On May 29, 2012, the Davis Chamber of Commerce Political Action Commitee following the Davis Municipal Code notified candidates that they were launchings four independent expenditures including an ad on the Vanguard from May 30 to June 5.The big expenditure will be a Comcast Cable ad buy for the final seven days of the election.
According to their disclosure, the commercial will air a total of 458 times on 18 Comcast Cable channels.
The commercial advocates for a “Yes” vote on Measure D and for support of Davis City Council Candidates: Lucas Frerichs, Stephen Souza and Dan Wolk.
The script reads: “On Tuesday, June 5th, join the Davis business community and vote for Lucas Frerichs, Stephen Souza and Dan Wolk for Davis City Council. Together, they will bring new high paying jobs, sustainable economic solutions and a new era of prosperity to Davis. Vote yes on Measure D to protect our parks and open spaces. Tuesday June 5th, vote for Lucas Frerichs, Stephen Souza and Dan Wolk for Davis City Council and “Yes” on Measure D.”
According to their disclosure: “The video is all original recordings of Davis parks and landmarks. All on-screen messaging is taken directly from the above script. No images of any candidates are used.”
This is the first major expenditure of the PAC for council candidates.
On May 20, 2012, the Davis ChamberPAC paid for a “Yes on Measure D” advertisement which was published in the Davis Enterprise.
The advertisement advocated for a “Yes” vote on Measure D.
Additionally, it advocated for support of Davis City Council candidates Lucas Frerichs, Stephen Souza and Dan Wolk by saying “Lucas Frerichs, Stephen Souza & Dan Wolk Support Yes on Measure D”.
A number of the Vanguard’s readers felt that the ad was deceptive in that it implied that the three Chamber-backed candidates were supporting Measure but not Sue Greenwald and Brett Lee.
However, all five candidates back the parks tax.
As we previously noted, Judy Reynolds wrote the Davis Enterprise, “It’s a shame that the Davis Chamber PAC, whether intentionally or not, has provided us with another “subtle misrepresentation” regarding our City Council candidates.”
She argued, “Implied is that Sue Greenwald and Brett Lee do not [support Measure D].”
She added, “I have talked with both Sue and Brett’s campaigns, and found out that they are strong supporters of Measure D. The Measure D campaign should not be one that is politicized. Let’s hope that this is the last of this type of disinformation that we will see in this City Council campaign.”
In addition to that letter, Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning argued that while not illegal, the Chamber ad was “deceptive.”
He wrote on Tuesday: “as political skullduggery goes in this season of ugly campaign mailers, this one rates only about a two on a scale of 10, but it was still disappointing, given that the sponsor of the ad was none other than Davis Chamber PAC.”
He adds, “in what appeared to be a harmless mom and apple pie newspaper ad supporting the Measure D parks tax, the Chamber played its hand at the very end with the words “Lucas Frerichs, Dan Wolk and Stephen Souza support Yes on Measure D.” … which is all well and good, but for the fact the other two candidates for City Council, Sue Greenwald and Brett Lee, also support Measure D …”
“True enough, almost all of this large and well put together ad dealt with Measure D, but if passage of this vital measure was truly the Chamber’s intent, wouldn’t the ad have been 10 times more effective if it had included the endorsements of both Greenwald and Lee, with the statement “All five City Council candidates urge you to vote Yes on Measure D,”” he argues.
“The fact the Chamber chose not to do so proves that this was not so much about Measure D as it was about pushing the candidacies of Lucas Frerichs, Dan Wolk and Stephen Souza, all of whom have been endorsed by the Chamber PAC,” Mr. Dunning writes. “in fact, anyone reading the ad likely would assume that Greenwald and Lee do not endorse Measure D, otherwise they would have been included … illegal? … of course not … deceptive? … you betcha …”
In our view, we largely agree with Mr. Dunning. The ad was deceptive. If their intent was to promote Measure D, then it would have been bolstered by mentioning all five candidates.
If the point was to promote their candidates, as their disclosure states, then they should have been more direct.
Mr. Dunning is quick to dismiss it as illegal, but given the co-mingled funds that line gets blurry. Bottom line, we think this may technically blur legal and ethical lines but we suspect neither the City nor the FPPC is going to rule that way.
