Proposition 98 on the June 3 ballot is a much needed reform to protect families from losing their homes to government eminent domain power. We all need to vote "Yes" on Proposition 98. For this reason, I do not understand why I received a mailing from the "Faith, Family and Freedom Association," a "nonpartisan voter guide that stands for mainstream American family values" that endorses a number of candidates for local office, but is entirely silent on support or opposition for Proposition 98.
What is going on here! I recently reported another outfit called the "California Taxpayer Protection Committee" did essentially the same thing, claiming to be an anti-tax group but failing to give any information on the June ballot initiative sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Karen England, a respected conservative lobbyist in Sacramento, signed a letter in the "Family" mailing requesting signatures on the "Save Our Kids" initiative included in the mailing. That is a good thing. But the failure to even mention Proposition 98 in the mailing is appalling. How can any conservative organization expect to have credibility on family issues if they can’t even support an initiative designed to help people save their homes from government abuse! I’ll bet Karen didn’t even know that the organizers of this mailing would take advantage of her good name and ignore the opportunity to support HJTA’s effort to enact homeowner protections from government power. This is a very telling situation in my opinion — and illustrates how uncoordinated and perhaps selfish operatives in the conservative movement have become in California. This alleged "conservative, family values" organization should have supported Proposition 98 on the natural. What happened?
It is practically an open-and-shut-case. The California Family Council provides this analysis of Proposition 98: "Proposition 98, sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation, and the California Alliance to Protect Private Rights, would prohibit state and local government from taking or damaging private property for private use. Government could not seize private property and then transfer it to a private person, business, or nonprofit organization, nor could it seize property and then use it similarly to how the private
owner used it." The CFC urges a "Yes" vote on Proposition 98. And they add Proposition 98 would protect church property.
In addition, the California Republican Party supports Proposition 98 as a family values issues. They say on their website: "Yes on Proposition 98 – Protects Everyone, Proposition 98 is in direct response to the controversial U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London decision that sanctioned government’s ability to forcibly seize private property from unwilling sellers and give it to developers so that they can profit by building shopping centers to increase sales and property tax revenue for government. Over 40 states have responded to the Kelo decision by passing eminent domain reforms, but not California! " The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. says: "Prop. 98 stops local government from seizing homes, churches and small businesses from unwilling sellers for the sole purpose of giving it to a politically connected developer under the guise of redevelopment." The California-based National Tax Limitation Committee has endorsed the measure and printed an article by Jon Coupal, the President of HJTA, on their homepage.
The Orange County Republican Party (where I received my mailing) has endorsed Proposition 98. So has the Orange County Lincoln Club, members of whom support "Red County" magazine and websites. The Lincoln Club says on its website it supports Proposition 98, among other reasons, because it protects church property.
But the "Family, Faith and Freedom Association" doesn’t even mention it in their mailing!
In contrast, the California Democratic Party recommends a "No" vote on Proposition 98. The radical Service Employees International Union urges a "no" vote on Proposition 98 and calls it a "landlord’s" scheme. They have helped fund the opposition to the property rights initiative.
So who is doing the thinking for the "Family, Faith and Freedom Association?" They should be ashamed of themselves. It is clear that this Faith, Family and Freedom Association, which can afford to send out a mailing endorsing local candidates in Orange County, doesn’t have any real beliefs at all, in ignoring the most important issue on the ballot for churches in decades. It is appalling that they would not support Proposition 98, and if they had any credility at all in people’s minds before this weekend, they have lost it now, because it looks to me that their failure to support a clear conservative issue in their mailings, is all about money, not commitment to the conservative cause. And that is truly disgusting.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Mr. Lacy,
You need to ask Scott Hart from Continuing the Republian Revolution the same question.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jim,
I want to clarify CRI’s position on Prop 98. We have been very involved in the eminent domain battle. Both in the legislature and at the ballot box. As a matter of fact, we wrote one of the rebuttal arguments in favor of Prop 98 for the sample ballot. (It wasn’t used in the final version) On our website and in our communications to our supporters we are recommending a YES on 98 and a NO on 99. I don’t know why Prop 98 wasn’t included in the Faith and Family mailer as we are only one of the many participants in the mailer.
Thank you for advocating for this important issue. I agree when conservatives work together we are much more effective.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Paul,
I appreciate your comment, but while I disagree with those “commercial Republican” voter guides that went south on Prop. 98, I am not as concerned with them. They are advertising businesses. I am more concerned about the duplicity of voter guides like the “Family, Faith and Freedom Association,” and the “California Taxpayer Protection Committee,” which come out of a supposed nonprofit organization that promise the IRS they are dedicated to our conservative issues, and which have the gall to profess they have a position on the issues, and then in an election, do absolutely nothing to advance the cause on a clear-cut Proposition like Prop. 98, affecting church property. Absolutely nothing. When Family and Faith acts “holier than thou” in their marketing, and then fails to help the cause when they could, it really brings things into perspective. Clearly, on Proposition 98, someone in this outfit wasn’t going to support the cause unless they got paid something. That is what is disgusting. Please take note, readers, these guys, whoever they are, are not conservatives, they are all about “the money” and should be ashamed of themselves.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Karen,
Thank you for the good work you do in Sacramento, and thank you for your comment, that took guts, and everyone I have ever spoken with says you have guts.
