Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Deceptive Advertising on the Ballot

by November 4, 2024
November 4, 2024
Deceptive Advertising on the Ballot

Marc Joffe

While the presidential election and key Senate races are getting most of the attention this week, voters are also weighing in on hundreds of ballot measures around the country. Too often, the short summaries of initiatives, bond measures, and tax hikes appearing on ballots are not fully informative and sometimes are deceptive. Politicians and bureaucrats who criticize companies for misleading commercial advertising seem unconcerned with the fact that consumers in their role as voters are also being fooled.

Deceptive ballot language has been especially problematic in California, which pioneered direct democracy but now struggles with the effects of one-party state government. Partisan attorneys generally write state ballot titles that please the dominant party and its special interest group supporters, while litigation aimed at making the ballot language more accurate is rejected by the state’s courts, whose judges are most often politically aligned.

Nonprofit media outlet CalMatters reported on this phenomenon in 2020. Among the questionable ballot labels it cited was the one for that year’s Proposition 15, which would have raised commercial property taxes by more than $10 billion annually. But voters filling out their ballots saw the following:

Increases Funding for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property

When the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) sued over the ballot language, a California judge concluded that while the title “may be somewhat misleading, the Court is not convinced the sentence is so misleading that it justifies judicial intervention.”

This year, California is seeing a similar dispute around Proposition 5, which would reduce the threshold for passing local government bonds from two-thirds to 55 percent. This month’s ballot summarizes the measure as follows:

Allows local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure with 55% voter approval.

The HJTA sued over this language as well but an appellate court upheld the attorney general’s wording, concluding that “the language for the ballot label, which incorporates a ‘condensed version of the ballot title and summary,’ concisely and accurately describes Proposition 5 in terms that are not misleading.” But voters unaware that the current threshold for bond passage is much higher than 55 percent would certainly be misled by this incomplete title.

Misleading ballot language is not limited to California. In Ohio, Citizens Not Politicians, a progressive group, obtained enough signatures to place Issue 1 on the November 5 ballot. If passed, the measure would replace a legislatively appointed redistricting commission with one appointed by retired judges and whose members cannot be current elected officials and which must include an equal number of Republican, Democratic, and non-aligned members.

The Ohio Secretary of State titled Issue 1 on ballots as follows:

To create an appointed redistricting commission not elected by or subject to removal by the voters of the state.

Citizens Not Politicians sued but was largely unsuccessful. Although the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to make some changes to the more detailed ballot summary, it left the biased title in place, stating, “The ballot title tells the voters, in condensed form, what they are being asked to vote on, and nothing in it is factually inaccurate.”

In Ohio, like California, courts defend elected officials’ discretion to mislead voters about ballot measures so long as they do not lie outright. One is left to wonder whether the government applies a similar standard to corporate advertising.

Los Angeles County’s Department of Consumer and Business Affairs provides examples of what it considers to be false advertising. The Department says that a retailer cannot say “Now through Saturday only $1.99” when the product’s retail price is $1.99 and will thus continue to be that price after Saturday. It also tells us that packaging for children’s toys must say “Assembly Required” if the contents are not fully assembled.

But companies violating these standards are not lying outright, so how are they different from state officials providing incomplete and thus misleading information on the ballot? 

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Subsidies and Tech Deals Don’t Change the Economics of Nuclear Power
next post
Market Trend Model Flashes Short-Term Bearish, What’s Next?

You may also like

Nigeria’s CBDC Was Not Chosen. It Was Forced

May 15, 2023

Friday Feature: Sonoran Learning Collective

January 24, 2025

Debating the Trump Prosecutions

November 24, 2023

The Michigan Supreme Court Opens the Door to...

June 3, 2024

Regulation Is Europe’s Key Leverage in Global Tech...

July 9, 2024

Milei’s Remarkable Victory in Argentina Paves the Way...

November 20, 2023

High Court Sticks With Flawed Racial‐​Redistricting Standard

June 8, 2023

CBDC: Inclusion of the ‘Unbanked’ or Illusion?

August 30, 2023

Yes, California’s Fast-Food Minimum Wage Law Has Killed...

January 13, 2025

Friday Feature: Burbrella Learning Academy

September 15, 2023

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Rescissions: A Small but Welcome Step Toward Spending Discipline

      June 5, 2025
    • DAVID MARCUS: Why Navy ships should not be named for gay rights icons

      June 5, 2025
    • GREGG JARRETT: Biden, the ‘marionette president; and the case of the runaway autopen

      June 5, 2025
    • Trump Practically Bans Travel and Immigration from 12 Countries with Flimsy Security Justifications

      June 5, 2025
    • ‘He’s not a big factor’: Trump’s Senate allies dismiss Elon Musk’s calls to ‘kill the bill’

      June 5, 2025
    • Fears grow that Tata Steel could be excluded from Starmer-Trump trade deal

      June 5, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,147)
    • Investing (2,008)
    • Politics (15,523)
    • Stocks (3,127)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved