The Education Coalition - which includes the biggest school-related unions and associations in California - has launched a statewide media campaign with a clear, unsurprising message: public schools need more money. The radio and TV campaign comes after a 1,700-page study that found California schools need at least $23 billion to meet basic standards.
 One part of the study recommended $1.5 trillion in new funding. But even the smaller number might seem scary to policymakers. There is concern that elected officials will instead focus on other reforms in the report, like how the state needs more teacher
training for English learners, more power for principals to fire teachers and better "collection of
student-specific data." The ad campaign keeps the focus on increasing funding for schools, not just bureaucratic reforms. The script:
Teacher: State leaders asked Stanford University to conduct 20 studies of California public schools.
Parent: There's progress, but much remains to be done. Compared to other states our schools lack resources.
Teacher: Continuing to improve our schools will take big changes but that can’t happen without more help.
Parent: California school funding is inadequate – the studies say we need forty percent more.
Teacher: It's time for the governor and the Legislature to invest in our children's future, and give our kids the schools they deserve.
"It really is embarrassing that in a state as wealthy as California, our schools are so severely under-funded, especially when compared to other states with fewer resources," Kathy Kinley, president of the California School Boards Association, said in a statement. "These studies validate the reality that we need more resources and flexibility in our schools, and if we don’t act now, our students will continue to suffer."
The education establishment is focusing on money, without mentioning reforms in the ads. The Stanford report, however, said both are needed: "Finally we cannot emphasize enough that asking the question, 'How much money will it cost to achieve state goals for students?' is meaningless without also asking, 'How can we develop a system that makes better use of whatever resources are available?' ... The message of the entire collection of studies is that serious fundamental change will be needed if California is to provide a high quality school system."
The advertising buy is relatively modest: about $500,000 for radio and TV spots in Spanish, English and four Asian languages on 60 stations in 21 communities from Medford, Ore. (which covers far Northern California) to El Centro. The real value of the campaign is to send a signal to lawmakers in Sacramento.
Listen to the spots or read transcripts here.
Rick Hasen of Loyola Law School, California's resident expert/blogger on campaign finance reform, performs some useful fear-mongering about a case headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome could potentially "increase corporate dominance over election
campaigns and make it easier for stealth donors to hide their true
identities. And that is something we all should fear." "What's really at stake is whether General Motors and
the AFL-CIO will get to spend millions from their treasuries on TV and
radio ads likely to influence the outcome of federal elections, and
ultimately whether they and wealthy individuals funding these ads who
want to shield their identities from public scrutiny will get a
constitutional right to do so."
Get scared by reading his article here.
As if the deluge of political TV ads were not confusing enough, political slate mailers are now pouring into California mailboxes just in time to really bewilder voters.
Lest anyone forgot from previous races, mailers are one of the more mercenary features of California elections. Political consultants and a smattering of associations sell many of the spots on their slates to candidates and propositions, often creating an ideologically contradictory potpourri of recommendations. Thus:
 The California State Firefighters' Assn. slate embraces one of the most flammable industries around: The cigarette companies that are opposing Proposition 86's $2.60 per pack smoking tax. The two groups last year were on opposite sides of AB 178, which banned the sale of cigarettes that don't automatically extinguish when you fall asleep while smoking — a major cause of home fires. This year, it's all cool: The tobacco industry paid the firefighters' group $84,000 and the firefighters' slate asks readers to "join California firefighters" in opposing the tobacco tax.
The boys in blue did even better: Big Tobacco paid the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California $100,000 to appear in PORAC's "Official Law Enforcement Voters Guide." (Cops got more even though they don't have to run into burning buildings!)
 The Early Voter slate touts three leaders "you can trust" though they are from different parties: Democratic attorney general candidate Bill Lockyer sandwiched between Republicans Tony Strickland and Steve Poizner, running respectively for controller and insurance commissioner. All paid for their inclusion. Even more confounding: the slate endorses both the $5.4 billion parks bond (Proposition 84) and Republican Bill Leonard, a Board of Equalization candidate who wrote the ballot argument against the parks bond, calling it the "special-interest-hidden agenda bond."
- The California Democratic Party supports the cigarette tax, the alternative energy tax on oil producers (Proposition 87) and a crackdown on sex offenders (Proposition 83) — just take a look at the party's official slate. But a widely distributed private slate labeled "Voter Information Guide for Democrats," boasting of "evaluations and recommendations" by the Democratic Party and others, opposes all three initiatives. The fine print notes that the slate was prepared by Voter Information Guide, "not an official political party organization." Tobacco paid the slate $75,000 and the oil companies put up $300,000. But the slate's rejection of the politically popular sex offender crackdown initiative — which has no funded opposition even though it has been a disaster in Iowa, as our colleague Jenifer Warren reported on Monday — seems actually a stance of genuine conviction with no dollars attached. Go figure.
