In the final weeks leading up to the Nov. 6 elections, the campaigns for and against Measure G—the local initiative to ban fracking and new oil and gas wells in San Luis Obispo County—are throwing around their full financial weight to sway voters’ minds.
But one campaign is 32 times heavier than the other.
The No on Measure G campaign, backed by four major oil and gas companies, has received $7.9 million in total contributions as of Oct. 20, raising $3.1 million of that between Sept. 23 and Oct. 20. In contrast, the Yes on Measure G campaign has attracted $242,544 in total donations, with nearly half of those being non-monetary contributions.
Local residents should expect more mailers and advertisements to hit their mailboxes and digital screens all the way up to Election Day. While No on G has already spent $6.2 million, the campaign still has $2.2 million in cash on hand. That’s compared to $42,134 for the Yes on G group.
“We knew it was going to be millions,” Yes on G campaign co-chair Charles Varni said of his opposition’s fundraising. “We didn’t know it was going to be $8 million. It’s been an interesting experience … unprecedented historically.”
The heavily funded Measure G opposition is propped up by Chevron Corporation ($4 million), California Resources Corporation ($900,000), Aera Energy ($900,000), and Sentinel Peak Resources ($2 million), owner and operator of the Arroyo Grande oil field.
“[Representing] more than 90 percent of SLO County’s production, we stand keenly interested in the outcome of Measure G,” Christine Halley, Sentinel Peak Resources’ director of environmental health and safety, said in a statement to New Times. “Our employees and contractors that work in support of your energy production join in this interest.”
While both campaigns work to get their messages out to the public, Yes on G backers have been critical of No on G’s rhetoric and tactics. Members of the campaign have accused the opposing campaign of spending some of the millions of dollars they’ve acquired to trick progressive and Democratic Party voters into voting against the measure.
In late October, Yes on G supporters began circulating photos of slate mailers aimed at progressive and Democratic voters, but urging them to vote “no” on Measure G. Locally, both the SLO County Democratic Party and the SLO Progressives have endorsed the measure.
“I have gotten a lot of calls from people,” Varni said. “They’re outraged at it.”
Those mailers include one from a group called “Feel the Bern,” a term coined by supporters of 2016 Democratic socialist presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont). That mailer suggests recipients vote for Democratic Party candidates like Gavin Newsom and Xavier Becerra, and yes on Proposition 10, a statewide measure that would allow cities to enact rent control, but also includes a suggestion to vote no on Measure G. Another mailer touting itself as a “Democratic Voter Guide” included something similar, showcasing SLO Mayor Heidi Harmon, who supports Measure G, while also promoting a position against Measure G.
According to campaign finance filings, the two mailer companies received roughly $6,000 from Winner & Mandabach Campaigns LLC, a consulting company working with the No on G campaign. The records also showed that the SLO Progressives paid $1,270 to put Harmon on the mailer for one of those companies.
Matt Cunningham, spokesman for the No on G campaign, pointed out that Harmon’s name appears on a “Republican Voter Guide” mailer. Harmon told New Times she was unaware her name was on the mailer.
“Is the Yes on G campaign calling her deceptive?” Cunningham said. “This is a nonpartisan election and we’re informing all voters, regardless of party affiliation, about how Measure G will shut down existing oil and gas production in SLO County.”
While the mailers have been called deceptive, Varni acknowledged that they’re not illegal. Both include a disclaimer noting that the guides were not prepared by an official party, and use asterisks to show that the No on G and Harmon suggestions were paid for by a campaign.
“I think for me, the mailers may be the clearest symbol in this campaign of the lengths at which Big Oil will go to achieve their goal,” Vanri said. “Their willingness … to trick people into voting no on G is just indicative of a real lack of moral and ethical grounding that I think for a whole lot of people in the county was kind of a final straw.” Δ
This article appears in San Luis Obispo County’s News and Entertainment Weekly.
VOTE – YESonMeasureG.org – Protect our Water – Ban a future of Fracking
Big Oil lies are intended to deceive you
The TRUTH is Yes on Measure G allows existing oil operations to continue for as long as the operators want.
The TRUTH is YES on Measure G allows all routine well maintenance as defined by State rules and regulations, including use of acids for maintenance only.
The TRUTH is YES on Measure G bans new oil drilling and future fracking in SLO County.
The TRUTH is YES on Measure G takes a huge step toward protecting our groundwater resources.
The TRUTH is our county water basins are in overdraft and the central coast drought continues. We need our water for more important needs than new oil wells.
The TRUTH is BIG OIL has plans to expand in SLO county by 481 new oil and waste injection wells. Oil operations remove 500,000,000 gallons of water from SLO county aquifers every year do we want that to grow?
The TRUTH is 120,000 gallons of toxic waste-water is injected into our drinking water aquifers every day in SLO county do we want that to grow?
