Beware - Fake Endorsement Mailers

I agree; fake mailers are deplorable.

However, I would add that a few candidates have misrepresented views of other candidates in their mail. I realize this is not the "fake mailer" which you speak of, but I would like to note that the following fake information that has arrived recently is as follows (and there is probably more that I don't have in my hands at the moment):

1) Chuck Bernstein's made up budget numbers and incorrect positioning of other candidates positions on Measure T. Supporters of measure T are Cline, Robinson, Keith, and more recently, Ohtaki.

2) Peter Ohtaki's mail today stating Rich Cline's opposition to Measure L, which is untrue. Cline supports pension reform and is neutral on the ballot measure. In fact all sitting council members support pension reform, and both the city council passed version and the ballot measure have the same 2%@60 numbers. Except that the council version will save money to the city budget sooner as it applies to current employees, where the Measure L applies only to new hires.

3) Peter Ohtaki's assertion that nothing has been done to for economic revitalization by the incumbents. Untrue-- he fails to recognize the 3 or 4 year long community Visioning Process that has evolved into the Downtown/El Camino Specific plan, paving the way for long term, sustainable revitalization efforts. He has also not recognized the Willows Business Development efforts for the M-2 district or even that Measure T is an effort to revitalize the economy in our city.

4) Opposition to Measure T campaign: Sending out false data on their mailers to spread fear and incorrect traffic data to residents. They should all go attend Steven Colbert's rally to Keep Fear Alive since they are the leaders of this effort here locally.

5) Opposition to Measure T campaign: today's mailer mistaking a line of questioning by council member Robinson regarding the "housing hit," which is about the ABAG (regional government) numbers that encourage more housing in relation to jobs, but this does not mean there is a real "hit" on housing from this hotel/gym/office complex. In fact, Robinson SUPPORTS measure T and was acting responsibly making sure he had the information to make an informed vote. Which was YES! (you would not know that from this mailer!)

Thank you for posting this timely topic~I'm sure there is a lot more!
And avoid fake mailers when making voting decisions! You can always find voter recommendations on your official party websites or at the league of women voters sites.

Sorry Another Menlo Voter, you are absolutely, positively incorrect. Rich Cline is very much against Measure L, I have heard him say this on two occasions. I do not know where you are getting your information from, but he does NOT want the citizens to be able to make the monetary decision in the future, he wishes the council to do this, this has nothing to do with the 2% @ 60 portion. Plus the council measure does NOT apply to existing employees???? WHERE are you getting your information from, this is blasphemous!

Again, with your #3 assertion, nothing HAS been done. There has NOT been any type of final decision on any of this. Funny thing, that most of this is to be decided AFTER the election.

Before you write, check your facts.

Absolutely WRONG, You suggest that Measure L does apply to existing employees. On that point, you are wrong. The measure will apply only to those hired AFTER it passes. The measure is very clear on that. No employees now working for the city will be affected.

Back to the topic of fake mailers. Avoid them! Below are links to the Republican and Democratic party endorsement websites for San Mateo County. Additionally, you can go to the League of Women Voters, third link below, for non-party affiliated endorsements on propositions:

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link


And lastly, dear Absolutely Wrong, your statements are not true and I find it ironic we are talking about false information on this thread and then your post comes along. I encourage you to contact the candidates directly to find out their thoughts on pension reform or any other issues of importance to you rather than relying on mailer information from other candidates that clearly don't value accuracy.

Fact Check:

"In the Voter's Guide that ran in the Oct. 13 issue, The Almanac reported that incumbent Menlo Park Councilman Rich Cline is opposed to Measure L, the pension initiative. Mr. Cline said he neither supports nor opposes Measure L: he is neutral on the issue."

I have heard Cline say he would not weigh in because he felt it was appropriate to have voters decide.

Really, Cline not take a side on an issue? I'm shocked.

He claims to stay neutral for political purposes, but has publicly criticized Measure L. He's trying to play both sides like he always does.

The point is that both Cline and Robinson voted for a 35% increase in pension costs and are unwilling to roll back that decision by supporting Measure L.

In July, John Boyle and Andy Cohen voted for the Menlo Park City Council to endorse Measure L.

Cline and Robinson OPPOSED.

Cline has tried hard to appease both the unions against L and the overwhelming majority of voters supporting L but when he was forced to make a decision HE OPPOSED MEASURE L.

Why try to put forth factual information in a forum such as this?

Like trying to keep mud off a pig in a pig pen.

Its "interesting" that you consider statements by politicians to be factual information.

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I'd rather look at someone's record than their rhetoric.

Cline and Robinson voted for the 35% pension increase and then voted against the council supporting Measure L.

