It’s silly season again in California politics. Television,
radio and newspaper ads appear by the hundreds during the leadup to
the Nov. 8 special election, almost all placed by largely
fictitious committees actually run by campaign consultants.
It’s silly season again in California politics. Television, radio and newspaper ads appear by the hundreds during the leadup to the Nov. 8 special election, almost all placed by largely fictitious committees actually run by campaign consultants.
The fact that most of these committees do not exist except as seasonal vehicles for raising campaign contributions is bad enough. But their names are the worst part, often designed to mislead or confuse voters.
Take the committee set up to oppose Proposition 80, which seeks to re-regulate electricity in the state and prevent big electric customers like factories and oil refineries from buying up the cheapest power and leaving only more expensive energy for residential customers and small businesses.
The group calls itself Californians for Reliable Electricity, an ironic name at best, considering that its biggest donors include the likes of Mirant Energy and Duke Power, two companies often accused of deliberately cutting off electricity from their plants to drive prices up during the energy crisis of 2000-2001.
Both firms have paid fines or settled claims with the state for amounts over $100 million, without formally admitting guilt. Their presence on the anti-80 committee speaks volumes about the merits of its name.
Then there’s the pharmaceutical industry, which has two campaign committees this year, one dedicated to defeating Proposition 79 and the other to passing Proposition 78.
Companies like Pfizer and Merck and GlaxoSmithKline have pumped more than $83 million into the coffers of the anti-79 committee Californians Against the Wrong Prescription and its pro-78 companion, Californians for Affordable Prescriptions.
How misleading are these names? Start with the word Californians, leading off the titles of both front groups: The great majority of donors to both committees are not headquartered in California, nor do their leading executives live here. Rather, they fear that if Proposition 79 passes here and imposes prescription discounts through a state program, it will soon be copied in other states, as many past California initiatives have been.
The same companies much prefer Proposition 78, which allows them to participate in a voluntary prescription discount program. Since no major company has yet responded positively to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2004 request for a voluntary discount plan, odds are that if 78 passes, absolutely nothing will change for any prescription buyers.
Which means the committee backing “affordable” prescriptions has an accurate name only if today’s prescriptions (including anti-cholesterol drugs at more than $100 for one month’s supply) are affordable.
And there’s Californians for Fair Representation, the committee opposing Proposition 77 and its effort to take legislative and congressional reapportionment away from politicians. This name is accurate only if today’s district lines – which produced exactly zero changes of party in legislative and congressional races last year – are fair or representative.
Confusing names like these, of course, are nothing new in California. Just last year, Citizens Against Violent Crime supported Proposition 66 and its effort to limit the felonies for which “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” penalties are applied. And Citizens for a Healthy California fought Proposition 63, which now imposes a 1 percent tax on incomes over $1 million to fund mental health treatment.
A few years ago, there was the classically misleading name Californians for Statewide Smoking Regulation, a tobacco industry front that sought to pass a proposition ending all local anti-smoking laws.
Confusion among these committees is also not new. Last year, for example, Citizens for a Fair Share of Indian Gaming Revenues supported Proposition 70 and its attempt to force all future governors into new Indian gaming compacts anytime a tribe applied. At the same time, Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Committee for Fair Share Gaming Agreements took the opposite stance. Which one really stood for a fair share, and a fair share for whom, was anybody’s guess.
All of which means it’s high time for a new law compelling truth and specificity in initiative committee names. As it stands, voters are often forced to read fine print that can be flashed for a second or two onto their TV screens if they want to know who’s really trying to influence them.
Of course, this cry for honest and straightforward labeling has been sounded before, to no avail. And things will not change until voters in big numbers let their lawmakers know they’re tired of being deliberately misled and confused.
For more information on initiative committees and their contributors, go to www.ss.ca.gov and search under campaign finance.
Tom Elias is author of “The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It.” Reach him at [email protected].