We remained concerned about co-mingling of funds with different regulatory requirements and we have requested from the PAC to see their financial prior to making a decision as to file a formal complaint.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Together, they will bring new high paying jobs, sustainable economic solutions and a new era of prosperity to Davis”
I found the combination of the “yes on D” flier listing only the PACS preferred candidates as questionable but stopped short of Dunnings characterization of it as deceptive. Not so with the current ad which I do believe is intended to deceive. My comment is in no way meant to disparage any of these candidates, some of whom I support. However, the ad itself is in my opinion, certainly deceptive. Note the statement, they will bring high paying jobs. Does anyone really believe that the election of these three individuals, in the current economy, is going to provide Davis with a wealth of “high paying jobs” and a new era of prosperity”? They may provide a tendency to favor the types of development favored by the PAC, certainly, but a new era of prosperity? Not unless they are capable of resolving the much broader economic issues presented by the recession. Regarding my post on the previous thread, someone responded by saying that they felt that the PAC assessed the Davis voters to be intelligent enough to recognize that these were their favored candidates and that the ad implied nothing about the position of the other two candidates. I would counter that the current ad implies that the intelligence, or at least awareness, of Davis voters is significantly lower than I believe it is.
Outstanding production value . Congratulations to the ChamberPAC .
So David, once again the ChamberPAC didn’t say what you wanted them to say so you make up a dialog of what you believe they really meant instead. You then criticize them, not for their comments, but for the interpretation that you created and put into their mouths. Have I got that right?
Pretty tame, pretty transparent. Anyone paying attention can see the claim is pie in the sky and that there are other important concerns than just what the business community (however you interpret who that is ) wants.
[i]”Does anyone really believe that the election of these three individuals, in the current economy, is going to provide Davis with a wealth of “high paying jobs” and a new era of prosperity”?[/i]
We need to expand our own economy by creating new jobs and new retail opportunities, which in turn will improve the City’s financial situation. Yes, I believe the three candidates endorsed by the PAC offer the best opportunity to make that happen. It will also require the action of all of us to support local businesses with our dollars. None of this though will solve the problem overnight as our financial crisis was brought on by years of neglect and won’t be solved without years of hard work. What we cannot afford is a continuation of the dysfunction and gridlock championed by some.
The ad is purposely and cleverly deceptive and absolutely allowed. That is politics. Spoils go to the winner. Brett and Sue could use it as an opportunity if they had a clever response or a creative campaign. I’m just waiting for a clever anti “Chamber PAC” ad. Seems like a lot of material they could use from this blog alone.
“So David, once again the ChamberPAC didn’t say what you wanted them to say so you make up a dialog of what you believe they really meant instead.”
I’m not following you.
Mark West
I feel that you have done with my comment exactly what you have accused David of doing.
I agree that adding new jobs and retail opportunities is desirable. I also do not feel that retail jobs are likely to be particularly “high paying”.
I also do not perceive that anyone is promoting dysfunction and gridlock. Within the past few years we have seen a number of new businesses in town. Bistro 33, the new Mishka’s, Burgers and Brew, Forever 21, Village Pizza and Grill, Our House , Target are a few that come immediately to mind.
While I can foresee that some are going to say that most of those are restaurants, I agree. But what I think is being neglected in this conversation is a trend that will not be reversed no matter how much retailers might want it to be and that is on line shopping.in my demographic, upwards of 50,the majority of my friends and colleagues no longer spend much time in stores shopping but prefer to shop on line. For my 23 year old daughter and 20 year old son, this is much more pronounced. I think that pretending that this trend is reversible is very backward thinking and unless all calculations take this into account we are not being forward thinking. I am not hearing this issue being addressed at all.
If Sue wants to promote that she supports Measure D in connection with her bid for City Council, she should include it in her own promo piece and not rely on others to do this. Her own campaign materials doesn’t mention Measure D. I couldn’t find anything about her stance on Measure D any where on her campaign website. Ref. http://suegreenwald.com/fordavis/Portals/0/SueGreenwaldBrochureExtracted.pdf
That goes for Brett too. There doesn’t seem to be any mention of his support for Measure D on his campaign website and in fact he has this statement: “I believe we can maintain and improve city services without increasing taxes,” which could be construed to mean that he doesn’t support Measure D.
All the Chamber PAC is doing is saying that you should vote for three candidates that they endorse and also Measure D. Is it deceptive that two candidates they do not endorse is not included in their promo? I think not.
In your mind, Sue and Brett should have not only included measure D in their own promo, but also mentioned that all 4 other candidates support measure D too.
I support Measure D strongly and intend to vote YES on Measure D.
I see Ryan. So in your opinion if the Vanguard did a mailer and said – Stephen Souza – Sue Greenwald – Brett Lee support a balanced budget, that would not be misleading even though it implies Lucas and Dan do not support a balanced budget. (Purely hypothetical example).
Medwoman: I have attempted to email you twice in the last week and have not gotten a response.
Odd that almost all of this is a rehash of the old stories pointing out how the Measure D print ad was deceptive, including a reprint of the old newspaper advertisement, and letting us know that you question the legality of the way the Chamber is handling the PAC.
