Tweet
I'm really getting sick of these post-Citizens United SuperPAC ad campaigns. I mean, politics was a bit slimy before, but it's really sunk to new lows since the CU ruling.
Case in point: Proposition 29, a new smoking tax bill being put before the California voters next month.
The anti-29 ads are grossly dishonest, making very strawmannish claims that aren't supported by a reading of the bill itself.
CLAIM: Funds from the law could be spent out of state, when our state needs more employment.
TRUTH: While the claim is technically true, it's outside the realm of reality when the entire bill is taken into consideration. The funds are administrated by a 9-person panel, several of which are the Chancellors for each of the University of California campuses. Odds are good that they're going to be pressing for the research funds to be spent at the UCs themselves.
CLAIM: The funds will be controlled by a group of politically-appointed special interests.
TRUTH: Only four of the nine seats will be appointed by the Governor, and the criteria for filling those seats are very strict, including a disqualification for anyone who is required to register as a Lobbyist. The other five are three UC Chancellors (or their designees) and two appointed by the State Public Health Officer, which are, again, very narrowly constrained as to who they can appoint.
CLAIM: Once it passes into law, it won't be changeable for 15 years.
TRUTH: The only provision in the law that says anything about "15 years" is that the Council can't make changes for 15 years, and after that point, they can make recommendations for the Legislature. If the Legislature agrees with the Council's recommendations, they can pass the changes with a roll-call vote. It can still be amended at any time by the usual method of passing bills.
There are other claims, but these are the most egregiously misleading.
And the worst part is that it's ultimately not really necessary to try to mislead the public like this. There are plenty of people who will vote it down simply because they believe that these taxes should go into the general coffers, instead of being narrowly locked onto cancer-related research. Heck, I'm not even sure I'll vote for it, at this point. I need more time to study it.
Case in point: Proposition 29, a new smoking tax bill being put before the California voters next month.
The anti-29 ads are grossly dishonest, making very strawmannish claims that aren't supported by a reading of the bill itself.
CLAIM: Funds from the law could be spent out of state, when our state needs more employment.
TRUTH: While the claim is technically true, it's outside the realm of reality when the entire bill is taken into consideration. The funds are administrated by a 9-person panel, several of which are the Chancellors for each of the University of California campuses. Odds are good that they're going to be pressing for the research funds to be spent at the UCs themselves.
CLAIM: The funds will be controlled by a group of politically-appointed special interests.
TRUTH: Only four of the nine seats will be appointed by the Governor, and the criteria for filling those seats are very strict, including a disqualification for anyone who is required to register as a Lobbyist. The other five are three UC Chancellors (or their designees) and two appointed by the State Public Health Officer, which are, again, very narrowly constrained as to who they can appoint.
CLAIM: Once it passes into law, it won't be changeable for 15 years.
TRUTH: The only provision in the law that says anything about "15 years" is that the Council can't make changes for 15 years, and after that point, they can make recommendations for the Legislature. If the Legislature agrees with the Council's recommendations, they can pass the changes with a roll-call vote. It can still be amended at any time by the usual method of passing bills.
There are other claims, but these are the most egregiously misleading.
And the worst part is that it's ultimately not really necessary to try to mislead the public like this. There are plenty of people who will vote it down simply because they believe that these taxes should go into the general coffers, instead of being narrowly locked onto cancer-related research. Heck, I'm not even sure I'll vote for it, at this point. I need more time to study it.
Comment