A multitude of Attacks and Defenses
Lots of money is being spent on both the pro and con sides to this issue. Lots of claims about what the proposed amendment will do and could do have been tossed around like a racquetball. Some of the ads include content that has already been examined in this analysis. What can be said is that certain facts and claims from both sides are a bit of a stretch, which is leading into the next section. Many news organizations have gone about and fact-checked these ads. Here is the content of their analysis.. Proposal 2 Advertisements: Fact or Fiction?
Sam Morgan goes through an analysis of several ads that can be found at the following web address: http://www.freep.com/article/20121011/NEWS15/310110239/What-s-true-what-s-not-about-Proposal-2-ads
Here is a itemized synopsis of what he has to say:
• Both sides have stretched the truth in their ads
o Pro Proposal 2 Ads
• Fire Fighters will be able to keep their breathing equipment
• Morgan says this is not being threatened and the idea that they wouldn't have this equipment is "silly"
o Anti-Proposal 2 Ads
• Sexual Predators can roam school hallways
• This is pointed to as just as ridiculous as the firefighter argument
• It will cost taxpayers $1.6 billion
• These costs were reduced over the past two years and would not completely disappear if proposal 2 passes.
• It is fair to assume that some of the cost-savings measures enacted by the state legislature could be litigated aways and negotiated away, reducing these savings and forcing the state to cut from other places or raise taxes.
• There appears to be a middle ground of truth in this.
Stephen Henderson, an editor for the Detroit Free Press, wrote an opinion about the claims about Proposal 2. It is very similar to what was stated above, but he goes further to opine that what the opponents of Proosal 2 are claiming "could" happen is just that: a potential outcome, certainly not one that is guaranteed. He does go on to say that Proposal 2 is not a good idea for the state, and he lists his reasons why. While you can see the full article by clicking the link below, the most important reason Mr. Henderson states that voters should reject Proposal 2 is because, "...it's a policy issue that should be left open to rigorous debate and the possibility of alteration in the political branches of government." He also notes that the power of the state government over public employees is one of their most potent powers to address cost concerns and the potential impact of taking that away by passing Proposal 2 should not be ignored.
An article from MLive.com is an excellent analysis of two anti-Proposal 2 ads that were mentioned in the first section above. These two ads, titled "Student Safety" and "What they are saying about Proposal 2" are both dubbed to be "truthful" by the Truth Squad.
While not getting to far into the details of the original article, the analysis boils down to the actual language used in the ads. Neither on is factually in error or laying claims to things that are not true. Taking direct quotes from certain opinion articles is done by nearly every single proposal committee. As long as these opinions are labeled as opinions, the Truth Squad writes, there is no foul. The safety ad, while fairly outlandish in its claims, does use the words "could" and not "will" which is also factually correct. It is playing off the idea that legal limbo would follow the passage of Proposal 2, according to the article.
If you would like to view the actual ads by the three respective select committees that are supporting and opposing Prop 2, you can do so at their respective websites: