BALLOT MEASURE DISHONESTY: SADLY. IT’S OLD HAT

 CALIFORNIA FOCUS

FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 2023, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
   “ BALLOT MEASURE DISHONESTY: SADLY. IT’S OLD HAT”

 

 

        There were loud complaints about ballot measure dishonesty the other  day, just after the fast food industry qualified a referendum for a statewide vote next year aiming to do away with a new law giving workers in those restaurants higher pay and more say-so over workplace rules and disputes.

 

 

        Without doubt, there was dishonesty in the process of gathering the almost 550,000 valid voter signatures needed to get this measure onto the ballot. Referenda are different from normal ballot initiatives: they don’t create new law, but try to nix recently-passed laws before they can take effect.

 

 

        Its dishonesty helped gain the fast food industry at least a temporary reprieve: The new law passed last summer and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom will be in abeyance until results of next year’s popular vote on it are known.

 

 

        Neither referenda nor dishonesty in getting them to the ballot is new. Deception is easy to pull off. That’s especially true with little or no regulation on petition carriers and valid signatures bringing up to $15 apiece, depending on the wealth of the referendum backers. The companies behind this one were willing to spend whatever it took to bring their proposition to the ballot, as were the oil companies who soon after qualified another referendum to undo a law banning new oil wells and fracking within 3,200 feet of homes and schools.

 

 

        With up to $15 per name at stake, it’s no wonder when some petition carriers resort to dishonesty. Those $15 chunks can add up very quickly.

 

 

        In canvassing for the fast food measure, petition carriers outside big box stores around the state told many voters the proposal would help raise wages for fast food workers. Uh-uh.

 

 

        Others told their pigeons the measure would fight inflation. Nope. Still others refused to show voters the actual text of the referendum.

 

 

        No wonder many voters reported feeling bilked when they learned what they had signed. Fortunately for them, they will get another crack at this measure when it hits the ballot in November 2024.

 

 

        The good news here is that dishonesty in proposition politics, old as it is, has not usually paid off.

 

 

        One of the oldest dishonest tactics of proposition sponsors is use of misleading names for their campaign committees. One example: In the early 2000s, the tobacco industry qualified an initiative to cancel all local restrictions on smoking.

 

 

        The companies called their committee Californians for Statewide Smoking Restrictions. But there was no push for state laws on the subject; the industry merely wanted to quash what several cities had done on their own to reduce smoking.

 

 

        Similarly, in 2016, the plastic bag industry qualified a referendum which appeared on the ballot as Proposition 67, aiming to throw out a new law banning single-use carry-out store bags. The trade group called itself the American Progressive Bag Alliance. What’s a progressive bag?

 

 

        Prop. 67 lost on a 53-47 percent vote, and groceries and other stores still sell plastic bags for 10 cents apiece, but they are thicker and can be used more than once.

 

 

        There was similar dishonesty in the sports gambling industry’s 2022 attempt to legalize almost unfettered online sports betting in California. On the ballot as Prop. 27 last fall, and sponsored by the FanDuel, DraftKings and BetMGM wagering services, this effort began dishonestly by calling its measure the “California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Act.” In fact, only a tiny percentage of revenues would have gone to those causes, and the measure lost by more than 2-1.

 

 

        The tobacco industry also lost in its dishonest campaign.

 

 

        These are just three out of many egregious examples of misleading industry campaigns to pass initiatives or referenda in California.

 

 

So it would be naïve to be shocked that the fast food industry’s petition carriers engaged in several forms of dishonesty.

 

 

        And it would not be the least bit surprising if the latest dishonest campaign ends up losing, too, just like almost all previous propositions whose campaigns were deliberately misleading.

 

 

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

JUST HOW ANTI-VAXX ARE THE NEWSOMS?

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2020, OR THEREAFTER


BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

          “JUST HOW ANTI-VAXX ARE THE NEWSOMS?”

          While the world waits for someone, somewhere, to develop a vaccine against the coronavirus, it would be nice if residents in America’s most populous state could be sure their governor really is on board with vaccinations.

There is some reason to doubt he is. It’s true that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a legislative bill intended to close loopholes allowing some children to avoid vaccinations required for public school enrollment. And he’s demanded Californians take many coronavirus precautions, from closing all bars to forcing over-65s to stay home. But…

          Newsom only okayed last year’s SB 276 after intervening twice in the legislative process to make the measure far weaker than the original version proposed by Democratic state Sen. Richard Pan of Sacramento, a pediatrician.

          For anyone who doubts the impact of vaccinations on diseases like measles, rubella, mumps, polio and whooping cough, diseases that once could become epidemic, a look at the spread of the coronavirus might be illuminating.

          Without a vaccine to hinder it, this virus sped around the world in two months, causing personal and financial panic. It halted most travel to Asia and Europe, the government warns Americans against cruises, sports events are cancelled, many restaurants are closed and thousands wear surgical masks.

