War chests crushed my TV!

CALIFORNIANS have suffered another barrage of political TV ads this season, but none has been more pervasive than those for and against Prop. 87.

The measure, which would tax state oil producers to fund alternative energy programs, has become the most expensive referendum in American history, with estimated total costs of more than $150 million.

Polls show that early support for the measure has faded over the last few weeks.

But whatever voters decide Tuesday, from a TV watcher’s perspective there have already been several noteworthy aspects to the Prop. 87 campaign, aside from each side’s fat war chest.

First, it’s proved that money doesn’t necessarily buy good or even interesting advertising. For all the obscene sums thrown around, remarkably little of that cash shows up on-screen, as they say in Hollywood.

The ads themselves are bland as milk, including the endlessly repeated spots starring former President Clinton, who urges Californians to pass Prop. 87 to “own the future.” The anti-87 ads warn that the measure will lead to increased bureaucracy and higher gas prices.

But then, political advertising on this scale is not even about the message anymore. It’s about mass. Media strategists have spent the last five decades weaponizing TV; now it’s all about employing an overwhelming force of propaganda. Trying to stomp the other side’s PR during a campaign is an unstoppable spiral, an arms race with no option of detente. The high-paid strategists don’t want to just run their own ads; they feel compelled to drown out the other guy’s voice.

Unfortunately, you have to witness the battle unfold while you’re trying to enjoy “Grey’s Anatomy” or “The Office.”

Raise those rates

THE media strategists pay attention to TV because of its unique power, even during an age of fragmenting media. It’s the one medium still capable of uniting a group as diverse as Californians.

“The more something is on TV, the more credibility and legitimacy it has with the public,” said Ned Wigglesworth, policy advocate for California Common Cause. “It’s a public venue.”

Nationwide, it is estimated that political ad spending will top $2 billion in this, a year with no presidential race.

For stations, “political advertising -- especially issue advertising -- is a unique windfall,” said Bill Carroll of Katz Media, which advises local stations on programming and advertising issues.

The tens of millions that Prop. 87 forces have poured into the system have raised ad rates across the board, Wigglesworth said, and helped drown out messages from cash-strapped individual candidates in tight races.

But in some ways the Hollywood-sized budget for Prop. 87 is entirely appropriate, because the campaigns are being run like movie or TV publicity blitzes. Power brokers move money around while staying out of the public eye. They don’t need to talk; they leave that to their expensive marketing machines.

Prop. 87’s opponents had collected about $90 million for their cause as of last week. The donor list bubbles with Big Oil: Chevron, Occidental, ConocoPhillips. These companies haven’t exactly been itching to tell voters why they hate the idea of Prop. 87. But their motives seem clear enough: They’re hoping to avoid taxes that could crimp profits.

The vast majority of the funding for the pro-87 side comes from just one source, Hollywood producer and longtime Democratic supporter Steve Bing. (To the public, Bing is perhaps best known for his role in paternity suits involving two celebrity girlfriends, actress Elizabeth Hurley and former tennis pro Lisa Bonder, ex-wife of billionaire Kirk Kerkorian.) Having inherited a fortune estimated at $600 million from his real-estate mogul grandfather, Bing has shelled out nearly $50 million to push Prop. 87.

Why Bing is risking a large chunk of his fortune for a measure that may not even pass is an intriguing mystery, but don’t count on him resolving it soon. Or maybe ever.

His publicist, Paul Bloch (who also happens to represent Tom Cruise, another Hollywood figure whose decision-making can be hard to fathom at times), politely denied a request to speak with Bing.

“We don’t comment on Steve, personally or professionally,” Bloch said. “He’s very shy.”

In that case, could we call back simply to check basic facts before this column goes to press?

“We don’t do that either,” Bloch replied.

When it comes to the history-making Prop. 87, California voters are just going to have to trust what they see on TV.

*

The Channel Island column runs every Monday in Calendar. Scott Collins’ television blog of the same name is at latimes.com/channelisland. Contact him at channelisland@latimes.com.