Case Study: No On Proposition 5
The Drug Dealers’ Bill of Rights
Proposition 5, sponsored by George Soros and a small group of wealthy associates, was marketed as the “Non-Violent Offender Rehabilitation Act.” In truth, it was a wholesale overhaul of the entire criminal justice system which, in the opinion of law enforcement leaders, represented a grave threat to public safety.
The Wayne Johnson Agency was engaged to form the “No on 5” campaign in late June, 2008, only days before official ballot statements were due. Starting with a coalition base that included the California Police Chiefs Association, the California District Attorneys Association and the California Narcotics Officers, The Agency immediately rushed into the field with a statewide survey conducted by Dr. Val Smith. Initial support for the innocuous-sounding measure stood at “Yes” 68% and “No” 19%, nearly a 50-point margin of support.
While the initial numbers were bleak, the survey showed that a tightly focused message explaining the impact the measure would have on the release of methamphetamine dealers and other criminals would, if the campaign had the resources to communicate it, actually turn the tide. The nearly unanimous opposition from the law enforcement community was augmented by a strong coalition-building effort by The Agency's Tim Rosales, the day-to-day campaign director. What began as a law enforcement campaign ended as a broad-based coalition including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), actor/activist Martin Sheen, UFW co-founder Dolores Huerta, and La Raza Roundtable de California.
With a huge public opinion mountain to climb and a seemingly larger fundraising disadvantage, lead consultant Wayne Johnson added strategic communications specialist Kevin Spillane to the team, reprising his role in the recently successful “No on Prop 93” campaign. Not only was Kevin tasked with the press, but he filled the fundraising vacuum and quickly partnered with key elected district attorneys like Bonnie Dumanis of San Diego and began an aggressive finance effort. Later fundraising efforts were aided by Aimpoint Inc. Client fundraising expectations were low, based upon a similar effort 8 years prior that raised less than $400,000. The No on 5 campaign, however, managed to raise in excess of $2.7 million in a matter of weeks (still a woefully small budget by California standards), with the overwhelming majority of that going into television advertising.
The Agency's media campaign, crafted by Wayne Johnson, consisted of a single, hard-hitting message, with a closing segment in which Senator Dianne Feinstein heralded MADD’s opposition and called Proposition 5 “the Drug Dealers Bill of Rights.”
While the Yes on 5 campaign utilized their over $7 million raised to have an advantage on television and radio, the “No On 5” campaign remained competitive on television with the Feinstein ad, secured a prominent position on almost all the slate-mailings early on, and enjoyed assistance from radio campaigns produced by the PORAC and the Los Angeles Police Protective League.
The result on election night was a stunning lopsided loss for Propositon 5, which ended the night losing 40.3% to 59.7% - nearly twenty points. This latest victory for “No on Prop 5” capped off a year where The Wayne Johnson Agency counted three major statewide initiative victories and led one of the most dramatic campaign turnarounds in California initiative history.
 |
CASE STUDY Yes on Measure M >> |