I've got 20+ other people that were listening to Rich Cline speak, and he said it, in fact I think he said it twice. He does NOT support Measure L, period. The ironic thing about all of this is that I do like Rich, and most of the time we were speaking to him, we were trying to get him to specifically come out on an issue, either yes or no. ANY issue, just tell us yes or no. It was this one issue, oppose or support Measure L, where I finally heard him state his opinion. This was not read in a mailer, or flier, or brochure, or newspaper, he said it directly to me, and 20+ other people. Take it for all it's worth, but I have 20+ witnesses. I guess I am now concerned that he is back peddling again?? I am FOR Measure L, but I support most of the other stuff Rich supports. I even endorsed Rich. If he is now saying he supports it, wow I need to think about my endorsement AND my vote, and again I am FOR Measure L. I would like someone that can make a decision, state his position, and move on! It's this back and forth crap, this non-decision making crap, that has delayed many, many decisions over the past 4 years!

Fair enough, Absolutely WRONG, if you heard it directly.
I have to rely on the news articles. But I have heard and read that all six candidates support pension reform, the differences are whether they support the measure L version or not. Its a known and understood fact by all candidates that pension costs are and will continue to cripple the budget if left unchecked. All candidates acknowledge that.

Which really brings us back to the original thread of where can voters get information they trust.

I would like to point people back to their party websites, non-partisan groups such as League of Women Voters, Sierra Club, other other endorsing organizations, or that of newspapers they believe have vetted candidates and issues to their satisfaction.

Paid mailers made by unknown third party individuals for the express purpose of making money should be avoided in my opinion.

I agree with your suggestions Another Menlo Voter, slightly concerned about Sierra Club, but I hear what you're saying. Some of the funnier ads that go on during this time of the year are all the referendum ads. I have NO idea what's going on? Then I read the write-ups on the ballot, with the rebutts, and I'm totally confused. I wish someone would give us the straight dope on those. I think I'm now getting too used to going to the "how much is this going to cost the taxpayers" line, but I'm not even sure of THAT number. Very confusing.

I have a standing policy. I don't read any of these BS mailers. They are usually full of slanted misinformation and out right lies. They are sent in the last days before an election because it is impossible to send out mailings countering the lies. Every side does it so I simply ignore these mailers. Straight to the recycling bin they go.

I've come to believe that there is no such thing as a "non-partisan" source.

Everybody has a bias. Some just admit it.

Yes, POGO and Absolutely WRONG-- I agree, endorsing organizations often have a slant...for some it is in their charter or mission to support candidates who support their causes. I should have said "non-party affiliated" organizations rather than non-partisan.

And yes, the ballot statements--particularly about propositions in this election-- are so confounding. The writers of the ballot statements have clearly realized that is the final source of voter information for those of us who ignore the fake mailers, last minute trash mailers, etc.

I found out I voted against a state proposition I would have voted for had I understood the motivation and people behind it! Alas, I relied on the ballot statement that time. Back to endorsing organizations I'll go in the future, at least just to double check before marking my ballot!

The issue with the slate mailers is that they are not "endorsing organizations" at all. They are simply marketers who create a name for a mailer and then get candidates or measure supporters (or opponents) to pay for a piece of it. What is particularly deceptive is that these mailers seem as if they are from legitimate organizations. For example, one says it is a "Democratic Voter Guide" when it is not from the party and may include positions in opposition of the party's real stance.

In Bohannon's case, payments have been made to deceive voters through numerous such mailers. One of at least 4 fake endorsement mailers suggests that environmental groups ave endorsed the Bohannon project whereas NONE have done so. It's too bad that the project can't stand on its own. Voters beware of such misleading tactics.

Another Menlo Voter makes a good point.

What adds to the confusion is that propositions often (maybe even usually) have highly misleading names which are intended to deceive voters. A proposition might be called the "fair voter act" when all it does is turn redistricting back to politicians.

It's a very sad state of affairs for our once glorious state. And, I fear it will get a lot worse before it gets better.

None of the Yes on T mailers mention anything about endorsements from environmental groups. They do say that the project has been endorsed by, among others, Environmental Quality Commission members Doug Scott, Daniel Kocher and Mitch Slomiak and environmental leader Anne Moser, plus Fire District President Peter Ohtaki, plus the Belle Haven Neighborhood Association, plus Planning Commissioner Kirsten Keith and former Planning Commissioner Harry Bims, plus current and former council members and mayors Rich Cline, John Boyle, Robert Burmeister, Chuck Kinney, Kelly Fergusson, Heyward Robinson and Gail Slocum plus more than 200 other Menlo Park residents.

Menlo Park resident: Central Menlo Park
I think you misunderstood the point. What is being written about here are so called "fake endorsements". These are not "Yes on T" mailers. The one I got last week was called "Californians Vote Green". Candidates and ballot measures are listed with advice on how to vote. Next to some there is an asterisk which leads a careful reader to the bottom of the mailer and the following "Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure which is designated by an *." Next to "Yes on Measure T " is an asterisk and the Gateway web address. I believe the intent of the mailer is to lead the reader to think a yes vote is a "Vote for a Greener California". This is paid advertising made to look as if it came from an official environmental group. My opinion - most environmentalists would be unlikely to endorse a project with three six story parking structures.

Retired teacher -

That sounds almost as misleading as the flyers we receive pushing parcel taxes claiming our society will collapse if we don't pay our teachers more.

Just depends on who's ox. Welcome to politics.