Special interest group crosses the line by launching attack ads!

Today, I had the displeasure of listening to a special interest group’s attack ad on the radio.

Why attack ads?

This group not believing that the citizens of Saint John are able to decide who to vote for on their own, have stepped in to sway voters towards candidates who think the same as them - candidates who will not question the current state of city services and will not look at all options in service delivery.

They want you to vote for candidates that will keep everything as-is:

• Because you currently have access to reliable, safe, clean drinking water, right?
• Because your roads are cleared quickly during the winter, right?
• Because the further away from the city you get, the services are still the same, right?

Well, some people - gasp - disagreed with the above statements. This is where special interest group’s comes in.

After launching an extensive (and expen$ive) sign campaign and mailing requests to their members to not vote for certain candidates, they decided to launch attack ads on the radio to scare you into agreeing with those above statements.

Who do they attack?

They attack a person who has a spine, who is willing to stand up and ask if we are getting the best value for our tax dollars, who makes decisions in the open, and who believes in looking at all options before making a decision.

They attack Councillor Stephen Chase.

What can you do?

Educate yourself, find out about the issues, talk to the candidates, and make up your own mind.

No union or special interest group should be bullying (or scaring) you into voting their way, keep in mind that they are not doing this with your interests in mind, they are only concerned about losing jobs in the future.

The only person who really understands what is important to you, is you.

The choice is in your hands, and you have chance to make a difference on May 12, 2008.

Further Reading

Recent newspaper articles are doing a good job of explaining the current political situation:

Don’t drink CUPE’s Kool-Aid
Telegraph-Journal

Public sector unions have raised eyebrows and voter discomfort by getting involved in Saint John’s election. Some have endorsed candidates outright; others, like CUPE outside workers, are distributing signs and pamphlets urging “No water for profit.” Both approaches make it perfectly clear which candidates the big unions are backing.

It’s a slick campaign, calculated to obscure a key fact: Saint Johners already have “water for profit,” and the profit flows entirely to CUPE. The same is true of other city services and other unions.

This isn’t a battle to preserve Saint John’s water; it’s a campaign to protect the dues that flow into CUPE’s local and national bank accounts. The union is the city’s not-so-silent partner - and the bill is paid annually by taxpayers and water customers.

CUPE’s appeal for solidarity is shrewd, because Saint John is a proudly labour city. But there’s a sharp distinction between CUPE’s city hall locals and the private sector workers who’ve built Saint John’s industries. When CUPE executives appeal to their “brothers and sisters” in the private sector to vote against innovation, they are asking Saint Johners to vote against their own interests.

The city’s disgusting, poorly treated tap water, potholed streets and crumbling sidewalks are the product of CUPE’s labour. So are the high water fees and property taxes and the staggering pension deficit. Is is any wonder CUPE is fighting to control the political debate?

Saint Johners know how much they’re paying and how they feel about the service. If the trade-off isn’t worth it, why would anyone vote with CUPE, against the possibility of change?

Election Not all city CUPE locals making preference known
Telegraph-Journal

A political scientist at UNBSJ doesn’t believe unions or special interest groups erecting signs supporting politicians will influence future decisions. But he does wonder if the unions are naive in believing such campaign support could influence a politician who is subsequently elected.

Mike Montgomery, president of CUPE Local 18, says his union does not endorse candidates.

“I’d like to see the track record over time who endorsed whom and what effect that had,” said Don Desserud.

Signs have begun sprouting up all over the city from the firefighters union backing certain candidates and signs funded by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) are urging voters not to support a private, public partnership for water treatment. CUPE 486, representing the city’s inside workers, has squarely thrown its support behind mayoral candidate Ivan Court.

“Once you’re in power, you’re going to have to decide who you’re most beholden to and you’re going to find there’s an awful lot of people,” Desserud said.

Mike Montgomery, president of CUPE Local 18 that represents the outside workers, said the only thing his local supports is the right to vote.

“Local 18 never, and has never, endorsed any candidate running for mayor and council or any election,” Montgomery said. “Regardless of who gets in, we have to work with them.”

As far as the CUPE signs saying “no water for profit,” he said that’s all it means.

“They make one statement and one statement only,” said Montgomery of the signs.

What other CUPE locals do is their business, he said. Montgomery did confirm, however, that his membership and executive will attend every debate and let candidates and the public know that privatizing the water system is not acceptable.