-- By Times staff writer Jordan Rau
 The California Democratic Party is amping up its campaign against Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, the Republican from Riverside County in a tight race. Garcia is known to the outside world mostly because Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger speculated about her ethnicity during a private, taped conversation about "hot-blooded" people.
Garcia's campaign was rolling along until she told a high school class she wouldn't mind bedding Schwarzenegger. It was not the smoothest thing to say in the middle of her contested reelection fight against Democrat Steve Clute. The Dems now have another mailer attacking Garcia for the comments.
Garcia has been fighting back herself. As Times reporter Sara Lin writes this week, Garcia "calls Clute a career politician shopping for a district to represent.... 'There is no community connection with him. He can't raise money here, he can't get volunteers to walk for him here,' Garcia said. 'I think people see this outsider who is trying to buy a seat.'" And Garcia has her own radio ad chastising Clute, a former lawmaker, for sponsoring the naming of a freeway after a man who masturbated in public.
I love politics.
I'm not sure what to make of this new campaign by the AARP: "Don't Vote." A Republican consultant sent this to Political Muscle with the note, "Somebody thought this was a good idea and paid a lot of money for it."
The 50-and-over lobbying group is encouraging people to find out where the candidates stand on health care reform, Social Security and other issues. If you don't get answers, then don't vote, the influential group advises. There's a TV commercial featuring ordinary Americans intoning over and over again: "Don't vote," and an interactive site called Ask the Candidate, which features a fake politician giving cheesy answers to whatever important policy question you ask him.
I asked him about abortion and he answered: "I have no specific recollection, but I appreciate the thought you put into that." His environmental record: "I'd like to answer that question honestly, but in order to do that, I'm going to need a little more time to study the intricacies of that particular issue."
If this blog has taught me anything, it's that huge segments of the public have no ability to detect irony or sarcasm. I wonder if the good citizens who are viewing this AARP ad really understand that the group actually wants them to vote. (The main AARP site, on the other hand, lists "Seven Reasons to Vote.") While they may get more people to read the ballot pamphlet, the Don't Vote campaign takes a pretty cynical view of politicians.
Well, maybe they got one thing right.
 An independent-expenditure group calling itself Bipartisans to Rebuild California is unveiling a new TV ad campaign tomorrow in which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein are "appearing." That's technically true.
This does not mean, however, that the Republican governor and the Democratic senator shared the same studio or participated in producing the new ad, which promotes $37 billion worth of infrastructure bonds on Tuesday's ballot.
 The newly formed committee took separate footage of both Schwarzenegger and Feinstein endorsing the bonds, and put it together into one big "bipartisan" ad for Propositions 1A to 1E. Under federal campaign finance rules, Feinstein cannot participate in an independent expenditure campaign if she also appears on the ballot, which she does. Schwarzenegger also did not participate in producing the ad.
So state Treasurer Phil Angelides, who has been endorsed by Feinstein, can sleep tonight without wondering why the popular senior senator from California is sidling up to Schwarzenegger on the tube.
Who is paying for these ads? Bipartisans to Rebuild California includes representatives from the construction industry, city governments and unions, who in turn have raised money from individuals to pay for the TV ad campaign.
(Photos: Steve Yeater / AP; Reed Saxon / AP)
 Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante certainly has run one of oddest campaigns in California, if not the country. That's not necessarily a bad thing, given the extremely boring nature of most of the campaign ads out there.
Bustamante, right, has made his quest for insurance commissioner almost entirely about his self-described obesity and efforts to lose weight. He has shed 70 pounds so far, and he can't stop talking about it. Perhaps this is some brilliant way to connect with ordinary Californians, many of whom are struggling with their own weight issues, but it sure sounds weird.
Now, Bustamante is spending the last of his dwindling campaign money on two new TV ads — about $780,000 worth of airtime as the election draws near. The 15-second ads are sort of jarring in how quickly Bustamante starts out "Oprah" and ends up a politician.
The first ad begins: "I was really fat. I promised my family I would lose 70 pounds. I kept that promise. I'll keep this promise: I'll lower your insurance rates." In the second he says, "I worked hard to lose weight because our individual behavior matters. That's why your driving record, not where you live, should lower your car insurance."
(Photo: Bustamante campaign)
Deep inside in the new Public Policy Institute of California poll is this nugget: "Whose ads have you seen the most?" Surprisingly, a large percentage of those surveyed said they had seen Phil Angelides' TV ads more than Arnold Schwarzenegger's ads.
 Angelides won by a 12-point margin in this category, 37% to 25%. And yet, Angelides remains mired behind Schwarzenegger in the poll. Voters see him on TV, and nothing changes. To be fair, these people may be thinking they are seeing an "Angelides ad" when in fact they've absorbed tens of millions of dollars of negative ads attacking him. They just see him on TV a lot, thanks to his opponents.
