Proposal 6, and why you should vote against it

by: Eric B.

Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 11:35:24 AM EDT

This week, I wrote a column in the local paper about the relationship between the advertising in support of Proposal 6 and how it used to be that broadcasters were held to accuracy standards because it was accepted that they were using a public resource (the airwaves) for private benefit. If a broadcaster took money to air an ad, if the ad was not truthful, people could contact the station and have it pulled ... oftentimes by suggesting that there could be a license challenge the next time it came up. And, how broadcasters were required to provide equivalent time* for opposing viewpoints and how this helped ensure that someone couldn't just lie and lie and lie to the public the way Proposal 6's supporters have and get away with it unscathed.

Since it was published, I've fielded a couple of inquiries from readers. Aside from the e-mail noted below after the asterisk, however, the e-mails have universally asked the same question, "What is Proposal 6, and should I support it?"

First off, you should be aware of what Proposal 6 is at its core. I realize the advertising says that it's about letting the people decide, but it's about protecting a monopoly. Currently, there's a bridge and a tunnel between Detroit and Windsor, and one guy -- Matty Maroun -- owns the bridge. He'd like to keep it that way, because this monopoly has made him fantastically wealthy. 

The obvious question is whether one bridge and one tunnel can handle the volume of traffic expected between Detroit and Windsor. The answer, right now, is probably, but things are expected to pick up and another projected traffic demands suggest that we're going to need another crossing (the only people who seem to think that a second span isn't needed are Maroun's people, but more on this in a second).

Every year for maybe the last half dozen, there's been an attempt to move a second bridge through the Legislature. It's been stifled every time by legislators who were bought off with cash from Maroun. The latest appears to be the Goat Killer, whose name appears on a pro-Prop. 6 Op-Ed a couple of weeks ago.

At the beginning of his tenure, benevolent overlord Rick Michigan hatched a plan by which the Canadians would pay all of the costs for a new bridge and recoup their investment through future tolls (I'm told that the Canadians are fairly adamant about seeing another bridge built, and if Michigan isn't the place that Buffalo will get it). He also got the federal government to recognize this deal as state matching funds for transportation (road repair) grants. Earlier this summer, after a second span was again held up in the Legislature, he just signed a contract with the Canadians on the grounds that because no Michigan dollars are being spent the Legislature doesn't actually need to give its approval.

With the Legislature marginalized, the courts increasingly fed up with him, and a deal signed, we get Proposal 6. Like I said, it's predicated on letting the people decide, but it's really just an attempt to codify in the state constitution a monopoly.

Now, at some point, everyone has the same question ... "What's wrong with a privately owned bridge?" The answer is that there isn't anything wrong with it. If someone has the resources to build one and keep it properly maintained, and can get the necessary political entities on board with his or her plans, there isn't anything wrong with that person building a bridge and collecting toll money. The problem is that Maroun can't do this. He said he'd build a second bridge -- and keep in mind that out of the other side of his mouth he's saying that a second bridge isn't even necessary (that's your private sector at work, investing money they don't think will ever be recouped) -- but the place he wants to build it is entirely unacceptable to the Canadian government. They say that the crossing will create traffic problems where he wants to build it and they'd prefer to see it built downriver, and unfortunately for Maroun it's property he doesn't own. In fact, the Canadian government has essentially told him that he can build his bridge all he wants, but that he just won't be able to finish it on their territory. In a world that made any sense, his second bridge would be what the suits call a, "non starter" because he can't get Canada to sign on.

Probably a lot of people are concerned over the content of ads that say that a second bridge will bankrupt the state and lead to the layoffs of police officers and teachers. They're scare tactics. Unfortunately, they're also false. Every independent analysis of the deal the governor signed has come to the same conclusion, that the state doesn't have to spend any money on it. If the state had to, the governor would have to get it from the Legislature, which isn't going to happen as long as Maroun's money keeps it bought off. In fact, this was the overriding point of the column I wrote, that in the past someone at some point would have said, "Wait a second, why is this Tee Vee station airing ads that are blatantly untrue?" and maybe done something about it. Not so, today, because money is speech and the only one speaking on this issue with any authority is the Maroun family.

Now, towards the end of this article, there's some mention of unintended consequences I hadn't heard. I'm not sure if it's real, or just scare tactics being used by opponents of Proposal 6. It shouldn't make any difference, however, because what the proposal is and what it means are bad enough in their own right that it ought to be rejected without getting into the fact that it's a constitutional amendment (another strike against it) or what unintended consequences it might bring. Vote no. And, by the way, ignore the stuff about Chinese steel being used. It's a red herring. If you have anyone who's confused by the ads and relative silence on the part of the people opposed to it, feel free to share this link.

*--I wrote that the Fairness Doctrine required "equal time," and in the afternoon was contacted by someone who taught electronic media who said it was equivalent time and not equal time, that broadcasters had to give an opposing viewpoint the same basic timeframe for rebuttal and not the exact same amount of time, except buried late at night.