Transcript Excerpts From : Phony Sample Ballots & Paid Endorsements Confuse the Voters

HOLMAN:

I’d like to bring up another example of what I consider a new wave of deceptive advertising with slate mailers, and that is the slate mailer that Maxine Waters just came out with in the last election. I believe you will see an example of it on the screen. What it is, Maxine Waters actually duplicated the official sample ballot – duplicated the picture, duplicated the printing, made it look exactly like a government publication that we all get called the Official Sample Ballot. And it called itself the Official Sample Ballot. If viewers are looking at this example on the screen, I’d like you to identify which one is slate mail and which one is actually a government publication. And this is a whole new twist of slate mailer operators trying to really deceive the voters, and we need some sort of disclosure requirements that flag what’s going on here. We’ve got to know that this is not the real official sample ballot.

LOWENSTEIN:

Individual voters already have that right to go to court if there’s a violation. The fact is: There usually aren’t violations. If you think that imitating the Official Sample Ballot is a problem, then maybe there should be a law that prevents that.

HOLMAN:

That’s right. What we’re talking about here are the for-profit slate mailers. I just want to rehash this a little bit. We’re not talking about the party slate mailers in which the party is trying to let voters know who they endorse. Candidates do not pay for access to those. We’re talking about the for-profit slate mailers in which it’s run by a private company, and that private company charges access to candidates to buy a slot on the mailer. Currently, there is a very weak disclosure law, and that is, when a candidate buys access onto one of these for-profit mailers, there is a little asterisk put next to the candidate’s name. There is rarely any identification of real party I.D., for instance, of the candidate. Just as asterisk. And then the asterisk goes down into a footnote that’s buried away in a little tiny box that says this candidate paid for access to the slate mailer. Many voters, including myself, have been deceived by that, not realizing that that’s what the little footnote meant. So on Proposition 208, we had one significant clarification to that, and that is, instead of using a little footnote and an asterisk, we put three dollar signs next to each candidate who paid for access onto that slate mailer. That did help notify voters that money was involved and that they should read the slate mailer a little closer than what they’ve normally done. So what we’re talking about here and trying to reform slate mailers, primarily is disclosure. Let slate operators, let private companies endorse whoever they want, but let the voters know that money exchanged hands for that endorsement.

DUTTON:

Okay. Now, do you go along with that?

MOUNTJOY:

Yes. I think that it’s fine to sell advertising space, but the voters deserve to know that that is paid advertising space. There’s a placard that came out – this is not in color, but it was in color at the time. This is a senior card. Seniors take this card to the poll. My name is on there, and yet they endorse two people that I don’t endorse. They happen to be Democrats; I’m a Republican, and they endorsed over here, using my popularity in the district to hopefully get the voters to vote for their two Democrat candidates against some people that I did endorse. The point here is: I can’t even refuse to allow them to print my name on this disclosure. Even if I said to them, “Don’t put me on your slate mailer,” they can use my name on there

DUTTON:

Senator Mountjoy, what can the voters do to verify the accuracy of the information on a slate card when they have to make up their minds?

MOUNTJOY:

Well, it would help if they got a magnifying glass, and then went down and looked at the asterisks and then read the disclaimer. That might give them a hint. The other thing they can do, Leslie, if they want to see a change in this disclaimer, and I think that’s where you have to go. We need to make it very clear that these slate cards are paid political ads, and no more and no less, unless they’re coming from a State party or they’re coming from a legitimate organization that’s sending it out free of charge, without charging candidates. But when you charge a candidate, the people have a right to know, very clearly, that this is a paid political ad. That’s all we’re saying. And if that’s done, the people then have an opportunity to judge the merits of the card. That’s all we’re saying. What is wrong with full disclosure? Nothing. That’s the name of your program.