Consumer Imposters: The Big Business Deception Behind Props 200, 201, & 202

Jamie Court

This 1996 report was scanned from print. Passages that did not survive digitisation have been left out here; the complete report is in the PDF below.

A REPORT TO THE PUBLIC “You need to have credibility.A nd that means when you pick people to join your coalitionm ake sure if if they’re crediblea nd they’re not crediblek eep ’em away. In a tort reform battle, State Farm -I think they’re here,N ationwide-is the leadero f the coalition,y ou’re not gonna pass the bill. It is not credible.O kay?”

Download the report PDF197 pages · 6.5 MB · PDF

Neil Cohen, Grassroots Consultant to American Tort Reform Association, in a speech at Colony Beach Resort Hotel, Sarasota Florida, February 7, 19941 (Exhibit 1) Who is really behind Propositions 200, 201 and 202?

If you believe the proponents, it is a unique combination of businesses and consumer advocates working to improve the economy. But, like so many other political manipulations California voters have come to expect during political campaigns, the truth is that cash-rich special interests are once again seeking to further their own self-interest at the expense of Californians -only this time masquerading in a “consumer” disguise.

An exhaustive investigation of documents from court proceedings, reports filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission and other confidential sources reveal an elaborate Ponzi scheme. Political mercenaries, whose histories are fraught with misdealings, fraud and hypocrisy in which the interests of consumers are ignored or abused for personal gain, have organized a highly-lucrative campaign guaranteeing themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting and signature-gathering contracts from big business and the insurance2 industry-principally by merchandising the name of “Voter Revolt,”once a non-profit organization and the state’s toughest critic of insurance companies and big business. Only the Silicon Valley and its big money could pioneer the latest in artificial grassroots technology: the “virtual consumer group.” The political action committee of the big business interests, the so-called “Alliance to Revitalize California,” has done just that by buying the “Voter Revolt” name with $3 million and putting it at the front of its multi-million dollar campaign to strip consumers of their rights. The Alliance’s· own internal memo notes that using the name “Voter Revolt” will confuse the public about who the true proponents of their proposals are,3 and thus give the Alliance a far better chance of success at the ballot box than it would ever stand if the identity of the true sponsors -insurers, business interests and wealthy individuals who have had more than one brush with the law -were known to voters.

While the backers of Props 200, 201 and 202 work desperately to project a “consumer” face to the public, the true sponsors are a consortium of Silicon Valley tycoons, millionaire high2

rollers, Wall Street investment firms and the likes of Transamerica Insurance Company, all operating under the misnomer of “the Alliance to Revitalize California.” Many of these major donors have engaged in allegedly illegal conduct in the past, for which Propositions 201 and 202 could buy them legal immunity. Proposition 200, the no fault auto insurance, is the Trojan Horse in an elaborate scheme to sneak Props 201 and 202 by the voters. Thus far, the Alliance to Revitalize California has spent $10.9 million of big business and insurance company money to re-write the laws to benefit themselves pursuant to a blueprint for subverting the judicial branch born and nurtured in their East Coast think tanks.

With every public interest and consumer group in the state and nation opposed to4 Propositions 200,201, and 202, there are indications that the big business backers themselves have become the targets of a scam by political consultants who promised them that the name “Voter Revolt” would deliver the vote of the California consumer. The election fraud has extended to ballot arguments in the voter pamphlet in which the proponents of Propositions 200, 201 and 202, according to the Los Angles Times, “went far to find someone with consumer credentials to tout their measure -1,500 miles, in fact, to Spencer, Iowa, and the home of Garry DeLoss.” As the Times notes, ballot signer De Loss, an Iowa businessman, was ousted eleven years ago as director of the San Diego-based Utility Consumer Action Network (UCAN), for mismanagement, but signed the ballot argument in5 favor of the initiatives identifying himself as UCAN’s former executive director. When UCAN, which opposes all three initiatives, learned that the group’s name was being misused to mislead voters, the consumer group went to court to ask a Sacramento judge to remove the consumer group’s name from the ballot. To stop the litigation, the Alliance charged DeLoss’s name to read, “Former Executive Director, California Consumer Organization.” As the Los Angles Times points out, “In fact, no group with that name exists.” Because “California Consumer Organization” was printed in the voter pamphlet in capital letters, 12 million voters will be given the fraudulent impression, assiduously cultivated by the initiative proponents, that a California consumer group supports the measure, when none do.

The deception perpetuated against the electorate is designed to win the big business and insurance interests their prize: limiting the right of the consumer to have their day in court. This report details the election deception behind Propositions 200, 201 and 202.4 More than 50 public interest groups oppose the initiatives and none support them. Those in 22, 1996, Exhibit 2.

The proponents of Propositions 200, 201 and 202 claim they wrote the initiatives themselves. That is incorrect. The measures are the product of insurance company lobbying groups and big business-funded East Coast “think tanks” that have for many years advocated restrictions on the rights of consumers and citizens to seek legal redress under state consumer-protective “tort laws.” Last year, the work of these organizations leaped to the fore in Washington: Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” contains a laundry list of their proposals under the misnomer “Common Sense Legal Reforms,” the same title6 occasionally used in the past by the promoters of these initiatives.See Exhibit 3. The Manhattan Institute. A primary source of two of the proposed ballot initiatives, the Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank,7 and one of the leaders of national and state efforts to restrict tort laws. While the Manhattan Institute purports to be concerned about the protection of consumers against avaricious lawyers,8 it is funded by a roll call of some of the largest corporations in the world: State Farm Insurance, Aetna, Chase Manhattan Bank, CitiCorp, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exxon, Pfizer, Phillip Morris, Procter & Gamble, Prudential, RJR Nabisco, Cigna, Dow Chemical, General Electric, Union Carbide, Metropolitan Life, Safeco, and Traveler’s. Among the four corporate donors listed at the $50,000 and above level by the Manhattan Institute two are insurers, State Farm Insurance Company and Aetna. A copy of the donor list is attached as Exhibit 4.

The Institute’ s Judicial Studies Program, created in 1986, brought together Michael Horowitz, Peter Huber and Walter Olsen, a three-some who emerged as the leading critics9 of the civil justice system and proponents of “tort reform.” Horowitz is a long-time67 Legal Revolution and Its Consequences).89 Other works by the three-some include Phantom Risks: Scientific Inference and Law (Peter

advocate of restricting the right of citizens (as opposed to big corporations) to go to court. He served as General Counsel at the Office of Management and Budget and was chief consultant for the Reagan Administration’s Tort Policy Working Group, a favorite of Vice President Quayle’s. He joined the Institute in the late 1980s. (Horowitz left the Institute in fall of 1994, and now works in the Washington, D.C. office of a similar, corporate-funded think-tank, the Hudson Institute, where he continues his attack on citizens’ legal rights). While the Manhattan Institute has worked hard to_adopt a patina of academic respectability, its invidious purpose is laid out in a blunt November 1992 fundraising letter to the Manhattan Institute’s corporate and insurance industry sponsors: the abolition of the present civil justice system through a program of judicial and media manipulation. The Institute sought funds to hire professors to publish scholarly screeds against the tort system and mail them to “several thousand judges on a regular basis” in order to encourage the judiciary’s support for tort law restrictions. The press are also important targets for Horowitz, who states that the news media can be manipulated just as easily as judges are: “Journalists need copy, and it’s an established fact that over time they’ll ‘bend’ in the direction in which it flows.”10 Lest there be any doubt about the interests of corporations in funding the Manhattan Institute’s anti-tort agenda, the fundraising solicitation specifies precisely the pay-off: “We feel that any funds made available to the Judicial Studies Program will yield a tremendous return at this point -perhaps the highest ‘return11 on investment’ available in the philanthropic field today.”

The solicitation letter and the Manhattan Institute mission statement are attached as Exhibit The Manhattan Institute and Proposition 200. The Institute’ s fundraising letter previews two proposals which have become Proposition 200 and 202 on the March California ballot. It references, “Mike Horowitz’s recent White Paper on auto insurance reform …C o-authored with Jeffrey O’Connell.” The Institute’s president also touts Horowitz’s model for contingency fee limitations, and, foreshadowing its advocacy role, declares there “will be a greater stress on applying the ideas that our fellows and other scholars have developed.” The Manhattan Institute first publicly unveiled Proposition 200 in a March 21, 1993, New York Times op-ed by Horowitz criticizing a “pay at the pump no fault system,” bitterly of Academy of Political Science) 1988; Historical Roots of the Liability Crisis (Walter Olson, ed.1011

opposed by the insurance industry, that business writer and gadfly Andrew Tobias had2 begun to promote in a booklet.1(For more about Tobias and his proposal, see below). “Bravo, Andy!” Horowitz exclaimed, for the portion of Tobias’ proposal that would “aboli[sh] all pain-and-suffering claims ….” But Horowitz expressed his funders’ disinterest in a pay-at-the-pump insurance delivery system that would have taken insurance out of the hands of the industry: “Having seen the dreary effects of a judicialized system, Mr. Tobias13 would substitute a politicized and bureaucratized one.”

Horowitz then recommended his own 1992 “plan, co-drafted with Jeffrey O’Connell, a University of Virginia Law School professor, co-author of the auto no-fault idea.” O’Connell, another long-time booster of limits on compensation to auto accident victims, is considered the “father of no fault,” a proposal for unlimited auto insurance benefits which he first discussed in a legal publication with Robert Keeton in 1965, only to see it become a startling and costly failure in state after state. (Since 1979, five states have repealed their no fault laws, and no state has adopted a no fault system since 1976.) In no fault states, dramatic rate hikes and other problems have caused intense conflicts between insurers and angry consumers who want to repeal no fault. According to National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) data, in 1994 six of the top ten most expensive auto insurance states (including D.C.) had no fault systems. On average, premiums in mandatory no fault states rose 45.6% between 1989 and 1994, a third higher than the average in liability states (33.7% increase). (By comparison, in California, under insurance reform4 Proposition 103, auto rates dropped 4.5% between 1989 and 1994.1) Californians first met O’Connell in 1988, when he became one of the insurance industry’s leading spokespeople against Proposition 103 and advocate of Proposition 104, the insurance industry-sponsored “no fault” initiative defeated by voters by a three to one margin. Campaign disclosure reports later revealed that O’Connell had received at least $67,000 from the insurance industry for his assault on Prop 103. The reports are attached as Exhibit 5.

With the rejection of no fault by California voters in 1988, and the universal collapse across the nation of the no fault system he had originally espoused, O’Connell was prepared to go to greater lengths to resuscitate no fault, suggesting even more cumbersome and complex5 altematives.1The “pure” no fault proposal in which the right to sue was eliminated completely, along with pain and suffering, was unthinkable even by O’Connell’s standards when he first proposed no fault. It was the antithesis of the humane program of “socialized auto insurance” he had originally articulated. But pure no fault became acceptable when it12131415

federal “Contract With America” legislation which could not gamer enough votes for20 passage by the Republican-controlled Congress.

The force behind the federal “Shareholders Limitation Act” and other bills to weaken federal securities laws is a Washington-based, corporate consortium called Coalition to Eliminate Abusive Securities Suits (CEASS). The corporate leaders of CEASS are many of the same Silicon Valley CEOs who have donated to the Alliance and who also have been defendants in shareholder, class action lawsuits. For instance, Gordon Moore, Chairman of Intel Corporation, and Scott G. McNealy, Chairman and CEO of Sun Micro Systems Inc., are featured in CEASS materials as coalition leaders.

Apparently, another low-profile drafter of Proposition 201 is Congressman Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), himself the subject of a state securities lawsuit stemming from the failure of First Pension Corp. at the hands of an admitted swindler. Cox is also the author of similar federal legislation limiting the right of swindled investors to sue for fraud.22. The Country Almanac reported that Alliance to Revitalize California Chairman Tom Proulx said: “Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif …t old him: ‘My greatest fear has been that we get this thing passed at the federal level and achieve nothing because we’ll simply move the problem into state courts.’ Mr. Proulx said Mr. Cox and others convinced him ‘it had to be done, and that I could do it.’ A former corporate lawyer sued for securities in state court, Cox has a very personal interest in closing state courthouse doors to victims of swindles. The Chairperson of the Lincoln Bondholders Association (Victims of Keating), Jeri Mellon, has said Proposition 201 would do just that. According to Mellon, “The Crooks and Swindlers Act requires that victims of swindles, like Keating’s, would have to post a bond to pay for Keating’s legal expenses before going to state court to recover their losses. None of us, following the financial ruin of Keating’s fraud, could have afforded to do that.”242021222324

The core of the political strategy adopted by the proponents of Propositions and 200, 201 202 is to portray the initiatives as pro-consumer -or, at worst, the fruits of a so-called “consumer-business alliance.”

But “consumers” have nothing to do with the initiatives: According to disclosure statements filed with the California Secretary of State, the money fueling Propositions 200,201 and 202 comes from a “Who’s Who” of Corporate America, ranging from corporate consultant and business writer Andrew Tobias to takeover artist Henry Kravis; from Wall Street investment firms to dozens of Silicon Valley CEOs, including corporate wrongdoers who have had one or more brushes with the civil justice system -and have been forced by the law to pay people they have ripped-off. (See Exhibit 6 for the full list of contributors.) The three initiatives represent a new phenomenon in our democracy: wealthy individuals usurping the prerogative of the Legislature to buy changes in laws that they don’t like. Andrew Tobias Tobias, a Florida-based business consultant, sits on the Board of the Alliance, and is one of the most active of the proponents of the measures. A software mogul, Tobias understands the concept of franchising a name that has been employed by the proponents in an attempt to portray themselves as pro-consumer: he mad~ a fortune from the use of his name in connection with “Managing Your Money,” a home checkbook accounting program. Tobias has since 1986 made millions from his computer software program, “though neither Mr. Tobias nor MECA [Micro Education Corp. of American, his software distributor) officials will disclose the exact terms of their agreement,” according to the Wall Street25 Journal.The Journal estimated Tobias makes between and $8 in royalty on every $4 In software program sold. 1986, Tobias was described by the Wall Street Journal as having a “seven figure net worth and annual income well into six figures.”26 Tobias is also a prolific financial writer and business consultant who has long championed anti-consumer proposals to restrict civil rights, including a plan to impose a “no fault”27 system for victims of medical negligence.25227 In

taking on the wrong-headed, Mr. Tobias has chosen to join one of several profit-stake interests in the mix -the insurance industry. That industry unsurprisingly tends to favor9 high premiums and low claim pay-outs.”2 State Farming While helping to fund the California initiative, Tobias worked hand in hand with the nation’s largest insurer, State Farm, to pass a nearly identical no fault proposal in Hawaii, where beleaguered motorists pay the highest premiums in the nation, thanks to no fault. TOBIAS: I paidf or this trip all by myself-60,000f requent flyer miles and I’m paying for the hotel and I’m about three hundred thousand dollars into this project -uh-paying, not getting-uh -in Californiaw here we’re trying hard to fix the auto insurance system. …

REES: Our guest is Mr. Andrew Tobias.. . ! should tell you in the interest off ull disclosuret hat he was invited to Hawaii by Milton Holt [pro-insurerH awaiian legislator]. ..t hat he was steeredi n our direction-uh-byt he p.r. company that handles-uh that State Farm InsuranceC ompany. So it’s, it’s never simple.

TOBIAS: There’s always some complexity to it.

-KGU AM-76, Honolulu “Inside Politics” June 26, 1995 A 1995 legislative campaign by insurers in Hawaii for a “pure” no fault auto insurance system revealed that Tobias was working closely with the industry giant State Farm to impose a pure no fault insurance auto system.

Tobias, for instance, teamed with State Farm in a full page June 1995 advertisement in the Honolulu Advertiser for the Hawaiian no fault legislation, which replicates Prop 200 (only with more generous basic benefits-$250,000 vs. Prop. 200’s meager $50,000). The State Farm-financed advertisement by Tobias (Exhibit 7) identifies Tobias as, “Financial Writer, Software author, and Consumer Advocate.” li State Farm’s latter descriptor were true, Tobias would be the would be the highest paid consumer advocate in history and the only known multi-millionaire to hold the honor.

Bullying Letters & Attack Ads With every consumer group in the state opposed to Propositions 200, 201, and 202, Tobias has orchestrated a bullying letter writing campaign to consumer advocates across California threatening them with retribution for opposing his proposals.

One such letter warned Rosemary Shahan, founder of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, to withdraw her opposition: “Keep in mind that we …w ill be very aggressive in29

taking on our opponents …w e do intend to put the individual signatories on the spot.” The letter and a response by Harvey Rosenfield is attached as Exhibit 8.

Tobias also spent his money on a full page advertisement in the University of San Diego student newspapers attacking long-time children’s advocate and law professor Bob Fellmeth as “anti-child” for opposing Proposition 200.

Fellmeth responded to Tobias’s ad in a letter to the editor, “I have declined to support his initiative, joining Ralph Nader and most consumer groups which have studied it, including the largest: Consumers Union of the United States. Nor do other child advocates generally support it. His approach has been to threaten to attack me personally if I did not issue a public statement supporting his position and disavowing various criticisms of him. And he vowed to issue his attack through paid ads in my hometown. Mr. Tobias has the spoiled personae of the rich kid who says: ‘you better do as I say, or I’ll tell your mother you hit me.’ Such an approach is rarely persuasive over the age of ten.”

The ad and Professor Fellmeth’s response are attached as Exhibit 9.

Paid Volunteer While Tobias has talked on end about “volunteering” his time for Propositions 200, 201202, campaign disclosure reports show that he was paid for his speaking services on behalf of the Alliance by financial services firms. According to campaign disclosure reports, Tobias’s “Speaking services donated to ARC, resulting in payment,”·totaled $22,500 from two financial services firms. The report is attached as Exhibit What’s the stake of these financial planners in the outcome of Propositions 200, 201 and 202? Tobias won’t answer. Indeed, Tobias stands to gain handsomely through his association with the high-tech computer executives funding the initiatives. They hold his future personal fortune, millions of dollars in royalties from his computer software, in their hands; and eliminating all lawsuits -against such companies, legitimate or not, would certainly be a profitable payoff on a California invesbnent for which Tobias estimates he has30 “volunteered” $700,000 of his own money.But this boast is not reflected in campaign spending reports as is required by law. Between December 1994 and December 1995, they show that Tobias donated and loaned $87,500 to the Alliance campaign.

If Tobias has no qualms about Prop 200 eliminating pain and suffering compensation in all California car accidents and capping benefits paid to all innocent accident victims, crippled or not, at $50,000, it is probably because Andrew Tobias has known little pain and suffering himself. Tobias, a millionaire, has enough money in the bank to cover such contingencies. The crippled middle class driver would have to go on welfare in such a scenario under Prop Tobias lives in Florida and would be subject to none of the laws he proposes.

