In an open letter today, the California Nurses Association and Consumer Watchdog challenged the billionaire financiers of Propositions 32 and 33 to a public, televised debate.

Will Charles Munger Jr. and George Joseph defend the measures attacking working people that they’ve spent $39 million promoting? Or will they continue to hide in the shadows behind their PR flacks and deceptive TV advertising?

_____________________________________________________________

October 24, 2012

Mr. Charles Munger Jr. and Mr. George Joseph:

Gentlemen, the California Nurses Association and Consumer Watchdog invite you, the primary financial sponsors of Propositions 32 and 33, to join us for a public debate on the merits and adverse consequences of these measures and the impact they will have on all Californians.

We call for a debate that would be hosted by a journalist of mutual agreement in a televised forum at your earliest convenience.

There’s more…

To date, Californians have heard a great deal about the reputed benefits of Propositions 32 and 33, but only from one-­‐sided political ads that hardly provide a fair or complete picture.

As the biggest financial contributors to these initiatives, for which you have already contributed a combined $39 million, your silence on these measures, which will have far-­‐reaching effects on all Californians, does a great disservice to the public.

If the initiatives you have so lavishly financed really will achieve the promises you claim in your advertisements, you should welcome the opportunity to stand up in public and defend them. We call on you to do so now.

As you no doubt know, our organizations sharply disagree with both the content of these initiatives, and the misleading way in which you have promoted them.

Proposition 32 is a misleading measure which claims to be legitimate campaign finance reform, but has been exposed as anything but that by virtually every newspaper in California. It would exempt corporate interests, shadowy super PACS, and the super wealthy like both of you while silencing the voices of nurses, consumer advocates, and others who would challenge your views.

Proposition 33 reverses a 24-­‐year-­‐old consumer protection that prohibits auto insurance companies from charging drivers more for car insurance just because they didn’t drive previously or otherwise had a break in coverage. Opposed by Consumers Union, Consumer Watchdog and nearly every newspaper editorial board in California, Proposition 33 allows insurance companies to penalize good drivers who did nothing wrong other than not drive and not buy insurance. Nonetheless television advertising running statewide falsely claims Proposition 33 “rewards responsible consumers.”

We know that more and more Californians are appalled at the specter of billionaires and multi-­‐millionaires corrupting our political process and would like to hear answers from those spending so much in this campaign. First and foremost, they would ask: Are the $22.9 million and $16.4 million checks you have written for Propositions 32 and 33, respectively, aimed at anything more than buying the vote for personal and political gain?

It’s time for you to step out of the shadows. The voters deserve to see and hear from the people responsible for Props 32 and 33, rather than the same old sound bites from the deceptive advertising your millions pay for.

Voters need to look you in the eye to gauge your sincerity, and judge your motives. The voters being bombarded with your advertising spin now deserve no less.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

DeAnn McEwen, RN

Co-­‐president, California Nurses Association

Jamie Court

President, Consumer Watchdog

Prop 33 Is A Measure Backed by One Insurance Billionaire To Raise Rates On Good Drivers

Consumer Watchdog Campaign today compiled ten of the most compelling reasons Californians should vote NO on Proposition 33, as reported by newspapers and editorial boards across the state.

“Consumer and public interest groups are being outspent 50 to 1 by an insurance billionaire who has thrown $16 million into Prop 33 in order to cherry pick customers and raise rates on good drivers in California,” said Carmen Balber of the No on Prop 33 Campaign. “Voters should look to trusted sources to sort through the truth about how Prop 33 will hurt consumers.”

Top ten reasons Californians should vote NO on Prop 33:

1.   Prop 33 will raise rates on new drivers.

George Joseph, the insurance billionaire behind Prop 33, acknowledged to the Los Angeles Times “on Sunday that Prop 33 will raise rates on new drivers. As columnist Mike Hiltzik reported: “He made no bones about the fact that the ‘proper rate’ for customers coming to Mercury as newly insured policyholders is much higher than what he can charge them now.”

2.   Prop 33 will allow insurers to cherry pick their preferred customers and raise rates on everyone else.

Riverside Press-Enterprise editorial: “The idea that the head of an insurance company would spend millions of dollars to save drivers money defies all credibility. No, a different and self-interested agenda drives this measure: poaching lucrative customers from rivals while encouraging less desirable customers to go elsewhere. Californians have no reason to reward that kind of special-interest scheme, and voters should reject Prop. 33.”