The sparse, eight sentences about the chamber launching its first candidate advertising almost looks like not much more than a vehicle for continuing the non-stop criticism about the PAC and its endorsed candidates.
[quote]I see Ryan. So in your opinion if the Vanguard did a mailer and said – Stephen Souza – Sue Greenwald – Brett Lee support a balanced budget, that would not be misleading even though it implies Lucas and Dan do not support a balanced budget. (Purely hypothetical example). [/quote]
It would not be misleading. If you were endorsing those three candidates, it is not your job to also include the other candidates in your message. If you said something like, “Unlike other candidates, Steve, Sue and Brett support a balanced budget,” then you have implied that the other two do not and that might be misleading (depending on their actual stance).
If Sue and Brett want it known that they endorse Measure D, they shouldn’t rely on the Chamber PAC and others to promote this for them. They should include it in their own promotion and, minimally, on their own campaign websites and their supporters should quit belly-aching about other campaigns not including their candidates in promotion that they send out.
[quote]He wrote on Tuesday: “as political skullduggery goes in this season of ugly campaign mailers, this one rates only about a two on a scale of 10, but it was still disappointing, given that the sponsor of the ad was none other than Davis Chamber PAC.”[/quote]
I would rate it a zero. I’m a big proponent of free speech; and I do not underestimate the intelligence of voters…
[quote]Mr. Dunning is quick to dismiss it as illegal, but given the co-mingled funds that line gets blurry. Bottom line, we think this may technically blur legal and ethical lines but we suspect neither the City nor the FPPC is going to rule that way.
We remained concerned about co-mingling of funds with different regulatory requirements and we have requested from the PAC to see their financial prior to making a decision as to file a formal complaint.[/quote]
More innuendo of wrongdoing by the Chamber of Commerce PAC, even tho the Vanguard concedes neither the City nor the FPPC will rule there was any legal or ethical violation. Repeating the charge of “co-mingling of funds” doesn’t make it even remotely true. I would strongly suggest the Vanguard produce evidence of wrongdoing before making such accusations…
[quote]Note the statement, they will bring high paying jobs. Does anyone really believe that the election of these three individuals, in the current economy, is going to provide Davis with a wealth of “high paying jobs” and a new era of prosperity”?[/quote]
To what extent do you want to limit the freedom of speech in an election cycle? Give me an example of a coherent “rule” candidates must follow according to your world view so that their speech would not be what you would consider deceptive. I think you will find formulating such a “rule” will be very difficult to formulate (and must not run afoul of the first amendment), much as the courts had difficulty defining obscenity…
[quote]So David, once again the ChamberPAC didn’t say what you wanted them to say so you make up a dialog of what you believe they really meant instead. You then criticize them, not for their comments, but for the interpretation that you created and put into their mouths. Have I got that right? [/quote]
I’d say that about sums it up…
ERM: How in the world does Medwoman’s comment have anything to do with the First Amendment? I’m not sure of the connection between her opinion that the rhetoric in the ad is overly expansive (she uses the word “deceptive”) and your criticism of it. I don’t think she is suggesting a rule (but I can’t speak for her) but simply expressing her opinion that the Chamber is a bit overblown in suggesting that election of any three candidate will produce “high paying jobs.”
“Together, they will bring new high paying jobs, sustainable economic solutions and a new era of prosperity to Davis.”
It’s not “intended to deceive.” It’s campaign rhetoric. And, yes, voters are experienced enough, aware enough and smart enough to sort out campaign talk.
I was disappointed to find out this week that my now-elected peace candidate has developed an unconstitutional “kill on sight” list and successfully carried out the assassination of at least two American ciizens, including one 16-year old kid. Do I charge him with campaign deception?
