FLASHREPORT

     The most important measure on this year's statewide ballot is Proposition 98, the anti-eminent domain protection measure, sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.   Please vote "Yes" on Prop. 98, and "No" on Prop. 99, the phony alternative supported by the California Democratic Party.

     That said, I received a "slate mailer" from an obscure outfit called the "California Taxpayer Protection Committee" out of Gold River, California.   The mailer has some local candidates on it and explains the group is made up of volunteers and unnamed "affiliated groups" that oppose "out of control spending," claim "taxes are too high" and that "new borrowing" is "not the answer."

     Now of course, I am biased here, because I represent the slate mail industry in court, have won two Federal cases enjoining campaign restrictions against slate mail, and have a few I produce myself.  I think slate mail is effective, and it is an important enough medium to have its own sections of the Political Reform Act.

     But not all the Republican slate mailers in this election supported Proposition 98.  A wrap some mailers get is that they will only sell advertising positions on the mailing to the highest bidder.   I have seen that happen, but not frequently.  Usually, when a Republican oriented mailer does not support the Republican position, it happens because the Republican side of the campaign is the weakest or has decided to avoid the slate mail medium altogether.

     In those situations, slate mail producers need to decide between "helping the cause" if they profess a policy position, or just acting like a business.  But when a slate mailer can be successful enough to "get out" its mail to the voting public, regardless, and if it presumes to announce to the public that it is representing conservative views, it really ought to act that way.

     That is why I bring up the California Taxpayer Protection Committee.   Whoever they are, they are not really about taxpayer protection.  And they aren't very cause oriented either, because they failed to take any position on Propositions 98 and 99, the most important taxpayer/property owner measures on the ballot!   They don't even mention the measures!  And my question is, if they could "get their mailing out," anyway, why didn't they support Proposition 98?   Lew Uhler, who publishes a voter guide for the National Tax Limitation Committee, supported Proposition 98 and opposed Proposition 99 at no cost to any camapign, for free, because he actually believes in something.   Several other slate mailers I am involved in, endorsed Proposition 98 and opposed Proposition 99 for no financial support from the campaign, because they were able to do so and actually believe in something.   Why didn't the "California Taxpayer Protection Committee," with its alleged professed anti-tax beliefs, do the same?  After all, HJTA is the sponsor!

     Credibility and perception is very important in politics, and I think the "California Taxpayer Protection Committee" just blew theirs in this important election.