Thomas Proulx -Silicon Jet Setter Joining the company of Ron Unz and Steve Forbes, Tom Proulx is the latest of the Silicon Valley rich whiz kids, or “gold plated nerds,” as Time Magazine recently described them, to join the political scene with a sack of money, and no expertise, for the benefit of his millionaire class. As Chair of the Alliance to Revitalize California, Proulx is spearheading the triple-initiative assault on consumer rights.

A resident of Atherton, California, Proulx made his fortune as the writer of “Quicken,” a software program that allows users to balance their checkbooks and keep track of their finances. The program, similar to Tobias’s Managing Your Money, made Proulx a multi millionaire in mid-life with the time to launch his campaign to foreclose justice for all but the rich.

The company Proulx co-founded, Intuit, became a $1.5 billion dollar enterprise. Proulx is no longer with the company, but still holds its stock.

Intuit was in the news in March of 1995 when users discovered that one of its tax preparation programs had a bug in it that led to errors on tax returns. According to the Sacramento Bee, “the bugs in TurboTax and Maclntax-the industry’s best selling tax programs -have led to wrong entries involving depreciation of cars and real estate, self31 employed taxpayers and IRA contributions.”

Under Propositions 201 and 202, investors who lost out due a faulty product, even if the company had known about the defect earlier but failed to disclose it for financial reasons, would not be able to pursue redress against the company or any insider traders. Proulx made the San Jose Mercury’s Insider Trading section, “a regular report of stock transactions involving officers, directors, and owners of 10 percent or more of a publicly held company,” four times in 1993 -1994, with large trades between March 1993 and mid February 1994. Proulx sold tens of thousands of his shares in February 1994, when Intuit’s stock reached a high during the period of more than $47 per share, before the stock32 subsequently plummeted to $30 per share by early April of 1994.

Between December 1994 and March 9, 1996, Proulx contributed $110,000 to the

Alliance to Revitalize California initiative campaign.

Proulx also guaranteed $1.65 million in loans from J.P. Morgan Services to the

Alliance, raising the question of who Proulx expects to repay the loans. The question Proulx has never answered is whether the auto insurance industry, which has a powerful interest in Proposition 200, will repay those loans after the outcome of the initiative campaign. The Fair Political Practice Commission report is attached as Exhibit 11.32

a lawsuit for “infliction of emotional distress …o ver a television [campaign} ad that portrays him in a negative light.” Shugart told the news service, ‘Tm not against all lawsuits, I’m37 only against frivolous lawsuits -those filed by greedy people.”

Shugart and his company have. been sued three separate times for violation of securities laws.38 In the first of the cases against Shugart, shareholders alleged that the CEO, who is paid $1.9 million annually, artificially inflated stock an~ then engaged in insider trading before the stock collapsed, leaving Shugart and insiders with a windfall and with other shareholders holding the bag.

Frivolous Lawsuit?

One of the allegations in the case is that Seagate, under Shugart’s direction, artificially inflated its revenues and earnings at the end of fiscal quarters by shipping disk drives to off site warehouses or parking lots for storage until they could be shipped to a customer in response to orders in the subsequent quarter. The company, according to allegations, recognized revenue upon shipment, and thus Seagate booked revenue before it should have3 and artificially drove up the price of stock for that quarter.9 Truck drivers George Armour and Peter Page, in declarations, reported that at the fiscal quarters’ end they were hired to ship disk drives from the factory to another warehouse,40 purportedly to record sales that had not yet taken place.The declarations are attached as Exhibit 13.

The shareholders allege that before insiders dumped their stock at artificially high prices, Shugart and others “caused or permitted Seagate to issue a series of favorable public statements in annual and quarterly reports to shareholders …w hich were materially false and misleading and operated to inflated artificially the market price of Seagate common41 stock.”

According to the suit, “during the period that the defendants were issuing the false favorable statements about Seagate,” Shugart and others, “owned at artificially inflated market prices as high as $34.25 per share, reaping huge profits for themselves and obtaining3738394041 In re Seagate Technologies Securities Litigation, United States District Coun, Northern

For instance, the Cupertino-based Symantec donated $200,000 to the Alliance’s campaign. Syplantec and it’s former chairman Gordon Eubanks were sued for securities fraud when insiders sold $97 million in their stock before its price collapsed from $50 to $7. Investors recovered $18.6 million in class action suits. (Eubanks was indicted for stealing trade secrets.)

Among the Silicon Valley CEOs and companies who have fueled the Alliance’s campaign is Gordon Moore, Chairman of Intel Corporation ($650,000 ). During 1993 -1995, Intel violated SEC rules regarding insider stock trading. Intel has been sued for securities and consumer fraud in class action suits and recently ran into problems with its processing chip, which proved defective. 45 Mike Markkula, former chairman of Apple Computers donated $111,562.50 in Apple stock to the Alliance campaign during December of 1995. Markkula stepped down to the post of vice chairman on February 3rd in a suspicious shake up at Apple that removed the company’s president. According to the New York Times, because of the company’s failure to46 disclose the changes in a timely way, many Apple investors were left “trading in the dark.” The Times reported, “Many corporate lawyers said …t hat they found it surprising and worrisome that Apples’s shares changed hands all day in Nasdq trading without the company’s confirming or denying “-or commenting at all on –published reports that the company’s chief executive had been dismissed …N asdq rules require any listed company to make ‘prompt disclosure’ of ‘any material information that may affect the value of its securities or influence investors’ decisions.’ But Apple did not release any clarifying47 information.”

Propositions 201 and 202 would relieve Markkula and Apple of their concern for shareholder suits in such instances.

Just a few of the other high-tech companies and CEOs sued for securities fraud who are seeking to rewrite California securities laws include:

Advanced Micro Devices, which donated $125,000 to the Alliance, has been sued by

shareholders for suspected fraud and settled for million. The Securities Exchange Commission is investigating the company following disclosures uncovered during the shareholders suit. 48

Sun Microsystems Inc. has donated $50,000 to the Alliance campaign. The company454648

was sued by stockholders for suspected insider trading and paid over $19 million to alleged victims. The terms of the settlement included forcing Sun to change its internal insider49 trading policy.

lnformix Software has also contributed $50,000 to the campaigns for Propositions 200,

201 and 202. The company paid $10 million to settle a case brought by its shareholders for suspected insider trading.50

Scott Cook, Chairman of Intuit, who has contributed $50,000 to the Alliance, violated

SEC rules regarding reporting of insider stock trading during 1993 -1995. Intuit has been sued by its shareholders for a suspected breach of duty during merger negotiations that the San Jose Mercury News headlined ” a deal [that] leaves consumers out.” The company has also been sued its by employees for suspected civil rights violations and sexual harassment, as well as by the Department of Justice, who stated that a proposed merger would have led to “higher prices for consumers.”51 Accountants for Charles Keating’s Lincoln Savings and Loan, who paid out to swindled victims of Keating’s fraud, have also fueled the Alliance campaign. Keating (23,000 victims recovered a total of $240 million in class action lawsuits against Keating’ s accountants and lawyers.) These accountants would effectively escape liability for aiding and abetting swindlers under the draconian burdens placed on swindled, small investors by Propositions 201 and 202.

Arthur Anderson, one of the Big Six accounting firms and auditors for Charles

Keating’s savings & loan, contributed $25,000 to the Alliance campaign. In 1993, Arthur Andersen paid $17 million to Keating victims for its negligent audits of Keating’s Lincoln Savings & Loan Association. Arthur Andersen also paid $65 million to settle claims for its audits of the failed Benjamin Franklin Savings and Loan. 52

Arthur Anderson also agreed to pay between $22 million and $30 million to settle

class action suits brought by defrauded purchasers of worthless subordinated debentures issued by Charles Keating’s American Continental Corporation.3 Other Big Six accounting firms, who paid out to defrauded victims in the S&L crisis, have also contributed to the campaigns for Propositions 200, 201 and 202.

KPMG Peat Marwick of New York contributed $25,000 to the Alliance. In 1992,

federal regulators sued KPMG Peat Marwick for $100 million in damages resulting from allegedly negligent audits of failed S&Ls. KPMG Peat Marwick also accepted liability for more than half of an $82 million out-of-court settlement of charges that KPMG and others495 51Tuid.53

engaged in accounting malpractice and securities fraud. KPMG was the auditor to Crazy4 Eddie, who defrauded stockholders in an infamous New York scandal.5

Coopers and Lybrand also contributed $25,000 to the Alliance campaign. Coopers &

Lybrand agreed to pay $20 million to the FDIC to settle charges arising from its allegedly deficient audits of Silverado Banking, one of the more notorious thrift collapses of the 1980’s (costing taxpayers over $100 million).55

Investors pursued class actions against Coopers & Lybrand alleging accounting

malpractice in connection with the most visible high-tech scandal ever, the Miniscribe Corp. securities swindle. In the scandal, boxes of bricks were shipped and booked as “sales” of hard drives. An investigation revealed “massive fraud.” Payment to settle claims amounted to at least $140 million. 56 The average financial contribution to the Alliance, mostly from such interests, was $22,445.65 during 1995 -hardly a grassroots consumer effort.

Forbes Inc., run by New Yorker Steve Forbes, an ex-presidential candidate and businessman whose publication has long been associated with efforts to restrict tort laws, also gave $10,000.

Another New York investor, Bob Wilson, contributed $100,000. All no-doubt hope that weakened securities laws in California will fuel the high-risk, high-yield gains that were are the very heart of the S&L crisis, for which the taxpayers paid dearly. What are these insurance and corporate interests expecting in return for the $10.9 million they contributed between January 1995 and March 9, 1996? Is it to rewrite the laws under which they have been or may be held accountable? Unfortunately, the special interests are never asked this question because of the “consumer” cover the moneyed groups have bought.

Where is the Insurance Industry?

While Propositions 201 and 202 have attracted significant investments from big business, which can expect a payoff in the eradication of legitimate lawsuits against them, Prop 200, the no-fault initiative, has not attracted the kind of insurance company money that would be expected from the industry. No fault is the insurance industry’s number one priority; insurers spent over $60 million in an unsuccessful effort to pass a no fault initiative in 1988 in _California and millions more promoting no fault legislation in Sacramento, including a bill this year identical to Prop. 200 in its approach.5754 55 New York Times, July 4, 1994.

Transamerica, a California insurer, donated $50,000 in 1995, confirming the insurance industry’s financial backing for these initiatives and disproving claims by proponents that no insurance money has been contributed. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company also contributed $25,000. However, most insurers have stayed away from the battle so far. The reason is an example of cynical politics: the industry and the sponsors of the initiatives know that insurance industry support for the initiative would be the kiss of death, not just for Prop. 200, but for all three.

The San Francisco Chronicle quoted one industry source on the matter, “‘We learned a bitter lesson in 1988,’ said Jerry Davies of the Personal Insurance Federation.” The Chronicle points out that, “insurance companies …f avor state legislation that is almost identical to Proposition The business groups supporting the initiatives consider it well worth the cost to put Prop. 200 on the ballot, if by doing so, the more obviously self-interested Propositions 201 and 202 will slip past the voters.

Indeed, advocates of such assaults on the tort law have articulated the strategy employed by the Alliance on many occasions, albeit in private. According to a clandestine tape recording of a conference of tort deform advocates in Sarasota Florida in 1994, the American Tort Reform Association’s (ATRA) grassroots consultant, Neil Cohen, gave the same advice: “You need to have credibility and that means when you pick people to join your coalition, make sure they’re credible. And if they’re not, keep ’em away. In a tort reform battle, if State Farm …N ationwide, is the leader of the coalition, you’re not going to pass the bill. Because it’s so self-serving; everybody knows that insurance companies would be one beneficiary. That’s why the clients came to me and said we got to pull away from Is the price of auto insurance in California a problem for the billionaires behind the Alliance? Obviously not. The financial community’s interest in bankrolling the package is obviously the Proposition would provide against all securities lawsuits from immunity 201 shareholders, legitimate or not.

Wall Street and high-tech executives are backing “no fault” Proposition 200 because keeping the industry out and covering the costs themselves is a pittance for them, but greatly increases the chances that Propositions 201 and 202 will be approved by the voters. However, the rich didn’t get rich by giving away their money, as the cliche goes. Over $3.3 million of the money received by the Alliance is in loans -a staggeringly high percentage of the total receipts. The financial question hanging over the Alliance to Revitalize California’s campaign, which ~twill not answer, is whether :in$urance companies will step in just before the election -when it will be too late to notify the public -or even585

following the election, to repay the $3.3 million in loans secured by the campaign’s high-tech Arranging such a back-door bail out by insurers would, of course, be illegal. But, if it occurs, it is unlikely the public will ever know how it was arranged.

Perhaps the most deceptive aspect of the Alliance initiatives is the effort of its backers to . cloak themselves in the garb of consumer advocates. This has been accomplished by the Alliance to Revitalize California’s hiring of individuals who identify themselves by reference to previous, limited associations with consumer advocates Ralph Nader and Harvey Rosenfield and projects they have initiated.

In fact, the chairman of the Alliance campaign, Tom Proulx, notes in a confidential November 15, 1995 campaign memo that, “If voters believe that consumer groups are affiliated with both sides of the battle, the prospects for adoption of no-fault insurance are very favorable …T his observation underscores the critical importance of Voter Revolt being put forward as an equal partner in the fight for no fault and other initiatives.” The memo is attached as Exhibit 14.

Every legitimate consumer organization in the state opposes the Alliance to Revitalize California initiatives. Then why do the Alliance’s political consultants and sponsors ~o assiduously insist that their initiatives have the support of consumer advocates? Becctuse they believe that the only way to convince voters to vote for Propositions 200,201 and 202 is to make them believe the initiatives are backed by legitimate consumer groups. The Alliance is well aware that these special interest initiatives are unlikely to pass if voters understand who is behind them. California voters have rejected very similar initiatives in the past (Proposition 101 -limits on compensation for pain and suffering sponsored by the insurance industry in 1988; Proposition 104 -no fault, sponsored by the insurance industry in 1988; Proposition 106-limits on plaintiff lawyers’ fees sponsored by the insurance and business communities in 1988). Indeed, history shows that initiatives funded by any big business, such as tobacco’s Proposition 188 in 1994, do not obtain voter approval. California voters traditionally vote against initiatives sponsored by special interest groups, no matter how well disguised. · This is the motivation for the extraordinary effort by the special interests supporting Props 200,201, and 202 to seek “consumer cover.”

The merchandising of Voter Revolt -the campaign organization Ralph Nader and Harvey Rosenfield formed to sponsor Prop. 103 in 198760- by consultants, fundraisers, and other operatives Rosenfield had hired to assist the campaign was intended to provide the initiative’s potential sponsors (including the insurance industry) with a deceptive front for the anti-consumer proposals. They clearly hoped that the group’s association with Nader, Rosenfield and the passage of Proposition 103 would legitimize their initiatives in the eyes of the public.

At the head of this deception are Bill Zimmerman and Michael Johnson. Who are they?60

“I am looking for new partners in politics,” is how Bill Zimmerman, a self-described liberal political consultant who previously ran campaigns for many progressive causes, described his current work on behalf of big business and the insurance industry in a meeting with1 Republicans in the San Gabriel Valley.6 Zimmerman refers to himself as the Alliance’s campaign manager. But Zimmerman also attempts to cloak himself in the garb of Voter Revolt. He routinely refers to himself as11 Voter Revolt’s Political Director.” Once again, however, the use of the Voter Revolt name is a deception. Zimmerman is not employed by Voter Revolt, and has no official tie to it. In fact, Zimmerman is employed by the Alliance, and well paid for his work. He is retained62 at his customary fee of $15,000 per month and 15% commission on all media purchases. Zimmerman has received $531,989 directly from the Alliance to Revitalize California between January 1995 and March 9, 1996, according to campaign disclosure reports. He also has another $95,000 in “accrued” bills not yet paid and may receive unknown payments from Progressive Campaigns, another political consulting firm which uses the name Voter Revolt for its fund-raising and signature gathering activities (see below). Political consultants are not hard to find. To understand how Bill Zimmerman snagged his present job requires an understanding of his career as a political operative associated with liberal politicians and causes.

Zimmerman got his start running Tom Hayden’s Senate campaign in 1976. He later worked in Hayden’s Campaign for Economic Democracy organization. He subsequently helped elect a number of Democratic politicians across the country, including Harold Washington, the mayor of Chicago, and presidential candidate Gary Hart.63 Zimmerman worked for Rose Bird in her unsuccessful effort to retain the position of Chief Justice. Bird, critical of Zimmerman’s contact with the press, fired Zimmerman as her campaign manager but allowed him to remain on board as a consultant. Zimmerman, after the election, sought to absolve himself of blame and attacked Bird in an op-ed piece for the L.A. Times entitled “The Campaign That Couldn’t Win: When Rose Bird Ran Her Own Defeat.”64 Zimmerman was a mid-level political consultant when Harvey Rosenfield interviewed him for the job in 1987 during the process of planning an initiative campaign for insurance reform. Rosenfield retained Zimmerman and his firm, signing his standard consulting contract for $50,000 in advance, $15,000 per month, and 15% of the media buy, contingent upon advertising funds being available to pay him. Unfortunately for Zimmerman, Voter616264

Revolt never raised sufficient funds to purchase advertising and Zimmerman received little compensation for his work on the 103 campaign.

“Bill came to us as someone who cared about the values of politicians he elected. He did an excellent job as a political consultant and fund-raiser for us,” says Harvey Rosenfield now. “But it quickly became clear that financial concerns drove Bill as much as anything else. Over the years, I tried to give Bill a greater role in Voter Revolt and to permit him to earn some money if there was a way we could pay him. But his financial needs led to a number of serious blunders and ultimately his financial failures bankrupted the organization. In retrospect, it seems clear that had we been able to compensate Bill, he would not have needed to switch sides and join the Alliance.”

Solicited Trial Lawyers’ Anti-No Fault Contract In 1991, Zimmerman solicited the California Trial Lawyers Association to manage a campaign to defeat the very no fault auto insurance proposals he now sponsors, according to a private October 1991 fundraising proposal written by Zimmerman.

“The defeat of no fault, in the Legislature and on the ballot, requires substantial consumer involvement,” Zimmerman wrote. “If consumer involvement in opposition to no-fault is important, I am able to play a unique role in managing it.” Zimmerman’s pitch, in which he tries to parlay Rosenfield’s name as his link to consumers, is attached as Exhibit 15. As always, Zimmerman requested the standard political consulting fees. “As a rough yard stick,” Zimmerman wrote to the California Trial Lawyers Association,” if one half of my total time were required, we would bill at $9,000 to $14,000 per month (depending on media conunissions) ….W e would also expect to be involved in the paid media (advertising) work done for the campaign … work entails a 15% commission on air time and print space this purchases.”

Zimmerman’s offer was rejected, but he was hired briefly by the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association as a consultant for a No on No-Fault campaign.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment Against Regulation of Attorneys’ Fees Zimmerman also proposed to the California Trial Lawyers Association a “Pro-Active Strategy” to beat no-fault.

