil extracted in the state to fund incentives to increase the use of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources and to boost the use of motor vehicles running on cleaner, cheaper fuels. It would also fund research on clean energy at California universities.

The oil fees would vary from 1.5 percent to 6 percent, depending on the price of oil, and could not be passed on to the consumer. Funds from Prop. 87 would be overseen by the nonpartisan California Energy Alternatives Program Authority. Once the $4 billion is raised, the fee will end. Supporters point out that oil companies pay billions of dollars in drilling fees in Texas, Louisiana and Alaska, but nearly nothing in California.

Among a long list of backers are the California Labor Federation, the American Lung Association of California, the Apollo Alliance, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Healthy African American Families II and the Latino Urban Forum.

Most of California’s oil is pumped in the Bakersfield area, and the city has the state’s worst air quality. Earlier this month, United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta and other supporters urged residents of Bakersfield to back the measure, noting that Latinos and working people in general are disproportionately affected by asthma and other health effects of air pollution.