Is radio ad meant to mislead Utah voters?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Handsome Pete American Fork, UT
    Nov. 2, 2010 10:22 a.m.

    Some here ask why this misleading ad is different from all the others out there. I submit that what struck me about it was that I had no idea where it came from. Usually you get the little thing at the end, "I'm Joe Blow and I approve this ad!" Or at least you hear the name of a real organization that you've heard of before like the Sierra Club or something.

    And I agree with those who say it's pretty obvious (to anyone who thinks) that this ad came from some union that opposes secret ballots.

  • bradparkin Holladay, UT
    Nov. 2, 2010 12:24 a.m.

    In this election season, I can better respect a mean-spirited negative campaign ad that openly and unapologetically attacks an opponent, than the condescending and morally superior attitude proferred by the Save Our Utah Constitution promoters who disparage the addition of any constitutional amendments.

    Indeed, the ad deliberately blurs the lines between the US and the Utah Constitutions to imply that adding an amendment is an offense against the original "divinely inspired" document, that an assault by amendment against one is an assault on the other.

    Does the ad's pitchwoman (an apparent soccer mom who's yet to "cut the apron strings" from mom and dad) and her Save the Utah Constitution henchmen realize that this woman's right to vote was the result of the 16th Amendment? Are these conservative purists unaware that the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms were all constitutional amendments?

    Since you oppose constitutional additions on the principle of preserving the original pure document, please surrender your public expressions, your guns and your pitchwoman who should, by your logic, have no place in influecing a men-only electorate.

  • timpClimber Provo, UT
    Oct. 31, 2010 7:13 p.m.

    And who has the most to gain from Not having secret ballots? Those who would harrass voters who opposed their point of view. Hint, think unions.

  • gizmo33 St. George, Utah
    Oct. 31, 2010 4:20 p.m.

    there is nothing new here same old buisness just differant day. people need to think for themselves the ads are just one sides opinion and both sides have opinions and the only opinion that counts on election day in mine not theirs.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2010 2:29 p.m.

    The fact that the secret ballot amendment is promoted by Carl Wimmer and Howard Stephenson is all I need to know to vote against it. They do not stand for fairness, bipartisanship, compromise, or working for the good of the common person, but push an extreme far right agenda, particularly seeking to weaken or eliminate unions. Their support of this amendment (and anything else they support) raises strong suspicions that they have ulterior motives. Like the boy who cried wolf too often, they are not to be trusted on anything.

    Besides, the Utah Constitution already insures secret ballots in elections for public office.

  • Jim Dexter Kearns, UT
    Oct. 31, 2010 1:02 p.m.

    I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those opposed to the ethics commission amendment produced this entirely unethical, misleading ad. Re-elect NO ONE!

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 31, 2010 12:42 p.m.

    I would bet the farm that those who paid for this political ad were targeting only one of the four proposed amendments; the one that requires a secret ballot in questions of the formation of a labor union.

    I would ask these people to explain why they oppose a secret ballot. Would it not be true that with a secret ballot neither side of the question would be able to exert inappropriate pressure upon those whose decision it should be?

    I think the principle of the "secret ballot" is a principle that is inspired, and therefore it should be protected by voting FOR the amendment.

  • jimhale Eugene, OR
    Oct. 31, 2010 12:07 p.m.

    It's hard to think of any state Constitution as being divinely inspired - they vary so much.

    If you believe the US Constitution is divinely inspired, you have include in that belief the article that provides for amendments. Indeed, without Amendments 1-10 it would never have been adopted. Without them it should not have been adopted. Some later amendments have dealt with obvious flaws in the original. Some are highly questionable - no matter your ideology.

    Only about half of the state constitutions can be amended by initiative petition. The rest cannot - all amendments have to come from the legislature.

    Today, it's hard to believe the initiative approach to proposing amendments is always divinely inspired - in any state, mine included. And it's certain that no legislature in the land, including Utah's, show any sign of being divinely inspired.

  • scambuster American Fork, UT
    Oct. 31, 2010 11:51 a.m.

    Open minded, voters are getting dumber because they have forgotten how to think for themselves and ask probing questions. They just jump on the band-wagon because everyone else is doing it, or they are easily convinced by snake oil salesmen.

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2010 11:01 a.m.

    The article doesn't really explain why the radio ad is so odd. It's peculiar because it seems to be toeing the conservative line, and yet it was Utah's far right conservatives who sponsored the proposed amendment to the secret-ballot provision of Utah's Constitution.

    Right-wing Republicans generally want to make the union ballots secret and thereby make it harder for unions to organize. The ad seems designed, however, to persuade conservative Republicans to vote against the secret-ballot amendment. I'm more moderate, so I'm definitely voting against the proposed Amendment, but I'm curious to hear more about the men who paid for the ad.

  • RShackleford Saint George, UT
    Oct. 31, 2010 10:41 a.m.

    Funny...Seeing that the proposed Amendments on the ballot are to the Utah Constitution and not the US Constitution....I don't see where people would be all that confused.

    But then it actually sounds like the "Experts" (Law professors and media)Are the ones confused, not the voters.

  • open minded Lehi, UT
    Oct. 31, 2010 10:09 a.m.

    So why focus on this ad being misleading and not all the other ones out there? Is it because this ad fits the GOP movement in Utah? What about all the bogus and misleading stuff Philpot has thrown out there? or Herbert? or Coroon? or Chaffetz?
    Besides, should we be surprised that people buy into nice sound bites? The Tea party is filled with misinformation and yet look at how many have drunk the tea. Most people who are supporting the far-right actually know very little about what they actually stand for, they just know they are anti-Democrat. That is because they have been misled by the far right and have bought into it.
    People seem to be getting dumber every election season.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Oct. 31, 2010 9:57 a.m.

    If anyone can name me one ad that isn't meant to be confusing - taking a tiny grain of truth or sound bites and then skewing it to the benefit of one's cause - I would be amazed. Those who listen to these ads should stop listening and research the issues themselves. Both sides are guilty of this, and it really comes down to who can scare the people the most.

  • Old Scarecrow Brigham City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2010 8:39 a.m.

    Thanks for a fine article on a misleading ad, one that could be misunderstood by casual listeners, and might affect a person's vote. When I heard the ad, I noticed the commentator obscured the references to the Utah and U.S. constitutions, and in a few moments of consideration I drew an obvious conclusion: This ad represents the opinion of those who wish to prevent secret ballots in union organizing elections, thus making employees vulnerable to increased pressure from their peers when they vote. The secret ballot is a foundational principle of democracy and freedom, and is one of the "inalienable rights" referred to in the Declaration of Independence. Voting in favor of Amendment A may not be necessary, but it certainly is in harmoney with the principles of the U.S. Constitution and may be wise thing to do.

  • scambuster American Fork, UT
    Oct. 31, 2010 5:56 a.m.

    One thing is for certain: Every two years it seems like there are three or four proposed changes to the Utah Constitution. At this pace, the Utah Constitution won't even look like the original in a few generations. I'm a Republican and I'm disgusted at how the entrenched Republican party is turning our state Constitution into a document that fits Republican political party ideology. Most of these amendments have hidden costs and consequences that can be very negative to the people of Utah and many don't don't benefit the people, but the establishment. That is why I tend to vote "NO" on every proposed change to our state constitution. I recommend that others do the same.