In an August 19, 1991 fundrasing proposal, Zimmerman recommended to the leaders of the California Trial Lawyers Association “a constitutional amendn:tenfto protect the tort system …f or use against a no-fault initiative …[ and] the basis for countering an attempt by the industry to regulate attorney fees.” Of course, Zimmerman would head the campaign at his usual take. The proposal is attached in Exhibit 16.

Zimmerman now heads the very industry campaigns he proposed preempting by constitutional amendment: Prop 200, the no-fault auto insurance initiative, and Proposition 202, limits on contingency fee attorneys.

In 1992, Zimmerman approached Voter Revolt Chair Harvey Rosenfield with a proposed fundraising scheme in which citizens would subscribe to a “Voter Revolt Long Distance Telephone Service,” with Zimmerman and Voter Revolt each splitting a percentage of the revenues that resulted. This long distance telephone service marketing scheme became embroiled in litigation, with the long distance carrier claiming that the operation was ridden with consumer fraud -a practice known as “slamming,” the changing of a customers’ long distance service without their consent or knowledge. Such questionable judgment on behalf · of Zimmerman and his sub-vendors was the subject of bitter battles with Rosenfield, who finally resigned from Voter Revolt as a result.

Rosenfield had insisted that the proposed arrangement be negotiated at arms length between Voter Revolt and Zimmerman’s new firm (Phone Funders). Zimmerman also helped set up a separate company to solicit customers to sign up for the long distance service, known as Progressive Campaigns. Under the marketing scheme proposed by Zimmerman, Progressive Campaign canvassers working in Voter Revolt’s name approached customers at supermarkets and solicited their support for Voter Revolt’s purported work on health reform. According to the Phone Funders’ sales brochure, customers could “support Voter Revolt With Every Long Distance Call You Make …m oney that now goes to the phone company will go to Voter Revolt,” and with the money Voter65 Revolt “can work even harder to lower the cost of health care in California.” See Exhibit Forged Signatures & Misrepresentations in Voter Revolt’s Name The problem was that Phone Funder’s operatives were paid $5 or more for every “sign-up” they made in Voter Revolt’s name. This was apparently too much of a temptation for the solicitors -individuals recruited off the street from classified ads in newspapers. According to court documents filed by the long distance carrier, Telecare, that Zimmerman had hired to provide the long distance service: “Many customer authorizations were obtained by Phone Funder’s sub-broker Voter Revolt, through misrepresentations or omissions of material fact, which induced Customers to sign LOA’s [letters of agreement]. Some LOA’s submitted to Telecare by Phone Funders bear forged signatures of the purported customers. Others have been determined to be executed by minors, or persons who did not have·authority to order a c;:hangei n long distance service for Customer’s telephone number ….P hone Funders knew, or should have known that representatives of Voter Revolt were obtaining Customers through misrepresentations and omissions of material facts. “66 Indeed, tens of thousands of people were duped into signing agreements to change their telephone service. Unaware that their long distance service had been changed from another carrier to Phone Funders, most of these customers refused to pay the bills Phone Funders California, Case NO. 93-4112-TJH(Sx), Affirmative Defense N, Factual Allegation 20.

sent to them, and, realizing that their long distance service had been switched over without their knowledge, demanded that their original long distance carrier be reinstated. This effectively bankrupted Telecare, according to court documents in litigation against Phone Funders (Phone Funders, Inc. Vs. Telecare Inc., United State District Court Central District of California, Case NO. 93-4112-TJH(Sx)). According to Telecare: “Telecare’s Customer base significantly eroded as soon as these Customers began to be billed …. Phone Funders knew, or should have known, of the pattern of fraud perpetuated by representatives of Voter Revolt in its solicitation and canvassing activities; Phone Funders is therefore liable itself67 for the fraud.”

The Judge in the case agreed: “…. customers were lead to believe that they were signing a form merely requesting information. Others signed LOA’s after being told by Phone Funders” (sic) agents or sub-brokers that they were contributing money or seeking information that would ‘help the environment’ or aid in other civic or social causes advanced by a group known as Voter Revolt. Many LOA’s were submitted to Telecare by Phone Funders in the names of customers who did not speak English …” 68 Telecare took a loss of $234,694.00 in revenue for uncollected bills as service was illegally signed over through fraudulent means. According to the judge’s Findings of Fact in the litigation, Phone Funders “provided the names of approximately 30,000 new customers to Telecare.” Two months later, “approximately of the original customers still had 3,000 30,000 accounts with Telecare.”

Phone Funders collapsed as well, then initiated a lawsuit against Telecare to get paid commissions for what Telecare considered fraudulent sales.

In his decision in the case, Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. sided with Telecare. He found that Phone Funders had breached its agreement with Telecare because it failed to stop its salespeople from fraudulent actions like soliciting from minor children and non-native Spanish speakers who could not possibly understand the fine print of their pamphlet. “The significant69 number …d emonstrates a pattern of fraudulent practices by Phone Funders.” Court documents are included as Exhibit 17.

Although Voter Revolt’s contract with Phone Funders, negotiated by a law firm under Rosenfield’ s direction, protected Voter Revolt from any liability for the catastrophic results8

of the scheme, Voter Revolt suffered indirectly. It’s door-to-door canvassing arm had in effect gone “private,” becoming Progressive Campaigns. Progressive Campaigns supplied the marketers to Zimmerman’s Phone Funders scheme (see above), training and supervising the canvassers who are alleged by the long distance carrier Telecare, in court papers, to have “supplied Customers to Telecare who did not expressly approve a change in their long distance telephone service provider. (In the telecommunications industry, this practice is called “slamming”.)70W hen the Phone Funders project collapsed, so did Progressive Campaigns, and Voter Revolt was left with no fundraismg options.

Zimmerman Arranges $25,000 Loan from Lawyers Worse, the President of Progressive Campaigns, Angelo Paparella, had spent money withheld from his employees’ paychecks for payroll taxes, and was facing serious problems with the IRS. Zimmerman arranged for Paparella to request a loan from several trial attorneys Zimmerman had met through his consulting contract with the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association.

In a January 1993 request to the “potential loaners,” Paparella did not mention the Phone Funders fiasco. He wrote that he sought a $25,000 loan “[b ]ecause PCI did not conduct a door to door fundraising operation for Voter Revolt during the summer of ’92 but instead marketed PF [phone funders] for VR on a cost basis.” The letter is attached as Exhibit 18. Paparella wrote, “PCI engaged in marketing contract with Phone Funders to sign people up on a long distance affinity program.” Six trial lawyers -two of whom are past presidents of the California Trial Lawyers Association -made the $25,000 loan to Paparella. the meantime, the Phone Funders disaster convinced Rosenfield that Zimmerman was In neither competent nor successful as a fundraiser, and that Voter Revolt -deeply in debt from previous errors by Zimmerman and Paparella -would either collapse or have to find new fundraising resources in order to meet the organization’s commitment as a public interest group to protect consumers’ interest in the implementation of Proposition 103. But Zimmerman and Paparella were intent upon continuing to raise money in Voter Revolf s name, and a bitter dispute between the two and Rosenfield ensu~d. In a special meeting of the Board of Directors of the organization on June 10, 1993, Rosenfield told the Board that the organization had been irreparably injured by the financial mishaps of Zimmerman and Paparella and that he had decided to resign rather than continue running an organization which consisted of only one policy advocate -himself. Minutes of Board Meeting are attached as Exhibit 19.

Later that year, Zimmerman also sought a trial lawyer contract to manage the lawyers’ campaign against a proposed contingency fee limitation initiative sponsored by Barry Keene and backed by State Farm and Farmers. However, the initiative never made it to the ballot.7

Profiting From Non-Profits Zimmerman’s relationship to cause-oriented organizations is relatively unusual in the political consulting world; throughout his work, Zimmerman has consistently sought to parlay his association with non-profits into profits for himself.

Zimmerman sought to carve a niche for himself in the non-profit world through his many · projects, including Medical Aid for El Salvador, “which provides supplies and funds for medical relief in rural El Salvador.” Zimmerman served as President and Chairman of the board of directors. His telemarketing company, Frontline Campaigns, also received a lucrative telemarketing contract during 1993-1994 equal to one quarter of Medical Aid For El Salvador’s gross receipts that year. Zimmerman’s for-profit Frontline Campaigns Inc. received a $188,313.75 contract from the Medical Aid For El Salvador Board to do their telemarketing during 1993 -1994. 7l See Exhibit 20.

But the year after Zimmerman received this telemarketing contract, in 1995, the Medical Aid for El Salvador Board voted to dissolve the non-profit corporation. According to the resolution of the board of directors to wind up and dissolve, “The corporation holds as of April 30, 1995, $18,063 in cash.” 72 Most recently, Zimmerman was a political consultant to the Proposition 186 “single-payer” health care initiative. Activists for Prop 186 have speculated that Zimmerman’s relationship with his opponent in that campaign, the insurance industry, began during the failed effort, for which some blame Zimmerman.

The Big Switch Paparella never repaid the loan from the lawyer and it went into default when it came due on October 25, 1993, according to court papers filed against Paparella by the lawyers. In that case, the lawyers who had co-signed the loans to Paparella from First Los Angeles Bank declared that, “Defendant never had any source of funds to pay back the loan upon maturity, and the promises he gave to plaintiffs were based on untruths and unsubstantiated facts, which he knew were false.”

Paparella escaped liability for the loan by entering into bankruptcy. The bankruptcy documents are attached as Exhibit 21.

Shortly thereafter, Bill Zimmerman approached the insurance industry with the proposal that it hire Zimmerman to run a no fault initiative campaign -using Voter Revolt’s name.7172

According to a October 3, 1994 report in the Insurance Agents and Brokers Council (IIABC) newsletter: “The Coalition for Common Sense Auto Insurance -sponsor of a pay-at-the pump auto insurance proposal-has joined Voter Revolt-sponsor of Prop 103-with the intent of filing two initiatives …I IABC’s ABL partners are in the process of reviewing the no-fault draft language and recommending language.” See Exhibit 3.

The Merchandising of the #Voter Revolt” Name The story of how the organization which, under Rosenfield and Nader, was the insurance industry’s greatest nemesis in the nation, became its greatest ally is itself a revolting example of campaign fraud.

Zimmerman’s public relations company, Zimmerman and Markman, is one of two profiting on the elaborate Ponzi scheme using the name of “Voter Revolt,” the non-profit organization founded by Harvey Rosenfield to sponsor his Proposition 103-in 1987, in order to further the purposes of Voter Revolt’s former adversary, the insurance industry. The other is Progressive Campaigns.

State campaign disclosure reports reveal that Voter Revolt itself is merely a pawn in a political deception operated by Zimmerman and Progressive Campaigns.

Progressive Campaigns has received $3.18 million .in contrjbutions from the Alliance to Revitalize California between January 1, 1995 and March 9, 1996 (with another $76,775 in “accrued” bills not yet paid). Employees of Progressive Campaigns -recruited off the street by classified ads -were paid to collect the signatures needed to place the three initiatives on the ballot, using the name Voter Revolt and often describing Voter Revolt as the organization founded by Ralph Nader and Harvey Rosenfield.

Subsequently, in an effort to describe their initiatives as grassroots-funded, the Alliance has73 stated that Voter Revolt obtained $120,652 in donations from the general public.But campaign records reveal that Progressive Campaigns employees are the ones soliciting donations in Voter Revolt’s name. And, the records show, Progressive has been paid $546,895 by the Alliance since last October -well after the signature gathering period ended. · In effect, the Alliance has paid Progressive $4.53 for every $1 it has collected from members of the public who are deceived to believe that the initiatives are pro-consumer because the organization supporting it is a consumer group. A chart detailing the scheme and the payments are attached as Exhibit 22.

And Progressive Campaigns employees -who work on a commission of 50% of what they collect from the public -are the ‘Voter Revolt activists” who appear at Alliance press conferences and who stage demonstrations in an effort to give the campaign a grassroots appearance.7

Bill Zimmerman promotes Progressive Campaigns’ work, and apparently has a financial interest in the company. In a November 1, 1995 solicitation letter, Zimmerman (under Zimmerman and Markman letterhead) wrote a potential client, “A spin-off of Voter Revolt, Progressive Campaigns, is now the largest and most efficient signature operation in California … Our price is the same as everyone else’s, 70 cents per signature.” The letter_is attached as Exhibit 23.

Zimmerman is also a proponent of the three initiatives -giving himself extraordinary control of the package, including the marketing of the Voter Revolt name. Unfortunately, Voter Revolt itself is a shell, records show. Since Rosenfield left Voter Revolt in 1993, the organization has had no professional advocates, no public policy experts, no policy presence, and has issued no reports or studies. It is a public relations cover for the big business and insurance backers of the Alliance. Zimmerman and Paparella have effectively merchandised the name of the organization for their own personal enrichment.

In addition, the Alliance campaign reports show that Zimmerman paid Gary Horowitz, a businessman on the board of Voter Revolt, $2,500 for services in conjunction with the campaign that are not described in the report.

The purchase of Voter Revolt may prove cost-effective for insurance companies and other supporters of anti-consumer tort law restrictions. Recently, testifying before Congress in support of Newt Gingrich’s “tort reform” measures, Michael Horowitz invoked Voter Revolt’s “support” of the contingency fee initiative as evidence that consumer groups back such measures. (No legitimate consumer group supported any of the Gingrich/business backed tort proposals). Horowitz told the congressional panel that Voter Revolt was a “Nader” organization. Ralph Nader responded in a letter disavowing the characterization and describing Zimmerman and Johnson as “turncoats who now provide their services for anti-consumer initiatives.”74 See Exhibit 24.

Allied With Republican Attackers of 103 Perhaps the most telling indication of the misuse of Voter Revolt’s name is that the proponents of Propositions 200, 201 and 202 have allied themselves with Republican legislators in Sacramento who have sponsored and supported insurer-backed legislation to repeal provisions of Proposition 103, the very initiative which is Voter Revolt’s claim to fame.

At a recent Sacramento press conference, Zimmerman, Mike Johnson and others identified as “Voter Revolt” staff joined with Assembly member David Knowles, author of legislation to repeal Proposition 103’s territorial rating reform and good driver discounts (AB 341), in attacking the Proposition 103 Enforcement Project and 103 author Harvey Rosenfield for accepting contributions from attorneys to fund its watchdog operation. The Proposition 103 Enforcement Project is the chief opponent of Knowles’s Assembly Bill 341, a two year bill backed by the Personal Insurance Federation, Zenith Insurance

Company and Mercury Insurance to repeal the provision of Proposition 103 that requires driving safety record, not ZIP-code, be the primary determinant of auto insurance rates. It has been opposed by every major consumer group and editorial board in the state, but Voter Revolt has not weighed in regarding the legislation.

Bill Replicating 200 Sponsored by Insurers Knowles, in fact, reiterated Voter Revolt’s attack on the Project at hearings in the Assembly Insurance Committee on January 16, 1995, in which the insurer-backed legislative version of the Alliance’s Prop 200, AB 607 (Brulte), was unveiled.

The bill, sponsored by Personal Insurance Federation and supported by the Association of California Insurance Companies (both giant industry trade groups), would impose the same pure no fault system as Proposition 200.

Interestingly enough AB 607 goes farther than Proposition 200 because it promises that if rates are not rolled back by 25% then the system will be nullified. Proposition 200 offers no rollback. · Sponsorship of AB 607 by the Personal Insurance Federation and Association of California Insurance Companies leaves little doubt that the insurance industry is Voter Revolt’s silent partner on Proposition 200. The bill’s sponsor, Jim Brulte, also supported Knowles’s bill attacking Prop 103, AB 341.

Name Dropping Michael Johnson, who is paid directly by the Alliance to Revitalize California, has become the campaign’s most consistent name-dropper. The proponent of Propositions 200, 201 and 202 routinely describes himself as a “consumer advocate,” “former public policy analyst for Ralph Nader,” and, most recently, “Voter Revolt Policy Director.”

However, as with the rest of the campaign for the three propositions, Johnson has no tie to Voter Revolt. He not employed by Voter Revolt, but rather the Alliance, a political is campaign committee.

Johnson tried to drop the names of Ralph Nader and Public Citizen in the ballot pamphlet, but last December, a Sacramento Superior Court judge, acting in response to a legal petition by Nader and Claybrook, struck Johnson’s claim that Prop 202 is “no different from the consumer protection policies I fought for while working for Public Citizen, the consumer group founded by Ralph Nader.”75 In fact, Johnson applied for a job with Nader in the mid-1980s, but was turned away. In 1987, Johnson secured a staff position at Public Citizen, a group which Nader founded 15 years earlier but had not run since 1981. Johnson was a low-level researcher whose job was to draft policy papers for the organization.75

Johnson subsequently came to California in 1989, one year after the passage of Prop 103, and was hired by Harvey Rosenfield, the author of Proposition 103 and founder of Voter Revolt, the group that sponsored the initiative. Johnson has also stated that he worked on the Prop. 103 campaign. He was, in fact, assigned to monitor legislation in Sacramento to prevent the insurance industry from repealing provisions of Proposition 103. Johnson proved unsuited for that activity and Rosenfield brought him back to the Los Angeles office, where he helped draft legislation.

After Voter Revolt ran into financial difficulties in late 1990, Johnson was laid off. According to Joan Claybrook, the President of Public Citizen, Johnson offered to open up a California office for Public Citizen, to raise money for the organization and work on policy issues. Calling himself “California Director,” Johnson operated the office out of his home. Johnson was not successful in his fundraising activities during this brief period. However, he worked on several issues, including the subject of no fault auto insurance, which he opposed.

No Fault (ritic Turned Champion When employed by Public Citizen, Johnson was an ardent opponent of the no-fault system he now advocates. In an April 1991 letter to state Senator Bill Lockyer signed by Johnson as field director, Johnson wrote in vociferous opposition to very concept of no-fault: “No-fault deprives victims of their rights:[emphasis in original] …w e are deeply disturbed by the fact that no-fault curtails the right of innocent victims to seek full compensation for their injuries. We think it would be a tragic mistake for California to limit this right in the false hope that doing so will lower insurance premiums.”

” No-Fault is not the ticket to cheaper insurance: …E ven though the personal injury protection (PIP) policy proposed in SB 941 [no fault billJ would not pay any compensation for pain and suffering the resulting savings would not offset the higher costs of paying benefits to policyholders every time they are injured in an accident.. ..”

Ironically, Johnson himself articulated in 1991 the anti-consumer impact of the very no fault proposal he now promotes. Prop 202 contains the insurer-backed features Johnson opposed in his letter on SB 941 and, just like the insurer-backed bill, no promise of lower rates. Opposing provisions in the 1991 legislation that he replicated in his Prop 200, for instance, Johnson wrote: “SB 941 would redistribute, not lower. insurance costs: …T he principal effect of SB 941 would not be to lower overall insurance costs, but rather to redistribute them more heavily on to middle and upper-income drivers ….

