In response to our Consumer Alert exposing the Prop 33 campaign for using paid campaign employees in their TV ads, the insurance industry-backed Proposition 33 campaign issued a statement to the LA Times Opinion blog – excerpts below – stating that “the two women in their ads were simply volunteering their stories in support of the effort to pass Proposition 33.”  That disingenuous response begs the question:

Is a Paid Employee a Volunteer? I guess if you can call charging people more for their auto insurance simply for not driving a “discount,” then why not call an employee a volunteer?

California election law requires campaigns that use paid spokespeople in their ads disclose this within the ad.  Nowhere in these ads do the proponents disclose that the two women work for the PR firm that is being paid over half a million dollars to run the Yes on 33 campaign.  That is why we filed an official complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission asking them to investigate the ads for violating election law.

If you feel that the public has a right to know when the people in campaign ads are being paid for their opinions, then watch our Consumer Alert and share with your friends and networks to help us combat these insurance-industry lies.

Excepts from the:

October 3, 2012

“Marketplace argues that it didn’t violate the law, and that may be technically correct. But the campaign misleads the public by presenting employees of its political consultant as disinterested consumers who just want a break on their insurance premiums…That seems par for the course for backers of Proposition 33, the latest in a long series of efforts by Mercury Insurance founder George Joseph to undo part of 1988’s Proposition 103.”

“In its response Tuesday, Marketplace said: ‘We encourage Consumer Watchdog to continue drawing attention to the ads because the message they deliver is both honest and direct.'”

“…The message is direct, all right, but it isn’t honest.”

_______________________________________________________

Posted by Daniel Palay, New Media Director of Consumer Watchdog Campaign and supporter of StopProp33.com.  For more information on the campaign visit us on Facebook and Twitter

You won’t believe this!

The insurance billionaire behind Prop 33 isn’t just lying about his phony proposal in the television ads airing this week. He is actually using paid employees to impersonate “real drivers” and not disclosing it to voters. We have the proof in this short video.

Please watch the short video exposing the Prop 33 campaign’s big lies and share it with all the California voters you know to warn them.

Campaign finance law requires that campaigns disclose if they are using paid spokespeople in their television ads, but the insurer-funded Prop 33 campaign didn’t disclose to viewers that it used two employees of its paid PR firm in advertisements to pose as average drivers.

You can help spread the word. Watch the short video and post it to your Facebook, Twitter and other accounts.

California voters shouldn’t be deceived by one insurance billionaire, Mercury Insurance’s George Joseph, who has spent $8.4 million to pass Prop 33.  Our friends, family and co-workers deserve to know the truth.

When was the last time an insurance billionaire spent $8.4 million on a ballot measure to save consumers money?

Please join us in warning California voters.

_____________________________________________________

Posted by Jamie Court, President of Consumer Watchdog Campaign and leader of StopProp33.com.  For more information about the campaign visit us on Facebook and on Twitter.

The Consumer Federation of America released a new report earlier this week assessing consumer views on the factors insurance companies use to set premiums around the country.  Not surprisingly, Americans think that insurance rates should be based primarily on motorists’ driving safety record (87% and 85% of respondents believe rates should reflect a driver’s number of accidents and tickets, respectively).

More than a majority of Americans think it’s unfair to consider the ZIP-code in which you live or your occupation.  More than two-thirds (68%) call it unfair to charge drivers more if they did not have insurance because they did not previously have a car.  This data point should interest Californians, because there’s an initiative on the November ballot  – Proposition 33 – that would allow insurance companies to penalize people based on this precise factor that 68% of Americans consider unfair.

Proposition 33 was put on the ballot by Mercury Insurance’s billionaire Chairman, and his $8 million campaign conveniently ignores the fact that the initiative allows insurance companies to raise prices on drivers who didn’t previously have insurance because they didn’t have a car. No doubt, his pollsters are telling him the same thing that the national survey reports: Americans don’t think his scheme is fair.  (So if people think your initiative is unfair, your only option is to run a deceptive ad campaign filled with disingenuous patriotism and hope people can’t see the trick you’ve hidden behind that flag.)

But back to today’s report for a moment. Another interesting thing Consumer Federation did was look at rates around the country and show the effect of a variety of rating factors, including prior insurance coverage.  Two things stand out:

1. Where most companies in most states dramatically jack up the rates on customers who do not have prior insurance when they want to buy a policy, Californians’ premiums are unaffected by that factor because it is illegal to apply it in California.  The whole point of Prop 33 is to make California more like these other states in a bad way.
2. Generally speaking, rates in Los Angeles, California are both lower than the other big cities tested and more stable after testing for factors considered unfair, such as ZIP Code, occupation, prior insurance and credit scoring.  In other words, the insurance reforms Californians installed through Proposition 103 in 1988 not only apply standards of fairness to the marketplace, they have created a competitive and lower priced market as well.

________________________________________________________

Posted by Doug Heller, Executive Director of Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government and politics. Visit us on Facebook and Twitter.

Consumer advocates today called on the insurance company executive behind Proposition 33 to immediately withdraw new radio advertisements that mischaracterize the impact of the initiative on foreign service and military personnel in the wake of attacks on US embassies abroad.

In statewide radio advertisements paid for by Mercury insurance executive George Joseph, the Proposition 33 campaign erroneously claims soldiers will be able to keep auto insurance discounts they now lose, and that Prop 33 is about “supporting our heroes.” In fact, foreign service officers would be surcharged under the proposal for not driving while working oversees when they restart their auto insurance in California. Moreover, Prop 33 will not protect any current discount for soldiers.

In a letter sent to Mercury Chairman Joseph today, Consumer Watchdog wrote: “Out of respect for military officers and foreign service employees, who face life-threatening circumstances at our embassies abroad, we call upon you to immediately withdraw your deceptive and disrespectful radio advertising campaign in favor of Proposition 33.”

Download Consumer Watchdog’s letter here, or read text below

Listen to the Prop 33 radio ad here

A Los Angeles Times opinion staff blog published yesterday took the campaign to task for the deceptive ad: “The 30-second spot declares: ‘Proposition 33 protects our veterans and military families, and allows them to keep their discount on car insurance, saving them money.’ It would do nothing of the kind.”

Read the Times blog here:

Consumer Watchdog’s letter continued: “Your radio advertisement claims Prop 33 is about “supporting our heroes.” But under Prop 33, good drivers who have stopped driving for legitimate reasons – like serving abroad in our foreign service – would be hit with large surcharges if they decided to drive again and buy insurance in California. For political reasons, you exempted from Prop 33’s large rate increases a small segment of those who stop driving for legitimate reasons, active duty military officers. That certainly does not mean you are helping soldiers keep a discount. Moreover, foreign service officers, families of military officers, disabled veterans and others who stop driving for good reason, but cannot prove active duty military service is the reason for their coverage lapse, would get slammed under Prop 33 with big rate hikes.”

This month, Joseph also gave $195,000 to a nonprofit organization for its support of Proposition 33 in another attempt to mislead voters about the impact of Prop 33 and camouflage its insurance industry backing. Joseph gave 99%, $8.4 million, of the funds in support of Prop 33.

The measure would overturn a 24-year-old law banning discriminatory practices by auto insurance companies that were brought to light in a 1987 California civil rights case, King v. Meese. Proposition 103, passed by the voters in 1988, banned auto insurers from charging more, or refusing to sell insurance, to people who were not previously insured.

Read more about Proposition 33 at www.StopProp33.org

– 30 –

September 13, 2012

Mr. Joseph,

Out of respect for military officers and foreign service employees, who face life-threatening circumstances at our embassies abroad, we call upon you to immediately withdraw your deceptive and disrespectful radio advertising campaign in favor of Proposition 33.

You began your disingenuous “Heroes” radio advertising campaign for Proposition 33, the California ballot measure for which you have given 99% of the funding, the day after September 11th with the hope of fanning patriotic sentiments for your insurance company’s cause.   You could not have known that those cynical advertisements – which misrepresent your measure’s impact on our nation’s military, their families and foreign service officers – would air when American military and foreign service members are under grave threat worldwide.

