Tax Dollars Paying for Political Ads

Lane County is at it again, first using tax dollars for half-page newspaper ads promoting the benefits of the income tax measure on the ballot, and now it is airing radio ads. The ads are touted as educational but because they only give one side of the story they are promotional — and at taxpayer expense. The ad never mentions who will pay the tax, or how much, just the benefits of voting for the measure. This is a diservice to Lane County voters, they deserve better.

JIM TORREY radio ad:

“Should there be an income tax in lane county dedicated to public safety purposes? Voters will answer that question through the may ballot. Without a new source of revenue Lane County present level of services are at risk of being reduced. The income tax would help stabilize public safety services including:

– Residential drug treatment services for boys
– Prosecution of 600 felony drug possessions crimes
– Mental and alcohol drug use treatment for about 200 offenders
– Removal of meth labs on federal lands

If congress restores federal payment to counties, the rate of income tax would be reduced, services would be funded at existing levels.

Information about the measure are available at the county website, and inserts in local newspapers the weeks of April 30th and may 7th. Remember to mail your ballot or drop them off in the white containers no later than may 15th.

This is public service information brought to you by Lane County“

  • Jerry

    What did you expect from these losers?


    Typical liberal elitist actions…………..wasting our money on their causes. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic!

  • Captain_Anon

    Are the ads truthful? that those are the services at risk? because if so, then it is accurate and isn’t a political ad. it’s telling the impacts of the tax and what it’s for. the tax affects individuals differently so i don’t see a need to put the specifics of it. people are reasonable, they know an increase in taxes means an increase they pay. Their website gives all the tax rates, projected revenue etc. they aren’t hiding it. What would You have them say, Jason? that is ‘unbiased’ from your perspective? keep in mind that to you and your organization, ANY tax is bad, no matter what. so i’m not sure you have a realisitic view on any tax and any information put out by a government agency. has there been any information ads you’ve thought were well done before? the issue is going to the voters, which i would think you support. and the county is telling people what it is, and when it is, and what it will affect. that’s giving information, not politicizing the issues. I honestly am interested in what you think the ad should contain so that it is ‘neutral’ and gives the necessary information to the voters. I guess the last question i have is why, if you think these ads are wrong and unlawful, why isn’t the Tax Payers Association suing them to put an end to illegal ads?

  • Jason Williams

    ANON: “What would You have them say, Jason?”
    — I already addressed what they should say in the article. They should say who is going to pay the tax and how much. Is it that hard for government to at least mention how much the tax will cost or how much it will raise? Doesn’t the public deserve to know the difference between a tax that raises $300,000 versus one that raises $30 million? It is a disservice to taxpayers to list 100% of the benefits and not have a basic reference point to understand it. On who will pay is important because whether private & public retirees will be under the tax has been the most common question throughout this election and even the previous election when it was up last. It would have been a great service to the voters if the County addressed briefly this pervasive question.

    ANON: “the issue is going to the voters, which I would think you support.”
    — It would not have been on the ballot save for the brave citizens of Lane County launching a referendum that forced the county’s hand.

    Mr. Anon you may enthusiastically support the tax. That is fine. But you should be concerned about tax dollars are used in politics. Just as President Bush was wrong to use tax dollars to pay a talk radio host to plug No Child Left Behind, it is wrong to spend tax dollars on information that is not accurately represented or not balanced.

  • R Huse

    Well, I do have to say the ad is somewhat informative. I went to some of the hearings on the tax and I guess I missed the whole meth lab clean up bit.

    Why, exactly, should we pay to clean up meth labs on federal land?

    If the federal government is not going to let us cut on the land, then please, let’s not maintain it for them as well.

    It would seem to me that the environmental lawyers that virtually stopped logging and got us into this mess in the first place would now have plenty of spare time to sue the Feds to clean it up on their dime.