Nevertheless, Angelides has been running TV ads supporting himself and attacking Schwarzenegger on and off for nearly two years. The photo at right is of Angelides at a Jan. 4, 2005, press conference releasing ads criticizing the governor for failing to deal with the state's budget shortfall.
Bill Carrick, Angelides' media consultant, dismissed the PPIC poll in a press conference today announcing a new Angelides TV ad. He said the poll didn't reflect a growing Democratic surge and was a "very static look at the electorate, very conservative, very old and a very low-turnout electorate. My own view is we're going to have Democrats turn out in disproportionate numbers to Republicans."
With only 57% of Democrats supporting Angelides in the new poll, Angelides is spending the rest of the week with prominent members of his own party. Democratic chairman Howard Dean appears with him today and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois shows up tomorrow. The new Angelides TV ad shows him standing in front of photographs of Schwarzenegger saying the governor wins the award for "best performance by a Republican pretending to be someone he's not."
(Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / AP)
A group of casino-owning Indian tribes calling itself Team 2006 just reported spending $917,000 to purchase TV advertising time for Tony Strickland, the Republican candidate for controller. They also listed a $100,000 TV expenditure for Strickland's wife, Assemblywoman Audra Strickland (R-Moorpark) and her reelection campaign.
 This makes the race between Democrat John Chiang and Strickland — both little-known to most Californians — competitive. Republicans believe they can take this seat away from Democrats, along with insurance commissioner and possibly lieutenant governor. If the GOP also retains the secretary of state office and governorship, it would be a huge victory for Republicans in California, while the rest of the country appears to be tilting Democratic.
Why would the tribes care about the Republican candidate in the controller's race? The state controller sits on influential tax boards, but Democratic leaders also believe the casino owners are sending a message to Democratic lawmakers: We reward friends, like the Stricklands. The Democrat-controlled Legislature failed to approve gambling compacts before they ended their 2006 session, angering the tribes seeking to expand their operations.
UPDATE: Dan Morain reports: In another indication that the controller's race is emerging as a major battleground, software giant Intuit reported today that it had poured $1 million into an independent campaign committee called Alliance for a Better Tomorrow, which in turn made an initial $66,000 television purchase for Strickland. The Alliance has taken five-figure donations from an array of other businesses, including tobacco companies, utilities and liquor interests.
And L.A. Times tax expert Evan Halper says that Intuit is hoping to kill off for good California's popular ReadyReturn program, which provides already-completed tax returns to some Californians. In surveys, taxpayers praised the program, which is managed in part by the state controller. But Intuit sees it as a threat to its TurboTax business. The Legislature opted not to renew the program next year after the company spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a lobbying campaign against it. Intuit wants to make sure it stays dead.
(Photo: AP)
 The Proposition 89 campaign has a new ad that probably won't get on TV very much, given the campaign's funding woes. But it's one of the slickest and most engaging political ads in California right now. Which is ironic, because the ad argues for a halt to the oleaginous, overly simplistic but sometimes engaging political ads that dominate the airwaves during election season.
Watch the ad here.
In this ad, the medium is the message. Rather than targeting corporate donations and their influence on politicians, it attacks television advertising funded by those donations. In essence, they want to clamp down on political speech — the wrong kind, of course. Prop. 89 would severely restrict donations to candidates and limit corporate donations for initiative campaigns to $10,000. That would presumably end advertising campaigns filled with lies and distortions.
Unless, of course, you are a trial lawyer, an Indian tribe or someone extremely wealthy. (Or all three!) As Dan Morain found out, the initiative backers say Prop. 89 would exempt those groups from the $10,000 cap on donations to initiatives. The ad is somewhat misleading because it implies that "rich politicians" would be muzzled. But people like movie producer Steve Bing — who is funding an oil-tax initiative with $40 million of his own money — would be free to run as many ads as they want for their own ballot measure campaigns. And Prop. 89 creates a $200 million pot of money for publicly financed candidates to access; that money could be used for ads filled with lies and distortions as well.
To their credit, the backers make fun of themselves by including their own pro-Prop. 89 ad in the montage as an example of the awful messages on TV.
The new Prop. 89 ad is produced by Bill Hillsman, who first gained national exposure for helping Paul Wellstone win office in Minnesota. Since then, he has worked for the likes of Gov. Jesse Ventura and Texas gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman, whose campaign action figure sells for $20.
|
|
|
One part of the study recommended $1.5 trillion in new funding. But even the smaller number might seem scary to policymakers. There is concern that elected officials will instead focus on other reforms in the report, like how the state needs more teacher
training for English learners, more power for principals to fire teachers and better "collection of
student-specific data." The ad campaign keeps the focus on increasing funding for schools, not just bureaucratic reforms. The script:
Our Blogger