CA AB 1122 will be heard in the House Appropriations
Committee on Wednesday, May 6, at 9:00 am in State
Capitol Room 4202. This bill, introduced by Assembly
Lieu, has been amended and now would make it a crime "to
willfully sell, display or offer for sale, or give away
as a part of a commercial transaction, a live animal on
any street, highway, public right-of-way, commercial
parking lot, or at any outdoor special sale, swap meet,
flea market, parking lot sale, carnival, or boardwallk."
The bill does not clearly define a swap meet or flea
market, and we are told that California state officials
already consider that ANY temporary sales event falls
under the definition of "swap meets." Temporary sales
events include all dog, cat, bird, and reptile shows.
The poorly defined terms in this bill could allow for
the interpretation of any animal show to be considered a
"swap meet" which would mean that sales of animals would
be ILLEGAL at all bird, cat, dog, fish, and reptile
shows held in California.
Most animal shows are hosted by organizations which
promote the specific types of animals shown and raise
funds to promote the goals of the organization. For many
small organizations, these annual shows are their main
means of raising funds to provide for their programs.
Preventing individuals from selling animals at these
events would have a very negative impact on the overall
success of the shows and the organizations.
Please communicate your thoughts to the members of the
Appropriations committee by sending a message.
Please go to www.capwiz.com/naiatrust/ and click on CA
to send a message.
Take Action Now!
Here is the phone number for the Appropriations
Committee: 916-319-2045
If you can attend the hearing, please do.
Room 4202 State Capitol Building.
H.R. 669 Nonnative
Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act.
Bans most nonnative species kept as pets!
HR 669 bans import, export, transport, breeding, sale or
barter of ALL nonnative species unless they are placed
on an Approved List established by the USFWS after
extensive study. This law would affect most pet owners
of non native species.
Most pet birds, ornamental aquarium fish, reptiles and
small pet mammals are nonnative species and would be
ILLEGAL under this act, unless placed on the Approved
List!
Any company manufacturing or selling product for these
pet species would be affected by this act. This means
hundreds of thousands of pet birds and animals, reptiles
and fish would be affected
Thousands of small businesses involved in any aspect of
the pet industry, from breeding, selling and
transporting animals to manufacturing and selling
products for animals, such as foods, toys, and
equipment.
HR 669 was introduced by Del
Madeleine Bordallo of Guam, the Chair of the
Subcommittee of Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of
the House Natural Resources Committee with the purpose
of preventing the import of nonnative species which
might be harmful to humans and to the environment or a
nuisance to agriculture or horticulture.
Most of the nonnative invasive species introduced into
the U.S mainland or islands were inadvertently
introduced through ballast water in ships or as
stowaways in cargo shipments (which is how the Brown
Tree Snake entered Guam). Most nonnative species that
are causing problems in the US mainland were NOT
imported animals; domestic cats gone feral are likely
the most common exception.
At the present time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
under the Lacey Act is required to demonstrate that a
nonnative species is injurious or harmful to humans or
the environment before it can be prohibited.
HR 669 would require that nonnative species are
prohibited until the USFWS proves that the nonnative
species is not a threat. Such a process would be
extensive, costly, take a lot of time. It would waste
taxpayer money since it would apply to many thousands of
nonnative species which have historically existed as
pets in the US and have not been demonstrated to be a
threat to humans or the economy or the environment.
HR 669 requires the USFWS to do a risk assessment on
each species and then place it on an Approved or
Unapproved list. Since the timeline, staff and financial
resources for doing this is in short supply, the USFWS
will be unable to accomplish the task for most nonnative
species already in homes. All species that did not
appear on the Approved list would be banned: import,
export, transport, barter and breeding would not be
allowed. There are no exceptions for pet owners!
Most of the nonnative species kept as pets in the US
have never posed a problem to humans or the environment.
Yet all these species would have to be evaluated and
approved or they would be ILLEGAL to possess, breed,
import, export, transport, and barter or sell!
While it is important to protect our environment and
analyze whether or not a specific species poses a risk,
this bill as presently written does not provide a
realistic and achievable solution to the problem.
Enhancing and enforcing present regulations under the
Lacey Act would be more cost effective and save time and
taxpayer dollars while protecting our environment and
economy.
PLEASE CONTACT THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES and voice your opinion using the capwiz
below where you can send your opinion and include
talking points provided if you wish.