[quote]ERM: How in the world does Medwoman’s comment have anything to do with the First Amendment? I’m not sure of the connection between her opinion that the rhetoric in the ad is overly expansive (she uses the word “deceptive”) and your criticism of it. I don’t think she is suggesting a rule (but I can’t speak for her) but simply expressing her opinion that the Chamber is a bit overblown in suggesting that election of any three candidate will produce “high paying jobs.”[/quote]
Medwoman clearly finds the most recent Chamber of Commerce campaign literature “deceptive”, a heavy charge that carries w it the connotation of unethical behavior, to wit:
[quote]Not so with the current ad which I do believe is intended to deceive. My comment is in no way meant to disparage any of these candidates, some of whom I support. However, the ad itself is in my opinion, certainly deceptive. Note the statement, they will bring high paying jobs. Does anyone really believe that the election of these three individuals, in the current economy, is going to provide Davis with a wealth of “high paying jobs” and a new era of prosperity”? They may provide a tendency to favor the types of development favored by the PAC, certainly, but a new era of prosperity? Not unless they are capable of resolving the much broader economic issues presented by the recession.[/quote]
The problem w that position is that to limit campaign speech to only the “non-deceptive” would be virtually impossible. It would violate the constitutional right to free speech; and it would be almost impossible to come up with a coherent standard of conduct to ensure no campaign ad is “deceptive”, whatever that may mean. Thus it would seem that the public must suffer a certain amount of hyperbole during campaign season as a candidate’s exercise in the right to freedom of speech – much as hyperbole is accepted in the advertising realm. Does anyone believe a vacuum cleaner gives a woman sex appeal, or any of the other ridiculous claims made about various products for sale? Hope that makes my position clearer…
JustSaying: I’m glad you have confidence in the ability of our voters to discern what is fact vs. what is fiction in campaign literature. I would offer that the burden should be on the ad’s authors to be open, transparent and not-too-overblown in their campaign rhetoric rather than assuming voters can tell when a campaign is just using overblown hyperbole. I’m curious how you know that voters are “experienced enough, aware enough and smart enough to sort our campaign talk.” My 18 year old son who is voting for the first time may not be that sharp.
ERM: I appreciate your explanation. Calling an ad deceptive, in my mind, is not as heavy a charge as you imply and I certainly don’t think that simply because I (or Medwoman) think the ad is deceptive that I am calling for rules limiting free expression of political positions or beliefs, etc. Rather loud clamoring and vigorous debate in the marketplace of ideas is good for our democracy. And if by yelling at the Chamber we can get them to tone it down a bit, I’m fine with that. I don’t think we need rules for that.
I pretty much against with Mr. Canning on this. For whatever reason any time an issue of propriety gets raised, Elaine was to either dismiss it or thinks that there is advocacy for law changes or punishment. Sometimes, the only thing needed is to shine the light and the problem takes care of itself.
Hi everyone. I’m curious about how this commercial might be seen as deceptive. It looks straightforward to me.
First it says a bit about how you should vote for the three candidates. Next it says a bit about how you should vote for measure D. Finally, it says that you should vote for these three candidates and “Yes” on measure D.
Is there an underlying implication that I am missing? Maybe the confusion is arising just because of the fact that there are two distinct messages in one commercial.
rdcanning, if I understand you correctly, the ad should have a note following each statement saying, “Please note this is a fact”, or “Please note this is an opinion”, or “Please note this is an expectation”, whichever the case may be? And this needs to be done why? Because you don’t think the reader can distinguish between a fact, an opinion and an expectation? Should David be doing the same thing in his articles?
-Michael Bisch, Davis PAC Board Member
As for discussing the positions of other candidates, this is about the silliest notion I have ever heard in a political campaign. Generally when one mentions the name of a candidate one is not endorsing, it is in a negative context, i.e. criticizing the candidate’s position or establishing a contrast. The term used for this is “negative campaigning”. It’s not enough that the Chamber PAC has foresworn negative campaigning, David, Bob, and medwoman are insisting that the PAC actually promote the candidates that we are not supporting. The PAC makes no comment on candidates Lee and Greenwald. It’s the job of their campaing to fundraise and get out their message, not the PAC’s job.
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC Board Member
You’re displacing points. The point is not that the PAC has an obligation to mention other candidates, the point is that it has a duty (at least if you wish to be considered clean) to not mislead voters. And the point is that had the same sentiment been expressed better no one would have had an issue.
And don’t act like this is my invention, Bob Dunning raised the same point as well.
Dear Michael,
Sarcasm noted.
The cable ad says, in essence, the Davis Chamber urges you to vote for these three guys because the Chamber thinks they will be best for Davis and will make business (and thus Davis) better. As I said earlier it seems a little expansive to me to make the statement that voting for these three candidates will bring high paying jobs to Davis. Maybe these candidates have some powers we don’t know about but the Chamber does? I just think the Chamber could express it’s favorites a little more down to earth and without pandering to some vision of “high paying jobs.” I don’t know who wrote the ad copy, but having written a number of campaign pieces myself over the years, I have always subscribed to the dictum that simpler is better and not to push the boundaries of my audience’s skepticism about political rhetoric. And also as I said earlier, if you assume you know how your readers are going to interpret the language you are putting out there, then I have a bridge you might want to consider buying.
David, how did I act like it’s your invention? I included Bob’s name in my statement along with medwoman.
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC Board Member
DT Businessman is on target. Why in the world would any group want to mention candidates they don’t support except to point out why one should NOT vote for them. And should we imply because David Greenwald mentions that one would “want to be considered clean,” that the Chamber is somehow “dirty?” And from what principle does the “duty” come from?
