The pro-Proposal 2 campaign to end gerrymandering announced today that 19 radio stations across the state have pulled misleading campaign ads by a group that’s trying to preserve the status quo process of drawing legislative district lines.
A right-wing group known as Protect My Vote has been running ads that claim the independent redistricting commission that would be created under Proposal 2 would have a “blank check” to spend as much money as they choose.
The ads were taken down by a wide array of stations, including in Ann Arbor, Lansing, Kalamazoo and Saginaw. So far, no Detroit area stations have followed suit. The decisions to reject the ads were based on legal arguments made by the group Voters Not Politicians, which successfully launched a petition drive to put the issue on the November ballot.
Those same ads were chastised by the fact-checkers at Bridge Magazine. Bridge’s “Truth Squad” found “several whoppers” within the 60-second ads that distorted the ballot proposal. As a result, Bridge rated the ads “foul,” rather than fair or misleading.
“(The) new ad uses a combination of scare tactics, exaggeration and falsehoods to reach unsubstantiated conclusions,” Bridge determined.
What’s perhaps most disturbing about these ads is the emphasis on money, not on the disreputable gerrymandering process controlled by politicians.
The ads claim that the citizens commission — consisting of five independents, four Republicans and four Democrats – would amount to a “massive new bureaucracy.” The anti-Prop 2 commercials also crassly assert that taxpayers would “be paying for a whole new lifestyle” for these 13 commissioners’ temporary service after new Census figures are released in 2021.
In fact, the commissioners would be paid a minimum annual salary of $39,825, which certainly does not amount to a new lifestyle. True, the commission’s redistricting process would be awarded a $4.6 million budget that is about five times the expense of the current process. But the highly partisan status quo involves politicians meeting behind closed doors to draw districts and then cramming those maps through the Legislature for approval with barely any discussion.
The Proposal 2 approach would involve numerous public hearings as part of a thoroughly transparent process. Any attempt to boost salaries or the commission’s budget would face approval from the Legislature and a potential veto from the governor.
The basic budget for redistricting set by Prop 2 represents about 0.1 percent of the state General Fund budget. That is not a financial hardship for taxpayers.
Meanwhile, what was not mentioned in these radio ads is that Michigan is one of three states ranked as the most gerrymandered in the U.S., meaning the squiggly lines drawn by self-serving politicians distort election results in favor of one party or the other, depending on who is in power.
Another key factor in the Prop 2 campaign debate is that a conservative group with ties to U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her wealthy west Michigan family has pumped $1.2 million into funding the negative ads. The plan is to expand beyond radio ads to TV commercials in the coming days.
Well, the pro side has not been honest either. There is no way to “guarantee” either party will be unable to meddle.
There is that slim chance but with all the checks built into Prop 2’s language, it’s worth the risk.
If the prop fails however, there is a 100% chance the corruption will continue.
I have not heard a “guarantee” from VNP. What is true is that there are multiple safeguards against the process being gamed.
Quick fact check:
“The pro-Proposal 2 campaign to end gerrymandering” — The proposal does not end gerrymandering. (Given the change in criteria, it may increase gerrymandering.) It does change who does the gerrymandering.
“The Proposal 2 approach would involve numerous public hearings as part of a thoroughly transparent process.” The proposal does not bar meetings behind closed doors, so long as a majority of the commission is not involved. It is not thoroughly transparent.
“The basic budget for redistricting set by Prop 2 represents about 0.1 percent of the state General Fund budget. That is not a financial hardship for taxpayers.” The General Fund is approximately $10.3 Billion. 0.1% is over $10 million, a hefty sum for any taxpayer.
“Redistricting” is not the same as “gerrymandering.” Allowing politicians to choose their voters has led to the asymmetric polarization we’ve seen; changing who does the redistricting has to happen or we will not keep our republic. As for the meetings – each meeting of the commission requires a quorum and is open to the public. No business can be conducted except at these public meetings. All materials are public record. Commissioners are banned from discussing redistricting with members of the public except at open meetings or in writing. How is that not transparent?
I have studied this issue for 4 years. Not out of Political Interest but I needed to learn the Mathematics for some chemistry i am working on. I found 2 remarkable topologically sound solutions of which one was my favorite as it applied to gerrymandering.
I carefully analyzed this proposal which the bias that my favored solution was better. My conclusion was to the contrary and Prop 2 is th best fit solution.
It pleases me that false ads against Prop 2 have been pulled. I have seen a number of them and they are done well, albeit propaganda.
Gerrymandering is corruption, nothing less, you have to be a repugnant to be for it, I know, I come from the country that invented it, there was a 60/ 40 split in the population yet the conservatives would win 11 out of the twelve seats. Pure, unadulterated corruption, you can only be for it if you are afraid that you will lose.
I love how the pulled radios ads begin with……
”We’ve read all of Proposal 2, so you(the voting listener) don’t have to….”