Also use faxes, emails and phone calls to YOUR
Congressperson, and where possible, visit their local
office. Legislators are in recess until April 14 and
many are available to constituent visits. Personal face
to face contact is very effective.
Be sure to tell your friends and family and urge them to
also send messages to their legislators about this bill
and to use the capwiz.
HR 669 will be heard on April 23 by this
subcommittee... Subcommittee on Insular Affairs,
Oceans and Wildlife with 21 members...as noted
below. Please E-mail, FAX and CALL these 21 members
to urge them to vote No on HR 669.
Sneaking
the “Big Lie” through the Back Door: How Special
Interest Groups are Hijacking Local Legislation
Margaret Anne CleekCalifornia State
University, SacramentoRichard GuarinoCalifornia State
University, SacramentoMichael YourilCalifornia State
University, Sacramento
ABSTRACT
An open
process for drafting legislation would assure that from
the onset all camps are heard from and all data
considered.” Sunshine” or open meeting laws are in place
to assure this. Instead of this happening, proponents of
special-interest ordinances are being advised on
websites and at legislative workshops to establish
“coalitions” or “taskforces” which are independent of
the legislative body of the municipality. Thus they are
not subject to the open meeting laws and sunshine laws
which exist. City or county staff is co-opted and a
proposed ordinance is presented by staff. Public trust
in government is eroded when legislation to be proposed
is drafted in private and votes are solicited in private
without public knowledge or debate, and without those
opposed being given sufficient warning to garner
opposition or participate in the process. Such a
situation operates within the guidelines of the letter
of the sunshine principle, but not within the spirit of
the sunshine principle, for the legislation is the
product of a private coalition where openness,
inclusion, and unanimity is falsely maintained.. Not
honoring the spirit as well as the letter of sunshine
laws allows special interests to hijack local
government.
INTRODUCTION
It is maintained that
municipalities are being targeted for legislation by
special interest groups who correctly believe that
strategic grassroots organization and legislating at the
local level is a viable path to enacting their personal
agenda and legislating the social change they envision
for society. While the public is usually made aware of
federal and state legislation impinging on privacy,
property, and personal freedoms, and broad-based
opposition is launched, they may not be aware of local
legislation being considered until it is brought to a
vote before a council or board. It is further maintained
that the enactment of such legislation is planned to be
enacted as quietly and as quickly as possible and that
programs exist which teach how to go about enacting
legislation which particularly directs supporters to
follow certain processes which serve to circumvent open
meeting and “sunshine laws.”
The threat is greatest at the
local level because special-interest groups, most
notably, animal right activists, are following a quiet
plan to enact community by community legislation which
supports their vision.
Programs on how to enact
legislation have been developed by special interest
organizations and outlined on websites and in seminars.
Action steps are provided with literature, sample
wording, canned letters, and a plan showing how to
proceed. Those seeking to enact legislation are told not
to reveal that a new ordinance is the objective, but
rather to form a taskforce to address broader and vaguer
issues relating to animal welfare, to decrease shelter
euthanasia, or to promote the public health. Also, the
advice is given to remain informal and to not have a
committee appointed by the municipality’s board or
council as this avoids being subject to “sunshine laws”
which may exist to assure open and public process (Schwing,
1994).
Those seeking to enact
legislation are urged to lay the groundwork and assure
support from staff before going public. Thus the public
is not aware that behind closed doors special interest
groups are drafting an ordinance to suit their agenda.
By the time legislation is placed on a calendar for a
vote, its passage is a “done deal” and there is no
opportunity to successfully oppose it.
THE INTENDED FUNCTION OF
“SUNSHINE” AND OPEN MEETING LAWS
Democracy flourishes when
government operates in the sunshine, available to the
citizens it serves and open to public scrutiny. To
preserve and encourage openness, open meetings and
public records acts have been enacted, collectively
known as the "Sunshine Laws."
Sunshine laws, also called
open meeting laws, open government laws, open door laws,
freedom of access acts, right to know laws, or public
meeting laws, are federal and state laws which require
meetings, records and decisions of public bodies and
agencies to be accessible to the public. The state of
Georgia (Baker, 2001) articulates the purpose of its
Open Government law in its “Citizen’s Guide to Open
Government.”
A democratic government
assumes that those who elect public officials will have
free access to what those public officials are doing.
Access to government meetings and records provides
citizens with the information they need to participate
in the democratic process and to insist that government
officials are held accountable for their actions.
Justice Brandeis once said, ‘Sunlight is the best
disinfectant.’
