Bicker, Castillo & Fairbanks : Case Studies : The Campaign to Defeat Proposition 90

No on 90 Prop. 90 on California’s November 2006 ballot was part of a national movement by well-heeled libertarian groups who were using the public’s anger over eminent domain and the US Supreme Court’s “Kelo” decision to advance a very sweeping property rights agenda. Proponents attempted to leverage the public’s outrage over eminent domain abuses in order to pass far-reaching, unrelated provisions that would have severely restricted state and local governments’ ability to regulate land use and certain business practices. The impact of these regulatory takings provisions would have dramatically limited basic regulations that protect the environment, home values and the quality of life of every Californian, as well as increased costs for taxpayers substantially.

BCF was retained to provide general campaign strategy and direction, as well as to manage the coalitions/grassroots, and earned media elements of the campaign.

Early polling showed that a plurality of voters initially backed the measure. The central arguments in favor of the eminent domain provisions were simple, easily delivered and persuasive (“save our homes”), whereas the arguments against tended to be more complicated and less emotional. But, while voters clearly supported some level of reform of eminent domain laws, we knew that if they could be educated about the far-reaching impacts of the other provisions, they could be persuaded to oppose.

It became clear early on that defeating Proposition 90 would require a well-funded, disciplined, and aggressive campaign. We needed to be first to frame the issue in the voters’ minds so that voters saw beyond the compelling “Protect our Homes” rhetoric of proponents and understood on some level that Prop. 90 was extreme; that it would actually take away protections from property owners; that it would cost taxpayers billions; and that a unique coalition of respected organizations all opposed 90.

BCF Helps Build One of the Most Diverse Coalitions Ever to Defeat a CA Ballot Measure
A critical component to our credibility was the strength of our third-party endorsements.

Prop. 90’s effects were so far-reaching that it was hard to find a group that wouldn’t be negatively impacted by the measure. However, building the coalition took extensive effort. Like voters, we had to convince many third parties to look beyond the appealing eminent domain provisions and see Prop. 90 for what it actually was.

Ultimately, as a result of a comprehensive ally-development campaign orchestrated by BCF, the No on 90 coalition ended up being one of the biggest and most diverse coalitions ever assembled to defeat a ballot measure. Groups that don’t normally agree were united against Prop. 90 including the California Taxpayers’ Association and the League of Women Voters of California; the Sierra Club and the California Building Industry Association; the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Labor Federation; US Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to name just a few. In total, more than 400 diverse organizations opposed Proposition 90, a fact that became a key message throughout the course of the campaign and was routinely noted in press articles and editorials.

These organizations also became an invaluable tool in helping to educate voters through traditional grassroots efforts like speakers’ bureaus and precinct walking, as well as internet-based campaigning like viral emails and web-based newsletters. We estimate that members of the No on 90 coalition communicated with more than 3 million California voters through traditional and new media grassroots efforts.

Like all other elements of the campaign, central to our earned media strategy was ensuring that reporters saw beyond the simple eminent domain provisions in Prop. 90 and focused on the more costly and damaging “takings provisions”. In order to do that, we had to work exhaustively to provide the necessary background to print, radio, online and TV journalists to get them focused on the takings provisions, as well as always ensure we had the most credible spokesperson talking “on record.”

In all, under BCF’s direction, the campaign’s earned media strategy proved successful.

An analysis of earned media coverage demonstrates that, over time, reporters did evolve their coverage to strongly emphasize the takings provisions, even if they continued to discuss the eminent domain provisions.
Eighty-two (82) daily newspaper editorials urged their readers to vote No on 90, reciting themes consistent with our campaign messaging.
We placed dozens of opeds and letters to the editor in major newspapers from our most credible spokespersons.
For television and radio coverage, we were able to combat the proponents’ strong “eminent domain” messages by utilizing highly-credible third-party surrogates like the League of Homeowners, League of Women Voters, and conservation leaders, and shifted the focus of coverage away from eminent domain as much as possible.

Through a very disciplined and aggressive effort, the No on 90 campaign successfully educated voters about the problems with Prop. 90. On November 7, 2006, voters rejected the measure (52.4% opposed with 47.6% in support).