          All this for a virus whose death toll is less severe than it was from some diseases for which vaccines are now well established.

          Last year, Newsom did as much as he could afford politically to ease the impact of SB 276 on anti-vaccination parents who believe the almost certainly fictitious side-effect of autism that’s claimed by discredited anti-vaxx leaders. Those parents say this supposed occasional side effect outweighs any risk of disease epidemics.

          Today’s stock market and multiple deaths from the coronavirus suggest otherwise.

Before SB 276, hundreds, maybe thousands, of parents located the few doctors who push the unproven autism claims and charged about $300 each to sign medical exemptions from the vaccination rules.

          Pan sought to close this loophole by having state health officials vet all such waivers, approving only those for children with organ transplants and a few other conditions.

          Newsom bridled. Last summer, he said, “I believe in immunizations; I do not subscribe to their point of view broadly. I back immunizations, however I do have concerns about a bureaucrat making a decision that is very personal…I think that’s just something we need to pause and think about.” Does this verbal mush mean he thinks vaccinations belong in the realm of personal choice, not public health necessity? He won’t say.

          Newsom essentially forced Pan to revise his bill so vetting will apply only to doctors who sign more than five waivers in any year. That seemed to satisfy Newsom – until late August, when he weighed in again, causing SB 276 to be further weakened. It no longer requires doctors to certify under penalty of perjury that what they’re saying is accurate. If they won’t do that, why believe them at all?

          Then, in February, Newsom’s “First Partner,” wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom, told anti-vaxx activists in Sacramento that “I think there needs to be more conversation around spreading out vaccines, around only giving children the vaccines that are most essential.” Does the former actress believe she knows which ones fit that bill? Does the governor share her belief?

          The First Partner asked the activists not to post her remarks on social media, but they did it anyway.

          A Newsom spokesperson later noted that the severely weakened law he signed is the position of his administration, but he has not pushed the health department to set up either the required vetting system or any oversight.

          Pan told a reporter, “This should absolutely be happening now.”

          What’s more, once a coronavirus vaccine arrives, it should be added to the required list to reduce risks from that sometimes deadly micro-organism.

          It adds up to a situation where the governor talks strongly about combating the coronavirus, but has gone easy on other diseases that could spread even faster than the new threat, including some with far greater risks of death or brain damage for those they infect.

       Which opens the question of how badly he actually wants a coronavirus vaccine.

         

-30-

     Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, go to www.californiafocus.net

UC HEEDS ITS CRITICS, WILL LIMIT OUT-OF-STATERS

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE:  FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 2017, OR THEREAFTER


BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“UC HEEDS ITS CRITICS, WILL LIMIT OUT-OF-STATERS”

          After more than three years of steadfastly denying that increased enrollment of foreign and out-of-state students could endanger the very California identity of the University of California, it is stunning and encouraging to see the 10-campus system do an about face.

          That’s the upshot of two moves made by the university’s Board of Regents, who voted overwhelmingly last fall to increase in-state enrollment at the elite university by 10,000 in-staters before the 2018-2019 school year. The increase will come in increments of 5,000 next fall and 2,500 students each of the next two academic years, the gradual process needed as new quarters are built for the larger student body.

          Regents took their second step in late winter, setting a 20 percent systemwide cap on students from outside California.

          The two-prong approach is a direct response to political pressure applied by parents of students with stellar grades who nevertheless have had problems getting admitted to UC campuses of their choice.

          The second step is more of a reassurance to parents and students than an actual reduction, since UC as this term began – at an all-time peak in out-of-state enrollment – had 34,673 out-of-staters on campus out of 210,170 undergraduates, or 16.5 percent of the student body. A state audit last year showed non-resident enrollment was up 432 percent over the last 10 years, while in-state enrollment had risen just 10 percent.

          But the out-of-state load often seems much higher than that because those students – especially foreign students – are concentrated on UC’s most desired and prestigious campuses at Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Diego, all of which enroll more than 20 percent from outside the state.

          How effective was parental and student political pressure? Put simply, money eventually talked to UC officials. The university system conceded for years that one reason it takes so many out-of-staters is that they pay far more tuition than in-staters: about $27,000 a year more, a total of about $550 million in the last academic year.

          This money helped the university to some extent in compensating for a series of budget cuts inflicted during the years of Govs. Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, both of whom claimed to support education, but consistently tightened UC’s purse-strings. This meant less construction of everything from laboratories to dormitories and sometimes interfered with recruiting of elite faculty, who could get higher salary offers elsewhere.

          But in recent months, state legislators have pressured the university to favor California admissions more, or pay a price. They offered $18.5 million in financial incentives if UC allowed in more Californians and capped its non-resident enrollment. That’s just what the Regents have now done, and they should soon reap the benefits.

