Special Interests' "No" on 89 Ad - Thick With Irony

I'm a proponent of California's Proposition 89, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. I like to keep tabs on what the other side is doing. It helps me understand what they're telling people, so I can counter it. So, I've been waiting for the Stop 89 people to come out with their TV ads. Well it appears they have. You can see one for yourself.

It has all the requisite feel-good items: Dad is sitting on the front step, while the kids are out playing with the dog. We've got happy soothing music in the background, and Dad explains to us that he really, really wants to reign in the special interests, but just can't:

I'd love to reign in the special interests that control our state politics. That's what I thought Prop 89 did. Than I read up on it. It turns out that Prop 89 was written by the special interests. It would stick us with $200 million dollars in new taxes, creating a campaign slush fund for politicians to use as they see fit. Can you believe it? It is like welfare for politicians.

Where to begin? First, it's telling that he doesn't name the special interests who wrote Prop 89. I guess if you consider average people to be special interests, then maybe he's right. Sure, the California Nurses Association is a big proponent of the initiative, but that hardly means they wrote it. It leverages a lot of AB583, which was good legislation held up by special interests. And it's supported by good government groups like California Common Cause, Public Campaign and the League of Women Voters. The ideas written into Prop 89 have been working well in other states for years.

Sticking US with $200 million dollars in new taxes? Well, if "us" is corporations, then technically "yes". Prop 89 won't raise taxes on individuals. And lest you worry about the corporations, the modest increase in their tax rate still keeps it under the rate in place from 1980 to 1996. Funny how when you cut taxes, any restoration becomes a "new" tax. And it won't be a "slush fund for politicians". There are practical qualification requirements. Candidates need popular support in the form of many $5 contributions to run under this system. Isn't it better for the public to fund them than special interests? Who do we want them to remember once they are in office?

Which brings me to the final irony - this ad tells you how bad the special interests are, and ends with the required "Paid for by Californians to Stop 89, a coalition of business and taxpayer organizations and California Business Political Action Committee, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and ChevronTexaco". Oh, now I feel better. ChevronTexaco is a name I trust when I'm trying to understand who the special interests are. And there are many more ganging up to fight this initiative.

Let's make sure that Californians aren't fooled by this ad - lend your support to 89now.org and stop the real special interests.

•  Whaddya think?

  Is this the best they're going to do, or are they just warming up?

  by eph89 on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:35:09 AM PDT

•  Why is...

  the California Teachers Association against Prop. 89?  I saw that they were one of the groups opposed to it in the ad.  What's up with that?

  by BruinKid on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:45:13 AM PDT

  •  Why the CTA opposes

    first, it's important to note that the decision to oppose 89 was made at the very top of the CTA with very little democratic process.  And that their largest local union, the United Teachers of Los Angeles revolted against their leaders to endorse 89.
    that said, there are two main reasons for the opposition:

    1. the CTA is used to doing all of its political business by giving away money.  Under prop 89, groups like unions would need to learn to do politics the way we should - by organizing people - and they're afraid they might not be able to figure that out.

    2. The top leadership of CTA has an incestuous relationship with one very powerful campaign consultant .  She fears for her personal wealth and power under 89 and has convinced their leaders it's a bad idea.  those are the real reasons for their opposition - everything else is a smoke screen

    by Chico David RN on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 08:07:37 AM PDT

  •  CTA also endorsed GOP Bruce McPherson for

    Sec'y of State -- apparently because he was a reliable "moderate GOP" pro-CTA vote in the Assembly, and others have suggested because they think it makes them look good to endorse an occasional Republican.

    (UTLA local endorsed Bowen, too, just like they endorsed Prop. 89)

    So for the leadership of the teachers union, their own special interest trumps the best interests of all Californians, and they endorse a Secretary of State candidate that advised Schwarzenegger to veto Bowen's paper-trail bill, despite its unanimous passage in the Senate, and despite the undeniable fact that Californians want verified elections. All because of "favor for favor" politics.  

    Also, you should know that the CTA is the single biggest spender on lobbying in the state. From the LA Times:

    The California Teachers Assn. is a political powerhouse without question. In addition to spending millions on campaigns, the union since 2000 has spent more on lobbying state officials than any other single interest group, $24.5 million, as of June 30. Next biggest: AT&T, at $18.7 million.

    by jennifer poole on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 08:54:44 AM PDT

•  If I've learned one thing from political ads

  it's that when ads talk about "taxes" in a blanket sense, it can be twisted to mean absolutly anything. I once saw Max Baucus get maligned for "raising taxes" when he opposed a tax break for tobacco companies.

  by gbeaudette on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 08:46:20 AM PDT