Such lofty rhetoric would
imply that the principles of sunshine laws reflect long
held American or even Anglo-American values. However,
that is not the case. Although subject to criticism, the
constitutional convention in 1787 and the Congressional
deliberations about the Bill of Rights occurred in
secrecy. Congress and the Executive Branch have no
Constitutional requirement to meet in public, and there
is no state or federal common law right for the public
or press to be present when governmental entities meet.
((Schwing, 2000).
Schwing (2000) continues,
that sunshine laws are relatively recent phenomena.
Twenty states adopted open meeting laws by 1959. By
1976, all states passed some form of open meeting laws.
(5) Much of this activity is related to passing or
strengthening sunshine laws after the public’s reaction
to the crisis created by Watergate. In 1974, Chief
Justice Earl Warren stated,” if anything is to be
learned from our present difficulties, compendiously
know as Watergate, it is that we must open our public
affairs to public scrutiny on every level of
government.” (Warren, 1974).
Schwing (1994) writes, that
court decisions and attorney general decisions have
identified the following interrelated purposes of open
meeting laws: “promotion of stability and public
confidence in government; improved ability of the people
to evaluate public official and their activities by
being privy to the decision-making process so that the
public can vote intelligently in elections; improved
understanding of the decision-making process that enable
people to consider future government development and the
consequences of those development; enhancement of the
fact-finding process, because discrepancies and
omissions can be discovered and revealed, persons giving
evidence are less able to conceal falsehood, and perjury
can be more easily discovered; greater control of
governmental abuses; increased citizen participation in
government; and better government responsiveness to the
needs of the governed.”
The state of Kentucky’s “Open
Meeting and Open Records Act” is a useful example of
typical sunshine laws. According to the Office of the
Kentucky Attorney General, “The Act requires that all
meetings of a quorum of the members of a public agency
where public business is discussed or action is taken
must be public meetings. Public meetings must be open to
the public at all times, unless the subject of the
meeting falls within one or more of the thirteen
exceptions found in the statute.” The Kentucky Attorney
General states, “The courts have stated that the Open
Meetings Act must be “interpreted most favorably to the
public” since “failure to comply with the strict letter
of the law in conducting meetings violates the public
good.” Although public business is not defined by
statute, it is defined by the courts as “the discussion
of the various alternatives to a given issue about which
the [agency] has the option to take action.” (Warren,
1974)
It is believed, and supported
by public policy in the United States, that government
is the public’s business and the basis and rationale for
governmental decisions as well as the decisions
themselves should be conducted in public and be easily
accessible to the people. Schwing (1994) notes that
states vary with regard to the emphasis they place on
the importance of the principle of open meetings, with
some, making general statements as to their importance
and others declaring them vital to the function of
government.
Thus the object of the
Sunshine Law is simply to see that the public has a
chance to view and participate in its own business. Open
meeting laws typically apply to all elected officials
and the subordinate groups created by them. It is
possible for a private group to conduct the business of
government in private if they are not appointed by
elected officials, but work as a “coalition of
interested parties” and co-opt staff, who brings the
finished product of the private body forward for a vote.
Public trust in government is
eroded when legislation to be proposed is drafted in
private and votes are solicited in private without
public knowledge or debate, and without those opposed
being given sufficient warning to garner opposition or
participate in the process. Such a situation operates
within the guidelines of the letter of the sunshine
principle, but not within the spirit of the sunshine
principle, for the legislation is presented as a fait
accompli; the product of a coalition where inclusion
and unanimity is falsely maintained to be the case.
With regard to Tennessee's
Sunshine Law, Jack McElroy, editor of the Sentinel Post
writes, “Tennessee’s Sunshine Law was unleashed in the
Watergate era, intended as a watchdog on government. But
the old pup is showing its age. Toothless, it mostly
sleeps outside meetings nowadays, too feeble even to
snarl at lawmakers who pat it, kick it or ignore it as
they go about spending taxes and deciding public
policy”.
So while sunshine laws state
local legislative bodies must announce meetings in
advance and deliberate decisions in public, the law
carries no penalty for violations, and citizens bear the
cost of challenging any secrecy in court. Not
surprisingly, complaints about abuse of the Sunshine Law
have mounted through the years, but the burden and cost
of exposing them falls to the public that the laws were
designed to serve (McElroy 2006).
