The Hidden Powers Behind High-Sounding Campaign Names

In the days leading up to Tuesday’s presidential primary, the airwaves were saturated with $25 million in advertisements for and against 12 statewide ballot initiatives. At the end of each plug was the requisite “paid for by” line. But even if you listened to the names of the initiatives’ sponsors, you probably had no idea who was really behind them. That’s because many of the names were bogus--and they were meant to be.

Consider Proposition 192, the Seismic Retrofit Bond Act of 1996. It passed by a margin of 60% to 40%, authorizing the state to sell $2 billion in bonds to pay for earthquake reinforcement of 1,100 bridges. On the “yes” side were Californians for Safe Highways and Bridges, a good name designed, no doubt, by image consultants to conjure up visions of the Golden Gate Bridge and the 405 Freeway, forever.

Of course, the name begged several questions. Is anyone in California truly opposed to safe highways and bridges? If so, what would that group’s name be? Californians for Pot-Holes and Bridge Collapses?

Truth be told, Californians for Safe Highways and Bridges were principally businesses, construction companies and labor interests. A more accurate name would have been: Californians Who Get Paid a Lot to Fix Highways and Bridges.

Consider Proposition 197, which would have amended the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 to remove special protections for mountain lions. It lost by 58% to 42%. The name of the group sponsoring the initiative was Californians for Balanced Wildlife Management. Again, it sounds good. The alternative--Californians for Unbalanced Wildlife Mismanagement--evokes scary images of animals on a rampage.

So who are the Balanced Wildlife Management folks? Among others: the National Rifle Assn.; the Safari Club; the Cattlemen’s Assn.; the Turkey Federation, and the Wool Growers. Read between the lines: Mountain lions are eating a lot of cows, turkeys, sheep and other animals. They threaten humans, too. But a more accurate name for this group would have been: Californians Who Want to Hunt and Kill Mountain Lions.

Another example: Proposition 198, the open-primary initiative, would allow voters, regardless of party registration, to vote for candidates of any party in a primary election. It passed, 59% to 41%. Who opposed this initiative? The California Coalition for Fair Elections (not to be confused with Californians for Rigged Elections). What is the Coalition for Fair Elections? It’s the California Democratic and Republican parties, which don’t want open primaries. It would have been far more accurate if they had called themselves the California Coalition for Purely Partisan Elections.

Which brings us to the 200s. Here the names of the campaign committees were altogether baffling. On the “yes” side, you had the Alliance to Revitalize California and Voter Revolt to Cut Insurance Rates. Sounds great. We’re all for revitalization and free insurance. But who are these groups? Answer: the high-tech industry and big corporate interests, who pumped $11 million into the “yes” campaigns to create no-fault auto insurance, to limit class-action securities litigation and to cap plaintiff’s lawyers’ fees. A more accurate name for them would have been the Alliance to Keep Big Business Out of Court.

On the “no” side, you had Consumers and Their Attorneys Against Propositions 200, 201 and 202, and another group, Citizens Against Phony Initiatives. Who are they? Two words: trial lawyers. It’s interesting to note that trial lawyers don’t even want to be called trial lawyers anymore. Early last year, the California Trial Lawyers’ Assn. changed its name to Consumer Attorneys of California.

The name game extends beyond the statewide initiatives. In Ventura, Measure S was supported by Citizens Against the Sales Tax Giveaway. The initiative, resoundingly defeated by voters, would have blocked expansion of the Buenaventura Mall by banning sales-tax rebates to developers. So who were these Citizens Against the Sales Tax Giveaway? Surprise: They were owners of the rival Esplanade Mall in adjacent Oxnard, who gave $57,000 to the “yes” campaign. A better name for that group: Developers From Another City Who Don’t Want Competition.

With such confusion over campaign committee names, a glossary might be helpful for the November election:

* “Citizens” means “lemmings.”

* “Voters” means “high-priced political professionals.”

* “Consumers” means “elites who never do the shopping.”

* “Coalition” means “rich and powerful groups allied against puny, penniless groups.”

* “Beautify” means “bulldoze.”

* “Revitalize” means “plunder.”

* “Protect” means “exploit.”

It may be too late, but Californians fed up with misleading ballot names should launch an initiative for the November election. The objective: Make backers say who they are and what they want. To qualify for the ballot, all we need are a few hundred-thousand signatures and, of course, a catchy name for the campaign committee.