Prop 33 Hurts Consumers - 40 Newspaper Editorials Say Vote NO

News provided by

Nov 04, 2012, 08:08 ET

SACRAMENTO, Nov. 4, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Forty newspaper editorial boards oppose Proposition 33, an auto insurance rate hike proposal funded by billionaire George Joseph, owner of Mercury Insurance.

Editorial pages decry Prop 33 as an abuse of the ballot by a billionaire to benefit his company at the expense of millions of consumers. They warn that Proposition 33's premium rate increases would make insurance less affordable, resulting in more uninsured motorists on our roads.

George Joseph has spent $17 million on Prop 33. Two years ago, voters rejected a nearly identical Mercury Insurance-funded measure. Editorial pages urge readers to send a loud message that "no" means "no" by defeating Prop 33 in a landslide. A sample of No on Prop 33 editorials:

Sacramento Bee: "Prop 33 is an old jalopy with a new coat of paint."

San Diego Union Tribune: "No on Prop 33 – it's just not fair."

Los Angeles Times: "Raising the cost of coverage for those without insurance doesn't help anyone on California's roads. Voters should reject Proposition 33."

San Jose Mercury News: "California voters should vote no on Proposition 33 on Nov. 6 in such large numbers that Joseph never tries to dupe Golden State residents again."

San Francisco Chronicle: "California's compelling public-policy interest is to make sure that drivers are insured. Keeping rates affordable advances that goal. Vote no on 33."

Bakersfield Californian: "State's drivers don't need Prop 33."

Stockton Record: "Don't let Prop 33 fool you."

Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "No on 33. This retread is no bargain."

Riverside Press Enterprise: "a retread of a special-interest measure voters rejected two years ago. The new version deserves the same fate; voters should just say no to Prop. 33."

Santa Cruz Sentinel: "No on warmed over Prop 33."

San Bernardino Sun: "Mercury's billionaire boss George Joseph is back…It's a retread of the 2010 ballot proposition, and it deserves rejection too."

Ventura Star: "Proposition 33 would have a significant, damaging consequence… It's a threat to everyone on the road, including conscientious drivers…"

La Opinion (Los Angeles): "The owner of Mercury Insurance, George Joseph, continues to stubbornly try to change the law… This is an abuse of the system of initiatives, which was designed to put the brakes on corporate interests."

Fresno Bee: "Do not let George Joseph hijack that process to advance narrow economic agendas. Voters said no to Mercury in 2010, and should say no again on Prop. 33."

Los Angeles Daily News: "One company returns with same self-serving insurance measure voters already rejected in 2010.... Voters should say no to Proposition 33. And this time Mercury Insurance should get the message."

Santa Maria Times: "Prop 33 is mostly the self-interested brainchild of the billionaire founder of a car insurance company…If the auto insurance industry wants to guarantee that more and more drivers simply choose to drive without insurance protection, thus endangering other citizens, this is one sure way to do it…"

Read these editorials and more at http://noonprop33.consumercal.org/who-is-talking-about-33

As election day approaches, Prop 33 is struggling in opinion polls. A broad coalition of senior citizen, consumer, labor, civil rights, environmental and women's organizations, and college student leaders call for the defeat of Prop. 33.

Learn more about who is opposing Prop 33: http://noonprop33.consumercal.org/ and http://stopprop33.consumerwatchdogcampaign.org/

SOURCE Consumer Federation of California