Nonetheless, you now have an obligation not to betray the seriousness of the current circumstances our heroes face abroad with radio advertisements that lie about what Prop 33 does in their name.

As the Los Angeles Times editorial staff blog noted Wednesday:

“Proposition 33, an initiative to let auto insurers offer discounts to competitors’ customers, isn’t quite the same as Proposition 17, a similar proposal that voters rejected in 2010. But the campaign in favor of the measure seems to be following the same truth-distorting playbook.

“The Yes on Proposition 33 campaign has bought airtime on 19 radio stations in five cities for what appears to be its first commercial, which is due to begin broadcasting Wednesday. The 30-second spot declares: ‘Proposition 33 protects our veterans and military families, and allows them to keep their discount on car insurance, saving them money.’

“It would do nothing of the kind.”

As you well know, Prop 33 has nothing to do with military officers keeping any discount under current law. All your initiative does is legalize a now-illegal rating factor: Whether a driver has had auto insurance continuously or not.

Your radio advertisement claims Prop 33 is about “supporting our heroes.” But under Prop 33, good drivers who have stopped driving for legitimate reasons – like serving abroad in our foreign service – would be hit with large surcharges if they decided to drive again and buy insurance in California. For political reasons, you exempted from Prop 33’s large rate increases a small segment of those who stop driving for legitimate reasons, active duty military officers. That certainly does not mean you are helping soldiers keep a discount. Moreover, foreign service officers, families of military officers, disabled veterans and others who stop driving for good reason, but cannot prove active duty military service is the reason for their coverage lapse, would get slammed under Prop 33 with big rate hikes.

Mr. Joseph, you have repeatedly cited your experience as a veteran to justify why one insurance company billionaire should be allowed to change the insurance laws through Proposition 33.   We urge you to take a moment of silence to think like a veteran now and withdraw these advertisements.

Sincerely,

Jamie Court

Consumer Advocates Call On Group To Withdraw Support For Measure That Would Raise Car Insurance Rates on Good Drivers

The nonprofit Greenlining Institute acknowledged in a San Francisco Bay Guardian story published today that it received a $25,000 donation from Mercury insurance company, and expects more for its work in support of Mercury-backed Proposition 33. Prop 33 is funded by Mercury insurance’s billionaire chairman George Joseph and would raise car insurance rates on good drivers who have a break in insurance coverage, even if they’re not driving.

In a letter, Consumer Watchdog urged Greenlining to reverse its decision to support Proposition 33. Greenlining opposed a nearly identical ballot measure proposed by Mercury insurance company in 2010, Prop 17.

Download the letter here

Read the San Francisco Bay Guardian story

“We are writing to urge you to reconsider your shocking support for Proposition 33 and the auto insurance redlining it seeks to legalize,” wrote Consumer Watchdog founder Harvey Rosenfield and Washington DC director Carmen Balber. “Greenlining purports to represent the very low-income drivers who will be hurt the most if Proposition 33 is approved next November, allowing insurance companies to surcharge Californians who stop driving for legitimate reasons and then choose to get back on the road.”

Prop 33 would overturn a 24-year-old law banning discriminatory practices by auto insurance companies that were brought to light in the 1987 California civil rights case, King v. Meese.

“The rampant practice of surcharging, or refusing to sell insurance to, people who were not previously insured was one of the most pernicious of the discriminatory techniques employed by the insurance industry,” said the letter. “In signing the ballot argument for Proposition 33, you have aligned yourself with George Joseph and Mercury Insurance, the most persistent partisans for the legalization of the old redlining tricks that made auto insurance inaccessible to low-income families and communities of color for decades.”

