The Initiative 884 campaign is running television ads featuring children chanting about the "education trust fund!"

I-884 is not a trust fund (legislators have the constitutional authority to amend any part of the initiative), but sponsors know voters are more likely to vote for a billion-dollar-a-year tax increase if they think the funds collected can only be spent on education.

Anything to win, eh?

Since the ads are misleading voters, I filed a complaint with three major television stations (KING 5, KIRO 7 and KREM 2) asking them to pull the ads immediately. If you're interested in seeing the one-page complaint, which includes some good quotes from the Attorney General's office, view the extended entry.

KIRO 7 and KING 5 have both declined to pull the ads.

Only a few days left until the Final Poll. Please don't stop talking about this issue!

INITIAL COMPLAINT

October 27, 2004

Dear [Station Manager],

It has come to my attention that [station] is airing ads commissioned by the League of Education Voters to promote Initiative 884. The ads refer to the measure as an “Education Trust Fund.” This is misleading to viewers and I request that your station pull the ad immediately.

Initiative 884 is not a trust fund. Proponents refer to it as such to give voters the impression that the dollars collected through the measure’s 15.4 percent state sales tax increase will be off-limits for any non-education expenditures. This is not the case.

In determining a ballot title for the initiative, our state’s assistant attorneys general concurred that Initiative 884 is not a trust fund:

“We’ve listed the name of the fund in the title in quotes with the word ‘trust,’ but I wonder if we should describe the fund in the summary as a dedicated trust fund or just as a dedicated fund. Although the drafters denominate it a ‘trust fund’ it appears to be purely a statutory dedicated fund.”
– Narda Pierce, Solicitor General, email 5/11/04

“. . . they would like to put the word ‘trust’ back into the first sentence of the ballot measure summary. I originally did that, but I am concerned that this word may be misleading in the sense that it may understate the discretion of the legislature to change the disposition of funds.”
– Jeff Even, Assistant Attorney General, email 5/12/04

“I don’t think we should use the words ‘trust fund’ in a way that would indicate it is our legal description of the fund rather than the name assigned by authors of the initiative. I don’t have any problem capitalizing, whether or not it is capitalized in the measure, since that would further signal to voters this is the name of the fund rather than our legal characterization.”
– Narda Pierce, Solicitor General, email 5/15/04

I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me anytime if you would like further information or documentation.

Regards,

Marsha Richards
Director, Education Reform Center

RESPONSE TO FURTHER INQUIRY FROM KIRO 7

October 28, 2004

Dear [Station Manager],

Thanks for your consideration on the matter of the Initiative 884 ads. In brief response to Ms. Macfarlane’s October 27 letter:

I did mistakenly put the wrong date on the email correspondence I cited, and I apologize! The month in which that exchange took place was March, not May.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation did join a challenge of the I-884 ballot title in March, and we took specific issue with the term “education trust fund.” The suggested replacement was the more accurate description: “education fund.” While the judge agreed to remove potentially misleading quotations around “education trust fund,” she decided to leave in “trust.”

We disagreed with the final ballot title, and have since published numerous fact sheets explaining to citizens that I-884 is not a trust fund. I have found that fact to be a significant concern for many people seeking information on the measure, and that’s why it is a disservice to continue airing ads that give the direct impression that funds collected by the I-884 tax would be off-limits for non-education purposes.

I certainly expect sponsors of I-884 to make every effort to garner support for their measure, but when those efforts are intentionally misleading (as are all of the references to the “trust fund” in the text of the initiative) it becomes a problem. The fact that sponsors were able to convince a court to support this language does not change the facts.

While all citizens should be healthy skeptics, television viewers rely on the accuracy of the information they receive from your station. Many will base important decisions—decisions that will impact individuals in our state for years to come—on that information.

That is why I’m asking you to remove these ads from the air.

Thank you again for your time.

Regards,

Marsha Richards
Director, Education Reform Center