VALUE OF AN OPEN PROCESS
An open process for the
drafting of legislation would assure that from the onset
all camps are heard from and all data considered.
Documentation would exist that demonstrated the process
and input would be possible from any interested party
throughout the entire process. But instead of this
happening, proponents of special-interest ordinances are
being advised on websites and at legislative workshops
to establish “coalitions” or “taskforces” which are
independent of the legislative body of the municipality.
Thus they are not subject to the open meeting laws and
sunshine laws which exist.
There are compelling
justifications for liberal application of the open
meeting laws to local public entities. Local bodies have
the most impact on the lives of their citizens, are most
subject to the influence of public opinion and their
decisions directly impact quality of life issues.
Attendance at open meetings is a realistic possibility
for the members of the community, making it more
reasonable and possible that they will attend and
participate. Not honoring the spirit as well as the
letter of sunshine laws allows special interests to
hijack local government.
The process of perusing the
ordinance at a local level, rather than attacking the
issue at a national, or even state level is used because
it allows a very small interested group to manipulate
the process without stirring mass opposition. It
insulates the group from having to defend its statistics
and information, or from having to fight off challenges
from larger and more organized groups that may become
mobilized in the process. Lawmakers and the media are
given “prepackaged” information which has not been
subject to scrutiny of any kind. This information is
then taken as fact and the manipulation of information
may never come to light. This tactic is further
exemplified by the secret method in which the ordinance
is pushed. Even at the local level the movement operates
below the radar so as not to elicit a response from the
local community. This has the effect of producing a
localized and cleansed debate which never sees a wide
range of discussion or openness in the political
process.
Lawmakers and staff have a
limited range of expertise on most subjects and so are
forced to rely heavily on reports and information from
special interest groups. These reports, however, often
lack objectivity and careful analysis. They instead rely
heavily on one-sided statistics, factually incorrect
information, and glaring omissions which reduce the
usefulness of the report. Lawmakers who lack expertise
on the subject, and who are operating under strict time
constraints often take the information as credible at
face value without pursuing inconsistencies or
contacting other groups.
Small interested groups using
face to face meetings and special contacts with
lawmakers has been used most notably by large
corporations such as the tobacco lobby. (Citation
needed). Tobacco companies funded research showing that
there were little to no harmful effects to smoking, and
downplayed the addictive nature of cigarettes. Lawmakers
were provided with studies and reports funded by the
tobacco industry which came to conclusions much
different than that of independent research groups, or
even government agencies. This had the effect of
prolonging the smoking debate even after most doctors
and health officials had come to the conclusion that
smoking was harmful and addictive.
The more professionalized an
interest group is able to appear, the easier this
process operates. This is why many groups take the
initiative of developing a name for their cause, then
submitting reports and packages under the title of an
organization. This lends pseudo-credibility to a group
that otherwise has no expertise. The act of naming an
interest group is also a tactic that is useful for
ensuring positive media exposure. The group becomes an
official source and not just an interested person or
group of people. This also ensures that they will be the
group contacted by the media whenever an article
regarding the story is written.
BEATING THE SYSTEM
In spite of the value of open
meetings and full participation in legislative decisions
affecting the community, often the spirit, if not the
letter of the open meeting process is violated. For
purposes of illustration, the process of enacting
mandatory spay neuter ordinances, laws which force
owners of cats and dogs to surgically desex pets by a
specified age or face fines and in some cases criminal
prosecution, will be used as an example of how the law
making process is hijacked.
Special-interest groups
advise activists to not reveal that an ordinance change
legislating mandatory surgical alteration of owned pets
is the desired end result. Instead they are advised to
give a more global and vague label to their group, such
as, “Taskforce on Pets in our Community” or “Coalition
to Reduce Pet Euthanasia”. They are specifically advised
to not be a body appointed by the legislative body, so
as to not be subject to public meeting laws. A group is
formed and under the guise of being a coalition which
includes all “stakeholders” participants further their
plan. Some participants are well-meaning, while some
know precisely what the real agenda is. In any case, an
ordinance is drafted with city or county staff co-opted
as a participating member, but the process immune from
open meeting laws. Senior staff, legal, and council or
board members are now inundated with information in
private one-on-one sessions. The perception of a crisis
is cultivated and the only solution is to enact
legislation.