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I see Ryan. So in your opinion if the Vanguard did a mailer and said – Stephen Souza – Sue Greenwald – Brett Lee support a balanced budget, that would not be misleading even though it implies Lucas and Dan do not support a balanced budget. (Purely hypothetical example).”[/i]
Given the way you have laid it out in your question to Ryan, my unequivocal answer is “no it would not be misleading.” No one has asked you a question in your scenario, so the statement is a simple factually correct one.
Conversely, if you were asked a question and your mailer was in response to the question, then my unequivocal answer is “yes it is misleading” because the question sets the context of the answer.
Your mailer scenario has no context the way you have posed it, and the answer is 100% correct.
“Sarcasm noted.” -rdcanning
Actually, no sarcasm was intended. It was a straightforward comment. One way to make it crystal clear to a reader, if they can’t figure it out for themselves, is to note which statements are facts, which are opinion, etc. The disadvantage is that it leads to a very unwieldly ad. In my view, 99% of readers will be able to discern the facts from the rest in the Chamber PAC ad.
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC
“You’re displacing points. The point is not that the PAC has an obligation to mention other candidates, the point is that it has a duty (at least if you wish to be considered clean) to not mislead voters. And the point is that had the same sentiment been expressed better no one would have had an issue.” -David Greenwald
David, you have nowhere near consensus or even a majority on this point. Those that have been PAC critics from the get go, or immediately following the publication of the PAC endorsements, have indicated that they agree with your point. And those that haven’t been critics, disagree with your point. What’s that tell you?
It’s really been the same phenomenon over and over again. Those that disagree with the PAC effort or the endorsements turn into forensic wordsmiths to pounce on any misplaced comma, nuance, or emphasis. I thought there was a watershed moment yesterday afternoon when there was general consensus that the community can walk and chew gum at the same time, i.e. we can work on creating a sustainable budget AND devote more effort to fostering a robust local economy so that we move toward community sustainability.
Once that general consensus was reached, I had hoped that we would move on to a conversation about which council makeup will move the community forward in this regard over the next 2 years. The Chamber PAC has unequivocally stated that the best makeup is Krovoza/Swanson/Souza/Wolk/Frerichs. This is not about who we personally like the best, or who we share more in common with. This is about who will get the job done. The Chamber PAC has laid it on the line. What about everybody else?
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”And don’t act like this is my invention, Bob Dunning raised the same point as well.”[/i]
Bob Dunning would raise the hair on Yul Brynner’s head, if it served his porpoise.
Michael: A council that recognizes that
–the budget is the first, short-term priority,
–that some economic development projects may have to take a back seat to budget issues, and
–that takes action on those economic development projects that will yield the fastest impact with the least city time and expense?
Probably not the one you just listed.
Don, I take no issue with you listing an alternative council mix that you think would be better suited to get the job done. Let’s hear it. It would also be helpful to hear why your alternative is better suited than the Chamber PACs.
PS: I promise you I will not accuse you of having ulterior motives, demonize you, or otherwise attack you personally. I will focus entirely on the merits of your argument.
-Michael Bisch
Krovoza/Swanson/Greenwald/Wolk/Lee
or
Krovoza/Swanson/Greenwald/Wolk/Frerichs
Because one of the people the ChamberPAC has endorsed has never, to my knowledge, voted against [i]any[/i] single development proposal that has come before the council (I could be wrong, but I don’t think so). Thus it seems that there isn’t a high level of discernment about scrutinizing the costs versus the benefits of development projects.
And because that individual has a poor track record on fiscal issues over several years. And because that individual has exhibited poor judgment with regard to planning and growth issues, especially with respect to large residential projects and specific peripheral retail development.
Don, this seems pretty productive to me, although I’m not hearing much “for” argument. Does that mean your position is “anybody but Souza”?
And I’d love to see other bloggers weigh in with their proposed council make-up and supporting argument therefore.
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC
I am for Sue Greenwald because I believe she will bring institutional history and appropriate scrutiny to budget issues. She has educated herself on PERS, pension issues, and has a track record advocating for better MOU’s. I also believe her skeptical nature will be useful as the council considers large projects such as any annexation of properties for a business park. She is the one I expect will raise issues of costs to the city when such projects are under discussion. The council needs a resident skeptic.
My conversations with Brett indicate he is incisive and open to new ideas. Obviously without a track record any non-incumbent is a bit of a gamble. So all I can say is he seems reasonable and not very dogmatic.
