Political consultants get more clever each and every election cycle. And, of course, what consultants wouldn’t want to latch onto the issue of global warming since based on the latest PPIC poll, most people have been ill-informed and are alarmed at the alleged impact that mankind has on the earth’s temperature.
Anyways, the folks over at non-profit group EdVoice clearly have a favorite choice in the dust-up in 
the Democrat primary to succeed Sheila Kuehl, and came up with the most outlandish piece of mail I have seen yet to get the face of their candidate, Fran Pavley, in front of likely voters. (See a .pdf of the mail piece here.) These are the same voters who will get a chance to vote for Pavley (pictured to the right) in her official primary this coming June — and at the same time, make all of the eco-nuts in Santa Monica oh-so excited…
EdVoice consultants have dreamt up a “carbon free voting” scheme as described in a Los Angeles Times story. The $70,000 direct mail campaign by EdVoice purports to be saving the planet by encouraging Los Angeles residents to vote by mail rather than drive to the polls on election day. And – I’m not making this up – EdVoice claims that the 
mail piece is printed with soy ink on paper from well-managed forests. Thus, supposedly conscientious LA voters can eliminate their carbon footprint by simply casting an absentee ballot in the June 2008 election.
Beyond just the standard eco-nuttiness that is plaguing California, the Times article also lays out, as I have done above, the real (ulterior) motives behind this “carbon free voting” nonsense. Not surprisingly, it appears to be a purely political drill designed to benefit former Assemblymember Fran Pavley who is running for an open State Senate seat next year. As FR readers know only too well, Pavely is the ultra-leftist loony who authored the greenhouse gas legislation (AB 32) that has sent elected officials in our state into a regulatory feeding frenzy.
Lest FR readers also forget, EdVoice and its key backers are the people that brought us Proposition 39 (November 2000) – which made it easier for local school districts to tax property owners. These same people came back at us during the November 2006 election with Proposition 88, which would have instituted the first statewide property parcel tax. Fortunately, voters rejected that particular tax hike by an overwhelming margin (23% Yes – 77% No).
From its website, EdVoice claims to “have no vested interest in education other than in passing laws that will help our public schools do a better job preparing students to meet the challenges of the future.” So, the question stands: What, exactly, does “carbon free voting” have to do with the K-12 school system? The answer, of course, is “nothing.” Just like schemes with clever titles like “carbon free voting” have nothing to do with protecting the environment. (Perhaps the home-schooling movement should start to refer to their business as a "carbon-free education" – LOL.)
The funny part is that some graphic artist at a politician consulting firm in Sacramento may win next year’s Nobel Peace Prize — for "inventing" carbon-free voting. Nice.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.