	Prop. 90 on California’s November 2006 ballot was part of a national movement by well-heeled libertarian groups who were using the public’s anger over eminent domain and the US Supreme Court’s “Kelo” decision to advance a very sweeping property rights agenda. Proponents attempted to leverage the public’s outrage over eminent domain abuses in order to pass far-reaching, unrelated provisions that would have severely restricted state and local governments’ ability to regulate land use and certain business practices. The impact of these regulatory takings provisions would have dramatically limited basic regulations that protect the environment, home values and the quality of life of every Californian, as well as increased costs for taxpayers substantially. BCF was retained to provide general campaign strategy and direction, as well as to manage the coalitions/grassroots, and earned media elements of the campaign. Early polling showed that a plurality of voters initially backed the measure. The central arguments in favor of the eminent domain provisions were simple, easily delivered and persuasive (“save our homes”), whereas the arguments against tended to be more complicated and less emotional. But, while voters clearly supported some level of reform of eminent domain laws, we knew that if they could be educated about the far-reaching impacts of the other provisions, they could be persuaded to oppose. It became clear early on that defeating Proposition 90 would require a well-funded, disciplined, and aggressive campaign. We needed to be first to frame the issue in the voters’ minds so that voters saw beyond the compelling “Protect our Homes” rhetoric of proponents and understood on some level that Prop. 90 was extreme; that it would actually take away protections from property owners; that it would cost taxpayers billions; and that a unique coalition of respected organizations all opposed 90. BCF Helps Build One of the Most Diverse Coalitions Ever to Defeat a CA Ballot Measure A critical component to our credibility was the strength of our third-party endorsements. Prop. 90’s effects were so far-reaching that it was hard to find a group that wouldn’t be negatively impacted by the measure. However, building the coalition took extensive effort. Like voters, we had to convince many third parties to look beyond the appealing eminent domain provisions and see Prop. 90 for what it actually was. Ultimately, as a result of a comprehensive ally-development campaign orchestrated by BCF, the No on 90 coalition ended up being one of the biggest and most diverse coalitions ever assembled to defeat a ballot measure. Groups that don’t normally agree were united against Prop. 90 including the California Taxpayers’ Association and the League of Women Voters of California; the Sierra Club and the California Building Industry Association; the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Labor Federation; US Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to name just a few. In total, more than 400 diverse organizations opposed Proposition 90, a fact that became a key message throughout the course of the campaign and was routinely noted in press articles and editorials. These organizations also became an invaluable tool in helping to educate voters through traditional grassroots efforts like speakers’ bureaus and precinct walking, as well as internet-based campaigning like viral emails and web-based newsletters. We estimate that members of the No on 90 coalition communicated with more than 3 million California voters through traditional and new media grassroots efforts. Like all other elements of the campaign, central to our earned media strategy was ensuring that reporters saw beyond the simple eminent domain provisions in Prop. 90 and focused on the more costly and damaging “takings provisions”. In order to do that, we had to work exhaustively to provide the necessary background to print, radio, online and TV journalists to get them focused on the takings provisions, as well as always ensure we had the most credible spokesperson talking “on record.” In all, under BCF’s direction, the campaign’s earned media strategy proved successful. An analysis of earned media coverage demonstrates that, over time, reporters did evolve their coverage to strongly emphasize the takings provisions, even if they continued to discuss the eminent domain provisions. Eighty-two (82) daily newspaper editorials urged their readers to vote No on 90, reciting themes consistent with our campaign messaging. We placed dozens of opeds and letters to the editor in major newspapers from our most credible spokespersons. For television and radio coverage, we were able to combat the proponents’ strong “eminent domain” messages by utilizing highly-credible third-party surrogates like the League of Homeowners, League of Women Voters, and conservation leaders, and shifted the focus of coverage away from eminent domain as much as possible. Through a very disciplined and aggressive effort, the No on 90 campaign successfully educated voters about the problems with Prop. 90. On November 7, 2006, voters rejected the measure (52.4% opposed with 47.6% in support).