[GPSCC-chat] Fwd: Fw: Other Voices article

[John Thielking]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Thielking <pagesincolor at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:42 PM
Subject: Fw: [GPSCC-chat] Other Voices article
To: John Thielking <peacemovies at gmail.com>, "rob.means at electric-bikes.com" <
rob.means at electric-bikes.com>
Cc: "info at scc-mta.org" <info at scc-mta.org>, "joseph at josephweinstein.com" <
joseph at josephweinstein.com>, "rdevincenzi at themilpitaspost.com" <
rdevincenzi at themilpitaspost.com>


Hello Rob,

Money is not always effective at winning political campaigns. One example
that comes to mind is the difference in track records between county
initiatives to ban GMO planting vs statewide initiatives to label GMO's.
GMO bans have consistently won at the ballot box with a record of something
like 7-0. The closest vote result was in Maui (51% Yes 49% No) where the
anti-ban people spent some $300 per vote. GMO labeling has consistently
lost with a record of something like 0-5.  I think the fundamental
difference in success between these two things goes beyond simply having a
good grassroots campaign. Measure 92 to label GMO's in Oregon had a bigger
grassroots campaign organization than all other in state campaigns combined
in 2014 and they still lost. I think there is something fundamentally
different about arguing over a GMO ban vs GMO labeling that proves to be
'big money proof' at the ballot box in the case of the GMO ban. I think
that this difference may be that the anti-GMO-labeling people are causing
the pro labeling people to fall into the same marketing trap that killed
the computer company called Osborne. In the case of Osborne, the company
made the mistake of promoting the next generation of their computer before
they were ready to produce it and before they had finished selling all of
the older models.  So of course a deflationary scenario set in where
customers decided to wait for the better, faster, cheaper model to come out
and the company promptly went out of business. This 'Osborne effect' is in
play in the labeling campaigns when the anti-labeling people try to say
that the labeling initiative is flawed or has loopholes or 'here is a
better way to label GMO's if only the backers had done it this way'. I
submit that there is no 'better way' to ban GMOs than to simply ban them,
hence the Osborne effect does not work against GMO bans.  If we can
construct our campaigns so that there is no 'better way' or no
'alternative' (otherwise known as 'TINA', which the right wing think tanks
come up with all the time) then we can more consistently defeat big money
at the ballot box.

John Thielking
Eugene, OR

 ----- Forwarded Message -----
 *From:* Rob Means <rob.means at electric-bikes.com>
*To:* opinion <opinion at themilpitaspost.com>
*Cc:* info at scc-mta.org; Joseph Weinstein <joseph at josephweinstein.com>; Rob
Devincenzi <rdevincenzi at themilpitaspost.com>
*Sent:* Saturday, January 17, 2015 8:57 AM
*Subject:* [GPSCC-chat] Other Voices article

 Although Mr. Weinstein is clearly a committed citizen of Milpitas, he
seems to have made an error in logic during the course of his 1/16/2015
Other Voices article in the Post. Using a small sample to infer something
about a large population is a common mistake.

In his article, the cited example is the success of a local citizens group
against the half-a-million dollar pro-casino campaign. This case clearly
shows that money is not the only factor in a political victory. However,
making the logical leap to “money has not been an influence in outcomes”
does not follow.

As in Milpitas, Richmond residents were up against a corporation willing to
spend big bucks to get their way. There, $3 million was spent by Chevron to
back their 5 council candidates and oppose the three progressive Team
Richmond candidates. That works out to $72 per registered voter! The Team
Richmond candidates spent less that $1 per voter – and won.

Both these cases apparently show that money does not matter. The reality is
that money is just one factor in a political campaign. Team Richmond
outlines some of the other factors at http://snipurl.com/29md8kx  Here is
their key point: “What made us able to turn around the hit pieces and the
essential ingredient in our victory is that we have been organizing and
building for 10 years, and we have built roots through everyday community
activity.”

A review of the literature indicates “Candidates who raise a lot of money
tend to do better, and it’s more likely than not that at least part of this
relationship is due to money paying for things like ads and canvassers that
help candidates win over new voters and/or turn out their bases.” (
http://snipurl.com/29mdgj7) Again, money is a factor; it simply is not the
only factor.

Looking at such a small sampling, one could legitimately ask “Where is this
influence that money seems to buy?” My first response is to note that foods
on our grocery store shelves that contain GMO ingredients are still
unlabeled. The ballot measure to require labeling was on its way to an easy
victory – until big corporate money shifted the electorate just enough to
defeat the proposition. Advertising works! Otherwise, corporations would
not be spending $280 billion annually on it, or 2% of the entire country's
GDP. (See http://galbithink.org/ad-spending.htm)

One place to look for a good sample (over 100 data points) is the U.S.
Congress. At a time when the science is settled, and both the President and
the Pope agree on the matter, many politicians still deny the occurrence of
human-caused global warming. Specifically, 53 percent of the Republicansin
the House of Representatives, and 70 percent on the Senate side.

One explanation for this disconnect from reality is the influence of money
- which is backed up by the numbers.The 38 climate deniers in the Senate
have taken $27,845,946 in donations from the coal, oil and gas industries,
while the 62 Senators who haven’t denied the science have taken $11,339,967
in career contributions. According to the Center for American Progress
Action Fund analysis, on average, Senate deniers took $732,788 from fossil
fuel interests while other Senators took one-fourth as much, $182,902.
Similarly, on the House side, the average denier took $272,536 from coal,
oil and gas interests while other members took $80,095.

That shows a strong correlation between carbon-fueled contributions and
political denial of what is obvious to 97% of scientists and most educated
people. What really irritates me is that polluting European companies are
also funding U.S. politicians that block climate legislation. The Guardian,
a prestigious British newspaper, has found that, “nearly 80 percent of
campaign donations from a number of major European firms were directed
towards senators who blocked action on climate change.”

Massive expenditures on our elections and politics by corporations, both
foreign and domestic, results from Supreme Court decisions saying that
money is speech and corporations are entitled to Constitutional rights. Our
citizens are not stupid. Polling shows that 75% of Americans believe that
money buys results in Congress, and 72% support limiting corporate spending
on election campaigns. However, until we over-rule the Supremes with a 28th
Amendment to the Constitution, we don't have that option.

Mr. Weinstein is a pillar of our community who publicly declares “Improving
democracy is important and I will support every effort to do so.” So, I
invite him and every other citizen interested in improving our democracy,
to sign the MoveToAmend petition for a 28th Amendment at
http://snipurl.com/29mfmni. Be part of the nationwide movement to take back
control of our elections and our politicians.
***
For the past two years, Rob Means has worked with the Santa Clara County
affiliate of MoveToAmend.org to pass a 28th Amendment. He is active in
Milpitas politics and is a frequent contributor to this paper.
  --
Rob Means, Communications Work Group
MoveToAmend - Santa Clara County, http://scc- <http://scc-mta.org/>mta
<http://scc-mta.org/>.org/ <http://scc-mta.org/>
1421 Yellowstone Ave., Milpitas, CA 95035-6913
408-262-0420h, 408-262-8975w, rob.means at electric-bikes.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20150117/536ea4bc/attachment.html>