The two most prominent advertisements in the campaign for Referenda C & D feature Governor Bill Owens in the first and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper in one of the most recent. The campaign missed what should have been the real opportunity to convince voters to support C & D by having these two leaders -- one the State's best-known Republican and the other the State's best-known Democrat -- do an advertisement together.

The Owens ad makes a mistake by simultaneously arguing Colorado is in a fiscal crisis and then saying the problem with TABOR involves a "glitch." When pressing the case for C & D in the ad, Owens says, "They fix the glitch in TABOR by earmarking the dollars the State already collects for education, roads and health care... without a tax increase."

This line created two problems. First, it unintentionally sounds like dollars already earmarked for education, roads and health care are on the table. This is confusing. Second, in reality, C & D are tax increases. They do not raise tax rates but they intentionally increase the tax dollars available to the State to be spent. Arguing whether or not this is a tax increase is a mistake because it offends voters who believe proponents think voters are stupid or who believe proponents are trying to trick them. Perceived deception is disingenuous, at best, and rarely wins support for a candidate or issue. It might be more effective to say, "Here's the justification for keeping this money" and focus on those arguments while avoiding the tax increase debate altogether.

Just as bad is the claim the problem is a "glitch." A "glitch" is a minor problem which usually can be easily fixed. The problems created by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights have been the focus of the State for the past few years and have dominated headlines. To describe this as a small problem undercuts all the arguments being made regarding the need for C & D. If voters perceive the State's budget "crisis" as a glitch, they likely are not going to be motivated to support any kind of multi-billion dollar tax increase. You can't have it both ways -- and when you try to have it both ways, you again appear disingenuous and voters will abandon you.

Similarly, while the proposal to add approximately $3.1 billion to a likely total of $85 billion in State budgets over a five-year period admittedly is relatively small (less than 4% even may qualify as a "glitch" among policy wonks), any time one talks about "billions of dollars," few taxpayers would consider that a glitch. Surprisingly, the proponents have failed to even note the small percentage of dollars involved. As a result, the opponents have been able to exaggerate the importance of the dollar amounts being sought by C & D.

Outflanked Before The Battle Began?
PART 2 OF 5

Taxes are serious issues, especially when they involve billions of dollars. Opponents of C & D got a head-start on proponents by framing the debate as a tax increase and arguing government doesn't need the money -- and doing so in the Spring of 2005, well before the proponents were well-organized or had thought out their own campaign.

The analogy is that between a speedboat and an aircraft carrier -- the smaller craft has little firepower but can be maneuvered quickly while the behemoth, while dominant in firepower, is unwieldy at times and can take hours rather than seconds simply to change course. By the time C & D proponents were well-organized, they already had been outflanked.

The same outcome appears to have occurred with the advertising being done. Opponents have effectively used inexpensive radio advertisements to cast suspicion on the motives of those sponsoring C & D. Their television advertising deploys the public's natural suspicion of politicians to give the impression elected officials want to steal hard-earned dollars from families and use them for nefarious purposes. This is terribly unfortunate because these kinds of tactics only serve to undermine government and the many hard-working, committed public officials who serve the general public.

Unfortunately, opponents -- who have many solid and reasonable arguments against C & D -- have elected to use misinformation, distortion, and personal attacks to defeat C & D. This is indicative of the philosophy "All's fair in love, war, and politics." The use of despicable tactics for short-term gain is de rigueur now in the political world, despite the fact it undermines the very institutions which constitute our democracy. Voters should penalize those who use such tactics but, sadly, this rarely seems to happen -- resulting in tacticians being emboldened to take even more destructive paths against the Republic. The advertising in the campaign against C & D epitomizes much of what is wrong with politics today.

Did Proponents Miss The Boat By Using An Airplane?
PART 3 OF 5

While the opponents of C & D have played on the fears and suspicions of voters, the proponents of C & D have not been impressive in their response to date. One of the most recent efforts to bolster C & D was a television advertisement featuring Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper jumping out of a small aircraft. The C & D campaign had hopes of using Hickenlooper's high profile and astounding popularity to win support for C & D but the ad was so bizarre it may not have accomplished as much as proponents had hoped.

In the Hickenlooper ad, the parachute-outfitted Mayor goes to jump out of a small airplane but is not followed by the camera when he actually goes out the door. Instead, the footage jumps to when he or someone else already has left the plane -- making it look like he didn't jump at that time. While the ad does show him heading down in a real jump as he recites his argument for C & D, the rest of it -- including the spiral plunge downward, the chute release and the landing -- is, at times, footage of someone else or him with someone else who has been deleted from the picture. While the Mayor and the C & D campaign fully disclosed he was diving in tandem with an instructor and that digital editing was used to make it appear Hickenlooper was alone at all times, the vast majority of viewers are left with the misimpression that all of the footage shown is the Mayor when that is not true.

Worse than the distraction of trying to see what is real and what is not, the ad is so engrossing and different that many viewers aren't likely to even hear what the Mayor is saying. Instead they are being entertained by his jump. After all, what other major city in America has a mayor like John Hickenlooper?

This ad tries to build on the Mayor's original series of extraordinarily successful, humorous campaign advertisements and the subsequent ads he did for various bond projects he has supported. Many of the advertisements were funny, most of them were quirky, and all of them were different from typical campaign ads. The problem is that voters expect John Hickenlooper to endorse Referenda C & D and expect any advertising he does to be different and creative. They would pay more attention and would be shocked if he didn't appear in such ads. The bottomline is there is very little new information in the advertisement itself which is likely to sway voters.

