Adwatch: Campaign financing derided as 'welfare'

Sacramento Bee ^ | 11/1/6 | Jim Sanders

[SmithL]

The No on 89 campaign, which is opposing the campaign finance measure, is running its first television ad in major markets throughout California.

The 30-second ad will appear on broadcast channels statewide until Election Day. The group has spent about $3 million to air the spot.

Here is the text of the ad and an analysis by Jim Sanders of The Bee Capitol Bureau:

•ON SCREEN: Camera zeroes in on a man lounging on his front porch, newspaper in hand, near two children playing with a dog on the front lawn of his fashionable, two-story home.

•MAN: I'd love to rein in the special interests that control our state politics. That's what I thought Proposition 89 did. But then I read up on it. It turns out Prop. 89 was written by the special interests. It would stick us with $200 million in new taxes, creating a campaign slush fund for politicians to use as they see fit. Can you believe it? It's like welfare for politicians. ... Read it for yourself. I did. That's why I'm voting no on Prop. 89.

ANALYSIS: The ad concedes a key premise of Proposition 89: Special interests have undue influence at the Capitol.

But Proposition 89 is not the right fix, it argues, hammering the point home with loaded phrases like "slush fund" and "stick us" and "welfare for politicians."

Proposition 89 would provide public financing for state races, tighter donor limits on privately financed campaigns, and restrictions on ballot-measure spending from corporate treasuries.

[SmithL]

[SmithL]

In my (never humble) opinion, Prop 89 is the most dangerous proposition on this year's ballot. It should be rejected outright as an attack on free speech. It would silence corporations, but not unions.

Prop 89 was put on the ballot by the California Nurses Association to ensure that there would be NO opposition when they put universal healthcare on the ballot.

[newzjunkey]

HELL NO on 89.