Data is provided which is
either false or misleading about the success of the
desired legislation. In the case of animal activists
enacting mandatory spay and neuter legislation,
proponents of legislation may show a decline in
euthanasia, but fail to note that greater declines were
achieved in communities without such an ordinance. They
may show an increase in licensing with coercive
legislation, but fail to mention that enforcement costs
exceeded revenue produced. On a national animal
protection website, success was even claimed in a
community that had no such legislation. (For a
comprehensive article on MSN legislation’s results
please see Laura Allen (2006) Do mandatory
spay/neuter laws reduce shelter intake and euthanasia?
Breeders are vilified as being responsible for the
deaths in shelters under the simply appealing but
logically false premise that the birth of a wanted pet
directly causes the death of a shelter animal. Breeders
are labeled pimps, heartlessly exploiting animals for
money, causing the death of wonderful shelter animals
and costing the municipality tremendously in animal
control costs. A huge number is manufactured and becomes
the lost revenue to the county because all breeders are
tax evaders making tens of thousands of dollars and
costing the community in animal control costs for the
surplus animals they produce. There is a definite lack
of critical thinking skills, as there can either be a
crisis of surplus desirable animals OR breeders selling
pets for thousands of dollars. You cannot have both.
There is rampant emotional
manipulation. Pictures will be shown of darling puppies.
Then the numbers of animals killed in the shelter will
be given. This leads the targets of the message to
believe that these darling puppies are killed. In fact,
the number presented includes wildlife injured and
brought in, small animals, reptiles, owner surrender for
euthanasia because of age or illness, feral cats,
unweaned kittens, and dangerous dogs. They present as if
the community is killing huge numbers of adoptable
animals, but if the data were correctly examined, the
numbers of adoptable animals would be revealed to be
very low. Many shelters cannot meet the demand for
puppies and smaller dogs and only have large mixed
breed, often pit type available in any numbers for
adoption (Clifton, 2006). Anyone who gathers this data
is dismissed, because now the numbers, which were once
touted as so compelling, are “not important”.
In private one-on-one
sessions, again to avoid the open meeting laws, the
council members or supervisors are solicited and sold
“the big lie.” The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. It
was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography
Mein Kampf. It is a lie so "colossal" that no one
would believe that someone "could have the impudence to
distort the truth so infamously". In the case of pet
overpopulation the Big Lie is promoted over and over to
city officials and the public, to the point of where
they no longer can process logical arguments against the
lie and accept it as fact without question. They come to
fully believe that there is a crisis of pet
overpopulation, that the public has not responded to
education and the problem is getting worse and worse and
we must enact coercive and draconian legislation because
all else has failed. Breeders are labeled as unethical
and unregulated and need to be controlled. Intact
animals bite and run at large while altered ones do not.
Every intact animal is a ticking time bomb and a single
female cat can produce 470 thousand cats in seven years
and a single female dog 65 thousand dogs— everyone knows
this to be true! “Facts” are repeated over and over
until they are accepted as true without question or
critical analysis and despite sound data to the
contrary.
In fact, there has been a
dramatic reduction in the number of pets euthanized. The
most reliable data available indicates between 3 and 4
million animals were euthanized in shelters last year.
This includes feral cats, ill and infirm animals,
dangerous animals, and owner turn in for euthanasia.
These numbers are a far cry from the 25 million
estimated 30 years ago and these numbers have decreased
in spite of an increase in the number of total pets and
a doubling of the expected lifespan of dogs in homes
(mostly due to leash laws). It is estimated that
voluntary S/N rates for cats are around 90% and 75% for
dogs (numbers from HSUS, American Pet Products
Manufacturer’s Association and Animal People).
Spay/neuter for pets is an easy sell and represents one
of the most successful social change efforts of this
generation.
Before the general public and
dog and cat fanciers are aware that such legislation is
even being considered, senior staff and legislators have
been indoctrinated to believe that there is a crisis so
great and so intractable that extreme coercive and
punitive action must be taken, that breeders are the
scum of the earth, that a single intact animal is a
threat to the community and thus vets must report
animals not neutered by 4 months to animal control, that
the community supports this draconian legislation, and
that it has been hugely successful every where enacted.
Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as false
information from breeders who are trying to protect
their “business”. The board or council is primed to
believe that anyone who opposes the ordinance is a
selfish and heartless “special interest” while the
so-called coalition is presented as representing the
interests of the larger community and the animals.