So Hickenlooper's jumping out of airplane was just plain silly. Although one has to be impressed with the Mayor's extraordinary expression of commitment (if the jump failed, Denver would have had a new Mayor), the ad still comes off as too much of a stunt. The dominant theme appears to be Hickenlooper trying to top Hickenlooper. Any convincing explanation to vote for Referendum C goes out the plane at the same time the Mayor does.

Where Are The Obvious Advertisements?
PART 4 OF 5

Taxes are serious issues, especially when they involve billions of dollars or rebates taxpayers otherwise believe they would receive. From the beginning of their campaign, proponents overly relied on surveys and experts to conclude voters were disinterested in the mass of available facts or the complex arguments associated with the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. As a result, proponents have overlooked the fact most rebate dollars are long gone -- directed away from the majority of individual taxpayers -- no matter what happens to C & D.

Would an effort to educate voters about these issues have created more support for C & D or perhaps even greater disinterest? Was a backlash possible when voters learned most of their rebate dollars already were going to special interests? What about the fact the Referenda are supported by an historic combination of Democrats and Republicans? Has that been showcased enough? Here is a list of the top seven ads we should have seen in the pro-C & D campaign.

#7 -- COLORADO'S LIVING GOVERNORS. Dick Lamm, Bill Owens, Roy Romer, and John Vanderhoof -- the two Republicans and two Democrats who have held sway over Colorado for almost a third of a century -- represent a powerful political coalition. If these guys can't convince voters, no one else can.

#6 -- THE MAYORS. Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer, Lakewood Mayor Stephen Burkholder, Grand Junction Mayor Bruce Hill, and a few others -- notably Republicans -- can make a compelling case for how the passage or failure of C & D impacts their individual communities. These people are in touch with citizens more than any other group of elected officials and, for the most part, are well-respected. The number and variety of mayors supporting C & D is impressive by any measure.

#5 -- KIDS' EDUCATION. Supporting Kindergarten through 12th Grade education is something voters have done in the past, especially with Amendment 23. Voters are solidly united regarding the need to improve Colorado schools. Specifying the immediate needs of K-12 education in Colorado is the only way to take advantage of Coloradans' natural predisposition to help schools. The challenge today is that voters previously approved Amendment 23 and many believe they have done their part for K-12 education. Furthermore, most are faced with local school district bond issues so a separate appeal has to be differentiated.

The Top 4 Missing Advertisements
PART 5 OF 5

As the battle for and against Referenda C & D continue, one of the most interesting issues involves the advertisements we haven't seen from the well-funded pro-C & D campaign. Concluding the list of the advertisements we haven't seen from the proponents of Referenda C & D, here are the Top 4.

#4 -- ROADS. This one would be easy. The maintenance backlog and other road transportation needs in the State have been estimated at as much as $70 billion. A blindingly fast-paced "tour" of 20 to 30 Colorado locations -- all conveniently focused in "swing voter" or turnout target areas -- could be convincing as it shows what is needed and why. Having a couple of engineers briefly explain road and especially bridge needs would add serious credibility to the request to support C. Arguing that improved roads mean safer, faster, and more fuel-efficient travel -- all of which appeals to every voter with a car -- should be a sure winner.

#3 -- HIGHER EDUCATION. The university and college presidents of Colorado's premier four-year institutions and community colleges make an impressive front. The Hank Brown ad was the best the proponents did but they could have been even more effective with an advertisement which spanned the State and featured the education leaders with whom everyone is familiar in their locales. Again, geographic, economic, gender, and racial diversity all are showcased when one looks at the list of presidents. And these people know better than anyone else how hard their institutions and the families who depend on them have been hit. In an Economic Development context, this is a convincing argument. It also gets out the "base" of the pro-C & D electorate.

#2 -- PUBLIC SAFETY. Police officers and firefighters talking about how proud they are to serve all Coloradans and how they hope voters support C & D, especially given how funds are specifically directed to help them should be very effective. Since 9-11, the public has been paying more attention to these public servants and will respond to requests for reciprocation from the men and women who risk their lives to protect us.

#1 -- SWITCHERS. Voters who support TABOR and who had originally cast their ballots for TABOR in 1992, who now were voting for C & D, would appeal to the specific group needed to win the election. Nothing is more powerful than the endorsement of an array of TABOR supporters. TABOR still claims a majority of the Colorado electorate and the TABOR supporters of C & D legitimize conservative support for C & D -- exactly what is needed to win today. So where are the advertisements where gaggles of prominent Republicans reveal they voted for TABOR but now are voting for Referenda C & D?

**********************************************

Aaron Harber hosts "The Aaron Harber Show," seen Fridays at 9:00 pm and Sundays at 2:00 pm on PBS Station KBDI-TV Channel 12. Please go to www.HarberTV.com for more information. Send your comments and topic suggestions for both columns and TV shows to Aaron@HarberTV.com. You also may view programs on a 24/7 basis via the "Broadcast Videos" section of the Website. Many of Aaron's columns also are available on the Website on the page entitled "Aaron's Opinions." You often can find them in The Colorado Statesman (www.ColoradoStatesman.com) as well as in The Denver Daily News (www.DenverDailyNews.com).