…s hift .accident costs on to health insurance policyholders, workers and employers …

…a llow auto insurers to deduct from the benefits that they are required to pay injured policyholders the amounts that the policyholder is eligible to receive in workers’ compensation, social security disability and state disability benefits …. …o ffer extremely limited wage loss benefits. “

No Premium Reductions?

In May, 1991, Johnson wrote an op-ed for the Sacramento Bee opposing no fault entitled the “Illusion of savings from shifted costs,” in which he reiterated his objection to no fault claiming: “Under no fault, a certain degree of justice (i.e. full compensation for innocent victims) is sacrificed in the interest of providing a minimal level of compensation to all parties, innocent or not, injured in auto accidents … it is a76 matter of fact that this trade-off is not a recipe for huge premium reductions.” Claybrook terminated Johnson in 1991, and he went to work as a librarian for a law firm. At the same time, newly elected insurance commissioner John Garamendi decided to preempt77 Governor Wilson’s possible support for a no fault initiative by endorsing no fault himself. Johnson applied for a job with Garamendi and agreed to work on no fault as a spokesperson. Johnson’s first action in the job was to send the news media a letter, addressed to Ralph Nader, announcing that he had decided “he felt a deep, personal need now to support current efforts to establish a no-fault system in California.” See Exhibit 26. Garamendi’ s interest in no fault evaporated once it became clear that Wilson w-0uld not risk pursuing the proposal himself, and Johnson was once again unemployed. Johnson’s work on behalf of no fault had brought him into contact with Andrew Tobias the financial consultant and software writer. Tobias hired Johnson, who set up what was called the “Coalition for Common Sense Auto Insurance,” a one-organization group. Johnson, with Tobias’s funding, sponsored the “pay at the pump” legislative proposal and subsequent initiative proposal.

Conclusion: In recent years, corporate lobbies have developed their own systems for simulating “grassroots” constituencies to effectuate legislative change, relying on computer systems and telephone banks. The development of the “virtual consumer group” by the Alliance poses the danger of elevating cynical process to a new threshold: instead of this trying to orchestrate the appearance of grassroots support for their proposals, special interests will simply do what the Alliance has here: purchase the name of a onetime, grassroots group or hire those who claim to be activists to front for them. While the Alliance’s strategy of portraying its employees as consumer advocates has largely failed, the grave danger here is that if they achieve any measure of success at the ballot box with $10.9 million from big business interests, legitimate citizen groups will soon face a plethora of “virtual” consumer groups. Consumer advocates must zealously guard the label “consumer advocate,” if it is to mean anything to the public, and to-prevent tobacco, insurance, utility and other corporate lobbies from attempting to buy credibility for their self-serving interests in this way.7677

EXHIBIT LIST EXHIBIT 1: Partial Transcript of Presentation By Grassroots Consultant to the American Tort Reform Association On “Credibility” EXHIBIT 2: “Unseen Side of Voter Guide,” LA Times, February 22, 1996 Dan Morain EXHIBIT 3: Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers “Weekly Insider” October 3, 1994 EXHIBIT 4: Manhattan Institute Fundraising Letter, Mission Statement and Corporate Donor List EXHIBIT 5: Campaign Disclosure Reports For Jeffrey O’Connell EXHIBIT 6: List of Contributors To Propositions 200,201 and 202 EXHIBIT 7: State Farm-Financed Andrew Tobias “No Fault” Advertisement In Honolulu Advertiser EXHIBIT 8: Alliance Letter to Consumer Advocate Rosemary Shahan and Response by Harvey Rosenfield EXHIBIT 9: Tobias Advertisement Attacking Consumer Advocate Bob Fellrneth and Fellrneth’ s Letter In Response EXHIBIT 10: Campaign Disclosure on Andy Tobias’s Paid Speeches EXHIBIT ll: $1.65 Million in Campaign Loans Guaranteed By Torn Proulx Torn Proulx’s Private Jet & Limousine Rental Charged To EXHIBIT 12: Campaign Declarations from Truck Drivers In· Seagate Lawsuit EXHIBIT 13: Confidential Alliance To Revitalize California Campaign EXHIBIT 14: Memo Detailing Need for “Consumer” Cover Bill Zimmerman’s Solicitation to California Trial0 EXHIBIT 15: Lawyers Association For No on No Fault” Contract Zimmerman Memo To Trial Lawyers Proposing EXHIBIT 16: Constitutional Amendment Protecting Attorney Fees

EXHIBIT 17: Phone Funders Brochure & Court Documents EXHIBIT 18: Progressive Campaigns Fundraising Letter EXHIBIT 19: Minutes of Voter Revolt Board Meeting Where Harvey Rosenfield Resigns As Chairman EXHIBIT 20: Medical Aid To El Salvador’s Telemarketing Contract To Zimmerman and Group’s Dissolution of Assets EXHIBIT 21: Bankruptcy Documents & Court Papers on Trial Lawyer Loan to Progressive Campaigns’ President Angelo Paparella EXHIBIT 22: Chart Detailing Political Operatives’ Payments and Disclosure Reports Showing Payments to Zimmerman, Progressive Campaigns and Voter Revolt Board Member Gary Horowitz EXHIBIT 23: Solicitation Letter By Zimmerman on Behalf of Voter Revolt and Progressive Campaigns Letter from Ralph Nader re: “Voter Revolt” as “turncoats” EXHIBIT 24: Mike Johnson Letter Oped Supporting No-Fault EXHIBIT 25: & EXHIBIT 26: Johnson Letter to Nader Changing Position & Nader Letter to Editor Saying Johnson Was Not His Aide

“Coalitions and Ally Development”

Partial Transcript of Presentation by Neal Cohen, APCO Associates, Grassroots Consultant to the American Tort Reform Association at conference sponsored by the Public Affairs Council Monday, February 7, 1994 10:00 a.m.

Colony Beach Resort Sarasota, Florida

1 Note: Original of tape was on two sides, and the first portion of the speech was recorded onto 2 the end of the body of the speech. Transcript picks up near the end of recorded portion of side 3 A, and then shifts back to the beginning.)

5 … lost over time. And they tend to get lost when there are too many people at the table trying to decide what the message should be quite frankly. I was on a conference call on 7 Friday that had 20 people on it –all trying to decide how we run a grassroots campaign in 8 some state. And I’m thinking whoa, this is not what I want to do for a living any more, 9 because everybody has their own idea. And there are so many easier ways to figure out what the message is and then you got to stick to it –then have a debate among 15 lawyers in all 1 their corporate offices who’ve never been to the state and are only thinking about what’s 2 going on in their corporation. What goes around in their corporation is not what the average person is thinking about at their home.

4 You gotta have backbone. Uhm, I have run some campaigns, where as soon as the 5 I’ll opposition fired back uhm the contributors to the coalition said “bye. see ya. We can’t take the heat.” Ah, as, again going back to this is a war when you get involved in these public battles and if you are not ready to take heat and have a plan prepared ahead of time as 8 to what you’re going to do when they fire at you, then you shouldn’t be in the game. It’ll fall apart.

You-need to· have credibility. And that means when you pick people to join your 1 coalition credible and if they’re not credible keep away. In tort if reform battle; State Fann -I think they’re here, Nationwide –is the leader of the coalition, you ..r e not’ gt,rifta to pass the bill. It is not credible. Okay?4 Because it’s so self-sen,ing. Everybody knows that the insurance companies would be

one beneficiary of it:’~wity-·the clients came to me and said we’ve got to pull away 2 from this. It wasn’t an insurance company in this case, but you gotta make sure the leaders of the coalition are credible. And the core group of the coalition and the spokespeople. And when that doesn’t happen again the thing falls apart.

Broad-based membership. In Mississippi we started on December 15th by, in four weeks we had 1200 members of our coalition across the state. We targeted, by district, according to what the lobbyist told us which districts were most important. We used every campaign tactic we had in order to bring in as many people. And we made sure that it was 9 typical people mixed in with large employers and political contributors –and I’ll walk you through that in a second.

The problem with broad based membership is don’t confuse that with broad based leadership. Okay? For a coa–if you join a coalition and you contribute significant money to a coalition you better be at the table when the decisions are made and there ·only oughta be – it oughta be a, ah, card table and not-a corporate table, a corporate board room table. Broad based membership is: What does the public see? What do the legislators see? Decision making is you need a core group –three or so people who have similar interests and are gonna get the job done and not veer off –and when those two items, those two issues are confused, again a coalition tends to fall apart because there’s too much infighting. And there are not clear legislative goals.

The final thing is funding. Uhm, the last speaker said that you always have to think about the cost-benefit and he said usually grass root wins. Uhm, I, I was very surprised by that because I have been in situations where I explained how much something is going to cost3

and I’ve had corporate people say to me that is so much money. And I look at ’em and say now wait a second. Take tort reform. I’ve been in meetings where :r:Yes aid this campaigni s going to cost $200,000 to win. $300,000. And they say, “no way –we can’t afford that.” And I say now you got $40 million outstanding in lawsuits in this state alone and if I can help wipe out even a 100 of those cases or . . .• (End of side A of tape. Remarks continue at of side A with the beginning following text.)

8 Or 5 million of that. Isn’t that worth the cost benefit analysis? Isn’t’1lat worth it? A lot of corporations are afraid, particularly general counsels, are very afraid of the political process and they think, in fact, we’re going to screw it up more than we’re gonna help them .

0

11 And that cost benefit analysis when you’re addressing that is a very hard thing to explain to people, sometimes. And it’s worth thinking through. Not just what the costs are immediate, but what the costs are if you don’t do something. And what they’re spending on litigators 14 and all of that in the case of ah tort reform. So when we did this — [Portion of Remarks Missing] One of the things we always think about on coalitions is knowing who your audience is because coalitions –just to have a broad based coalition doesn’t do squat. You gotta make sure that every time you do this –you focus in on who your targets are and you pull back .d from your targets and the people you want in your coalition is not just the guy at the corner • grocery store unless the guy at the corner grocery store happens to be also among his inner • • •

·r * ::PAMPHLET

Unseen-Side .

.d e··’.. · of ¥oter GUl ■ Initiatives: Pro :ind con arguments on ballot measures in official pamphlet lcrc

~———-··—– phl<'l, lkLmm "' .. ,J • iJJT IIE Californians that all three mca-

~iwoRN~~,,

lives headed for a vote t,1arch 26. He is identified as’ . with trial lawycrR, arc against all rga111za ti I b h C 1·r .

Consumers’ Action Network ftility UCAN 1717 Kettner Blvd., Sutt• 105 San Diego, CA 92101-2532 _ . . . . 619-696-6966 November 30, 1995 Initiative Coordinator 1500 11th St. 6th Fl.

RE: Protest of Ballot Argument in Favor of Proposition 202 Dear Ms.

I am writlng to protest the affiliation description for Garry OeLoss, who is signing on beh11lfo f the argument in favor of Proposition 202. On the ballot argument submitted to the St!cratary of State, Mr. OeLoss represents himself as ..,ormer Executl,eD irector of Utility Consumer (sic) Action Network”. We believe that this description is grossly misleading to tt,e public who wlll read the ba·llotl nitlatJve. We ask that the affiliation should be struck from the argument, The important facts underlying our as:sertiona re: 1. Utility Consumers Action Network (UCAN}, a non-profit corporation, is formally opposed to Proposition 202.

o 2. Mr. OeLoss served as executive director of the corporation over 1 years ago and was 3. To UCAN’s knowledge, Mr. OeLoss left the state of California shortly after his termination and has not returned as a resident.

4. UCAN has not and would not permit Mr. OeLcss to identify himself with the corporation on this or any other matter.

WeeklyI nsider IIABC

Vol. 7No. 38 Copmght e llABC 1994 Ocroher 3. 19941 ABIJConsumer Groups Discuss No .•.c ontinuedfrompage Fault, Lawyer Limitation Initiatives No-Fault said. Jim • lhe-pump auto insur.ince propos.:il in his propos:uin favor of lhe no-faull :ind C:ilifomia tri:tl bwyers have h:.d in the

opportunity to comment on the fc:iturcs

ors bte for title :ind summ:ll’)’ btcr this IIABC’s ABL p:irtners, nre in Lhep ro give a Agents Review Draft E?s:i:li nd recommendingl :ingu::igeF. or

PlP would cover losses suffered by :lJ’l

underw:iyi n J:inuary• a copy of the no-faultp ropos.ial nd !l!l owner of a motorv ehicle would be re mked ABL to join an initmtive cam nnd l:ingu:ige,c:tll Membership Services tion insur:mce and :i minimum of S5 .CXXJ • This will be an initi:itive c:im~gn run ••.c onlinuedo n page 2 • • • As for the leg:il fee limil.’ltion inilia• • •

I··

Manhattan Institute ; : : .· , I: – Nov 1992 I request · –I..cp1 reform bcsun .i.s a natioa.a.l review Maob:anan Prognm for .ind to h:u to ~a.ate is.sue:a. nd tll.cM a.aha.um fiiii.ltutc: the i.nu:ilcauail eaden.hip fer iu Th.isi s cvidl:.nr:.cdw.e I growing i.n.t1ucnc:- aot to mentioa c:ost~fi’Cl:tivcn=–s ia puruing a public policy goai. think. by the attached five-year overview our efforu, which reveals a ret:ord of coasistc:.:t qu.ailcya .ad$ t=dily The n:::d to reform the natiou’s ci:1ijlu stice sysu:mi.. sb cccmingi n~y apparent obscrvcn both in and ouuide the leg.als ystem. Al i.:uUClilk e employment. inv=tmcnt and aa.tiai:w livings .wida.rds become ccsuy more ce::tral to public debate. America’s and c.”‘T:Uj.uicd ic:ials.y stem will be under inac:i.si:dp rc::uurct o adapt. For th~ and ocher rc:i.son.st.h e Yr:Jn will be cr.tiai. We believe stronsfy tlu1 this usu.:: mll$t be :ipproachcd dcliba:itciy a.mis ys.tcmatictllya,n d th:Ltt he:t c:mpta.tio.tao. .scu.tfeo r ·qwa fixes•o r ~y aa:.ompanyingm :-pa.g.Mc wioa cmphas.u.a. .sy ou will~ is broadeningt he c:omti.rnc:iciif:1o r liability rc!orm while mnult.;uu:.ouslyL ayingth e ac~ inu:ilec:.:u.ag.rl oundwork..T h.cM :anbarraai.t wituu: h.:ud cmou:u.r21C.cd: ipaciryi n the l.a.cu:ar. tcgory, Jnd. with the staff additions planned for comingy c:,r,s !l.ou.lbde able to cffc.a form.er,. u -wcil. the the Our books have been exuemdy influential.n; o 1c:s.sa .aa w.horicyth .an Th~W amingt.OPll o:: hailc.dth em the driving force behind the reform movement (and dubbed t.hdr auth0r3 -Peter Huber :md.W &ltcrO Lso.1-1 the ·gurus· of ton reform). Peter Huber c:omi.nuct:o1 write a regular column a.a.l aw and. .wcicty for Forl:Ju,a .nd Olson has ~me a contributor to Th~ Wail Sura Journals “Rule of l..W”c ::iluma. Lm:r this Wl .mother o{ our books will appc3r -Huber’s edited volume, PhancgRmj sb;S s::kntiTfinc fc:reomc:dc t he Llw,w hicht .!1cM IT Press i.sb ring-mgo ut. It will complement an alre:idyi mpressiveb ac.klist,w b..ic.ihn clude:sH uber’s !jabjjjry and Gajjlco’Bsr nPiC, OLson’sI be Ljcjiatjon E:rojo~joJn.ll.d s ever.ii 3.Qde:tic voiu.tu….sW. e were ail c.lztcdw llc:1t he Supreme Court en Octobcr 14th agreed to h~ iu fint “junk scicncc•Q S.C -the very one in whichN i1u.hC :.:c:uit Qatih;:oR)r nnG.

Judge Alex Ko:zin:sll;’il ~ Huber’s · Providingo ur aulhor.sw ith addition.asl uff suppon -in both rc:s.c.:u-cal.ai do uu=ch-i.so ur cl:l.icgl oal for 1993. rcloc:;ucdt he Judicial StudiesP ~ to Wnbington. D. C.. for the full ti.me.i t will have dcdic:ucds uppon a.ad ma.a.J.geri.baa.id up. Miducl Horowitz,f ormer GCll.Cr.Cli oumcl aub.e0 MB .a.ad head the R~ga.n Admi.a.utr:uioa’.sT ort PolicyW orkingG roup, joined .u dircaor and Senior Fellow. o{ h.:u icting Wc arc dose to recruiting an c:xecutivcd ireaor whose re:spon:.ibilit.icw:i1ll include commw.iouin; boob .a.ad papc:l’l.o vc~::ing m3!Xetinga .ad promotion. a.ndd e:tling with the media, government. 3.tldl e¢ ccmmunity. program on a at b.aada. .ad. a move in The time co put the such profession.alf ooting is cl~fy we fed, ju.s.tifublc light our tr:icx record.

I applying the idc;z.s tha.t our fellows .an.coi tb.crs ciio!.us h.vc dc’ll’elopcd.M ike Horowitz’s rcc:ent White .P2pc:o:rn Another shift in emphasis th.u you will be seeing 0VCt’ the ccmiag year will be a gn::uc:rse res.& OD. auto in.sunw::::r eform is a a.sc in poiru.. Co-authored with Jeffrey O’Connell. it ta.kc.sH uber’s ugamc:su for a I automobilea c…;dcncs proposal gcn.c:nteds igoificaarp n:.1.aSi lcnrioa. a.ad. Oc:toba Prc:s:idc::i1 L!;ibilicy) r.a.um revivalo f c:crnc:t ( dcvciopccii n his 1988b ook a.ad applies tiu:m to the b~ !icig,rinn of ill – Th.c has oa l.6’ht he formallye ndorsed it in a spc:cchi n Edi.soilN. ew Jcnq. The SJO+ billion .savin;sth at would rauit from the proposal’.sc nacunc:u.w ouidc .omep rimarilyf rom auto-tort contingency! cc:s.o, ne of the prime sow-c:1o f “vc:nrurc Horowio:’11 1cxp rojc:a. wb.idih e is dcvclapi.agin coilaboratioaw. ith .someo f the lading s.c:hs.lLin& trhJe field. a pl.a.a offers c.ons11mcrs co ope oUlo i the coociogcacyf ee system. The impcxu.w::c is th.u the dwia: of thc:;c propos.u.sg ees bcyoad their potential payoffu policy iniciativa. the disci:ssiou th.cy gcucntc &ad pubilc debate aad the their c::wJlinscco i:u:z:pa- _choice. rc:formm to t.hc road for• We’re:e ncouraged by these devciopmcuu. and heartened.. now that t.hc battle h.asb een c:ng:agcdt.. l:w we·vcb uilt .as oWld iatcUcc:tu.af.ol undation from whidi to any oo from here.. I hope you and your ca1lcagu.Cl share our scx:uco f aa:ompli.shment :uid that you will help provide us with the rcsaura:3 nccdcd to fimsht he job. Our c::itirce ffort depends on volunury contributions from corporations a.ad fouad.atiom. md. we’re u .a.a in tcn:u d.i.rcctio11 funds m.idca vzilabu: important aos.sro.1cis of the. o( r.bep rogtam. We fccl confident ili.u a.ay to the JudicialS tudia Programw ill yield a cremcndourse turn u ~ poi.o.L-perhaps the highest• rcmn:so. a uivcsunau:•a vailablei n the pbilaarb.rnpicfi eldt oday.

u Our supportcn ~ouJd .sh.a.reo ur pride ia the c:idosai five-years ummuy -if the net fi”Cy ears& .re eventful and productive as the la.stf ive h.vc bci::nw. e ~ be able to dose up ~opt That would ~ tha.ta victory had been woa in t.hc battle to rc:uorcA m.eria’.s cr,il jus.tic:scy stem -a goal rm sure you lZW”Cw ithu s .a.d Willwn M. H. Hammett Pr=dcnt Enclosures

I Foundations

I RoomS beiingC’wxF ound.aoon K.atleT’wM imsM dCcM& Stirr foundation I Euon £due&lionF O.I.Niaaon O.uJ.awnF OWCiation Willwn H. Donner FoundaQOn Hcnr-arn d LucyM OMS. Fund foundaciott J.M . FoWd.&twn Clarlotte Palxncrl ‘Nllipa

Individzuzls Ridwd S. Abni:,,on Jazna H. £van, EugeneM . Lltti Awi 5. Rotenberg

I LemuelR . Bouiware Ri.dlArcCi ildcr Jr. ~ s~.