Lucas has enthusiasm and a larger record of service on commissions. I’m sure he would be a good council member. His support for Covell Village gives me pause, and I would like to know more about what criteria he would use to judge peripheral annexation. Mainly that is because of who is supporting him, not because of specific positions he has taken.
With Joe, Rochelle, and Dan you would have a majority that is generally favorable to many of your economic development projects. I think Brett would be as well, and that Sue would bring a healthy skepticism to both budget and economic development issues.
I am not an Anybody But Souza supporter. Kemble is, however, by his own admission an Anybody But Sue voter. It is possible that is why people view his role in all these endorsements with some skepticism.
From his own post on the Davis Wiki:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/KembleABS.png[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/KembleABS.png[/url]
Don, thank you for the productive exchange. I did not mean to imply that there was anything wrong with taking a “anybody but ____” approach. I see nothing at all wrong with such an approach. Indeed, I frequently use such an approach in my decision making process and when I take exams. Throwout the absolutely unacceptable alternatives and select from the remainder.
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC
“Chamber Launches Independent Expenditure For Council”
“Chamber Launches Measure D Ad and Latest Disclosure”
“Davis Chamber PAC Endorses Frerichs, Souza & Wolk and the Parks Maintenance Tax”
The Vanguard repeats itself first as tragedy then as farce.
Elaine
“To what extent do you want to limit the freedom of speech in an election cycle? Give me an example of a coherent “rule” candidates must follow according to your world view so that their speech would not be what you would consider deceptive. I think you will find formulating such a “rule” will be very difficult to formulate (and must not run afoul of the first amendment), much as the courts had difficulty defining obscenity”
I am not sure how you got from my statement that I felt this ad was deceptive to me somehow wanting to limit free speech or make rules. Probably the harshest thing I have said about the PACs campaigning is that they might want to reconsider their approach. This is hardly a call for the suppression of free speech. I happen to prefer that public discourse including campaign ads be substantive, open, fair and even handed. For me, advocacy for a candidate should be about what differentiates them from others in the race. That clearly was not the case with the Measure D ad. Ideally,for me, ads would also have some degree of realism. Again, no matter which of them I support, I do not believe that any of the candidates, either those named, or those not named are capable of “bringing high paying jobs” or “restoring prosperity”. As both rdcanning and
David have pointed out, no where did I make a call for the establishment of any “rule” and certainly not any suppression of speech. Good heavens , I was one who supported the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to spout their foul lies and spew hatred publicly in the name of free speech. Do any of you really believe that I would defend the right of these people to defile the funerals of service men with their dishonorable filth in the name of the First Amendment but would try to limit the PACs ability to express their views ? I was merely expressing my preference for realistic, fair, and meaningful ads. Nothing more.
“Because one of the people the ChamberPAC has endorsed has never, to my knowledge, voted against any single development proposal that has come before the council (I could be wrong, but I don’t think so).” Don Shor
Steve (no need to make an oblique reference) voted against putting Wildhorse Ranch on the ballot. As a matter of fact, he was in the minority with … drum roll … Sue Greenwald!
And who was the swing vote? I’ll give you a hint – it was the second candidate run (in this case successfully) by the Livingston/Ritter gang. You guessed it, Lamar.
It’s funny how that all worked out since Ritter was the paid political consultant for Parlin Development.
[i]Steve (no need to make an oblique reference) voted against putting Wildhorse Ranch on the ballot.[/i]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Wildhorse Ranch was automatically subject to a Measure J vote.
Here are the minutes regarding WHR:
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-04-26-item5-citycouncil-minutes-2009-09-15.pdf[/url]
Don, I’m not sure what you’re point is here. Are you suggesting that all 5 votes, for or against, were meaningless since the project was subject to a vote of the citizens?
-Michael Bisch
I can’t recall if Stephen voted for or against the development agreement that approved WHR. And as I read those minutes, I can’t figure it out. Was Stephen for or against WHR? So, I’m not sure what psdavis’es point was.
Well, this is an interesting trip down memory lane.
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2922:on-a-strange-night-a-strange-coalition-of-three-supports-wildhorse-ranch&Itemid=86[/url]
But I still don’t know what the answer is.
The Council is not obligated to put a project subject to Measure R on the ballot. They can deny an application outright. For the Council to approve an application the voters have to ratify the decision to annex.
You have the wrong minutes. Lamar’s swing vote occurred, if my memory is correct, at around 2:00 am. Finalizing the development agreement was a housekeeping issue separate from the decision to advance the application to the voters for final approval.
Don, Ruth, and Lamar voted AYE.
Sue and Steve voted NO.
