Misleading Prop 16 Ad

[Cascade]

I'm surprised I haven't seen any comments on the horribly misleading ad put out by the so-called "Californians Vote Green".

It has a nice picture of a mountain stream, with the admonition to "Vote for a greener California." It lists a number of Democratic candidates - and urges people to vote for prop 16. It states "Prop 16 requires voter approval BEFORE local governmens can use public funds or debt to take over local electric service." It omits the fact that it requires a two-thirds vote to allow local governments to provide electricity service.

This is purely in the self-interest of PG&E. Do you really think they have our interests in mind? They want to keep their monopoly. Prop 16 has NOTHING to do with creating a greener California. Quite the opposite.

The ad is misleading. In the small print it states "Appearance in this mailer does not necessarily imply endorsement of others appearing in this mailer, nor does it imply endorsement of, or opposition to, any issues set forth in this mailer. Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure which is designated by an *."

So including Jerry Brown for governor is simply to encourage those who don't read the small print to believe he supports prop 16.

I'd like to see the people whose names are asterisked to publicly state whether they truly are for Prop 16, and to renounce the ad if they aren't. They include:

Janice Hahn for Lieutenant Governor
Pedra Nava for Attorney General
Dave Jones for Insurance Commissioner
Gloria Romero for Superintendant of Public Instruction
Jill Ravitch for Sonoma County District Attorney
John LemMon for Superior Court Judge
Jamie Ellen Thistlethwaite for Superior Court Judge

In my opinion, their appearance on this ad is a big strike against them. Either they've been getting money from PG&E, they're misled by PG&E's advertising, or they signed on to a group ad that misused their name, and therefore they should repudiate it.

Cascade

[Debunker]

On January 22nd, our democracy breathed its last gasp.

The Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited funds on the candidates or issues of their choice.

A thousand people could write a post or letter like you just did, and it will not have the slightest impact compared to the wall to wall mainstream media coverage paid for by PG&E. They lie, they obfuscate, they misdirect... we don't stand a chance.

If you think this is bad, wait until the next presidential election, it will be like nothing we've ever seen.




I'm surprised I haven't seen any comments on the horribly misleading ad put out by the so-called "Californians Vote Green".

It has a nice picture of a mountain stream, with the admonition to "Vote for a greener California." It lists a number of Democratic candidates - and urges people to vote for prop 16. It states "Prop 16 requires voter approval BEFORE local governmens can use public funds or debt to take over local electric service." It omits the fact that it requires a two-thirds vote to allow local governments to provide electricity service.

This is purely in the self-interest of PG&E. Do you really think they have our interests in mind? They want to keep their monopoly. Prop 16 has NOTHING to do with creating a greener California. Quite the opposite.

The ad is misleading. In the small print it states "Appearance in this mailer does not necessarily imply endorsement of others appearing in this mailer, nor does it imply endorsement of, or opposition to, any issues set forth in this mailer. Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure which is designated by an *."

So including Jerry Brown for governor is simply to encourage those who don't read the small print to believe he supports prop 16.

I'd like to see the people whose names are asterisked to publicly state whether they truly are for Prop 16, and to renounce the ad if they aren't. They include:

Janice Hahn for Lieutenant Governor
Pedra Nava for Attorney General
Dave Jones for Insurance Commissioner
Gloria Romero for Superintendant of Public Instruction
Jill Ravitch for Sonoma County District Attorney
John LemMon for Superior Court Judge
Jamie Ellen Thistlethwaite for Superior Court Judge

In my opinion, their appearance on this ad is a big strike against them. Either they've been getting money from PG&E, they're misled by PG&E's advertising, or they signed on to a group ad that misused their name, and therefore they should repudiate it.

Cascade

[theindependenteye]

>>>I'd like to see the people whose names are asterisked to publicly state whether they truly are for Prop 16, and to renounce the ad if they aren't.

I think that's an excellent idea, and we should contact the headquarters of each to suggest it.

>>>In my opinion, their appearance on this ad is a big strike against them. Either they've been getting money from PG&E, they're misled by PG&E's advertising, or they signed on to a group ad that misused their name, and therefore they should repudiate it.

I disagree with your premise, Cascade. Nothing in the ad actually suggest that they endorse it. There's nothing in the law that prevents me from putting out a mailer that says I love Jerry Brown and sex with minors. The implication, of course, is that he does too, but I'm not actually saying that, so I'm clean.

The best tactic would be to contact each of these headquarters, as you suggest, inform them about your concern that this implies their endorsement, and suggest that their best tactic for avoiding a significant loss of support from our kinda people is to emphatically repudiate this endorsement, and to give the reasons why.

And thanks for your concern. It's a truly despicable action, and it should be made a campaign issue.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[Cascade]

I disagree with your premise, Cascade. Nothing in the ad actually suggest that they endorse it. There's nothing in the law that prevents me from putting out a mailer that says I love Jerry Brown and sex with minors. The implication, of course, is that he does too, but I'm not actually saying that, so I'm clean.

The people with an asterisk by their name paid for and authorized their appearance on the flyer. There are others who did not, for which your comments are relevant.

Granted that the small print also says that appearance in the mailer does not necessarily imply endorsement of (or opposition to) any issues set forth in the mailer - but it seems to me that the candidates are not paying enough attention if they don't find out what issues their name is going to be linked with. Those who didn't authorize the use of their names get a pass, since they didn't have a choice - though it would still be good to see them publicly object to being included on this mailer with its misleading message.


The best tactic would be to contact each of these headquarters, as you suggest, inform them about your concern that this implies their endorsement, and suggest that their best tactic for avoiding a significant loss of support from our kinda people is to emphatically repudiate this endorsement, and to give the reasons why.

I've contacted them, and I encourage others to as well. I found contact info by googling their names and the positions they are running for.

Cascade

[kpage9]

Somebody wonderful (Gandhi?) said that it's better to light one candle than curse the darkness. Debunker, even your name suggests that your identity depends on the latter.



On January 22nd, our democracy breathed its last gasp.

The Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited funds on the candidates or issues of their choice.

A thousand people could write a post or letter like you just did, and it will not have the slightest impact compared to the wall to wall mainstream media coverage paid for by PG&E. They lie, they obfuscate, they misdirect... we don't stand a chance.

If you think this is bad, wait until the next presidential election, it will be like nothing we've ever seen.

[Debunker]

Somebody wonderful (Gandhi?) said that it's better to light one candle than curse the darkness. Debunker, even your name suggests that your identity depends on the latter.

Gee, let's just pretend it didn't happen, I'm sure corporate America will be benevolent if we just have the right attitude.

[kpage9]

who the heck said anything about getting corporate america to be benevolent? your statements suggest that you feel pretty powerless. i know how that can happen, but it's not entirely true.

I'm guessing that you have some unfinished control issues with your dad. I know, totally unsolicited and somewhat inappropriate comment for this venue, but your strong intellect and welcome populist leanings are getting debilitated by something powerful. Lots of us have been there, or somewhere similar.

kp


Gee, let's just pretend it didn't happen, I'm sure corporate America will be benevolent if we just have the right attitude.

[decterlove]

I think this is a really big issue and I hope people are not fooled by PG & E's efforts. Getting local control over energy generation would be such a major breakthru and the towns in Marin seem pretty serious about it.


I'm surprised I haven't seen any comments on the horribly misleading ad put out by the so-called "Californians Vote Green".