Two Lessons for California Voters: Don't Trust Phony Slate Mailers and the Tobacco Industry

It's funny that the "Yes on 86" and "Yes on 87" campaigns have paid to go on slates themselves and they don't mention that when they hold their press conference.

The $0.51 per gal. corporate welfare to the oil refiners for adding 5.6% ethanol to California gas is about $500,000,000.00 per year.

The ethanol may add over $1.00 per gal. to the gas profit in California.

That may be about $100 billion in oil profit from California motorists.

The science is interesting but so is the money.

A $4 billion Prop. 87 oil tax may add $40 billion in oil profit.

Charlie Peters
(510) 537-1796
Clean Air Performance Professionals

The $300,000 "Democratic" slate is just part of the slimy $100 million smear campaign by big oil to kill Prop. 87 and keep us addicted to their product...in the name of their profits!

Check out http://www.yeson87.org/page/invite/followthemoney for a few more examples.

Ted: I looked through campaign finance reports and did not find the yes on 86 and yes on 87 campaigns paying to be on slates.

Frank,
Your warning should be passed on to all voters. I was furious this morning to find a mailer from the "Democratic Party" calling for a yes vote on 90. That is not the Democratic Party's position. As any thinking person will understand, this proposition in a trick of greedy landgrabbers who believe it is their god given right to rape, plunder and pillage the natural resources of california for their personal gain. I had to find my reading glasses and a bright light to uncover the true source of this faux party mailer. Quel suprise! It came from a group in Burbank calling themselves "Democratic Voters Choice." They use the party logo and fake a return address. Shameless. Is there no way to stop these slime dogs?
VOTE NO ON 90!
Teresa

As someone involved in the slate mentioned (Democratic Voters Choice), I obviously disagree with Ms. Gunthers characterization of the card although I can understand the frustration of party activists (as a former President of a Democratic club).

Slate cards by private companies have been around forever in California politics going back to an election in 1910.

Elected officials have encouraged them to flourish in large part because weird state laws and party endorsement procedures have been set up by small factions in party organizations to control the process and make it hard for average voters to control the outcome of those choices. But we can go round and round on that.

I am writing in because of Mr. Russo's comment about not finding a record of "Yes on 87" buying any slates to say that I was approached by the "Yes on 87" campaign about getting on the slate I am involved with and I would also point out that in their campaign filings with the Secretary of State, Yes on 87 is listed as having purchased space on slate mailers.

Beyond those early payments, I have seen several more in my mailbox with a "Yes on 87" recommendation, including some that went to friends which were targeted to Republicans that I have been told verbally that "Yes on 87" purchased space on.

I don't mind if you want to be critical of slate mailers, but you should be fair in a case like this where both sides of a ballot measure campaign are involved in the practice and limit your criticism to a discussion of the practice itself and not imply that it is a tactic being used just by one side because then you make it seem like slates are not something generally accepted in the world of politics and that is misleading to your readers at least in my opinion.

Tom: Just to be clear--I think voters should beware of all slate mailers that have candidates or ballot propositions pay to be placed on them and don't include them if they don't pony up. Especially if they are ones that go to the highest bidder. That's why I put the information up about where information can be looked up directly from the Secretary fo State's office. I suspected that there might be contrary examples to the one I listed on Props 86 and 87--I couldn't find them.

I also wanted to publicize the California Democratic Party's official endorsements. I don't know how many of these phony slates are going around and Ms. Gunther is upset with one I haven't seen--although in the clutter here, I have many pieces of campaign mail to look at--possibly after the election.

After the election, we may find out more information about slate mailers and I'd love to have your input and suggestions when we have a complete picture--if we ever do. Based on First Amendment protections of free speech, which I strongly believe in, I don't think these can be outlawed. The best cleaner of the process is disclosure and information from many of us as to who is behind these and sunshine. I wonder if the Secretary of State's information and probably the laws regarding disclosure should be revised so we can know more about these slates than we do right now.

I wrote this article for several reasons. First of all, the most popular elected official in the state, Senator Dianne Feinstein was upset with a particular mailer.

Secondly, I think when we know the facts after this election, the No on 86 and No on 87 campaigns will have spent far more on these slates. We already know about the organizations they have paid to appear in ads and the groups they have supported financially--with those pursestrings that come attached.

I have diligently gone through the expenditure records of the Yes on 87 campaign from the Secretary of State's office at http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1282352&session=2005&view=expenditures and even put this into an Excell spreadsheet and searched for slate mailers. I can't find them there. If they are in some other place, I'd surely like to know.

Once again, just as I would advise anyone not to depend on 15 aecond ads and slate mailers that are not by a real organization such as the State Democratic or Republican parties and the like, but to read more and consider information from those that don't lurk behind fine print disclaimers.

Thanks for what you wrote. I didn't mean to be jumping all over you, just trying to set the record straight. Among others, "Yes on 87" purchased space on the COPS voter guide which although it has many of the same members involved in their decisionmaking, is not officially connected to the organization. In fact you may remember a big uproar from a few years ago when the organization endorsed Mike Feuer for Los Angeles City Attorney and the slate card carried Rocky Delgadillo. They also paid to appear on the Non Partisan Candidate Evaluation card which proclaims itself to be the guide for Conservative voters in the State of California. As I mentioned, they are also on other slate cards I have received that I have been told they paid for. You are right however that "No on 87" probably paid more for slate cards and appeared on most of the more prestigious cards, but that is a product of the "Yes on 87" campaigns choice in strategy to spend more on television, not a move by them to avoid a tactic they found distasteful. They were trying just as hard to grab slate cards as the other side.

Frank, as I write this I notice that "No on 86" is among the Google ads on your side bar.

In Goleta, the Democratic Voter Guide had very prominent ads for Republican candidates for City Council and County Supervisor. I believe this is the reason the mailer was sent. It looked as though the Democratic Party endorsed these Republicans - and in 2 of the 3 races, I believe it contributed to their victory.

It was pure fraud. Tom Kaptain should be ashamed of himself. And we should either outlaw these slate mailers or require VERY PROMINENT "truth in advertising" statements.

Friday, July 13, 2007

NO on AB118

* Corn ethanol policy is good for gasoline refiners

* Corn ethanol policy increases oil use and increases oil profit

* The proposed car tax of AB 118 Nunez is an oil company welfare program

* Italy used public/private partnerships as a business model in the early '40s

* In my opinion the corn ethanol waiver allowed in the 2005 fed energy bill would lower gas prices, improve miles per gal, lower oil use and improve the air.

* Your phone book lists your elected officials, sharing your opinion with the folks that make our rules might help

CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796 cappcharlie@earthlink.net

Post a comment