Fr&rtitW . &ubb m Huold Victor Ni.-dtrhoffer Jette.

W1n.l .ec Hwcy Jr. EricS.O’l
Corporations S,S0,000a nd above

The ChaseM anhattan B.ink Gticorp State Farm Insurance S 15,000a nd above Bristol-MyersS quibb• Exxon •~fizer • Philip Morris 4t Prudential• Procter Gamble • RJRN abisco • UPS S 5,000 and above ./ Abbott Laboratories • Alcoa • ~erican Home Products • Amoco ✓Boeing

Chrysl;r • Chubb •°{:igna • CNA • Continental Corporation

“Dow •’4-Mc Chemical• Dupont •”i=ord •’teneral Electric General Reinsurance • Hill & Knowlton •~ousehold International •✓Merck v’Johnson& :J ohnson • Milliken & Co. • RelianceG roup •✓Sears, J Roval Insurance Roebuck • & W Seligman S;ithl
S 1,000a nd above

Alel(andera nd Alexander • Alexander Hamilton Life • Allied-Lyons American Airlines• Ameritech• AT&T• AXIA• Barnett Banks Baxter International • Beech Aircraft • Becton,D ickinson W.R. Berklev• Chesebrough-Ponds •Chevron• CIBA-GEIGY /coca.Cola• Palmolive Citizens Ins~ance Colgate •✓Crum Jcooper Industries & Forster • Dover Corporation ../EmersonE lectric• Employers Mutual• Erie Insurance •foxboro General Dynamics • General Mills • Halliburton • Hanover Insur~nce IBM• IllinoisT oolW orks • IMC • Jim Walter • Johnson & Higgins I Kemper Group /Eli Lllly •vtitton Industries • Lorillard •’ -SM R.H.M acy • Marriott • Material Service • MetropolitanL ife /Monsanto • Morgan North American Re • Orion Capital Stanley • II Reckitt & Colman • Rockwell • Ryder Systems • SAFECO Paccar • PacificT elesis • Panel Processing • PepsiCo • Raytheon Santa Fe Paci.fie• Insurance• Simpson Investment Sea-Land • Selectii Springs Industries • Stanley Works• Sturm. Ruger •~un Company Synte:x• Tandy • TefACO•’ textron • Transus • Travelers United Industrial •’1..ipjohn • ~atkin.s-Johnson • Weyerhaeuser TheW illiams Companies • Wind way Capital

Judicial Studies Program Mission Statement and Overview November 1992 A number of favorable developments have occurred in the civil justice arena in recent months. It may not be art overstatement, in fact, to say that debate -and sentiment -have reached a new plateau; in contrast to just one or two years ago, when liability reform hovered on the fringes of mainstream discussion, liability reform now vies with more traditional issues such as welfare, education and environmental policy in the debate about the nation’s future. Having thus emerged as a topic of public: policy, civil justice reform must now be sustained by a systematic: effort which: [a] insures that the terms of debate remain favorable, [b expands the constituencies working for reform.

SETTINGIl: iE TERMSO FT HED EBATE: An essential element of successful policy advocacy is. taking the initiative: the side proposing change most often ends up setting the agenda, while the side opposing it finds itself in the unenviable position of defending the status quo. Moreover, those initiating debate have an easier time introducing fresh concepts and rephrasing old ones, while exploring new ground and opening fissures in the ranks of the opposition. Such an effort puts a preir.ium on c:eativity and imagination, so the side favoring change generally has an easier time attracting the brightest and most creative young minds. The “founders” of the modem school of expanded liability, as Peter Huber pointed out in his 1988 book capitalized on that advantage over a period of several decades; the time has come to tum the tables.

The rhetoric of liability refoOIL must incorporate transcending concepts, like con.sumer choice, faime:s:s,a nd equity, while simultaneously pointing out the opposition’s indifference• or opposition to these values. Across a wide cultural horizon today powerful new ideas. like choice, empowerment, and voluntarism are capturing the public: imagination; they can and should be brought into the I system -the plaintiff’s bar, in particular -not be allowed to divert attention from debate about legal reform. At the same time, it is vital that defenders of the current these issues, or skirt the question of costs. The. present system is not only coercive, capricious, and regressive, it encourages fraud and deception on a massive scale, and seriously hinders the engines of industrial renewal and eeoncmic growth; the ultimate cost of expanded liability loss of competitiveness is and lower standards of living, a point th.at must continuously be driven home.

Toe field on which this must be played out is the media. -in all its-varied forms –

lixe 1’he Economist The Ntw Republic,

ranging from elite organs and to the broadcasting and entertainment industry. Until fairly recently, even legal affairs writers at the major dailies paid scant attention to developments in liability law. 1nat’s gradually changing, albeit not always for the better (the plaintiffs bar yea.rs, has, over the made allies in the press, through a combination of appealing I news leaks). Nevertheless, a growing number of_w riters, columnists and news ·-to the adversarial natures of many reporters as well as by providing them with producers are open. if not altog~ther sympathetic, to the reform perspective. Not surprisingly, this group comprises many of the rising stars of the profession: John Stossel of ABC, Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer of Forbes,J ohn Taylor and Chris Byron of Ne:w Yark, Michael Kinsley and Fred Barnes of The New Rq,ublic, Gordon Crovitz of ~ Wall Slred Journal,a nd a handful of others.

Journalists need copy, and it’s an established fact that over time they’ll “bend” in the direction which it flows. For reason it imperative a-steady stream of in that is that understandable research, analysis and commentary supporting the need for liability reform be produced. If, sometime during the present decade, a consensus emerges in favor of serious judicial reform, it will be because millions of minds have been changed, and only one institution is powerful enough to bring that about: the combined force of the nation’s print and broadcast media, the most potent instrument for public education -or miseducation -in existence.

lN EXPANDING Cr:’Ns:rrtuENQEfOS R REFORM: For tort reform to maintain its rightful place as an issue of national interest and debate, it must broaden its appeal and move beyond its confrontational demeanor (e.g., lawyer-bashing). First and foremost, liability reform must be tied to the wider cause of legal reform, and to the thinking public’s growing concerns about “litigiousness·· in general. In the broader context, the crisis in the courts is no different from the crisis occurring in many other fields of public life -from education to medical care -where institutional confidence has given way to doubt and skepticism. This probably explauu the increasingly chaotic tenor of modern II institutions while at the same time recognizing their failed mission. politics and the confused state of the electorate, torn between allegiance to The courts are no exception: a consensus is growing that the American civil justice system is fundamentally flawed; for reform advocates to lay the blame for this breakdown on lawyers” is as simplistic -and wrong-headed -as blaming “greedy the cri:sis in social policy on “welfare queens.” An uninformed public might embrace such notions over the short term, but these tactics are a diversion -not a substitute -for the kind of serious debate· and discussion necessary to build a true consensus.

Ii nintti!s, by showing how consumers and taxpaye~ are, ultimately, in the same boat Advocate, of liability reform must link their arguments to a broader agrndaf or the with manufacturers, service providers and insurers. Without such broad·b:>.sed

cultural support, the superior forces of the special interests arrayed on the other side simply will outlast the efforts to dislodge them. Such a ..l inkage'” strategy would the following engage elements: I ✓ DJ,e fioaoc;ialC ommunity-: Until very recently this group ignored developments taking place in the courts, largely because they imagined ·- I and other fiduciaries are beginning to feel the effects of the liability themselves immune. That has been changing, as accountants, bankers spiral. Wall Street is a potent political force, as is financial sector in the ally general, and a potential in the drive for serious legal reform.

The PoliticaCl ommunit•y ✓ Most government is local, and the costs of ·l iability are borne partic:ularly heavily by cities and other local entities. The trade-off between lawsuits and higher taxes, fewer. services, and less safety must be driven home. At the same time, it possible to widen is the cadre of national lawmakers, judges and other public officials who understand the implications of today’s tort system and its influence on political society.

✓ The Medic;al/ Scientific; Cgmmunit~- One of the biggest societal questions, with vast quality of life implications, is the extent that modem science and medicine will be market or court-driven. Similarly, move America’s high-tech industry is at a crossroads: it can towards a I averseness, or evolve entrepreneurially. large and amorphous – greater reliance on litigation and confrontation, and its attendant risk nus yet tremendously tmportant -sector needs to have it!S concern, channeled in productive ways .

• ✓ The Researc:h/AcademiCc ommunity- In addition to law schools, other academic disciplines should be encouraged to investigate and analyze the costs of litigation. Private foundations supporting social research need become involved, well, since science to as their funding lends pre,tige to a re,earch field.

✓ Prpfe:,sional Oriaoization~ -Member~hip organizations (the .Association of American Trial Lawyers excepted) have to be made aware of the harm done to their members by runaway litigation. Even the A.B.A. is recognizing the problem: their new president has met with Micluel Horowitz on two occ3!1ionst o discuss reform ideas.

,J Ciyil I ihertarian:i -A group that often identifies with the plaintif Ps side, they must be shown that civil liberties and civil j~tice go hand in hand, and that the present regime is hardly sympathetic to the rights of the individual. · I choosing between welfare of their memb~ and dictates of Ralph ✓ Thg Gras, Root”- Consumer groups must be put in a position of the the Nader where product liability is concerned, especially in areas like auto

insurance and health provision. Middle-class jobs will remain the number one economic: issue for the foreseeable future, thus offering opportunities to tie liability reform in with issues like innovation, capital formation and employment. The linkage in the public’s mind between bad law and a bad economy must be established .

lliE JUDICIAsLn roresPR OGRAM; The attached summary highlighting the accomplishments of the Manhattan Institute’s Judicial Studies Program over the past five years shows how a systematic is of the long-term effort can pay off. That the Program capable moving agenda forward from here and implementing the strategic plan outlined above is supported the following elements: by [11Y isibifitr- ✓ Manhattan Institute Fellows are among the leading authorities in the field and Institute books are reviewed and cited in hundreds of popular outlets across the country. Institute-sponsored events attract influential members of the national media and opinion leaders from other fields.

Peter Huber is a regular Forbts columnist; Walter Olson and Michael

Journal’s

Horowitz are contributors to Tht Wall Slrtet “Rule of Law” column.

,/ The Institute’s numerous contacts with leaders of the political, t -business, academic., scientific and foundation communities amplifie5 it:; work to the widest circle of opinion leaders possible.

‘ ../ By to Studies relocating Washington, D.C., the Judicial Program benefits from closer contact with the policy making establishment, t the federal courts and the Washington bureaus of the national news organizations.

../ The Judicial Studies Program’s ongoing mailings to several thousand judges on a regular basis has accustomed them to receiving material under the Manhattan Institute masthead.

[2] Credjpilit;c ,/ TIU?J udicial Studies Program has never abandoned its scholarly rooa, even when it meant sacrificing popular appeal. Senior Fellows are encouraged to write for law reviews and academic journals, and regularly defend tt,leir ideas before law school audiences. (e.g., the Michigan Law Re11iew’s• 1992 Survey of Boo.ks Relating To The Llw” The Litiiatjon Explo,ion, reviewed three boob on tort law • Olson’s CialileoR’s evenge: Huber’s the third book argued against radical reform, but Olson and Huber’s worb were cited throughout the review).

Program has succ:ess~y charted a non-partisan course .. has ../ The and 1· avoided being drawn into the partisan battles surrounding tort reform. -./ The Manhattan Institute’s reputation _as a public interest forum, as opposed to a single-purpose advocacy group, is buttressed by its successful programs in education, u.rban policy, international trade, etc., as well as its broad and diversified funding base, which includes a growing number of private foundations.

(31M aoaiement The Institute’s position on civil justice reform is fully supported by its ✓ only governing Board of Trustees; there are no demands for ”balance .. – sound scholarship.

I ✓ The Institute’s streamlined operating structure (one layer of management) means that funds flow directly into programs, not overhead.

✓ The hir_ing of a capable manager to oversee day-to-day operations of the program are progressing, and once adtieved will correct what has been the Program’s greatest weakness to date: less than optimal follow through on public outreach.

LOOKINGIQ THEm rtJRE: The greatest challenge to this point has been finding audiences who consider liability reform a meaningful and relevant issue. This situation is gradually improving, as the arguments linking litigation and living standards become more persuasive. Accordingly, the Program’s outreach efforts will continue, with appearances before law schools, civic groups, professional organizations and governmental bodies increasing in frequency.

Walter Olson’s fellowship has been renewed, and he is extending lili writing and research to the areas of employment, contract and commercial law. Hu next book, already begun, i!l scheduled for release in early 1994. Olson is probably the leading source ‘or quotes and commentary about the litigation e:xplosicn, md his book of that title is cited with increasing frequency whenever the subject i!s covered. Hu speaking engagements continue to grow in number: he has addre’5ed over fifty law school audiences since his book appeared, and dozens of civic and profe5sional groups.

I Peter Huber’s fellowship has also been renewed for 1993, and his PhantomR isks: ScientificIn ferencea nd the Law will be published by .MIT Press in April. Coming -a yeara fter his wi~ely acclaimed Galileo’sR ey~n~ef;u nk Sciencei n the Coumoom. this volwne should further establish credentials as the leading thinker working his in the interface of science, technology and the law. On October 14th of thi!sy ear the

case”: Daubert Merrel! Dow

Supreme Court agreed to hear its f~t “junk science i1.

Pharmactutica.Isw; riting for the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court in the decision, Judge Galilieo·Rs eyen~e.

Alex Kozinski cited Huber’s next book will be on the subject of environmental law.

Michael Horowitz has been appointed a Senior Fellow and acting director of the r .. : Judicial Studies Program. He is working out of the newly opened Washington office, where he will commission papers, organize conferences, and carry out an active writing and speaking schedule. His recently completed White Paper, co authored with University of Virginia law professor Jeffrey O’Connell, was endorsed

Jersey

by the President in a speech in Edison, New on October 16th. A Washington• based executive director, capable of managing the program and carrying out functions like editing, fund raising and liaison with media and government, is being sought.

I Books by other scholars and writers are planned, as well, on topics that include the criminalization of business law, the expansion of contract and I details the direct and indirect costs of the present tort system is also being e1Wironmental law. A book aimed at a general audience which graphically pursued. Prospective authors -including two writers with national reputations in legal affairs -are being interviewed.

The successful “Civil Justice Memo” series, mailed to several thousand judges ‘ between 1987 to 1991, has been replaced by a series of lengthier “Civil Justice White Papers,” dealing with specific reform proposals. They will be commissioned and edited by Mr. Horowitz, who will also organize a series of “Civil Justice Workshops” to be held in the Washington office. In addition, two major conferences are planned for the coming year, one dealing with the subject of ..r etroactive liability” and another (to be held in New York) on the abuses of due process. An ongoing series of regional workshops with government and be previous meetings commwuty leaders will continued, with in Atlanta, Portland and Kansas City followed by ones in San Antonio, Indianapolis and other regional centers. Finally, the Institute’s quarterly on urban affairs, T1u:C ity Journal.· will soon feature a regular column by Walter Olson linking civil justice reform with quality life concerns for dwellers.

of urban In summary, the Manhattan Institute’s commitment to judicial reform, begun in 1986 with the formation :1f the Judicial Studies Program, remains a high priority today and for the future.

Five Year Overview r Ntu1D irtt:tiansi n Liability I.ma( Walter Olson, ed.• special issue, Jownal of the Aademy of Politica1 wbility: The Legal Rn,olutiana mt Its Corutquau:a( Peter Huber• Basic: Books) published. Commerce I W!

Paperb,c:k edition of Liabilityr eleued.

HistoricalR .oo~ of tM Crisis( Walter Olson, ed.· s~ issue of Cardoza Review). !.iJ1.bility Law Crime k Punishment in Business uw Conference· New YorkU niversity Law School. m!l White Paper on Product Utbility Statistic (Arthur Havenner) relea.,ed. Peter Huber named Forbe. :alumni.it,a ppca.t”oJn ABC2 0/20, deba~ ~ph Nader. Tht Litigationu plosion: What HappmtdW hm Amtrial Unlashedl ht LA.unuirtN Olson• E.P. and Cali!a1s. R.eocngfcu:n k Sciena in th.t Courtroom(P eter Huber • Ba.sicB ooks) published. Tht Li.a.bilityM u.u {Robert Utan and Peter Huber. ed.,.-Brooking, Lrutitutc Pre,s) rele.ued. Forl>e caver feature by PeterH uber on jw1.k~ ence in the coum.

Walter Quon ,ppe.an on “OprahW inirey,” ‘1.my Klng Live.· Huber and Ooon advise White House and Justice Department task.f orte3 on legal re!cnn. Vla President Quayle’s sp!C!dl to A.B.A. dta both author.,’ work and rai:se:, issue to nation.ii agenda. Im Paperbacke ditions of Thi: Litip.tianE .:rpicsi.oan.:d Galilto·s Rtmtge published. Uiibilil.yI:n jwtia far AU r,lva lter Cronkite, announcer) released..

J.