According to David’s report at the time, Souza opposed the project together with Greenwald. Saylor, Asmundson, and particularly Heystek, supported it. But I still don’t understand your point, Don? I may be reading more into your comment than you intended, but you seem to be implying that the votes of all 5 were throwaway vote because the project had to go to a popular vote anyway. Please clarify.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]Mike Harrington
07/29/09 – 02:16 PM
…
With all due respects, coming from someone who was also there every step of the way, Bill Ritter was one of the inner-inner circle members of Lamar’s 2006 campaign and was hugely instrumental in his victory.[/quote]
I stand corrected. Here is David’s subsequent description: [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2936:the-puzzle-of-souzas-wildhorse-vote&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86&cpage=90[/url]
Which doesn’t cast Stephen’s vote in a very favorable light (but David was a big supporter of WHR). But contrary to my earlier statement, Stephen Souza [i]has[/i], in fact, opposed [i]a single[/i] development proposal that came before the city council.
[quote]I pretty much against with Mr. Canning on this. For whatever reason any time an issue of propriety gets raised, Elaine was to either dismiss it or thinks that there is advocacy for law changes or punishment. Sometimes, the only thing needed is to shine the light and the problem takes care of itself.[/quote]
So you’ve “shined a light” (LOL) – but an awful lot of commenters do not agree that any of the ads are “deceptive”. The word “deceptive” as applied to campaign ads carries a connotation of being unethical. See Merriam-Webster definition of “deceptive”:
[quote]Definition of DECEPTIVE
: tending or having power to deceive : misleading
— de·cep·tive·ly adverb
— de·cep·tive·ness noun
See deceptive defined for English-language learners »
See deceptive defined for kids »
Examples of DECEPTIVE
[quote]Definition of DECEPTIVE
: tending or having power to deceive : misleading
— de·cep·tive·ly adverb
— de·cep·tive·ness noun
See deceptive defined for English-language learners »
See deceptive defined for kids »
Examples of DECEPTIVE
Drat – the examples did not print out – but it talked of deceptive business practices and the like.
Elaine
“Does anyone believe a vacuum cleaner gives a woman sex appeal, or any of the other ridiculous claims made about various products for sale? Hope that makes my position clearer…”
Completely separate from the issue of whether or not I was advocating for limitation of free speech ( which I was not), I believe that your statement belies the subliminal power of messaging. Of course no one believes literally that a vacuum cleaner gives a woman sex appeal, however, the association of a sexy woman with any product will tend to bolster its sales. Advertisers are not stupid and would not be spending millions and millions upon ads that prove ineffective. Taking an example from medicine, no one believes that a pen is valuable enough to sway a physicians belief in a product, and yet study after study has shown that these incredibly inexpensive give aways ( pens, note pads, paper weights, mugs) given by pharmaceutical companies do indeed increase the prescriptions for those products over those prescribed by physicians who have not received these “goodies”. This has been the basis behind some vary large groups disallowing receipt of such goodies from drug reps. We don’t think advertising like this affects us, but it does. We like to believe that we are so logical and thoughtful that the presence of a one sided ad could not affect us. This is demonstrably false and part of the reason that I prefer focusing on the distinctions between candidates rather than just an
“our guys are the good guys” presentation.
Let’s try again:
[quote]Definition of DECEPTIVE
: tending or having power to deceive : misleading
— de·cep·tive·ly adverb
— de·cep·tive·ness noun
See deceptive defined for English-language learners
See deceptive defined for kids
Examples of DECEPTIVE
in his deceptive answer about the vehicle’s history, the salesman said that the used car had never been hit by another car
a mail-order firm indicted for deceptive business practices
First Known Use of DECEPTIVE
Related to DECEPTIVE
Synonyms: beguiling, deceitful, deceiving, deluding, delusive, delusory, fallacious, false, misleading, specious[/quote]
[quote]I stand corrected. Don Shor[/quote]At least we established the fact that at least some of your characterizations of Steve Souza’s record are wrong.
Now if we can just make progress on economic development.
Sigh.
One characterization. Not “some”.
All I need to know is your definition of economic development, and we’ll see how that goes.
One characterization. Not “some”.
All I need to know is your definition of economic development, and we’ll see how that goes.
Elaine
I will stand by my use of the word deceptive in its synonymous meaning with misleading. I will also provide a clearer example from the advertising world.
The manufacturer of the contraceptive pill “Yaz” in its advertising states that Yaz has been shown to be effective in the management of acne. What the manufacturers conveniently neglect to mention is that virtually every other brand of combination birth control pills can be used in exactly the same way with comparable results. Yaz sells for much more than many of the older birth control pills, sometimes by as much as four or more times as much. Is this legal ? Yes, that is not in dispute. I find it misleading. I also find it unethical since I am quite sure that it is well known by the manufacturer that this advertising will impact many women’s desire to demand the more expensive product even though a much less expensive one would be just as good. Some women will continue to be swayed by the advertising that they have seen even after I have explained the situation. This is certainly the woman’s right if she can afford it but that does not alter the fact that it is deceptive and the only reason they market in this way is to maximize their profits not to benefit the patient.