The legislation is then
presented to the municipal legislative body by staff as
the extensive work of a “taskforce”, all “stakeholders”
have been involved, and it is specially designed to meet
the needs of the community. In fact, the legislation is
the “canned” product of an animal rights group and these
taskforces are rigged, and anyone who does not agree
with the agenda is not invited to the private meetings,
or if initially involved but not with the program,
“chilled” out of the proceedings by the dominant group.
The real kicker in all of
this is that the agenda and legislative lobby work of a
special interest group (possibly with a 501c3 status
which means they should not be political) is presented
to the council members or supervisors as a
recommendation of staff. This makes passing it a knee
jerk as councils or boards rubber stamp just about
anything staff recommends in virtually every community.
In some cases a mandatory spay neuter (MSN) ordinance is
not even presented to the public and is attempted to be
snuck through on a consent calendar as was the case in
the City of Sacramento, California in August of 2006.
WHY IT WORKS
There are some
well-established processes in human decision making that
explain why this technique of sneaking “the big lie” in
the back door is so effective and so easy to accomplish.
It is an age old technique. Here are some of the reasons
why this tactic works. Most have to do with the faulty
process of human decision making and the use of
perceptual distortion and heuristics.
One important reason that
this strategy works is that councils and boards have
little familiarity with the topics that the special
interest groups are promoting. Kruger and Dunning (1999)
point out that “people tend to hold overly favorable
views of their abilities in many social and intellectual
domains….This overestimation occurs, in part, because
people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual
burden: Not only do
these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their
incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to
realize it”. Supervisors and council members are
officials in a representative government. Few would
admit that they do not have the information and
knowledge necessary to make a good decision. So they
utilize various heuristics and shortcuts to decision
making which may lead to the outcomes the special
interest groups intended, but which are not sound. Some
of the reasons this occurs are as follows:
The
fallibility of human reason
Thomas Gilovich (1993) points
out the tendency to accept popular but mistaken
assumptions and the propensity of people to accept
faulty reasoning from incomplete or ambiguous data. He
reveals that people are prone to seek out information
which confirms the first hypothesis they are presented
with and to identify and support self-serving beliefs,
ignore negative data refuting an accepted position, and
to assume and accept patterns where none exist. If
decision makers are propagandized, and various
techniques employed to control and direct their
reasoning, and if special interests get the jump on
their opposition and bias decision makers towards their
point of view before the issue is open to public debate
and scrutiny, they have a distinct advantage. The
techniques through which this can be accomplished are
discussed below.
Propaganda
Propaganda is a planned
onslaught of messages designed to influence the opinions
or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of
impartially providing information and allowing others to
form their own informed opinion, propaganda in its most
basic sense presents information in a manner designed to
assure the audience will form the desired opinion. The
most effective propaganda may appear, or even be,
truthful, but presents facts selectively to lead to a
particular conclusion, or is geared to produce an
emotional rather than rational response to the
information presented. The desired result is a new
position or belief of the target audience.
Nelson (1996) states that
"propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of
purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the
emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified
target audiences for ideological, political or
commercial purposes through the controlled transmission
of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual)
via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda
organization employs propagandists who engage in
propagandism— the applied creation and distribution of
such forms of persuasion."
Propaganda may employ public
information campaigns via various media which are
intended to influence the public. In the case of special
interests groups, press releases and information on how
to get your message out through the media are presented
to proponents of their agenda. Thus issues which are
subjective, biased, and often misleading, are often
presented by journalists who have been contacted, as
factual information from reliable and non-biased
sources. If the reader believes that a special interest
press release is in fact a news item, the message will
be accepted as fact.
Propaganda, in a narrower use
of the term, connotes deliberately false or misleading
information that supports or furthers a political or
other cause or the interests of those with power. The
propagandist seeks to change the way people understand
an issue or situation for the purpose of changing their
actions and expectations in ways that are desirable to
the interest group.
For this reason propaganda is
often aimed at people who have some sympathies toward
the propagandist’s agenda to solidify their position and
assure their support. Universally acceptable portions of
the agenda are also pursued. An appeal to common values
such as the saving of lives or money— an easily accepted
argument— are touted without demonstrating a causal
effect between the proposal and the desired end result
(the saving of lives and money). Through repetition of
universal values, the argument is accepted without
further prodding.
The most popular propaganda
techniques used by those trying to back door their
animal rightist agendas and institute MSN legislation
include an appeal to authority, whereby institutions,
themselves responsible for the legislation are cited as
outside authorities in support. An argument ad
nauseam is made that animals are dying, something
has to be done, stop the endless killing, and so forth.
