ABOUT THIS BLOG

I shall post videos, graphs, news stories, and other material. We shall use some of this material in class, and you may review the rest at your convenience. You will all receive invitations to post to the blog. I encourage you to use the blog in these ways:

· To post questions or comments;

· To follow up on class discussions;

· To post relevant news items or videos.

There are only two major limitations: no coarse language, and no derogatory comments about people at the Claremont Colleges.

The syllabus is at http://www1.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/JPitney/gov106-fall15.html

Search

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

"Vote Yes for California"



What do you think is going on here?

3 comments:

Dan said...

This is a video from those opposed to Props 94,95,96 and 97. They both seem very similar. Who is right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JXZoNlW6Q0

Both ads have firefighters and teachers. Are the interest groups split?

Laura Sucheski said...

Props 94, 95, 96 & 97 are amendments to existing compacts between four Indian tribes and California that would allow an increase in slot machines in exchange for an increase in the percentage of revenues deposited in the General Fund. The "YES" ad is paid for by the four tribes and endorsed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, leaders of the CA Dept. of Education, EPA, CCPOA, CA Fire Chiefs Association and others because clearly it benefits both parties.

The "NO" ad is paid for by a few of the other fifty-four California Indian tribes that oppose the competitive advantage the "Big 4" will gain in California casino revenue. Technically they aren't lying; the propositions don't guarantee that any of the added revenue will be spent on schools or safety, but it's safe to assume that extra money in the General Fund = more money for state programs. The firefighters and teachers are likely in favor of the deal in general but would prefer some sort of provision that they will get what they want.

Danielle said...

In comparing the two ads, the Schwarzenegger ad appears to have much more money behind it than the ad that Dan posted. The cinematography and presentation of the ads alone proves this. And, if you read the white, almost illegible (at least on the computer) writing at the bottom of the screen the Pro ad is funded by the Agua Caliente, Morengo, Pechanga, and Sycuan Indian tribes whereas the Con ad is funded by a coalition of other tribes, Bay Meadows and Hollywood Racetracks, labor, taxpayers, educators, and public safety officials. Although I dislike that the Pro ad is funded solely by the casinos, I also dislike the vagueness of the Con ad- can “educators” really be said to support a “no” vote? Although I know that the Con ad couldn’t put down every specific contributor, it just seems misleading to say “labor, taxpayers, educators, and public safety officials.”

Knowing this, however, I am still no further informed about the issue than I was before watching the ads.