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.
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jim,
We agree with you that Proposition 98 is “the most important measure on this year’s statewide ballot.” The California Taxpayer Protection Committee was among the first organizations to endorse Proposition 98 and we have been included in their literature. Our volunteers helped qualify that initiative for the ballot. I serve as the Committee’s Executive Director and I coordinate the volunteers who answer our mail, our e-mail, and our telephone. I can assure you that we have been in constant contact with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association about Proposition 98.
Thanks to that section of the Political Reform Act to which you referred, the California Taxpayer Protection Committee’s slate mail operation is a separate political action committee with a different leadership, a different treasurer (not me!), a separate bank account, separate donors, and distinct policies. That Committee also supports Proposition 98, but I don’t think they had the funding to include it on every slate mailing throughout the state. Sadly, the laws of economics even apply to conservative activists.
You are wrong when you say that “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 campaign, for free, because he actually believes in something.” The rumor in Placer County is that my friend Lew Uhler was bought and paid for by liberal congressional candidate Doug Ose and his organization endorsed whatever Doug Ose paid to put on their slate. This is the same Doug Ose whose corrupt and dishonest campaign has viciously smeared conservative leaders (and Proposition 98 supporters) like Barbara Alby, Rico Oller, and now Tom McClintock. Whether the rumors are true or not, Lew Uhler’s steadfast support for liberal Doug “Internet Tax” Ose has seriously damaged Lew’s credibility and that of the National Tax Limitation Committee. By contrast, the California Taxpayer Protection Committee has endorsed Tom McClintock, from whom we have not received any funding, and we have been quick to expose organizations that sell out their principles for a quick buck.
You claim that the California Taxpayer Protection Committee has lost credibility because, in your misguided opinion, Proposition 98 was not featured prominently on every piece of paper that the organization distributed. By holding up the National Tax Limitation Committee as your model (knowing that they have endorsed Doug Ose against tax fighter Tom McClintock, you have lost some credibility yourself.
Tom Hudson, Executive Director
California Taxpayer Protection Committee