There is the appeal to prejudice, that only a heartless
person would not take the action requested to stop the
killing. The emotional appeal favors quick action over
reason and discussion.
The desired legislation is
presented as a juggernaut, moving from one successful
enactment to another and the target audience is assured
of an inevitable victory and invites them to climb upon
the bandwagon and to be on the cutting edge and the
winning side. The choice is presented as black or white
(black/white fallacy), either you can enact the
presented legislation or continue to slaughter animals.
Anyone who does not agree is
demonized. Those in opposition are characterized as
selfish special interests and the true special interest
proposing the legislation is framed as the will of the
public. Responsible breeders or individuals who do not
want the government between the legs of their owned
animals are held responsible for the death of shelter
animals, with whom they are not connected in any way
shape or form. Stereotyping and name-calling occurs as
even those who responsibly breed and sell animals are
termed “greeders”(a combination of the terms “greed” and
“breed”) and “pimps” a reference to the exploitation of
(animal) sex. Half-truths and pseudo-science abound.
Inflated numbers which have no basis in fact are
presented. One being the totally debunked “statistic”
that a single cat can produce 470,000 offspring in seven
years and a single dog 67,000 (Bialik, 2006). Those who
breed animals for sale are labeled taxevaders and
illegal businesses with no data to support this
assertion (the IRS does not consider the breeding,
showing, and selling of animals on a small scale a
business but rather a hobby and expenses in excess of
income cannot be deducted (IRS, 2008).
Mostly
one sees oversimplification. The complex problems of
unwanted pets are lumped into a single term,
“overpopulation” and stopping the birthing is presented
as the only solution. In fact, the problems are complex
and multifaceted and birthing of owned pets (the only
ones affected by the legislation) is not the cause, nor
the solution to the problem. But favorable and simple
generalities are used to provide proof that the simple
solution to the problem is the legislation they propose.
. Thus a “Hobson’s Choice” is presented as if there is
no other option to the legislation proposed.
Thus you have the Big Lie
snuck in the back door. The repeated articulation of a
problem, a chain of contingencies, a crisis out of
control, and the ONLY viable solution, the legislation
brought before you. Despite the violation of open
process, despite the infringement on privacy and
property rights, and despite the fact that it is
unenforceable, adopting the law is presented as the only
course of action available and anyone adopting such a
law is humane and anyone opposed is inhumane and
reprehensible. Said loud enough, and often enough, the
big lie comes to be believed.
Selection Bias and
Confirmation Bias
Selection bias can occur by
selecting or distorting data to support one’s position
it is possible to gain support and acceptance of the
position. Some of the methods to accomplish this
include: showing that post adoption of the desired
ordinance there is a decrease in euthanasia, but failing
to note that the decreasing trend was in place long
before the initiation of the ordinance, and in fact the
ordinance mitigated against the existing trend, showing
a decrease in euthanasia after adoption of the desired
ordinance in a community but failing to note that a
greater decrease was obtained in like communities not
adopting the ordinance, showing a decrease in intake but
failing to note that some initially included communities
established their own animal controls and the service
population had decreased significantly, showing an
increase in license revenue post-legislation but failing
to note an offsetting increase in enforcement costs, and
most noticeably, failure to mention municipalities that
had reversed and abandoned the legislation after
demonstrable failure and negative outcomes and
consequence.
Confirmation bias is a
tendency to search for or interpret new information in a
way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids
information and interpretations which contradict prior
beliefs. It is a type of error in decision making primed
by selection bias and prior information which lends
unwarranted support to the position under review and
disconfirmation to any other alternative. By getting
“first audience” with the legislative body through the
hijacking of the legislative process, selectivity bias
and confirmation bias are assured. As van Gelder notes,
critical scrutiny is now applied only to the evidence
challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence
supporting it. A pro-attitude makes us overweight
supporting evidence and underweight conflicting
evidence. Evans, Barston and Pollard, (1993) have shown
that people are more likely to accept an inference as
logically valid if they already believe the conclusion,
and more likely to reject an inference as invalid if
they already believe the conclusion to be false.
By keeping the legislative
body and the public out the of the decision process and
providing a presentation of the desired ordinance as the
only viable choice, the special interest has used
decision foibles and heuristics to its advantage and has
shut out all considerations to the contrary and hijacked
the decision process.