Unfortunately, the organizers of the “Family and Faith” mailing, whom I assume are not dummies, intentionally passed on an opportunity to help advance your views, and our cause, by not supporting Proposition 98 in this election. How many votes may have been lost because of this? I hope you will ask more questions the next time your are asked to sign a letter for these guys! If I was you, I would avoid them in future, as your reputation should not be sullied by them! We cannot advance our conservative ideals in California if our operatives interests are solely about making “campaign money.” There are times when we need to band together and do whatever we can, regardless of who gets paid, even if it comes out of our own pockets, to advance the cause. In this situation, the people involved with “Family and Faith” and “California Taxpayers” put money before philosophy. Shame on them.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jim,
How much have you and your slates collected from Proposition 98? Be honest. I am just asking for full disclosure.
The California Taxpayer Protection Committee political action committee has received exactly ZERO from the Proposition 98 campaign, so everything we have done for them has been at the expense of our volunteers. Can you say the same?
With respect to the California Taxpayer Protection Committee Voter Guide (a separate slate mail operation), they also received exactly ZERO from the Proposition 98 campaign. Again, can you say the same?
More than anyone, you should understand the economics behind slate mail operations. Either the money is there to mail something out, or it is not and nothing gets mailed. Volunteer groups like the California Taxpayer Protection Committee would love to include every single taxpayer-friendly ballot measure and candidate on their slate cards for free, but that is not possible. Keep in mind, this idealistic group had zero dollars in the bank a few weeks ago, they deserve some credit for getting their conservative message to distant corners of our state on a shoestring budget.
It is pretty annoying to hear well-paid consultants attacking unpaid conservative volunteers for doing their best to help a worthy cause like Proposition 98.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Tom:
Our Save 13 voter guide did receive support from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. At over one million pieces statewide, the support was welcome. It amounted to just over 1 cent per unit, however. Not a lot of help, given postage and printing costs a lot more than that to send a mailing. But it was appreciated.
However, I own and run a lot of other slates that you can see for yourself at http://www.landslidecommunications.com. And of those others, all of them, i.e., Republican Woman’s Voice, National Tax Limitation Committee, and Republican voter guides in four counties, all carried the Yes on 98/No on 99 message for free, at no cost, ZERO as you say, to help advance the cause. In total, I sent out an additional one million pieces of mail in this election to support Prop. 98 for free, because I could do it, and it was the right thing to do.
The verbiage you use to advance the “Family Faith and Freedom Association” and “California Taxpayer Protection Committee” in marketing materials is sanctimonious, holier than thou, and has now proven itself to be deceptive, given the failure to even mention the most important questions on today’s statewide election in your mailings. All your voter guides could have supported Proposition 98 and opposed Proposition 99. But they didn’t. That is the point.
Given your promises in marketing content, credibility assurances that these groups are “are supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.” and that your voter guides are reliably anti-tax, and support family values, the failure to support HJTA’s initiative and a measure that would protect church property shows your groups and apparently you personally as hypocritical (in not helping a family values/personal property/ issue supported by major tax reduction organizations like HJTA and NTLC) and disinterested (by completely ignoring them on your voter communication when it would have cost nothing to do so). Shame on them. Shame on you.
Your spin about volunteers is ridiculous and easily seen through. I can earn my living and support conservative positions at the same time. Why can’t your groups? Your own response here makes it very plain that you didn’t include Proposition 98 on your guides because you didn’t get paid. That being the case, in my opinion you and these groups mailings have lost your stated priorities in a haze of self-rationalizations which has ended up harming the conservative movement in this election, all because you didn’t get a little extra money. That is disgusting.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Talk about spin. You get money to list, they don’t. All slates are businesses. That is the problem with the whole industry.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
OK, let’s cut through your spin. Jim, you got paid by liberal Doug Ose (directly or indirectly) for the National Tax Limitation Committee slate. If you were able to charge less for Proposition 98, that was the reason. But you still managed to collect a lot of money from Proposition 98, I notice.
Your slate, the National Tax Limitation Committee, has lost all credibility by supporting a tax-loving liberal (Ose) against a conservative stalwart like Tom McClintock.
Shame on you for criticizing conservatives who refused to follow your shameful example. You are the reason that slate mail operations have a bad name.
Thank God for good government groups like the California Taxpayer Protection Committee.