Throwing support behind municipal politicians doesn’t have a large impact, said Desserud. City politicians are limited in their scope of power - they can’t make laws or pen legislation.

“Are they going to be given that privileged access? I don’t so much worry about it,” Desserud said.

Tamara Small, a political science professor at Mount Allison University in Sackville, said such special-interest-group support can be troubling, but the issues are bigger than that.

“How far should we regulate free speech,” she asked. “It’s a broader issue - whether the system should allow for such an appearance of impropriety.”

Desserud agrees.

“There’s always a danger of optics. There’s always a danger that they’re compromised and that’s something that people want to be careful of.”

In federal politics, groups donating or spending more than $500 supporting a candidate or on a party’s campaign must register with Elections Canada. Provincial politicians face a maximum contribution or advertising limit of $6,000 per year to a candidate or party or political association.

Predicting the behaviour of a politician once elected or the public reaction to the support of a special interest group is a dicey game, said Desserud.

“There’s a very good chance that if you make those cuts even though the fire department supported you, they won’t support you next time around. But whether they have any real control, except for psychological control - it’s a moral obligation.”

Desserud said if a particular group takes control of the election, that should be the concern.

“What it always comes down to is a question of who gets to control the conversation during an election campaign,” said Desserud.

Only time will tell, he said.

“I recognize that it’s not exactly pretty, but to me the rights for people to express their views in election campaigns trump the other concerns.”

‘It’s fear mongering’
Telegraph-Journal

With just two weeks before the election, mayoral candidate John Ferguson believes a letter from the Canadian Union of Public Employees saying he is in support of privatizing the city’s water supply is fear mongering.

CUPE Local 486 sent a letter out on Friday to its members asking they support only candidates who come out clearly against any private involvement in the water system, which is staffed by CUPE members. The letter, which the Telegraph- Journal acquired a copy of, named Ferguson, Michelle Hooton and incumbent council candidate Stephen Chase as supporters of privatizing the water supply.

CUPE has also organized a number of public protests to be held in conjunction with each of the Telegraph-Journalsponsored public debates.

“I’ve never stated that. It’s a complete misrepresentation of my position and it’s a false accusation,” Ferguson said about CUPE’s contention that he supports privatizing the water system.

“I believe it’s fear mongering.”

The letter was signed by CUPE Local 486 president Paul Johnson, who did not respond to a request for an interview. Local 486 represents the city’s inside workers.

What he supports, said Ferguson, is examining a public-private partership, which is not privatization. It is also, he said, part of conditions set down by the federal government to access funding, but it is not an absolute.

“I do believe that the leaders of the city’s local unions are clearly trying to influence this election,”said Ferguson.

No mayoral candidate has, as of yet, come out in favour of privatizing the water treatment and delivery system.

Ferguson and Hooton have mulled over publicly the possibility of a public-private partnership – but the city would maintain control of the water system and could use a private firm to deliver some of the services.

While Hooton and Ferguson may be going head-to-head in a run for the mayor’s chair, Hooton does agree with Ferguson that for the city to access federal funding for improvements to the water system, common council has to explore every option and a public-private partnership is one of those options. The city, however, would maintain control of the water treatment and delivery system.

“It’s a false list,” said Hooton. “I would never support the privatization of our water system,”she said.

“They just don’t have their facts straight,” Hooton said of where she stands on the issue and being on the CUPE list.

“To be able to achieve clean safe drinking water, I’m sure there are lots of models out there that if we need assistance we should look at them. But at the end of the day, I will never support the privatization of our water system.”

CUPE has thrown its support behind mayoral candidate Ivan Court.

The national union has erected signs throughout the city asking voters to turn their backs on those that don’t support a publicly run and CUPE-staffed water system.

Ferguson said he has faith that union members and citizens will decide where to cast their vote based on the facts and not fear mongering by union leaders.

“They have private-public partnerships right now in the sewage utility,” said Ferguson, pointing to some of the private contractors the city already uses.

“So when someone says privatization of the water, it’s misrepresenting what it is. Nobody wants to give up control of the water.”

Taxes, regardless of what any specialinterest group trumpets, are still the No. 1 issue, said Hooton.

“I think there would be some concern that a union wouldn’t be thinking about the more broad issues in a community,” Hooton said.

“I’m not sure what their motivation is.”