It’s
election season in California (the primary election is on 3 June), and so the
state’s newspapers are falling over each other to endorse Governor Jerry Brown
in glowing terms. In the past,
candidates could ‘cross-file’, in effort to register and win in the primaries
of both paries. In the absence of a
credible GOP challenger, and thanks to his own right-wing politics, Brown could
almost replicate the trick pulled off by the likes of Earl Warren.
The other features of election season are the dirty tricks in play. In 2012, the morning of the election, the story broke that the Koch Brothers were using ‘dark money’ organisations to pour funds into supporting measures designed to strip workers of rights and protections and defeating measures designed to provide funding to the education sector after decades of cuts.
Today
when I checked my mail I got something called the “Independent Voter
Guide”. It came to me from an outfit
called “Voter Guide Slate Cards”, which operates out of Long Beach. Its seal looks official, bearing an outline
of our beautiful state, with blue and red colours, designed to illustrate its
“independent” nature.
It
endorses Jerry Brown for Governor, Derek Cressman for Secretary of State, Betty
Yee for Controller, John Chiang for Treasurer, Kamala Harris for Attorney
General, Tom Torlakson for Superintendent of Public Instruction, and other
local officials.
I
vote primarily for Democratic and Green candidates, avoiding the foaming,
anti-social fundamentalists who dominate the GOP as well as right-wing
Democrats like Jerry Brown who shred our safety net and public services under
the cover of promoting “fiscal responsibility”.
So although I certainly don’t agree with all of their recommendations, I
would not by and large quibble with their slant.
What
I object to, however, is the impression that the mailer attempts to convey:
that it is “independent”, or that these recommendations are somehow
neutral. In reality, that is not the
case.
In
print so small it strains my eyes, the mailer notes that “Appearance is paid
for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure designated by an
*”. It appears that Cressman, Yee, and
Karen Monroe (a candidate for County Superintendent of Schools) all paid to be
on the mailer, positioning themselves alongside popular Democrats to boost
their chances by giving the appearance that they have the endorsement of some
independent organization.
The
three of these candidates (along with Torlakson) have larger blurbs about their
accomplishments on the back page of the mailer.
Last
month, a
group paid to have Voter Guide Slate Cards include endorsements on a “Republican”
version of the guide (I’m a registered Independent, explaining why I got this
version) of individuals who were not Republican candidates. Now no one would love to see the sociopathic
fundamentalists in the extremist California GOP get their comeuppance more than
I would. But there is a basic level of
dishonesty in this practice that diminishes the quality of debate and misleads
voters. And candidates from both parties
pull these dishonest stunts, using profiteering political consultants.
In
2010, the Calitics blog reported that a similar mailer attributed the same
quote endorsing candidates to different people on different mailers. This is apparently a comparatively cheap way
for candidates—particularly those farther “down” the ticket, I would imagine—to
secure the backing or at least attention of voters, provided they have the
money to pay for a mailer.
The
creator of my “independent” guide is Voter Guide Slate Cards, which boasts on
its website that
it has been “Delivering Winning Results Since 1986” and lists its e-mail as jerry@voterguideslatecards.com The website proudly announces that it is “now
taking reservations for the 2014 elections.
The following guides will be published: Democratic Voter Guide;
Republican Voter Guide; Independent Voter Guide (for mixed party households and
decline to state voters)”. “For 25
years”, VGSC explains, the group “has been influencing elections through its
direct mail program”.
It’s
a big business, given that during “each major election cycle, VGSC distributes
slate cards to millions of households in California and counts among its paying
clients over 4,000 candidates and ballot measures…VGSC has proven to be
tremendously influential in local races in which advertising dollars are
limited and voter participation can be 50% less than better known top-of-the-ticket
offices….Voters statewide”, they add, being commendably open about their
dishonesty, “recognize our familiar graphic design used for 25 years”.
Our
politics are impoverished enough as it is today. Candidates from the two major parties represent
but a sliver of the options that should be available to citizens of a
democratic society. But the entry of so
much money into our political structure effectively squeezes out the views of
those who do not have the resources to purchase access to voters.
Turnout
is already very low in primary elections.
And tragically, it continues to remain low even as primaries assume
greater importance: in California these elections now weed out all but the top two
candidates, ensuring that alternative viewpoints—Greens and Libertarians, for
example—are not even available as options on the November ballot.
So
it is all the more depressing to think about the number of people who will be
influenced by moneyed interests and the candidates with the power—thanks, by
and large, to moneyed interests—to buy voters’ attention. Californians should turn out to vote next
week, and they should do so having taken some time to familiarize themselves
with candidates and initiatives by consulting a variety of sources, and not
simply the dishonest mailers masquerading as disinterested guides.