By Hillel Aron
By Joseph Tsidulko
By Patrick Range McDonald
By David Futch
By Hillel Aron
By Dennis Romero
By Jill Stewart
By Dennis Romero
Political advertising is not exactly built on a foundation of honesty. Campaign literature tends to fall somewhere between glib hyperbole and outright deceit. Perhaps in no other area is this more evident than in the seedy world of "slate mailers."
"The only thing worse than the mailers themselves are the people that sell them," says L.A. Republican political consultant John Thomas. "They're bottom-feeders — fake consultants."
If you are on record as ever having voted in an L.A. municipal election, this month your mailbox will jam up with photo-filled mailers in advance of the March 5 primary for mayor, City Council, city attorney, controller, Los Angeles Unified School Board and community college trustees.
But not all mailers are created equal.
Take a lesson from 2012, when a colorful flier sent by "Citizens for Good Government" depicted an American flag and photos of Republicans Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan on its front and on the back an elephant and endorsements for Mitt Romney and Elizabeth Emken.
The inside pages, however, touted some surprising names: Democratic State Assemblyman Mike Gatto and Democratic candidate for district attorney Jackie Lacey. It encouraged a Yes vote on Proposition 30 (raising taxes to plug up the state deficit) and No on Proposition 32 (which aimed to limit unions' ability to raise money for politics) — the exact opposite of the Republican Party line.
But on that and many other slate mailers, the "endorsements" have asterisks. Those asterisks indicate that the candidates have, in fact, paid to be on the flier; no party is endorsing them at all.
The 2012 slate mailer contained a disclaimer that Citizens for Good Government was not an official party organization (of either side), and that, well, you'd simply gotten sucked into looking at a bunch of very small advertisements by people wishing to hold political office.
"There's a limit on how far you can defend it," admits Tom Kaptain, who produces the Citizens for Good Government mailer, plus a Democratic-themed slate mailer called "Democratic Voters Choice" — another completely meaningless group.
Those groups' mailers soon will appear in a mailbox near you. You might also get the "Budget Watchdogs Newsletter," the "CA Law Enforcement Voter Guide" or the ubiquitous "COPS Voter Guide."
"Voters don't understand," says Bob Stern, a good-government advocate. "They don't understand that candidates are paying to be on it. And they don't understand that the group name doesn't necessarily reflect what the group stands for."
Kaptain, a former political consultant, defends his profit-making slate mailers as "a way to help my friends, and keep my finger in." He says he could earn more money as a lobbyist — in fact, "everyone in the slate business could make millions as a lobbyist. We know everybody. I know every councilman in every small town in California."
The subterranean industry of sending fake endorsements to voters' homes isn't much work. Kaptain says one of the toughest parts is being "willing to take guff, because people are calling you all the time and pressuring you" to sell a spot to their friends or the candidates they're repping.
Perhaps the most successful slate-mail producer in L.A. is Democratic political consultant Larry Levine, whose glossy "Election Digest" ends up in hundreds of thousands of homes each election cycle.
Levine says that, while he's doing it for profit, he seriously considers the question of which Democrats he allows to purchase a place in his glossy mailer.
"There are slates out there that will [sell spots to] the highest bidder," he sniffs. "They give the rest of us a bad name."
Levine says he cares about each Democratic candidate's ideology, electability and, perhaps most important, which political consultant the candidate has hired. That's because L.A. political campaigns are a clubby world; many consultants have special relationships with slate-mailer publishers to help ensure that a competing candidate can't buy space.
Kaptain says that often, Democratic Party bigwigs lean on him to "endorse" someone. (Translation: Save an advertising spot for their pet candidate.)
This year, party leaders in Sacramento have been calling Kaptain, trying to convince this obscure ad man to "endorse" Curren Price for City Council District 9 downtown.
District 9 is an ugly race, stemming from an ugly gerrymander in which City Councilwoman Jan Perry's downtown voting district was slashed up and given radically different borders. Price, a fixture in Inglewood city politics who tried to become its mayor, moved into Perry's district last fall to run for the powerful and lucrative Los Angeles City Council seat, which pays $178,789 per year.
But Latino leaders are pushing hard in District 9 for Ana Cubas, a charter-school advocate and former top aide to Councilmember Jose Huizar. Kaptain, for his part, has told the Sacramento leaders that he's already committed to (sold an ad space to) Assemblyman Mike Davis.
"You don't want to say publicly, 'This is why I made the choice,' " says the forthcoming Kaptain. "So you say, 'He got to me first.' " He adds, "Don't get me wrong, if I got a million dollars [from] someone, I'm gone. But most people [we sell spots to], we've been involved with for a long time."
But the biggest place I thought your article was off target was on the overall theme. The article correctly stated that slate cards got their start in reaction to reform era laws that stopped political parties from endorsing in most races (including non partisan races) and party leaders wanted to get a message out. But even today, most would agree that the parties endorsement process is so corrupt and controlled by a few special interests (read your own stories about the process) that no one takes them seriously as being reflective of the views of the parties voters. For that reason, slate cards are often the only way that grassroots activists have a way of reaching voters. As I mentioned in my interview, I have a committee of activists who decide on the best candidate in each race and I sometimes disagree with the choices and I think that although we miss the mark from time to time, both cards are more closely reflective of the views of party members and grassroots activists than the current party endorsement system with their "paper" clubs and disqualifications of delegates for bogus reasons to get the results the bosses want. It's not a perfect system, but about as good as it gets in politics. JMO!
I should add on the comment about being pressured, that I was asked if I thought slate cards had any value and I replied that there was no way to know for sure since people vote in privacy, but that former President Clinton thought enough of my card to call and ask me to carry Hillary instead of Barack Obama who I carried and I thought that said something. I also gave several examples of calls about local and state races and said that showed both the value elected officials gave to the card and that they knew that I wasn't just about money or they wouldn't have bothered. I did mention the Mike Davis race as one of many examples, but I thought the Clinton example was the most telling. JMO!
As someone who was quoted in the article, I really thought a lot of things were missed. First on John Thomas's comment about "fake" consultants, John is relatively new to the business (although very successful) however because he is new, when I went through a list I had of every slate vendor in the state, I couldn't find one who had not run more campaigns than John. In fact as I told the writer, virtually everyone who publishes a slate could make a lot more money just running campaigns because of the high amount you can charge for media commissions. As was quoted somewhat accurately in the article, most could also make a ton of money spending all of their time lobbying, but these are people who by and large have run statewide campaigns in the past and could continue to do so if they wanted to.