Proposition 105: Consumer Rights

The important question about Proposition 105 (the Consumer Right to Know Initiative) was not squarely addressed by your editorial (“Hodge-Podge: No on 105,” Oct. 23).

The question is simple: Will consumers benefit from getting better disclosure from advertisers?

To CURE (the consumer, senior, environmental coalition sponsoring Proposition 105) the answer is simple: Consumers can only be helped--not hurt--by getting more information and being able to make more informed decisions.

Unfortunately, as The Times noted, the Legislature has failed to pass Proposition 105’s consumer concerns because of the “pressure of special-interest lobbying.”

Many of these bills received Democratic and Republican support--until the special interests (and their campaign contributions) got involved.

Proposition 105 is not a Republican versus Democratic issue: It is a public interest versus special interest issue.

Proposition 105 supports truth in advertising by requiring these disclosures:

- Warnings by advertisers of toxic household products against pouring toxic products down the drain, in order to avoid polluting our water supply.

- Disclosures about nursing home practices and safety violations, so seniors and their families can choose nursing homes which will provide the safety and dignity that seniors have earned.

- Understandable “medigap” policies to prevent seniors being sold fraudulent Medicare supplemental insurance policies.

- Disclosure on initiative ads about which industry or interest is really paying for the ads.

- Disclosure so buyers of stock can find out whether the companies are doing business in South Africa.

Why are these areas covered in one initiative? Because in each of these areas consumers are interested in better disclosure--and Proposition 105 requires that advertisers give consumers just that: better disclosure.

Proposition 105 will not create a big bureaucracy or raise taxes. Any minor costs could be offset by fines collected from violators.

Proposition 105 targets “bad apple” businesses, and protects honest businesses from the unfair competition of those who would tell lies or evasions to sell their products.

Why would anyone oppose this--except those with something to hide?

JIM ROGERS

President of CURE

Oakland