Vhita Piper on 1. Hoopu Rni.sited” (Rlchud Ep,tein • publ.l,ht:d 1nJ oumal of Lega!S tl.ldie, ). ·Mab {Walter Reader’s Waltu Olson teti.5.e, before Sen.ltcJ udiciuy Committee; Peter Huber on ·t…rryK lng Uvcr: Mlchui Hcrowitt appointed Senior Fellow; JudicwS tudies Progra.m reloated to W.uhington. D.C.. Auto tort propo~ by Jeifrry O’Connell uld Michael P.crowic: endoatd by President. Supreme Court agree to hur Jw.kS cience cut tram 9th Circwt citing Hubers GaiiLto·, Rmmge. Mrr PhantomR W::sS: cimtifu: lnft’l’Cfla• nd th.t:L aw( Peter Huber, l.’d.• Press) published.

From: Through:

!~:~::!!.~:::~~~=—- 1:. …………………………………………………

ID Number: 87l208 Citi:ens !or No-Fault, sponsored by California Insurers I——————————————————————————– Name and Address of Payee I Code/Description I Amt Paid I Cum. Amt Internal Revenue Service G 3,877.821 ‘C1l’ I I l~rnal Revenue Service G 969.291 Internal Revenue Service 3,830.991 Internal Revenue Service 940.081 Internal Revenue Service G 3,818.851 Internal Revenue Service G 910.381 J Marketing Company 500.001 Spear Street, Ste 1210 I I I San Francisco CA 941051 I I J p G 140.58I Marketing Company I IJ p 500.001 p J p 500.001 Marketing Company I I p Marketing Company I I ■i W Marriott I T 500.001 l21s1 Avenue of The Stars I I

r

Los Angeles CA 900671 I

w

Marriott I ‘l’ 920.001 & p Jackson/Barish Associates! 2,000.001 t 170 L Street, Suite 960 I 1p Sacramento CA 958141 I ~ackson/Barish & Associates! 30,000.001 Jackson/Barish & Associates! G 200. 001 t p ackson/Barish & Associates! 2,000.001 & G 200 ..0 01 ackson/Barish Associates! I G 750.001 iifaaes McKinney I I ll57 Seventh Avenue I I I San Francisco CA 941101 I I y

l

ames McKinney I I aaes McKinney I G 750.001 aaes McKinney I I G 750.001 retfrey o ‘Connell I I 4f: p 10,000.001 fniversity ot Virginia f I Charlottesville VA 229011 I I Sub-Total: 64,144.24 ···———————–··–··········–·····——————————2

1· 10/01/88 10/22/88 From I Through: ID Number: 871208 Citizens for No-Fault, sponsored by California Insurers Yes on Prop 104 ——————————————————————————– Name and Address of Payee I Code/Description I Amt Paid I Cum. Amt

1——————————~————————————————-

Hyatt Regency San Francisco! T 5 E11barcadero Center I I San Francisco · CA 94111 I I rnternal Revenue Service 3,436.611 1Ogden UT Internal Revenue Service G 815.301 11 Marketing Company I 500.001 p

ran

Spear Street, Ste 1210 I Francisco CA 941051 p Jackson/Barish & Associates! 2,000.001 770 L Street, Suite 960 I ••cramento CA 958141

I

Jerry Simpson I G 1,500.001 04 Sansome Street an rrancisco CA 941111 I 1,451.30 I erry Simpson . I T -jSee s-1 I attached

lohn

Crosby 1,661.621 I T . I

ran

704 Kontgoaery Street !See attached E-1 rrancisco I I CA. 94111 ·——————————————————————————

WHO’S RF A Lt Y BEHiND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 ahd 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) Occupation/Employer Monetary Loans Non-monetary (as listed on filing with California Contributions conitrbutions Date(s) Contributor Secretary of State) (Schedule A) (Schedule B) (Schedule C) Total 3/7/95 Davidow, Bill Mohr, Davidow Ventures 1,000 1,000 (Menlo Park) Cotella, Samuel D. General Partner 12/6/95 1,000 1,000 Institutional Venture Partners (Menlo Park) Forbes, Inc. (New York, NY) 10,000 10,000 3/7/95 3/7/95 Pinkerton (Encino) 1,000 1,000 3/13/95 Baccarat Development (Cupertino) 50,000 50,000 Partnershi 5/26/95 Baccarat Electronics, Inc. (Cueertino) 150,000 150,000 3/13/95 OHL Express (Redwood City) 2,500 17,500 1/12/96 5,000 2/28/96 10,000 3/13/95 Shugart, Al CEO /President, Seagate 5,000 255,801.62 131,805.60 7/20/95 Technology (Scotts Valley) 118,996.02 2/8/96 3/21/95 Fidelity Investment (Boston, MA) 10,000 10,000 2/8/96 Fidelity National Title (Irvine) 25,000 25,000 Insurance Co.

2,000 3/21/95 Sippl, Roger Visigenic Software 2,000 (San Mateo) 2/17/95 Boyd, Virginia L. Self-Emeloyed Consultant 7,800 7,800 3/21/95 Wilson, Bob Retired, Investor 100,000 100,000 2/5/96 -LF (New York, NY) (100,000) 100,000 2/5/96 297,750 2/17/95 McMurty, Burt Technology, Ventures Investors 25,000 3/16/95 (Menlo Park) 75,000 3/5/96 197,750

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) Occupation/Employer Monetary Loans Non-monetary (as listed on filing with California Contributions conitrbutions Date(s) Contributor Secretarr of State) (Schedule A) (Schedule B) (Schedule C) Total 12/8/94 Proulx, Tom Self-Employed Consultant 14,000 110,000 12/15/94 (Atherton) 14,000 12/21/94 14,000 12/29/94 21,500 1/4/95 19,000 1/18/95 14,000 3/1/95 10,000 6/30/95 3,500 87,500 1/24/95 Tobias, Andrew Self-Employed Writer 28,000 5/1/95 (Miami, FL) 10,000 5/11/95 12,500 7/28/95 10,000 7/28/95 22,000 8/25/95 5,000 Zimmerman & Markman (Santa Monica) 3,750 18,750 1/31/95 7,500 2/28/95 7,500 3/31/95 Arrow Trust, c/ o Price (Los Angeles) 25,000 25,000 4/18/95 Waterhouse 4/18/95 Joost, Robert Attorney, U.S. Dept. of 2,000 2,000 Transportation (Wa shin ton, DC) 4/18/95 Profiles in History (Beverly Hills) 5,000 5,000 100,000 4/28/95 Moore, Gordon Chairman, Intel Corporation 100,000 (Woodside) Cruttenden & Co. (Irvine) 1,000 1,000 5/1/95 5/1/95 Leach, Howard Chairman, Leach Capital 5,000 5,000 (San Francisco) XILINX, Inc. (San Jose) 25,000 25,000 5/11/95 5/11/95 Montgomery Securities (San Francisco) 25,000 25,000 Boich, Mike President/CEO, Rendition 1,000 1,000 5/16/95

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) 5/23/95 Adaptec, Inc. (Milpitas) 25,000 100,000 25,000 6/30/95 50,000 2/7/96 5/23/95 Cadence Design Systems, (San Jose & Milpitas) 25,000 75,000 2/9/96 Inc. 50,000 5/23/95 Hobbs, IV, Franklin President, Dillion Read & Co. 5,000 5,000 (New York, NY) 20,000 5/23/95 Stonewall Community (New York, NY) 5,000 Foundation 7/28/95 15,000 5/26/95 Volckmann, John Principal, J. Volckmann & 500 500 Associates (Atherton) 6/5/95 Shultz, George Hoover Institution, Stanford 1,000 1,000 University (Stanford) Howard, Rice Law Offices (San Francisco) 250 6/9/95 250 6/20/95 Ford Land Co. (Menlo Park) 5,000 5,000 12/20/95 Ford, Thomas President, Ford Land Co. 10,000 10,000 (Menlo Park) 6/20/95 Poole, Jr., Robert President, Reason Foundation 500 500 6/20/95 High Level Design Systems (Santa Clara) 1,000 1,000 6/27/95 Unz, Ron President, Wall Street 5,000 5,000 Analytics, Inc.

(Palo Alto) 6/27/95 Johnson, H. R. President, Watkins-Johnson 500 500 Corporation (Palo Alto) 10,000 6/28/95 Watkins-Johnson (Palo Alto) 10,000 Cor oration 6/27/95 Nissley, Harold President, Acorn Capital 100 100 (Los Altos)

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 .,

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the AlUancet o Revitflliie California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) 6/28/95 Newport Diversified, Inc. (Irvine) 500 500 6/29/95 Cypress Semiconductor (San Jose) 35,000 200,000 6/29/95 65,000 1/18/96 100,000 Varian Associates, Inc. (Palo Alto) 2,500 6/30/95 2,500 6/30/95 Altera Corporation (San Jose) 5,000 115,000 11/8/95 10,000 1/24/96 100,000 4/11/95 Caine, Dan President, Legal Knowledge 5,000 5,000 2/9/96-LF Systems (5,000) 2/9/96 (Newton, MA) 5,000 Palevsky, Max 4/18/95 Self-Employed Investor 50,000 50,000 (Los Angeles) Palevsky is on the Boardo f Directorso f Intel Corporation 5/2/95 Symantec (Cupertino) 200,000 200,000 (200,000) 2/6/96-LF 2/6/96 200,000 6/28/95 Integrated Device (Santa Clara) 100,000 200,000 Technology, Inc. 100,000 1/26/96 2/8/96-LF (100,000) 2/8/96 100,000 6/30/95 KPCB VII Associates (Menlo Park) 100,000 100,000 200,000 2/29/96 4/10/95 Fenwick & West (Palo Alto) 10,000 19,000 12/1/95 9,000 50,000 7/18/95 Linear Technology (Milpitas) 5,000 2/5/96 Corporation 45,000 7/20/95 GAP (San Francisco) 15,000 50,000 2/13/96 35,000 2/8/96 Fisher, Donald G. Chairman, The Gap 250,000 250,000 (San Francisco) Page 4

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) Occupation/Employer Monetary Loans Non-monetary (as listed on filing with California Contributions conitrbutions Date(s) Contributor Secretary of State) (Schedule A) (Schedule B) (Schedule C) Total 7/25/95 100 100 Emerson, Lee Outside Director of Oregon Steel Mills (retired) (Piedmont) 7/25/95 M.E. Fox & Co., Inc. (San Jose) 7 /25/95 Gherini, Tom Self-Employed Consultant, 100 100 Gherini Consulting Service (San Mateo) ‘ 7/25/95 Riordan, Michael CEO, Gilead 100 400 3/4/96 (Palo Alto) 300 7/25/95 Rock, Arthur Arthur Rock and Co.

1,000 2,000 3/8/96 (San Francisco) 1,000 7/25/95 Simon, William Executive Director, William E. 1,000 1,000 Simon & Sons Merchant Banker (Pacific Palisades) 7/25/95 Taube Investments, Inc. (Belmont) 500 500 7/28/95 Technical Film Systems, (Chatsworth) 100 1,100 2/20/96 Inc. 1,000 7/28/95 Bowles, George (retired) 300 300 (San Francisco) Alden, Ellis Hotel Owner, Western Lodging 500 8/1/95 500 (Redwood Cit ) 8/1/95 David D. Bohannon (San Mateo) 1,000 1,000 Or anization 8/1/95 Ehlers, L. W. (retired) 100 100 8/1/95 Kenninger, Steven (Redondo Beach) 1,000 1,000 8/1/95 Tooley, William CEO, Tooley & Co. 250 250 (Los An eles) 8/4/95 Edwards, William C. Self-Employed Investor 250 10,250 2/29/96 (Atherton) 10,000 8/4/95 Foothill Beverage Co. (Pomona) 1,000 1,000

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) 8/4/95 Van Kasper & Co. (San Francisco) 100 1,350 1/9/96 250 2/27/96 1,000 8/4/95 Flextronics International (San Jose) 3,000 3,000 Peterson Investment Co. (San Leandro) 8/4/95 100 100 8/4/95 CalMatCo. (Los Angeles) 1,000 1,000 8/7/95 Newman, Ellen President, Ellen Newman 100 100 Associates (San Francisco) Oracle Corporation (Redwood Shores) 8/7/95 5,000 100,000 2/9/96 95,000 12/15/95 Lawrence Ellison Chairman & CEO, Oracle 5,000 5,000 8/11/95 Napa Valley Wine Train (Napa) 100 100 8/11/95 Watson Land Co. (Carson) 2,000 7,000 12/29/95 3,000 1/9/96 2,000 8/11/95 Advanced Micro Devices (Sunnyvale) 25,000 125,000 12/15/95 50,000 50,000 2/16/96 8/11/95 Weekley, Robert M. President of Residential 300 300 Development Lowe Enterprises (Los An eles) 8/16/95 CARGO PAC, California (West Sacramento) 10,000 31,850 10/2/95 Trucking Association 10,000 12/21/95 10,000 1/19/96 1,850 8/16/95 Gomory, Paul L., Jr. Self-Employed, GA Partners 200 200 Executive Search Consultants (San Francisco) 8/17/95 Schwetz, Jason (Westlake Village) 100 100 8/17/95 Baum, Dwight C. (retired) 100 100 (Pasadena) Page 6

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) 8/24/95 Measurex Coreoration (Cueertino) 5,000 5,000 1,000 8/24/95 Marquardt, David A. Venture Capitalist, Technology 1,000 Venture Investors (Hillsborou h) 550,000 8/25/95 Intel Corporation (Folsom) 100,000 8/25/95 150,000 3/7/96 300,000 10,800 8/26/95 Web Service Co., Inc. (Redondo Beach) 1,000 1/15/96 4,800 3/7/96 5,000 Boyd, Katherine E. Self-Employed, Katherine E. 1,000 1,000 8/28/95 Boyd Interior Decoration (Hillsborou h) 8/28/95 Amgen Inc. (Thousand Oaks) 20,000 20,000 Sunrise Medical (Carlsbad) 2,500 9/1/95 2,500 9/1/95 Rexhall Industries, Inc. (Saugas) 2,500 2,500 9/1/95 Wishon, Keith CPA, Price Waterhouse 200 200 (Los An eles) 1,000 9/5/95 American President (Oakland) 1,000 Comeanies Foundation (La Jolla) 5,000 5,000 9/5/95 K1os, Neil, Jr.

Home Savings of America (Irwindale) 2,500 2,500 9/5/95 FSB 9/8/95 Baxter, Frank CEO, Jeffries & Co. 500 1,000 (Los Angeles) 500 10/11/95 15,000 9/8/95 Actel Corporation (Sunnyvale) 5,000 2/13/96 10,000 CEO, Regis McKenna Inc. 1,000 1,000 9/8/95 McKenna, Regis (Sunn ale) 9/8/95 Walton, John Self-Employed, JCL 10,000 110,000 2/21/96 Corporation 50,000 3/4/96 (National City) 50,000 Page 7

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) Occupation/Employer Monetary Loans Non-monetary (as listed on filing with California Contributions conitrbutions Date(s) Contributor Secretary of State) (Schedule A) (Schedule B) (Schedule C) Total 9/20/95 Rockwell International (Seal Beach) 2,500 30,000 12/23/95 Coq~oration 27,500 9/20/95 The Immune Response (Carlsbad) 1,000 1,000 Cor oration Kristovich, Baldo M. Lawyer, Baldo Kristovich 100 100 9/20/95 Attorney at Law (Los An eles) 9/27/95 Collins, Francis D. Self-Employed, Dream 100 100 Builders, Contractor Building Developer (Erner ille) 9/20/95 Greene, James H., Jr. Partner, Kohlberg Kravis 7,500 7,500 Roberts & Co.

(Hillsborou h) Kravis, Henry R. Partner, Kohlberg Kravis 10,000 10,000 9/20/95 Roberts & Co.

(New York) MacDonnell, Robert I. Partner, Kohlberg Kravis 10,000 10,000 9/20/95 Roberts & Co.

(Hillsborou h) 9/20/95 Michelson, Michael W., Partner, Kohlberg Kravis 10,000 10,000 Trustee of Michelson Roberts & Co.

Famil (Atherton) 9/20/95 Raether, Paul E. Partner, Kohlberg Kravis 9,999 9,999 Roberts & Co.

(Greenwich, CT) 9/20/95 Robbins, Clifton S. Partner, Kohlberg Kravis 5,000 5,000 Roberts & Co.

(New York, NY) Partner, Kohlberg Kravis 10,000 10,000 9/20/95 Roberts, George R.

Roberts & Co.

(Atherton) Page 8

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200,201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) Occupation/Employer Monetary Loans Non-monetary (as listed on filing with California Contributions conit rbu tions Date(s) Contributor (Schedule A) (Schedule B) (Schedule C) Total Secretarr of State) 9/20/95 Stuart, Scott M. Partner, Kohlberg Kravis 5,000 5,000 Roberts & Co.

(Greenwich, CT) 9 /20/95 Tokarz, Michael T. Partner, Kohlberg Kravis 7,500 7,500 Roberts & Co.

(Purchase, NY) 8/8/95 J.P.M organ Services Inc. loans guarenteed by Tom 120,000 1,655,000 10/20/95 Proulx 60,000 1/16/96 (Wilmington, DE) 75,000 2/29/96 800,000 600,000 3/7/96 8/15/95 Allergan (Irvine) 100,000 100,000 Sigma Mangement II, L.P. (Menlo Park) 100,000 100,000 8/17/95 8/17/95 Macromedia, Inc. (San Francisco) 50,000 50,000 100,000 115,000 8/26/95 Rogers, T. Gary CEO, Dreyers Grand Ice Cream 2/5/96-LF (Oakland) (10,000) 2/5/96 10,000 3/1/96 15,000 9/12/95 National Semiconductor (Santa Clara) 50,000 50,000 2/5/96-LF (50,000) 2/5/96 50,000 9/20/95 Fox,SaulA. Partner, Kohlberg Kravis 15,000 15,000 Roberts & Co.

(Atherton) 5,000 9/20/95 Gihuly, Edward A. Partner, Kohlberg Kravis 5,000 Roberts & Co.

(Woodside) Golkin, Perry & Donna Partner, Kohlberg Kravis 5,000 5,000 9/20/95 Roberts & Co.

(New York, NY)

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) 10/2/95 Newhall Land and Farming (Valencia) 1,000 21,000 12/27/95 Co. 10,000 10,000 2/20/96 10/11/95 Pioneer Electronics (USA) (Long Beach) 1,000 1,000 Inc.