To me there is very little difference in this practice and what the ChamberPac has done. I stand by my point that none of the candidates come with a guarantee of bringing high paying jobs and restoring prosperity to Davis although this is what the PAC clearly asserted. I acknowledge that it is legal and would take no action to make it illegal. I will stand by my characterization of this practice as misleading.
Elaine
I will stand by my use of the word deceptive in its synonymous meaning with misleading. I will also provide a clearer example from the advertising world.
The manufacturer of the contraceptive pill “Yaz” in its advertising states that Yaz has been shown to be effective in the management of acne. What the manufacturers conveniently neglect to mention is that virtually every other brand of combination birth control pills can be used in exactly the same way with comparable results. Yaz sells for much more than many of the older birth control pills, sometimes by as much as four or more times as much. Is this legal ? Yes, that is not in dispute. I find it misleading. I also find it unethical since I am quite sure that it is well known by the manufacturer that this advertising will impact many women’s desire to demand the more expensive product even though a much less expensive one would be just as good. Some women will continue to be swayed by the advertising that they have seen even after I have explained the situation. This is certainly the woman’s right if she can afford it but that does not alter the fact that it is deceptive and the only reason they market in this way is to maximize their profits not to benefit the patient.
To me there is very little difference in this practice and what the ChamberPac has done. I stand by my point that none of the candidates come with a guarantee of bringing high paying jobs and restoring prosperity to Davis although this is what the PAC clearly asserted. I acknowledge that it is legal and would take no action to make it illegal. I will stand by my characterization of this practice as misleading.
Here are my problems with the ad.
[i]”On Tuesday, June 5th, join the Davis business community…”
[/i]
Speak for yourselves, folks. I’ve already made it clear the Chamber and the ChamberPAC don’t speak for “the Davis business community.”
[i]“Together, they will bring new high paying jobs… a new era of prosperity…”
[/i]
Nonsense. I doubt if even they believe that.
Here are my problems with the ad.
[i]”On Tuesday, June 5th, join the Davis business community…”
[/i]
Speak for yourselves, folks. I’ve already made it clear the Chamber and the ChamberPAC don’t speak for “the Davis business community.”
[i]“Together, they will bring new high paying jobs… a new era of prosperity…”
[/i]
Nonsense. I doubt if even they believe that.
[quote]To me there is very little difference in this practice and what the ChamberPac has done. I stand by my point that none of the candidates come with a guarantee of bringing high paying jobs and restoring prosperity to Davis although this is what the PAC clearly asserted. I acknowledge that it is legal and would take no action to make it illegal. I will stand by my characterization of this practice as misleading.[/quote]
I consider it campaign hyperbole – I expect a certain level of intelligence that the voter would not literally think that voting for the PAC’s slate of candidates would in any way guarantee that higher paying jobs would come to Davis…
Whereas I consider campaign speech that is “deceptive” or “misleading” as those terms are usually understood in the legal world as unethical and illegal…
[quote]To me there is very little difference in this practice and what the ChamberPac has done. I stand by my point that none of the candidates come with a guarantee of bringing high paying jobs and restoring prosperity to Davis although this is what the PAC clearly asserted. I acknowledge that it is legal and would take no action to make it illegal. I will stand by my characterization of this practice as misleading.[/quote]
I consider it campaign hyperbole – I expect a certain level of intelligence that the voter would not literally think that voting for the PAC’s slate of candidates would in any way guarantee that higher paying jobs would come to Davis…
Whereas I consider campaign speech that is “deceptive” or “misleading” as those terms are usually understood in the legal world as unethical and illegal…
“Whereas I consider campaign speech that is “deceptive” or “misleading” as those terms are usually understood in the legal world as unethical and illegal”
Then I understand the origin of our source of disagreement. I would prefer that our community leaders be they elected or simply those who would like to wield some degree of influence through their community actions would be willing to hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior where as you seem to be content for them to remain within the legal boundaries of the law. I think either is a valid point of view.
“Whereas I consider campaign speech that is “deceptive” or “misleading” as those terms are usually understood in the legal world as unethical and illegal”
Then I understand the origin of our source of disagreement. I would prefer that our community leaders be they elected or simply those who would like to wield some degree of influence through their community actions would be willing to hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior where as you seem to be content for them to remain within the legal boundaries of the law. I think either is a valid point of view.