3.   California voters said NO to an almost identical measure at the ballot two years ago.

San Jose Mercury-News editorial: “Two years ago billionaire George Joseph, chairman of Mercury Insurance, spent $16 million of the company’s money on Proposition 17, a direct attack on California’s strong insurance rights laws. Like an irritating mosquito, Joseph and his millions are back again this year with Proposition 33, essentially a new version of the law voters rejected two years ago.”

4.  Prop 33 will raise the number of uninsured drivers in California.

Riverside Press-Enterprise editorial: “That approach would make insurance more expensive for drivers who do not have it now – which would undermine the public interest. State policy should encourage all drivers to buy insurance, to avoid the extra costs everyone else pays in collisions with the uninsured. Instead, Prop. 33 would throw new financial obstacles in the path of those who lack insurance.”

5.   Prop 33 will overturn a 24-year-old consumer and civil rights protection.

North County Times editorial: “Put on the ballot by insurers, Prop. 33 seeks to lift a voter-approved prohibition (Prop. 103 in 1988) on charging automobile insurance customers a higher rate if they were not previously insured. We see no reason to change the current ban on charging higher rates to the previously uninsured. A person’s likelihood of causing a vehicle collision tomorrow would not seem to hinge on whether they had insurance last week or not.”

6.   Prop 33 will raise rates on good drivers who drop their insurance coverage for almost any reason.

Sacramento Bee editorial: “The downside remains clear as the attorney general’s office notes in the official summary: Proposition 33 ‘will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage.’ That would mean higher costs for graduating students buying coverage, anyone newly obtaining an auto, city dwellers who haven’t owned a car but now live in an area without mass transit, anyone who decided not to drive for more than three months to save money.”

7.   Prop 33 unfairly punishes responsible drivers who stop driving for good reasons and then need to get back on the road.

Daily News editorial: “There is no good reason such people should be punished for their non-driving period. Once they need or are able to drive again, the law says they have to buy insurance. When they comply with that law, they should not be hit with a surcharge that could last five years.”

8.   Prop 33 will raise rates on drivers with perfect driving records.

Bakersfield Californian editorial: “But Prop. 33 could still raise rates for drivers, even those with perfect driving records. In states with Prop. 33-like rules, drivers who buy insurance following a long lapse in coverage paid more: 61 percent more in Texas, 79 percent more in Nevada and 103 percent more in Florida.”

9.   Prop 33 is funded by one insurance billionaire to benefit his own company at the expense of consumers.

Daily News editorial: “The electorate didn’t buy the pitch then that Mercury Insurance’s chairman was spending $16 million to pass a measure just because he wanted consumers to save money on auto insurance. And voters shouldn’t buy it now that Mercury’s billionaire boss George Joseph is back — spending more than $8 million so far in support of of this self-serving measure.”

10. Prop 33 is backed by an insurance company with a record of abusing its customers and violating the law.

Santa Cruz Sentinel editorial: “According to the California Department of Insurance, Mercury Insurance overcharged and discriminated against California customers for 15 years. The company’s founder, Joseph, has a track record of giving money to state politicians to get state law changed to benefit Mercury, and when that failed, abusing the state initiative process with his self-serving propositions.”

Incredible! With two weeks until Election Day, the insurance billionaire behind Prop 33 finally admitted his auto insurance initiative will raise rates on new customers.

Los Angeles Times columnist Mike Hiltzik drew the admission from Mercury Insurance Chairman Joseph in Sunday’s newspaper.

When the billionaire writing the $16 million check for Prop 33 speaks about his initiative raising auto insurance rates, voters should listen.  

But will voters hear Prop 33’s financier over the deceptive television advertising he has bought claiming only that Prop 33 will “reward responsible drivers”?

You can help us get out the word by posting the link to Sunday’s LA Times column (http://lat.ms/TCDqH4) on your Facebook timeline, tweeting it or sharing it with your friends from the newspaper’s site.

In Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, Joseph acknowledged that Prop 33 is a marketing strategy for his insurance company that will allow him to cherry pick his customers “if I could charge new people the proper rate.”

As Hiltzik reports, “He made no bones about the fact that the ‘proper rate’ for customers coming to Mercury as newly insured policyholders is much higher than what he can charge them now.”

Voters banned the power of insurance companies to raise rates on first time drivers and others who did not previously have auto insurance in 1988. Prop 33 would turn back the clock on auto insurance regulation in this state.

Will you help us spread the word about Prop 33’s big lie?

Joseph said that if Prop 33 doesn’t pass it will be “a tremendous waste of money.” Better his than ours!   Please share this critical news story today.

_________________________________________________________________

Posted by Jamie Court, author of The Progressive’s Guide to Raising Hell and President 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