Fun with campaign signs: Reinforcing choices

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

A little while back, I posted my choices/recommendations on the three statewide ballot questions going before Arizona voters this year (No on 122 and 303, the questions sent to the ballot by the legislature, and Yes on 304, the legislative pay raise).

At the time, I didn’t have anything specific to point at to support my opposition to 303, just a general feeling of distrust of the people behind the measure, the Goldwater Institute.

Now I have some more specifics.

And am even more firmly opposed to it.

First up:  Another committee has been formed to support the measure.

Knaperek

 

 

 

If the name “Laura Knaperek” rings a bell, it should – she’s a former legislator who became an industry lobbyist after her time in the lege.  Which industry?  Whichever one is paying her today.

Second up: Signs that show that the neo-secessionists that support Prop 122 are supporting Prop 303 –

On the west side of Pima Road in Scottsdale, between Via de Ventura and Indian Bend Road

 

Closer –

And the “Paid for by” –

Any other questions?

 

One response to “Fun with campaign signs: Reinforcing choices

  1. These two propositions 122 and 303 are both bad ideas. I can’t believe the misleading and downright dishonest signage and mailers for Prop 122 down here.

    I have not seen any signs for prop 303, maybe because we have so many medical researchers? 303 is junk science. It offers the “freedom to try” phase 1 drugs. Phase 1 means the doctors are in the process of testing the drug to determine the proper dose , to determine SAFETY, and to determine side effects. I don’t understand why anyone would want to take an experimental drug– unless you’re desperate and that drug is being tested for the disease you have (which is the current system).

    No on nullification of US Constitution and on the freedom to try drugs that have not been determined safe. (Duh.)