10/11/95 Harb, Levy & Weiland, (San Francisco) 200 200 CPA 10/19/95 Maxim Integrated Products (Sunnyvale) 20,000 100,000 11/22/95 80,000 10/23/95 Sun Microsystems, Inc. (Mountain View) 50,000 50,000 10/23/95 O’Connell Landscape (Rancho Santa Margarita) 200 200 Maintenance 10/23/95 Dura Pharmaceuticals (San Diego) 1,000 6,000 5,000 2/14/96 10/27/95 Transamerica (San Francisco) 25,000 50,000 12/27/95 25,000 121,900 11/7 /95 Hewlett Packard (Palo Alto) 15,000 12/1/95 7,300 85,000 2/2/96 14,600 1/1/96 11/29/95 Packard, David Chairman Emeritus, Hewlett 100,000 600,000 2/23/96 Packard Co. 500,000 (Sierra Madre) 11/22/95 Seaver, R. Carlton Partner, Seaver & Co. 250 250 (Sierra Madre) 1,000 12/1/95 Roth, Cruttenden (Irvine) 1,000 12/1/95 Merriman, Ronald & Partner, CPA 100 100 Kathryn (Newport Beach) 153,000 12/1/95 FileNet Corporation (Costa Mesa) 3,000 3/5/96 150,000 W.A.H. Consulting, Inc./ (Burlingame) 500 500 12/6/95 Sight & Sound Distributing Page

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) 12/6/95 Merrill, Steven L. Partner; Merrill, Pickard, 11,831.58 11,831.58 Anderson & Eyre (Menlo Park) 12/7 /95 Hughes Electronics (Los Angeles) 30,000 30,000 12/13/95 Alexander, Santosh CEO, Telops Management, Inc. 100 100 (Santa Monica) 12/13/95 Herbert, Gavin Chairman, Allegan, Inc. , 2,000 2,000 (Irvine) 12/13/95 Morgridge, John P. Chairman, Cisco Systems 176.52 176.52 (San Jose) 12/15/95 Allmond, Dr. Bayard W., Jr. (Berkeley) 25 25 12/15/95 Bernstein, Jerry Jerebe Co. 50 50 (Powell, OH) 12/15/95 Sun America (Century City) 5,000 25,000 2/12/96 20,000 12/15/95 Dolby, Ray CEO, Dolby Sound Inc. 1,000 4,000 2/27/96 (San Francisco) 1,000 3/1/96 2,000 Stern, Robert 12/15/95 (San Luis Obispo) 500 500 12/18/95 Airtouch (San Francisco) 25,000 25,000 12/19/95 Amel, George Argyros Biz (Costa Mesa) 10,000 10,000 Account 12/20/95 Applied Materials (Santa Clara) 100,000 100,000 12/21/95 Howley, Peter A. Chairman, President, CEO, 100 AirPower Communications, Inc.

(San Francisco) 12/21/95 Maxfield, Robert R. Self-Employed Consultant 10,000 10,000 (Sarato a) 12/21/95 Serafini Associates, Inc. (Santa Clara) 100 100

WHO’S REALLY 13EHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) Occupation/ Employer Monetary Loans Non-monetary (as listed on filing with California Contributions conitrbutions Date(s) Contributor (ScheduleA ) (Schedule 8) C) Secretar~ of State) (Schedule Total 12/21/95 Shackleton, Robert J. Partner, KPMG Peat Marwick 100 100 LLP (New ort Beach) 2/9/96 KPMG Peat Marwick (New York, NY) 25,000 25,000 12/22/95 J.

Stupski, Lawrence Vice Chairman, Charles 5,000 5,000 Schwab&Co.

(Tiburon) 12/29/95 Charles Schwab & (San Francisco) 20,000 20,000 Com an 1/12/96 Charles R. Schwab Chairman and CEO, Charles 20,000 20,000 Schwab (San Francisco) Cook, Scott D. Chairman, Intuit Inc. 50,000 50,000 12/22/95 (Woodside) 12/22/95 Informix Software Inc. (Menlo Park) 50,000 50,000 10,000 12/27/95 Whittaker Coreoration (Simi Valley) 10,000 12/27/95 First Interstate Bank (Sacramento) 5,000 5,000 12/27/95 Coast Federal Bank (Los Angeles) 5,000 5,000 25,000 12/27/95 Trimble Navigation Ltd. (Sunnyvale) 10,000 2/27/96 15,000 12/29/95 Northrop Grumman (Los Angeles) 2,500 5,000 2,500 3/7/96 12/29/95 Oakley (Irvine) 5,000 5,000 5,000 12/29/95 Pacific Entererises (Los Angeles) 5,000 Collabra (Mountain View) 2,090 2,090 11/10/95 12/22/95 Markkula, Mike Chairman, Apple Computer, 111,562.50 111,562.50 Inc.

(Woodside) Kramlich, C. Richard Managing General Partner, 11,025 11,025 12/26/95 New Enterprise Associates (San Francisco)

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200,201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) Occupation/Employer Monetary Loans Non-monetary (as listed on filing with California Contributions conitrbutions Date(s) Contributor Secretarr of State) (Schedule A) (Schedule B) (ScheduleC ) Total 12/31/95 Networkers (Palo Alto) 5,000 5,000 12/31/95 VIVID Business Systems (Mountain View) 9,000 9,000 1/4/96 Pacific Corrugated Truck (Pomona) 300 Lines, Inc.

1/4/96 Glenborough Coreoration (San Mateo) 20,000 20,000 1/9/96 Potlach Coq~oration (San Francisco) 5000 5000 1/9/96 Jacobs Engineering Group, (Pasadena) 10,000 10,000 Inc.

1/18/96 Western Mutual Insurance (Santa Monica) 125 125 Co.

(Menlo Park) 1,000 1/18/96 Glynn Caeital Management 1,000 1/18/96 WSJ Proeerties (Palo Alto) 3,000 3,000 1/18/96 Residence Mutual (Santa Monica) 125 125 Insurance Co.

1/23/96 Gaelin Motors, Inc. (North Hills) 10,000 10,000 1/23/96 C-Cube Microsystems (Mileitas) 50,000 50,000 1/26/96 Stanley, David H. Vice President, Legal and 1,000 1,000 Corporate Services, Inforrnix Software Inc.

(San Mateo) 1/26/96 Salquist, Roger H. Chairman and CEO, Calgene 500 500 (El Maceo) 1/26/96 Ade,et Technology, Inc. (San Jose) 5,000 5,000 1/31/96 Stratacom (San Jose) 7,500 7,500 2/2/96 Chevron Coq~oration (San Francisco) 50,000 50,000 2/2/96 BankAmerica Cor,eoration (San Francisco) 50,000 50,000 Superior Industries (Van Nuys) 5,000 5,000 2/2/96 International, Inc.

2/5/96 SyQuest (Fremont) 10,000 10,000 Molecular Biosystems, Inc. (San Diego) 5,000 5,000 2/5/96 2/7/96 Caers Corporation (Los Gatos) 5,000 5,000

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) Occupation/Employer Monetary Loans Non-monetary (as listed on filing with California Contributions conitrbutions Date(s) Contributor Secretari of State) (Schedule A) (Schedule B) (Schedule C) Total 25,000 2/7 /96 California Microwave, Inc. (Sunnyvale) 25,000 ParcPlace-Digitalk, Inc. (Sunnyvale) 25,000 25,000 2/7 /96 2/7 /96 Chance, Douglas C. (Portola Valler) 250 250 2/7 /96 General Atomics (San Diego) 500 2/8/96 Ackerman, Peter Private Investor, Rockport 20,000 20,000 Capital, Inc.

(Washington, DC) 2/8/96 Franklin Resources, Inc. (San Mateo) 10,000 10,000 (Sunnyvale) 50,000 2/8/96 Dionex Coq~oration 50,000 2/8/96 Mayfield Fund (San Mateo) 25,000 50,000 3/5/96 25,000 1,000 2/9/96 A very Construction Co. (Mountain View) 1,000 2/9/96 Alliance Pharmaceutical (San Diego) 10,000 10,000 Cor oration 25,000 2/9/96 LSI Logic Coq~oration (Mileitas) 25,000 De Dominic, Patty President and CEO, PDQ 100 100 2/9/96 Personnel Service Inc.

(Los An eles) 5,000 5,000 2/9/96 Seguana Theraeeutics, Inc. (La Jolla) 2/9/96 Curris Logic, Inc. (Fremont) 100,000 100,000 (Irvine) 16,667 16,667 2/10/96 Tuttle-Click Ford Tuttle-Click, Inc. (Irvine) 16,667 16,667 2/10/96 2/10/96 Tustin Dodge (Tustin) 16,667 16,667 3,000 2/10/96 Biomagnetic Technologies (San Diego) 3,000 2/10/96 Robertson Steehens & Co. (San Francisco) 25,000 25,000 Basic American, Inc. (San Francisco) 50,000 50,000 2/10/96 2/10/96 Mark Feldberg See Prot Ti (Carmel) 200 200 1/1/96 Con Xion Corporation (San Jose) 2/12./96 Genetronics, Inc. (Century City) 100 100 ISIS Pharmaceuticals (Carlsbad) 5,000 5,000 2/12./96 2/12./96 Gensia, Inc. (San Diego) 10,000 10,000

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) Occupation/ Employer Monetary Loans Non-monetary (as listed on filing California Contributions conitrbutions Date(s) Contributor Secretarl of State) (Schedule A) (Schedule B) (Schedule C) Total 2/12./96 Sybase (Emeryville) 50,000 50,000 2/12./96 Fabless Semiconductor {Dallas) 20,000 20,000 Association 2/13/96 Amylin Pharmaceticals (San Diego) 10,000 10,000 2/14/96 Rexball Industries, Inc. (Lancaster) 1,000 1,000 2/14/96 Amdahl Coreoration {Sunnyvale) 50,000 50,000 2/14/96 Bowers, Ann S. Trustee, Noyce Foundation 1,000 1,000 (Palo Alto) 2/14/96 TRW, Inc. (Cleveland) 5,000 5,000 2/14/96 Huston, William T. President, Watson Land 5,000 5,000 Corneany (Los Angeles) 2/15/96 Vivra Incoq~orated (Aliso Viejo) 5,000 5,000 2/15/96 Prizm Pharmaceuticals, Inc. {San Diego) 500 500 Price Waterhouse 2/15/96 (Washington D.C.) 25,000 25,000 2/16/96 Leonard H. Straus Chairman, Store of Knowledge 1,000 1,000 (Los An eles) 2/20/96 Overland Data, Inc. (San Diego) 1,000 1,000 17,500 17,500 2/20/96 Giant Groue, Ltd. (Beverly Hills) 2/20/96 Mycogea (San Diego) 10,000 10,000 2/20/96 Cytel Coq~oration (San Diego) 10,000 10,000 20,000 2/20/96 Jefferies & Comeany, Inc. (Los Angeles) 20,000 2/20/96 Lidak Pharmaceuticals (La Jolla) 5,000 5,000 2/20/96 Brody, David Assistant to General Counsel, 100 100 Fremont General (Malibu) 2/20/96 Jamison, J. Burgess Partner, Sigma Management II, 138,160 138,160 L.P., (Menlo Park) 2/21/96 Software Technologies (Arcadia) 1,000 1,000 Cor 2/21/96 Aspect (San Jose) 50,000 50,000 Telecommunications Page 15

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) Occupation/ Employer Monetary Loans Non-monetary (as listed on filing with California Contributions conitrbutions Date(s) Contribulor Secretarr of State) (Schedule A) (Schedule B) (ScheduleC ) Total 2/22/96 Bowes, William K. Jr.

General Partner, U.S. Venture 40,000 40,000 Partners 2/22/96 La Jolla Pharmaceutical Co. (San Diego) 1,000 1,000 2/22/96 Advanced Tissue Sciences (La Jolla) 10,000 10,000 2/22/96 S3, Incoreorated (Santa Clarita) 50,000 50,000 2/22/96 Pulizzi Engineering, Inc. (Santa Ana) 2/22/96 Corvas International (San Diego) 10,000 10,000 Arthur Andersen L.L.P.

2/22/96 (San Francisco) 25,000 25,000 2/23/96 E.M.C. Coreoration (Hoekinton) 10,000 10,000 3Com 2/23/96 (Santa Clara) 50,000 50,000 2/23/96 Autodesk, Inc. (San Rafael) 50,000 50,000 2/23/96 Houghten Pharmaceuticals, (San Diego) 10,000 10,000 Inc.

2/23/96 KLA Instruments (Santa Clara) 5,000 5,000 Cor oration 2/23/96 Fluegel, Frederick K. Managing Partner, Matrix 5,000 5,000 Partner (Atherton) 2/23/96 Bingham, W. Richard Pamer, American Industrial 1,000 1,000 Partners (San Francisco) VeriFone, Inc. (Redwood City) 25,000 2/26/96 25,000 2/26/96 Pacific Tetesis (San Francisco) 50,000 50,000 2/26/96 Cisco Systems, Inc. (San Jose) 50,000 50,000 2/26/96 & (San Francisco) 25,000 25,000 Cooeers Lybrand 2/26/96 Kurtzig, Sandra Founder, Retired Chairman & 10,000 10,000 CEO, The ASK Group (Menlo Park) 2/26/96 Schlater, James M. Chairman, Molecular 1,000 1,000 Dynamics (Mountain View) 2/26/96 Carreker (Saratoga) 1,000 1,000 2/26/96 American Electronics (Sacramento) 7,500 23,000 3/7 /96 Association PAC 15,500 Page 16

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of Joans forgiven) Occupation/Employer Monetary Loans Non-monetary (as listed on filing with California Contributions conitrbutions Date(s) Contributor Secretari of State) (Schedule A) (Schedule B) (Schedule C) Total 2/26/96 Futrell, Dr. Michael Physician, The Cardiology Clinic (Shreveeort) 2/26/96 Lucas Dealership Group, (Cupertino) 10,000 10,000 Inc.

2/26/96 Contractors Wardrobe (Valencia) 200 200 2/26/96 Aleha Transform, Inc. (Long Beach) 100 100 2/27 /96 Irvin, Robert G. Chairman, A TI systems, Inc. 200 200 (Pacific Palisades) 2/27/96 Katell, Gerald L. President, Katell Properties 200 200 (Pacific Palisades) 2/27/96 Elliott, Sam Managing Director, Alexander & Alexander (Manhattan Beach) 2/27/96 Leegin (City of Industry) 1,000 1,000 2/27/96 CFO, Informix Software 1,000 1,000 Graham, Howard H.

(Monte Sereno) 2/27/96 Conner, Donn President, Reed, Conner & 200 200 B.

Birdwell (Los Angeles) 2/27/96 Alvarez, Ron VP,. Americas Informix 1,000 1,000 Software (San Francisco) 2/27/96 McConnell, Thomas C. General Parh1er, New 1,000 1,000 Enterprises Associates (San Francisco) 2/27/96 Tai, William P. Partner, Walden (San 1,000 1,000 Francisco) 2/28/96 Sunkist Growers, Inc. (Sherman Oaks) 5,000 5,000 Russell, Christine A. Chief Financial Officer, Sygnus 150 150 2/28/96 Sueeort (Los Gatos) 2/28/96 Haas, Cliff Partner, Sigma Management II, 23,287 23,287 L.P. (Menlo Park)

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) Occupation/Employer Monetary Loans Non-monetary (as listed on filing with California Contributions conitrbutions Date(s) Contributor Secretary of State) (ScheduleA ) (Schedule B) (Schedule C) Total 2/28/96 Woodson, Wade Partner, Sigma Management II, 26,750 26,750 L.P. (Menlo Park) 2/28/96 C.J. Segerstrom & Sons (Costa Mesa) 15,000 15,000 DHL Airways, Inc. (Redwood City) 10,000 10,000 2/28/96 2/28/96 Allied Telesyn International (Sunnyvale) 1,000 1,000 2/28/96 Union Oil Company of (El Segundo) 75,000 75,000 C~lifornia dba Unocal (Mountain View) 200,000 2/29/96 Adobe Systems 200,000 Incor orated 2/29/96 Atlantic Richfield Comeany (Los Angeles) 25,000 25,000 2/29/96 Sherman, Steven E. Partner, Sherman & Sterling 500 500 2/29/96 Lauder, Laura Partner, Lauder Partners 5,000 5,000 1,000 2/29/96 Halprin, Stephen E. General Partner, Oscoo 1,000 Ventures (Portola Valley) 2/29/96 Auseex Systems, Inc. (Santa Clara) 5,000 5,000 2/29/96 Hambrecht & Quist Partner, Bryam & Edwards 10,000 10,000 1,500 1,500 2/29/96 Hichcock, F.E. Jr. Chair /CEO, Hitchcock Automotive Resources (Industr ) 5,000 2/29/96 Insync Systems, Inc. (Mileitas) 5,000 3/1/96 Warner Develoement (Huntington Park) 5,000 5,000 3/1/96 Crane, Christoeher A. Self erneloyed (La Jolla) 100 100 Rosenthal, Leon E. retired (Hillsborough) 100 100 3/1/96 3/1/96 Van Ness, W. Denman Partner, Olympic Venture 1,000 1,000 Partners 1,000 3/1/96 Messmer, Harold M, Jr. CEO, Robert Half International, 1,000 (Menlo Park) NEA Develoement Core. (Baltimore) 25,000 25,000 3/1/96 10,000 3/1/96 National Venture Capital (Arlington) 10,000 Association Tencor (Mountain View) 25,000 25,000 3/1/96

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200,201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) 3/1/96 Goldman, Richard N. Chairman & CEO, Goldman 10,000 10,000 Insurance (San Francisco) StorMedia, Inc. (Santa Clara) 3/1/96 25,000 25,000 3/1/96 Conceetus, Inc. (San Carlos) 5,000 5,000 3/1/96 Penederm, Inc. (Foster City) 2,000 2,000 Johnson Machinery Co. (Riverside) 10,000 10,000 3/1/96 3/4/96 Whiting, Douglas L. V.P., Stac Storage & 2,500 2,500 Communications (Carlsbad) 3/4/96 A:e:elied Digital Access (San Diego) 10,000 10,000 3/4/96 Wathen, Thomas W. Chairman, Pinkerton’s, Inc. 1,000 1,000 (Encino) 3/4/96 Sippi, Roger retired, Visigeaic Software 10,000 10,000 (Woodside) 3/4/96 Public Storage, PSCC, Inc. (Glendale) 100,000 100,000 3/4/96 Bush, James E. Physician (San Diego) 100 100 Southern California Edison (Rosemead) 25,000 25,000 3/4/96 Com an 3/4/96 Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (New York) 50,000 50,000 3/4/96 Farr Comeany (El Segundo) 1,000 1,000 1,000 3/4/96 Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (San Francisco) 1,000 3/4/96 The Lurie Comeany (San Francisco) 5,000 5,000 3/4/96 XOMA Coreoration (Berkeley) 10,000 10,000 C. 500 3/4/96 Ash, William self emeloyed (Half Moon Bay) 500 3/4/96 Paine, F. Ward Partner, Oscco Ventures 1,000 1,000 2,500 3/4/96 Alza Coq~oration (Palo Alto) 2,500 3/4/96 Landec Coreoration (Menlo Park) 1,000 1,000 3/5/96 Draeer International (San Francisco) 500 3/5/96 Volz, WilliamJ. (Saratoga) 100 100 3/5/96 Ammirati Regulatory (Los Altos) 100 100 Consultin 3/5/96 Dickman, John D. Chair & CEO, Affymetrix 250 250

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California,

S our Ce. .

