Fact check: ‘Yes on Prop 16’ ads don’t convey PG&E’s huge fingerprints

By 
Dana Sherne
SF Public Press
 — Jun 6 2010 - 5:23pm

Tuesday’s statewide election features a controversial industry-backed proposition that would amend the California Constitution to require a two-thirds vote before a community could change its energy provider. The largest tonnage of paper political ads flooding mailboxes in San Francisco sport a variety of images — some ominous, some silly and sarcastic — but the same message: Proposition 16, the “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act,” protects voters from spendthrift politicians.

But the ads, paid for mostly by incumbent power provider Pacific Gas & Electric Co., are misleading in a few important ways:

1. Image of a giant check, paid for by “California Taxpayer”

There is an important distinction to be made between “taxpayer” and “ratepayer.” Many Community Choice Aggregation programs, like San Francisco’s, would not be run through the municipality’s general fund. Instead, they would be funded by the consumers, who would pay for the electricity as they do with any other provider.

2. “Please join the following groups in voting Yes on Prop 16”

Not all of these groups can be considered independent endorsers. For example, Nancy McFadden sits on the executive committee for the Bay Area Council — a listed endorser. She is also PG&E’s senior vice president of public affairs and the senior adviser to the chairman and CEO of the corporation, Peter Darbee. Other endorsers have received substantial contributions from PG&E. According to the Sacramento Bee, PG&E gave $25,000 to the California State Conference NAACP in 2009 and spent another $50,000 on the political slate card that Alice Huffman, president of the California NAACP, sends out to 150,000 African American voters.

3. “Endorsed by the Coalition for Green Jobs”

This vague organization has no Web site or list of member groups. But according to the Tattler, the Coalition for Green Jobs is made of building trades unions whose members often work for or do business with PG&E.

4. “Prop 16 would require a vote of the people before local government can spend or borrow taxpayer dollars to go into the electricity business.”

This description of Prop. 16 conveniently leaves out that a city would need a two-thirds vote before choosing an alternate energy source. This would make it almost impossible for a municipality to become a utility provider of energy, green or otherwise, locking it into its current electricity provider. In many cases, this is PG&E.

5. “Paid for by Yes on 16/Californians to Protect our Right to Vote, major funding from Pacific Gas and Electric Company and CA Business PAC, sponsored by CA Chamber of Commerce, a coalition of taxpayers, business and labor.”

Yes on 16 is almost entirely funded by PG&E. The organization has received a total of $44,206,358.17, according to campaign finance documents on the California secretary of state’s website. All of this came from PG&E, except for $91,258.17 from the CA Business PAC, which in turn is paid for by the California Chamber of Commerce. One of the board members of the Chamber is Christopher P. Johns, the president of PG&E.
Filed in:

Comments

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.