CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS : Ad War Escalates in Battle Over Proposition 188

To back Proposition 188, the initiative to repeal California’s smoking bans, the tobacco industry abandoned a low-key campaign and is making heavy use of television ads. The switch in strategy was in response to an “educational” ad campaign aimed at the measure funded by two wealthy health care foundations.

* THE “NEUTRAL” ADS: Designed by the nonprofit Public Media Center in San Francisco, the advertisements at first appear not to take sides. The 30-second spots open with a crowd shot. A narrator says: “Californians have a lot of important decisions to make this November.” The narrator then focuses on Proposition 188, and says: “Do you know who the major contributors are on each side?” A file folder appears on the screen. On one side of the folder, Philip Morris tobacco company is listed as the main donor for Proposition 188. On the other side, the American Cancer Society is named as the main donor against it.

* THE ANALYSIS: The ads accurately reflect aspects of the campaign. Although outwardly neutral, the ads can also be seen to serve as an equalizer to the “vote yes” campaign. Opponents of Proposition 188 say that people will vote down the initiative if they know the tobacco industry backs it. Although those openly opposed to Proposition 188 have had little money to run ads, the Public Media Center campaign budgeted as much as $4 million. Since those ads began running, support for Proposition 188 has fallen sharply in public opinion polls.

* THE ADS “FOR”: In an imitation of the Public Media Center campaign, the Proposition 188 supporters aired 30-second spots that open with a crowd shot. A narrator intones: “We Californians have a lot of complicated decisions to make. That’s why you deserve to know the facts about Proposition 188.” A file folder appears. Reasons appear on both sides of the file folder to vote for the initiative. Among the claims are that it prohibits smoking in public places, doubles fines for selling tobacco to minors and bans cigarette vending machines.

* THE ANALYSIS: Although the pro-Proposition 188 ads appear to be factual, they include several false statements. The initiative would not ban smoking in public places, but would repeal scores of local ordinances that prohibit smoking in restaurants. Proposition 188 also would block a statewide ban on smoking in restaurants and other workplaces from taking effect in January. If Proposition 188 becomes law, business owners would set their own smoking policies, and restaurant owners could set aside up to 25% of their space for ventilated smoking sections. Nor would the initiative ban cigarette vending machines. Rather, it would repeal 150 local ordinances that restrict or ban cigarette machines. The Public Media Center has sued, claiming the ads are misleading and portray its nonprofit group as a supporter of Proposition 188.