I love it when election marketers devise a whole new way to bamboozle the public, and California voters, no slouches in the overall bamboozle market, finally have a chance to actually pay for their ignorance and sloth personally, out of their own wallets. If successful, PG and E’s campaign to stifle competition could be an unparalleled accomplishment. That is truly saying something, because this has been a year of unprecedented babmoozlery, from the Birthers “victory” in Arizona (Damn You Hawaii) to California’s own multimillion campaign to pass Proposition 8 which defeated homosexuals right to marry because it would inexplicably destroy the fabric of the American family. Perhaps Lewis Black was right, and it would have unleashed attacks of Gay Banditos. But I digress.
Who is it that could possibly surpass these dizzying heights in inveiglery and babmoozlery? None other than Pacific Gas and Electric. Pardon me, I meant the “Taxpayers Right To Vote, Yes on 16.” You’ve seen their ads daily on the TV, and don’t they have a sexy website?
But take a look at that tiny type at the bottom. You know in all my time in advertising, I have NEVER had a client say to me, “can you make my name smaller, bordering on invisible? And while you’re at it, hide my logo altogether. The logo is forbidden!” Especially when they’re forking over $28.5 million (as of March 26). Nope. Never happened. Not once. If I were a cynical person (and I most assuredly am), I might presume that Pacific Gas and Electric had something to hide. Although in fairness, they are not hiding it from their shareholders for whom they defended their multimillion dollar campaign: “this is a good use of PG and E funds because otherwise, the company would have to spend ‘millions and millions of shareholder dollars to defend it repeatedly’ every time a municipality is thinking about going the CCA route. PG and E fights against municipalities forming CCAs because when local government agencies form their own local utility districts, PG and E loses customers, thus cutting into the corporation's long-term profitability.*”
While I applaud any company that feels that $1.22 billion profit in 2009 must be surpassed, I am amused that they are going to voters to vote against the very competition that would save the voters money. Of course they’re not really doing that. Competition is the American way, and voting against competition could be construed as UNAmerican. No, the good patriots of Pacific Gas and Electric are merely arguing that before their 1.22 billion dollar dominance of the market can be subject to competition, that an election must be held at taxpayer expense and an almost unheard of two thirds majority must approve it. But I repeat myself.
The fact that the right to vote is protected in the Constitution notwithstanding, there is nothing in this act that protects anyone but Pacific Gas and Electric, and they’re willing to spend up to $35 million dollars to do it. But who will really pay for this competition busting sham election… the very same voters who don’t ask questions, don’t research the PG and E connection and actually fall for the flimsy “personal freedom” argument. Not all of the voters will fall for it, just the lazy ones. In other words, if history is any guide, the majority. So get ready for less competition and higher rates from fewer providers.
Of course, if voters are unwilling to find out what they're voting about, maybe this will become the new American way.
No comments:
Post a Comment