The letter notes that Proposition 33 targets Californians who stop driving for legitimate reasons:

• When low-wage workers who commute by bus need to get a car in order to maintain their job, they will be surcharged by about 40% for auto insurance;
• When immigrant drivers are finally able to obtain a California driver’s license and try to buy insurance, they will be forced to pay hundreds and possibly thousand of dollars more than the drivers who purchased insurance in the past, even though they are equally good drivers;
• When drivers who have found it financially impossible to maintain uninterrupted insurance coverage turn to the auto insurance market in hopes of complying with the mandatory insurance law, they will face a financial penalty for being poor;
• Those who cannot afford these massive surcharges will be exposed to penalties and seizure of their vehicles for failure to comply with the Financial Responsibility Law.

Consumer Advocates Say Prop 33 Means Auto Insurance Rate Hikes of 33% or More

The newly numbered Proposition 33, funded by Mercury Insurance’s billionaire Chairman George Joseph, is a replay of Mercury’s unsuccessful 2010 initiative aimed at raising auto insurance premiums on millions of Californians.

According to the Attorney General’s official title of the initiative, Prop 33: “Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage.” The Attorney General’s summary explains that Prop 33 “Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage.”

Prop 33 aims to change over 20 years of insurance law by repealing a key anti-discrimination provision from the 1988 voter initiative Proposition 103. In addition to broadly reforming insurance rates in California, Proposition 103 specifically prohibited an insurance industry redlining scheme first brought to public attention by the 1985 California civil rights case King v. Meese. While Prop 103 made that scheme illegal 24 years ago, Prop 33 would rollback that protection and revive this discriminatory practice by insurance companies that particularly targets low-income and other Californians struggling financially.

Consumer advocates opposing Prop 33, including Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of California and Consumer Watchdog, say that Prop 33 is another deceptive insurance company trick to raise auto insurance rates for millions of responsible drivers in California. While the insurance industry backers of Prop 33 promise that it will give people discounts, the measure is actually designed to get around an existing law that prevents unfair surcharges on good drivers.

Prop 33 allows insurance companies to charge dramatically higher rates to customers with perfect driving records, just because they had not purchased auto insurance at some point during the past five years. Drivers must pay this unfair penalty even if they did not own a car or need insurance at the time.

“The insurance companies are at it again with another deceptive initiative that says one thing but does another,” said consumer advocate Douglas Heller with Consumer Watchdog Campaign. “When an insurance billionaire spends millions of dollars on a ballot measure, hold onto your wallet. Prop 33 is the newest edition of Mercury’s long-running effort to give insurance companies a new way to unfairly raise auto insurance premiums.”

Mercury Insurance Chairman George Joseph has already spent eight million dollars on Prop 33 and will likely spend more than the $16 million spent by Mercury for its 2010 initiative, according to consumer advocates. Prior to his serial attacks on consumer rights at the ballot box, Joseph and his company pushed for legislative repeal of the consumer protection laws, but that change was ruled illegal by the California Court of Appeal.

About ten years ago, Mercury was caught illegally surcharging many of its customers using the same so-called “continuous coverage” scheme proposed in Prop 33. At the time, Mercury added a 40% surcharge on drivers with perfect records who did not have prior insurance coverage at some point in the past, even if they did not need coverage. In other states where Mercury is allowed to add the Prop 33 surcharge, rates jump by 50% to 100% and sometimes more.

“Wherever Mercury has imposed the financial penalty that would be allowed under Prop 33, premiums for many drivers skyrocket,” said Heller. “When California voters go to the polls in the November, they should ignore the insurance industry’s slick ad campaigns and simply remember that Prop 33 will raise auto insurance rates by 33% or more.”

Prop 33 would increase premiums for Californians who stopped driving for legitimate reasons, including:

• graduating students entering the workforce;
• people who dropped their coverage while recuperating from a serious illness or injury that kept them off the road
• Californians who previously used mass-transit; and
• the long-term unemployed.

Californians who had chosen not to drive for a time and did not need insurance would be surcharged when a new job, move or some other circumstance requires them to buy insurance again. Prop 33’s unfair penalty would punish drivers with premium surcharges that could reach $1,000 a year or more just because they took a hiatus from driving their automobile.

For more information about Prop 33, Consumer Watchdog Campaign has created: www.StopTheSurcharge.org

– 30 –