Phony PTA Mailer Sponsored by Local School Board Candidates

A campaign slate mailer paid for by several candidates for local school board elections gives the appearance that the candidates were endorsed by the PTA, but the "P.T.A." in question is not the coalition it claims to be, but rather an organization with exactly zero members. The guide, with its slightly altered logo and slightly altered name (Parent Teacher Action), is the product of a political consulting firm, and may run afoul of a newly-enacted law that forbids certain deceptive practices on slate mailers.

This mailer (PDF) came through the mail on Thursday and it immediately caught my eye as the first campaign mailer of the election season. It was slick and attractive (for a slate mailer) but I was immediately puzzled by the cover because I was under the impression that PTAs, by virtue of their tax status, weren't allowed to endorse candidates. I studied it over, and among the jumble of fine print and disclaimers on the back cover were two bits that piqued my interest: 

Huh? 

Then my eyes glanced up: "0 Members."

Oh boy.

It turns out that a brand-new law (SB 488) says that if a mailer claims to be from an organization that represents certain types of people, it must also declare how many members it has. And this "P.T.A.," which the mailer describes as a "non-partisan, public advocacy organization made up of parents, educators, policy makers and students" actually has none of these because it has, again, zero members.

And if you haven't noticed already, the logo on the cover is strikingly similar to the longstanding (and trademarked) PTA logo. It uses the same distinctly awkward irregular letter slanting and the same proportions. They changed the color, added some periods and changed the horizontal line on the P and A. Aside from that, it's the same logo. They even used the exact same typeface, down to the italicregular spaceless styling as the PTA's tagline. SB 488 also forbids using a logo that is "substantially similar" to an organization's logo "that would reasonably be understood to imply the participation or endorsement of that nongovernmental organization."

Time will tell if this logo passes the test.

Each of the candidates included in the mailer paid to be included on the slate. The Saugus candidates paid $800 each. I asked each of those Saugus incumbents why they would pay to appear on a mailer like this. All three cited the low cost versus doing a mailer on their own. They checked with some PTA volunteers before signing up, though it's unclear if they, or the PTA people they spoke to, fully understood the nature of the mailer.

Neither Judy Umeck and Paul De La Cerda were aware of the "0 Members" issue. Doug Bryce would not comment, but offered that based on the website, the proposed mailer "looked benign."

Challenger Chris Trunkey was approached to appear on this slate, but he declined, "I have too much respect for the work real PTAs do than to use the 'PTA Voter Guide' for purely political purposes to mislead voters.”

Sue Solomon, president of the SCV Council PTA and a member of the Newhall District board, confirmed that the local PTA organizations have spent some time clearing the air to let their members know that the mailer isn't officially sanctioned, though she wouldn't go so far as to condemn the candidates for appearing in the mailer. 

The mailer also includes two Newhall District incumbents, Phil Ellis and Brian Walters (the guide misspells his last name twice) as well as candidates for three Antelope Valley districts. These candidates have not been contacted for this piece. I will only note that the mailer also bills itself as an "Official Voter Guide and Voting Instructions," but the only instructions offered are how many candidates to vote for. However, for the Newhall race, it says "vote for 2" even though it's a three-seat election, presumably because only two candidates paid for the slate.

The cost was $800 per candidate and according to Umeck, it will reach 9,000 homes. To produce a mailer and reach the same number of homes (even if the three candidates collaborated) it would have cost much more, according to the candidates. De La Cerda says this will be his only mailer and it was the only slate that he was aware of – and the only way to reach so many voters.

Even though these candidates have all been on the board for a while, they don't, for better or worse, collide with the political process very often. Local school boards, due to their mission, constraints, and voter apathy, don't encounter a lot of political pressure. And very often, like with the Hart and COC boards this year, there isn't an election because one else runs. For these seats four years ago, neither Saugus nor Newhall had any challengers. Umeck is using signs from eight years ago. De La Cerda's only campaign was a humble upstart campaign in 2005 with a lot of miles walked handing out self-printed flyers.

Of course we'd rather have a great trustee than a sharp politician. You might even see how someone could stumble onto this mailer without realizing quite what it is. But I am troubled that none of the incumbents that I contacted offered any retraction or regret. I pressed De La Cerda on whether the false statement on the cover bothered him. He answered simply, "no." Umeck justified it because such mailers are commonplace in elections. But perhaps that's the problem (and indeed the motivation behind SB 488). 

When responding to my initial set of questions, Doug Bryce simply skipped over the two questions that touched on the ethical implications. He hasn't responded to my follow up. 

And of course, this isn't a settled issue if the local PTAs provide cover. For one, they aren't allowed to endorse candidates, so they really can't give a pass, legally. And the more significant offense isn't trademark infringement, but voter deception. It's clear that the point of this mailer is to trick voters into thinking that the PTA endorsed these candidates. But there's no endorsement and there's no group. Thanks to SB 488, we can uncover the lie more quickly. But it's still a lie.