Ingroup bias
Ingroup bias is the
preferential treatment given to people who are members
of a perceived group. Higher payoffs, consideration, and
weight for the arguments presented are given simply on
the basis of perceived membership in a common set.
(Brewer, 1979)
This has been extensively
studied by Tajfel (1970) as a group/self-serving bias.
This is perhaps one of the most compelling reasons why
this hijacking of the local legislative process is so
effective. Most boards and bodies fall under the
influence of this bias and vote in agreement with the
recommendations of staff. Since boards and councils
hired staff, and will have an ongoing relationship with
them, it would be very uncommon for them to vote against
the recommendations of staff. Special interest groups
are well aware of this and consequently urge those
hoping to enact desired legislation to co-opt staff and
have the desired ordinance brought forward as a
recommendation of staff. If the agenda of the special
interest group is promoted by staff, it is very hard to
make the legislation anything but a rubber-stamped “done
deal”. This in effect means that low-level public
officials can almost single-handedly dictate public
policy when sunshine laws are circumvented and the
process is hijacked.
CONCLUSION
In order to avoid special
interest and minority agendas dictating to all citizens,
attention has to be paid not just to the letter of the
open meeting process and sunshine laws, but also to the
spirit of those laws. Municipal legislators, especially
those in small municipalities where their position is
volunteer and they cannot direct their full attention to
legislative matters, need to be aware that the process
outlined above is an enacted tactic of special interest
groups and inoculate themselves against the tactic. The
media also needs to be aware of the tactic and not take
shortcuts which present the propaganda of special
interests as if it were factual news. Only this can
assure that the process of government is open,
inclusive, and public as is intended.
REFERENCES
Allen, L. (2006) Do
mandatory spay/neuter laws reduce shelter intake and
euthanasia?
http://www.ab1634.com/Files/ARE_MSN.pdf
Baker, T. (2001) A Citizen’s
Guide to Open Government, Office of the Georgia Attorney
General Thurbert Baker,
Attorney General In Cooperation with the Georgia First
Amendment Foundation Third Edition. p.1.
Bialik, C. (October 12, 2006).
The numbers guy: trying to herd a cat stat. Wall
Street Journal.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup
bias in the minimal intergroup situations: A cognitive
motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
86, 307-324.
Clifton, M. (June 2006).
Humane Success makes market for mixed-breed pups.
Animal People.
Confirmation-bias.
Retrieved from the World Wide Web March 18, 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Delwich, A. (2002).
Propaganda.
http://www.propagandacritic.com
Evans, J. S. B. T., Barston,
J. L., & Pollard, P. (1983). On the conflict between
logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory and
Cognition, 11, 295-306.
Filene, E. (1938).
Institute for Propaganda Analysis. Propaganda Analysis.
New York: Columbia, University Press, 1938. Hobby
income. Retrieved from the World Wide Web March 23,
2008:
Institute for Animal Rights
Law. (nd). Model Mandatory Spay/Neuter Law.
Retrieved March 27, 2008, from http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72953169190514&mkt=en-US&lang=en-US&w=6f103eff&FORM=CVRE2
International Society for
Animal Rights (nd). ISAR Model Statutes.
Retrieved March 27, 2008, from.
http://www.isaronline.org/model_statutes.html
Kosar, K. R., Is propaganda
legal? Chicago Sun-Times. (January 29, 2006)
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D.
(1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in
recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated
self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 77, No. 6,
1121-1134.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., &
Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude
polarization: The effects of prior theories on
subsequently considered evidence. Journal of
Personality and
Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
McElroy, J. (February 26,
2006) Stronger sunshine law needed. News Sentinel.
Nelson, R. A., (1996) A
Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United
States. Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Press.
Propaganda. Retrieved from the
World Wide Web March 20, 2008: http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propaganda%20Techniques.html
Propaganda. Retrieved from the
World Wide Web March 20, 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social
identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments
in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American,
223, 96-102.
Van Gelder,T. (2007) Heads
I win, tails you lose": A Foray Into the Psychology of
Philosophy. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from the World
Wide Web: http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/tgelder/papers/HeadsIWin.pdf
Schwing, A. T. (2000). Open
Meeting Laws, 2st
Edition. Anchorage,
Alaska: Fathom Publishing Company.
Schwing, A. T. (1994) Open
Meeting Laws, 1st
Edition. Anchorage,
Alaska: Fathom Publishing Company.
Warren,
E. (1974). Government Secrecy: Corruption’s Ally, 60
A.B.A.J. 550
