I predicted todays economic woes over two years ago, and I predicted it would be the credit card industry that would lead the way.
I believe the No on 87 campaign repeatedly strayed from the truth both in print and with several of their No on 87 television commercials.
Perhaps we have become too accepting of dishonesty in political commercials and have just shucked it off as "that's just the way things are done".
Do I sound naive because I think political commercials should not contain lies? Ignoring lies from political advertisers in my opinion empowers those who lie and win to repeat their unnacceptable behavior over and over.
Did the No Side Misrepresent Opinion as Fact, Did the No Side Lie in Their Commericals or in Print?
It is my opinion that many of the No on 87 commercials restated opinions as fact. It is also my opinion that when a politician or political group trys to convince the voting public to vote in a certain manner by stating an opinion as a fact, they have lied and need to be held accountable.
The No side had a 100 million dollar budget and that should been enough money to learn what constituted a lie and what did not before spending 85% of their budget on commercials.
Here is one print example of what I believe to be a Lie by the No Side. No on 87 claimed that NONE of the Proposition 87 money would go for education.
Did you know that over 600 million dollars of Prop 87 funding was earmarked for colleges so they could research alternative energy resources technology? Did you know that Prop 87 was going to spend millions more taking older, smoke belching school buses off the road and replace them with newer, safer, cleaner running buses! Is it not a complete and utter lie to say that none of the money from Prop 87 would go towards public education when OVER 3/4's OF A BILLION DOLLARS WAS ACTUALLY BUDGETED for educational purposes?
I believe I can prove Proposition 87's campaign tactic of spinning opinion into fact by pointing out several examples of lies that were contained in their own commericals and in their printed statements.
I am advocating a lawsuit against the "No on 87" side that requests a FULL REFUND of all the money that was donated to the Yes on 87 campaign. I'm not advocating litigation against the individual contributors to the No side, but rather against the big corporations on the No side that ramrodded all of the publically stated inaccuracies down the public's throat via both television commercials and in print.
You can Help Make a Difference!
If you know anything at all about the Behind the Scenes activities for either the Yes on 87 or the No on 87 side and want to share that information with me, I will not knowingly share who you are without your permission.
On the Yes side, I am surprised that apparently no money was budgeted for after the election. All the momentum built up by Proposition 87 in my opinion is being shredded by the premature shut down of the yeson87.org website. Redirecting the yeson87.org website to a privately held website cannot be ethical, can it?
That is why I started this website, yes-on-87.org, to find out what is going on.
Did you know that the Yes on 87 headquarters lease was set to expire the day after the election, and that this was apparently decided well in advance of the vote! How far in advance was this decided? Win or Lose, why shut down the office the day after the election? Perhaps there is a law that mandates all monies must be spent by the day of the election; otherwise, keeping the offices open for an additional month or two is an obvious no–brainer, and that I state as both an opinion that can also double as a proveable fact!
The very day after the election, the yeson87 phone number was back in the hands of a private individual, (a month later it was disconnected). If Proposition 87 had won, would the website and phone numbers have been disconnected as quickly? How far in advance did the Yes on 87 people decide to disconnect the website and phone numbers immediately after the vote? If Proposition 87 had won, surely the phone number and website would have remained active, yet it appears that somebody decided well in advance of the election date to shut down both the telephone and the website the day after the election.
Any insider information regarding the "No on 87" side might prove helpful. Were any of the spokespeople who appeared in the No on 87 commercials compensated? Since the "common man, common woman" approach was used in many of the No on 87 commercials were these spokepersons compensated without mentioning that fact in the ad?
How can we allow political advertisements to not clearly mention in text and voice that the spokesperson or the organization they represent has been compensated? This is basic ethics 101 that is not being followed by California and their voting guidelines. Compensated , Is that such a difficult word to superimpose onto the television screen during a television commercial that uses official leaders of groups and organizations to defeat or support a ballot measure?
Additionally, when the head of any group or organization states they support or don't support a proposition, has there actually been a vote by the general membership that can be referred by the voting public so they can at least know what voting percentage supports or opposes a ballot measure?