          All this will not reduce the quality of competition for spots at UC, especially its best-known campuses. UCLA, for example, last spring became the first American university receiving more than 100,000 applications for spots in its fall class. The campus added 1,000 Californians this year, but still has three times as many non-resident students as it had just nine years ago. The 1,000-student in-state increase helped rectify a 4 percent drop of in-state students over the last nine years.

          But overall, the gains of out-of-staters will not be reversed anytime soon, even while the needs of many more solid California high school graduates are met. UC might need somehow to convince more foreign students and students from Eastern states to enroll at campuses like Riverside and Merced and Santa Cruz, which now have relatively few out-of-staters. But their overall number will not drop, nor will their financial support, which officials say was critical as the university system maintained most of its high standards while state funding dropped during the Great Recession.

          The upshot of all this is that the outrage of California parents who watched for years while their children met every requirement for UC admission – and still didn’t get in – has produced results.

          It’s one of the rare times in recent memory that legislators and other top state officials actually heeded their constituents. There’s always hope this might lead to more responsiveness by those same officials in other areas ranging from utility regulation to highway maintenance and more.

     -30-       
     Elias is author of the current book “The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It,” now available in an updated third edition. His email address is tdelias@aol.com 

WILL LAWYER HIRING LEAD TO LOWER UTILITY RATES?

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2015, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

    “WILL LAWYER HIRING LEAD TO LOWER UTILITY RATES?”

          It’s now possible that mid-February will be remembered in years to come as a fateful time in the century-long history of the California Public Utilities Commission. That’s when, without offering any legal justification, the five commissioners spent public money to hire a criminal lawyer.

    If courts find this move was as blatantly illegal as it looks to some, they may soon cease treating this powerful but disgraced body that sets power and natural prices for most Californians with the extreme deference they traditionally have evinced.

    Should judges reverse this possibly illegal PUC decision, how long before they begin looking askance at some of the commission’s other dicey rulings favoring giant utility companies over their customers.

          Right now, state and federal authorities are investigating the commission and its immediate past president Michael Peevey. Among tens of thousands of released emails are some showing inappropriate, potentially illegal, contacts between Peevey, at least one present commissioner, and high officials of regulated companies like Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Edison Co.

          This was predictable from the moment Peevey joined the commission more than 12 years ago, first appointed by then-Gov. Gray Davis and later reappointed by ex-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. No one could reasonably expect Peevey, a former Edison president, to deal objectively with his friends and former colleagues. It was a classic case, first noted here in 2004, of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

    The lawyer-hiring decision shows that despite pious declarations from Peevey successor Michael Picker about how “decisions should be based on the record developed in public,” things may not have changed much since Peevey departed as 2014 ended.

          With criminal investigations in full swing, commissioners signed a $49,000 contract with the Los Angeles law firm Sheppard Mullin, defense attorney Raymond C. Marshall of the firm’s San Francisco office in the lead role. Marshall is charging a “discounted” rate of $882 per hour. The $49,000 won’t go far at that rate.

    The commission has also used Walnut Creek lawyer Katherine Alberts to stonewall requests for records of PUC communications about a 2014 settlement forcing customers to pay $3.3 billion of the $4.7 billion cost for retiring the San Onofre Nuclear Power Station, owned by Edison and the San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

          But California Government Code section 995.8 says that a “public entity is not required to provide for the defense of a criminal action…” It adds that before hiring defense lawyers, an agency like the PUC must formally determine such a defense “would be in the best interests of the public entity and that (employees involved) acted...in good faith…and in the apparent interests of the public entity.”

          The PUC made no such determination and held no public hearings on hiring attorneys. Nor has it said who its criminal lawyers will defend.

          This spurred a lawsuit from former San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre and his partner Maria Severson. They want the commission to reveal who its new lawyer will defend and hold hearings on whether that’s in the public interest.

          Aguirre said other commission decisions may have been made improperly, even criminally, including the San Onofre settlement. Another he cited was a ruling last November assessing a measly $1 million fine against multi-billion-dollar PG&E, also cutting its natural gas rates by $400 million a year as penalties for its conduct around the aftermath of the 2010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion that killed eight persons. Even new commission president Picker, who voted for those penalties, now says the company should pay much more.

    Aguirre also questioned a $14 million settlement with SDG&E after a 2007 fire ignited by power lines downed because of poor maintenance. That blaze destroyed 1,500 homes in northern San Diego County.

          The courts' traditional deference to the utilities commission has never before encountered criminality in commission conduct of its business. Meanwhile, the commission refuses to answer questions about its legal authority for hiring outside criminal lawyers.

          All of which means utility regulation in California has moved into a state of high flux. Who knows? It might soon be open season on those other questionable decisions and more and that could lead to rolling back some of California’s sky-high utility rates, which are at just as onerous and compulsory as high taxes.

                   

     -30-

     Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net