The TRUTH is YES on Measure G helps by reducing a planned increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with expanded oil drilling. SLO county oil fields extracts one of the most carbon intensive oils on Earth. Every year 100,000 metric tons of CO2 is generated by Big Oil extraction in our county do we want that to grow?
The TRUTH is Big Oil wants to greatly expand the number of wells in our county and allow for a future of fracking. More water wasted and more risk of water contamination is what we face if YES on Measure G is not successful.
If the No on G campaign had the Truth on its side it wouldn’t need to mislead voter and use dirty tricks…..Last week I received a mailer from”Coalition for Seniors Citizens Security” on the same day that my daughter received a voter guide from “the Council of of Concerned Women Voter Legislative Guide and ” Feel the Bern, Progressive voter Guide” All advocated a Democratic candidate slate, but with No on measure G. All these organizations used the same address in Long Beach California. This unethical practice of stealing votes through deception should be made illegal. There are laws that try to protect people from scams when it comes to stealing money….stealing votes is equally reprehensible in a democracy.
Mr. Rodger, I agree with you. There should be laws against it, just like there are laws the protect citizens from the government stealing their mineral rights.
Measure G is stealing mineral rights by not allowing expansion. The 5th Amendment of the Constitution protects against taking (or not allowing access to) mineral rights without compensation.
I’m voting NO on G for many reasons, one of which is the fact that I don’t want tax dollars wasted on a measure that will not hold up in court.
“Voice of Reason” has no realistic reason to give a voice. He would flunk any course in logic or reason. He is just another angry white man who worships Mammon.
Interesting comment Murph. Would you like to provide some counters to my logic and reasoning, or just throw out some insults?
“When cruel accusations fly, we all need to hear the voice of reason that says, ‘Look in the mirror…'” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/he…
The first paragraph is quite enlightening. “Maybe you know the saying, ‘When you point one finger, there are three fingers pointing back to you.'”
Name calling isn’t going to change the facts. I’m STILL voting NO on G.
Mr Reason…. Can I call you Voice? Dear Voice, does a having a fishing license gives you the right to fish with dynamite because you would catch fish faster? I’m sure its been done, but less greedy, smarter minds made it illegal. Because of the relatively new technology of fracking and enhanced extraction, we the people of San Luis Obispo County are saying no you do not have the right to explode (fracture rock) in order to extract oil faster. I would hope reason would prevail…….vote yes on G, and be part of a more responsible future.
Mr. Rodger, your analogy would be appropriate if it was only fracking at risk, but measure G bans fracking AND new oil wells. Using your analogy, it intends to ban dynamite AND the fishing pole. I’ve stated it on other posts and I have no problem saying it here: if it were fracking only, I wouldn’t be the opposition. Do you disagree with my assessment?
Mr Reason, fishermen have overfished and have caused the collapse of fisheries in the past. Where are the abalone fishermen that helped build Morro Bay? Where are the Pismo Clams today?….. We now have marine sanctuaries in place that help sustain both fish and fishermen. Nobody took away their fishing poles, but fishermen are not allowed to fish in these sanctuaries. Measure G says that you can continue pumping oil from your existing wells until your field runs dry. You just can’t use acid injection and other enhance techniques and you cannot expand. You know that to be true…..Oil production uses large amounts of water and pollutes. We want our water to be unpolluted and used good of the people of the county, and for endeavors really do support our economy such as agriculture and tourism.
Mr. Rodger, that seems to be taking the fishing analogy a little too far. You are talking about fish, I’m talking about oil production. Oil production is not some habitat we are trying to preserve.
The field being produced will not continue to produce under measure G. I’m not a lawyer, and even I could use Measure G to ensure the field is shut down, so imagine how environmental activists will utilize it. Additionally, the fluid characteristics of the Arroyo Grande field makes it impossible to deplete without new wells. So saying they can continue to pump it dry is impossible due to the laws of physics, specifically the principles of heat transfer and fluid flow through porous media.
Oil production consists of the recycling of water that comes from AND RETURNS TO the oil producing formation. It’s a circular process. So to say something will be contaminated by water that came from that zone in the first place doesn’t exactly make sense. The formation at the Arroyo Grande Oil Field goes from the surface to about 1,500′. I learned all of this at the EPA workshop, where it was crystal clear that the field was self contained and did not pose a thread to drinking water or agricultural use water. The water that comes out with the oil is NOT economically viable as a source of drinking water. It would cost hundreds of times more for that water than what we currently pay for water. Additionally, all of the drinking water wells even remotely close to the field were tested. Not a single one had any contamination.
Operating under the false pretense that current oil production will contaminate water is just a fear tactic being used. It’s unfortunate that this complex issue has been reduced to a speculative fallacy by the yes on G campaign.
Having done a significant amount of research on the issue, the only conclusion is to vote NO on G.