Periods covering January 1, 1995 to Mar~h 9, 1996 (LF _ indicates the amount of loans forgiven) Occupation/Employer Monetary Loans Non-monetary (as listed on filing with California Contributions conitrbutions Contributor Secretar of State) (Schedule A) (Schedule B) (Schedule C) Total Date(s) Sutter Hill Management (Palo Alto) 10,000 10,000 3/5/96 Comeany Silicon Valley Bank (Santa Clara) 2,500 2,500 3/5/9s- Orbit Semiconductor, Inc. (Sunnyvale) 5,000 5,000 3/5/9~ Kvamme, E. Floyd Partner, Kleiner Perkins 51,040.38 51,040.38 3/5/96 Caufield & Byers (Menlo Park) —-Genentech, Inc. (South San Francisco) 25,000 25,000 Heidrich, A. Grant, III Partner, Mayfield (Menlo Park) 10,000 10,000 3/6/9§.__ 3/6/9§_ Sevin Rosen Bayless (Dallas) 20,000 20,000 3/6/96 Management Comeany Sevin Rosen V (Dallas) 15,000 15,000 3/6/96 Management Comeany Sevin Rosen Management (Dallas) 15,000 15,000 3/6/96 Comeany Northwest Venture (Kirkland) 3,000 3,000 3/6/96 Services Coreoration —-Schock, John Partner, Asset Mangement Co. 1,000 1,000 2,500 Verity, Inc. (Mountain View) 2,500 3/6/9§.__ 3/6/96 — 3/6/96 (Woodside) Asset Management Co. (Palo Alto) 1,000 1,000 3/6/9.!l- Mouri, Richard self-employed landlord (South 500 Pasadena) (Palo Alto) 1,000 1,000 Euehonix, Inc.

3/6/9!:.- Jones, Robert Trent, II (Palo Alto) 250 250 3/6/9.!l- 1,000 Jarve, John W. General Partners, Menlo 1,000 3/6/96 Ventures (Atherton) —-10,000 John H. Kautz Farms (Lodi) 200 200 3/6/9j__ Centigram (San Jose) 10,000 3/7/96 Communications Co oration

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) Occupation/ Employer Monetary Loans Non-monetary (as listed on filing with California Contributions conitrbutions Date(s) Contributor Secretary of State) (Schedule A) (Schedule B) (Schedule C) Total 3/7/96 Grossman, Allan I. Attorney at Law, O’Melveny & 500 500 Myers (Los Angeles) 3/7 /96 Institutional Venture (Menlo Park) 10,000 10,000 Mana emen t IV 25,000 3/7 /96 Exxon Cor:eoration (Irving) 25,000 3/7 /96 Ultratech Ste:eeer, Inc. (San Jose) 5,000 5,000 3/7/96 Interwest Management (Menlo Park) 5,000 5,000 Partners III 3/7 /96 Western Atlas, Inc. (Beverly Hills) 25,000 25,000 3/7/96 Kalb, Jeffrey C. President and CEO, California 1,000 1,000 Micro Devices (Saratoga) 3/7/96 Yellow Cab Co-Operative, (San Francisco) Inc.

3/7/96 Insignia Solutions, Inc. (Mountain View) 1,000 1,000 3/7/96 Hausman, Warren H. Professor, Stanford University, 100 Deet. Engineering (Stanford) 3/7/96 Acuson Cor:eoration (Mountain View) 25,000 25,000 3/7/96 Cowart, Jim C. Chairman and CEO, Auroa 5,000 5,000 Electronics, Inc. (Irvine) 3/8/96 The Contrarian Groue, Inc. (New:eort Beach) 1,000 1,000 3/8/96 COHU, Inc. (San Diego) 2,000 2,000 3/8/96 Integral Capital (Palo Alto) 4,670 4,670 Mana emen t II 3/8/96 Network Ae:eliance (Mountain View) 25,000 25,000 Young, Eric A. General Partner, Canaan 1,000 1,000 3/8/96 Partners (Palo Alto) 3/8/96 Mumford, John B. Partner Crosspoint Venture 1,000 1,000 Partners (Los Altos) Franz, Inc. (Berkeley) 250 250 3/8/96 3/8/96 Pyramid Technology (San Jose) 35,000 35,000 Cor oration Page 21

WHO’S REALLY BEHIND PROPOSITIONS 200, 201 and 202 ..

Source: Statements filed with the California Secretary of State by the Alliance to Revitalize California, Periods covering January 1, 1995 to March 9, 1996 (LF -indicates the amount of loans forgiven) Integral Capital (Menlo Park) 5,330 5,330 3/8/96 Mana mentll Novell, Inc. (Orem) 25,000 25,000 3/8/96 3/8/96 Pyxis Corporation (San Diego) 9,950 9,950 TriQuint Semiconductor (Beaverton) 10,000 10,000 3/8/96 Carlisle, Doug Partner, Menlo Ventures 8,880 8,880 3/8/96 (Menlo Park) 3/8/96 Doerr, John Partner, Kleine Perkins 46,295.50 46,295.50 Caufield & Byers (Menlo Park) 3/9/96 Tunney, Frances R, Jr. Corporate Vice President, 100 100 Allergan, Inc. (Newport Beach) 3/9/96 Network General (Menlo Park) 10,000 10,000 Cor oration Sierra Semiconductor 50,000 50,000 3/9/96 (San Jose) 3/9/96 Synopsys, Inc. (Mountain View) 10,000 10,000 (Alameda) 2,000 2,000 3/9/96 Wind River Systems, Inc.

Coherent, Inc. (Santa Clara) 5,000 5,000 3/9/96 1,000 3/9/96 Horowitz, Joseph H. Venture Capitalist (Atherton) 1,000 Bartsch, Russell & Moeller (San Diego) 100 100 3/9/96 Ltd.

3/7/96 Berg, Carl President, Berg & Berg 250,000 250,000 (Cu ertino) TOTAL 7,427,748.60 3,325,549.00 203,622.50 10,956,920.10 Page 22

”IJ. AUTO INSURANCE REFORM BILL 1762 PERFE(Tt NO, IT I$ NOT.” “II IT A TREMENDOUS IMPROVEMENTO VER SYSTEMl TODAY’S …. YEJ, IT IS!~’

-AndrevTobias, MIU.IONS0 HUNDREDSO P OF 1)011.ARS

SUPPORT

SICiHfFtcAHf

AUTO INSURANCE REFORM

br Sr::tc f::r~ !::=nee.

·-· . . ‘ .. : .. ..

The Honolulu Advertiser, page B6

‘; ,,:L~,:A

• ‘ : : ) ,· ‘-/ I -i-A L I -; . , ,. t: ·. LL July 3 L I 995 __ .:Ll FORN IA Ms. Rosemary Shahan Motor Voters 1500 W. El CaminoA ve., Suite 1419 Sacramento, CA 95833 Dear Rosemary: I can appreciate your desire not to get bogged down in a debate over issues that are of little importancet o your organization, so I’d like to propose a very modest step you could take to insure that more of your time and energy is not wasted on this. Just send Harvey Rosenfielda letter instructing him not to cite you or your group as opponents of our initiatives,a nd send us a copy.

I realize that you would prefer simplyt o do nothing. But keep in mind that we feel very stronglya bout the causes we are fighting for and will be very aggressivei n taking on our opponents. So unless you are prepared to defend your position( and we do intend to put the individuals ignatoriest o the statement on the spot), you need to do something to stop Harvey from citing you as an opponent.

I am sorry that you didn’t call me or anyone else at Voter Revolt or the Allianceb efore you signed the statement. I could have explainedt o you that in additiont o the other good things no-fault would do for consumers. it would help promote safer cars. Under no-fault, insurers pay benefits to cover injuries sufferedb y their own policy holders. That makes it possible for your insurer to offer you a bigger discount for airbags and other safety devices since your use of them saves it money. Under the present liability system, your insurer covers you primarilyf or harm you cause to others, so your use of an airbag saves it very little (o r nothing if you only have liability insurance). As a result, there’s no reason for your insurer to offer you much of a discountf or an airbag.

Please, take the time to at least speak with us and consider all of the arguments on both sides of this debate. ..o r remove yourself from the campaigna gainst us.

Sincerely, MichaelJ ohnson

P.O. Box 1980 Santa Monica, CA 90406 February 11, 1996 Mr. Andrew Tobias 787 N.E. 71st Street Miami, Florida 33138 Mr. Tobias: For eight months, you have been arrogantly hectoring consumer advocates across_ California with telephone calls, faxes, rambling letters and e-mail, threatening to publicly punish them if they do not withdraw their opposition to your insurance industry, Wall Street and Silicon Valley big business initiatives, Propositions 200, 201 and 202.

You and your minions warned Rosemary Shahan, founder of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, to “keep in mind that we feel very strongly about the causes we are fighting for and will be very aggressive in taking on our opponents. So unless you are prepared to defend your position (and we do intend to put the individual signatories on the spot), you need to do something to stop Harvey from citing you as an opponent (of the initiatives].” (July 31, 1995 Alliance letter).

You have privately threatened to hold a news conference denouncing Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, for its opposition to your measures.

Last Friday, you made good on your threat to disparage those who oppose you by publishing a petulant, false (not to mention wildly egocentric} full page advertisement attacking University of San Diego law professor and children’s rights advoca-te Robert Fellmeth in the USO student newspaper, for “opposing universal auto-injury insurance for children,” and suggesting that he had “put the interests of lawyers … ahead of the interests of injured children.”

(Vista, February 8, 1996).

Finally, yesterday, you attacked Ralph Nader at a hearing in the state legislature on Proposition 200, claiming that his ·opposition to Prop. 200 is based on financial support from attorneys.

•

from Hawaii, where State Farm paraded you around the

All this mud-slinging is from someone who is neck deep in insurance industry and corporate muck (and money) ■ state’s news media in suppo~t of no fault auto insurance legislation and paid for your advertising, to California, where insurance companies and big businesses are funding your campaign to screw consumers ■ and big Wall Street investment firms actually paid you to promote the initiatives in California.

Your clumsy, brash efforts to intimidate reputable citizen advocates have, of course, been a failure (even the one person who you claim has changed his mind as a result of your calls, Reverend Cornelius Taylor, told us he still opposes the initiatives but told you he didn’t just to get you off his back. In any case, the California NAACPi s opposed). While the coalition opposing Propositions 200, 201 and 202 is a uniquely diverse group of civic leaders, we have one thing in common: most of us have spent our lives fighting powerful, wealthy special interests like your political bedfellows. · However, while your targets may have chosen not to bother to respond to your remarks, I believe the record needs to be set straight.

In contrast to what you told Rosemary Shahan, no fault will not prevent injuries or deaths or safer cars. In fact, the absence of personal responsibility which is · the hallmark of no fault leads to increased . recklessness and drunk driving –as studies have suggested.

Consumers Union, which supports some form of no fault, opposes your Prop. 200 (and the other initiatives) because they are grossly unfair and arbitrary and give insurance companies· and other institutional wrongdoers too much control over consumers. (Bob Hunter, the founder of the National Insurance Consumer Organization and presently Insurance Director for the Consumer Federation of America consumer advocate, shares the same view of Prop. 200).

And, contradicting your effort to bully Bob Fellmeth, Prop. 200 is demonstrably disastrous for children, whose death in a car accident caused by a reckless

• driver is worth little more under no fault than the car they were driving in. Should a child be left permanently disabled, Prop. 200 offers only a pittance in medical benefits, no wage loss and no compensation for a child’s lost potential as a productive member of society. By the way, as California’s State Bar monitor, Robert Fellmeth did more to protect consumers against errant lawyers than anyone else in California. His work is in marked contrast to your initiatives, which would remove consumer protections and leave consumers vulnerable to lawyers for insurance companies, swindlers and toxic polluters.

Finally, as for yesterday’s cowardly attack on Ralph Nader’s credibility: Nader has been America’s public citizen for the consumer’s health, safety and economic well-being for thirty-five years. Nader advocates highway and auto safety, and he has worked to encourage the insurance industry to do the same. When it comes to defending and advancing the civil justice system to protect Americans who are injured by the misbehavior of others, Nader leads the way, and has welcomed the rest of the n~tion, in-eluding attorneys and insurance companies, to recognize the consumer protection issues at stake and join the cause.

When lawyers undercut consumers’ interests, as they did in Texas recently and in California in 1988, or when lawyers propose settlements in airline or automobile class action lawsuits that give consumer too little, Nader has intervened in strong opposition. When insurance-companies jack up rates without justification or sponsor proposals to enrich themselves at the expense of injured motorists, from Hawaii to Rhode Island, Nader can be counted on to stand up for the average person.

Nader has never benefited personally in any way from any of his work. He has never accepted one dollar·for his efforts on behalf of consumers. And~ contrary to your false statements –standard fare from the insurance industry republished by a magazine that is funding your initiatives –the many non-profit groups Ralph has launched have probably received more donations from insurance companies than from lawyers.

That an abusive booster for insurance companies and corporate America like yourself has been masquerading

as a consumer advocate is pitiful enough. As far as we can tell, the only evidence you offer for that proposition is a “media service” award you once I effort to associate yourself with CFA has since been received from the Consumer Federation of America. Your • repudiated by the CFA’s affiliate, the Consumer Federation of California, both of which oppose your initiatives. If you are a consumer advocate, so is.

Charles Keating, State Farm, Kohlberg Kravis and Al • Shugart • But to try to discredit your opposition by going after

use your wealth to access the legislative process –

legitimate consumer advocates is something we simply will not tolerate.

• Under our democracy, people like yourself are free to even to advocate the denial of access to the judicial •• ·branch to everyone else but you and your rich buddies.

California has a tradition of welcoming newcomers to participate in our lively political culture. But you, your big money and your big mouth have worn out your • welcome in California. Why not peddle your proposals in Florida, where you would have to live with them yourself?

• Harvey Rosenfield

°” 24 !ftr.-l-~l~’f ‘:.~ r,v,~·J *!’.J!li~:’.’,.I ·:.,~,••·~t”::a.: -J ,–. -n.’!,: n.:r ~,·:1;: n:,/. :.:;1:::r.:t:i,!;d starcmencv illf),ing three tnltiatives that wmb e on tile March ballot In so doing. rr

Children’s Advocacy Institute

February 9, 199G Vista Editor Dear Editor, On Feb!”Ua:y a, ca ran a full page paid ad by an Vis “Andrew Tobias” accusing me personally of forsaking children because ! have failed to support publicly an initiative backed by the insurance industry. The ad is not entirely ac=urate.

Mr. Tobias did contact me and asked us to disavow some comments made about him, and for our support =or his initiative. I was well aware of his identity, since he11 formulated a “Managing Your Moneysoftware system for oersonal fir.ances that I use. It is an excellent ~reduct.

And, judging from bis initiative, Mr. Tobias should ~ocus on sof:.ware.

Contrarv to .nis statements, I did resDond to him and have correspondence between us in my file. -I have declined to support his ini:.iative, joining Ralph Nader and most consumer groups which have studied it, including the largest: Consumers Union of the United States. Nor do other child advocates generally support it. His approach has been to threacen to attack me personally if I did not issue a public scacement supporting his position and disavowing various criticisms of him. And he vowed to issue his attack through paid ads in my hometown. 1-4..r. Tobias has the spoiled personae of the :-ich kid who says: “you better do as I say, or I’ll tell your mother you hit me.” Such an approach is rarely persuasive over the age of ten.

The ad bominem characterizations of Mr. Tobias should not distract from the problems with Proposition 200. Parts of ic have merit and we agree with Consumers Union that a strong case can be made for no-fault insurance for minor accidents.

Contrary to the traditional position of the trial lawyers, a great deal is wasted in litigating issues of fault in close cases with little injury. The public court and attorney costs can often exceed the amount at issue.

But this measure is poo~ly drafted for many reasons, and on balance cnildren will not benefit from it. For examnle, if an irresponsible driver seriously injures a child, medical payment is limited to policy limits, which can (a,,.~d will) be commonly set at $50,000. That amount will not meet the needs of children wb.o suffer serious, permanent disability. Even if the driver is egregiously at fault and is fully and easily

capable of payi::g for t::.e ::::ury 1:e :1as caused, he canr.ot. be sued. rte is ir..:nunized cate;~rically.

The measure has an esca~e valve to lift recompense higher11 -but only i= the dri·.rer ::.s “escaping a felony, hauling hazardous wastes, or is conv~cted of drun~ driving. Only the last happens with any :=eq.:s~cy. 7hus, it would allow full medical cost -=-~eo ffending driver is but:.

recovery where d::unk, where he is deranged or driving totally not men~ally irresponsibly for a hund=ed ccher reasons.

The needs of the c~ilci are ~oc taken into account, and children particularly suf:er since they often have the greatesc. need for assistance above the $50, 000 mark. The lines of this initiative are drawn so the ~easure can be sold as hardon 1.l…’1.popular that the drur-ic drive!’.”s. we believe criminal conviction will thac issue -not arbitrarily adci.::’;SS limiting medical reco~cense in tort to the victims of and convicted d.._–.-ud.nr.iJvce rs i::::muni:zing virtually everyone else from any civil liability for their carelessness.11 Mr. Tobias some years ago proposed a “pay.at the pump auto insurance plan. It assessed a small gas tax add-on to make sure everyone woul1 be covered in a reasonable system.

We backed his model when it was introduced in California. But it ran into l1eavy special i:.terest opposition. Rather than courageously taking on t1:e wrong-headed, Mr. Tobias has chosen to join of sev~ral profit-stake interests in the the one mix – insurance industry. That i.:l.dustry unsurprisingly tends to favor high premiums and lcw claim pay-outs. The utopian benefits Mr. Tobias cites a.=e achievable only if there is a source of funding such as his previous proposal would provide.

In contrast, Prooosition 200 will finance its oromises substantially through t~e denial of benefits to many-who are wrongly injured.

I regret that Vista chose not to let me know about this full-page ad attacking me personally. I learned of it only after its publication. Allowing me to respond in the same issue would be consistent ~ith journalistic standards, and would facilitate first amendlnent debate -particularly where the publication is a monthly. Whatever the comments of Mr.

Tobias may be worth, I hope and trust that my campus newspaper Vista received full and substantial payment for them.

Ve;fjincereJ-~ (F P-(,, ?,1fa-,..

Rebert C. Fellmeth

fia11ct to Revilaliu Califor11ia ID#950300 · Page# -4 of 25 D.ntJ: OccunntmnlF … D,I~P erlo1I CullllllnJ.rn Mame…nnd…Addw.1 mnwvcr1 Chairman,I ntelC orporation $100,000.00 . 4/28/95 Gordon Moore $ I0 0,000.00 I0 0 CanadaR oad Woodside CA 94026 787 N.B. 7ht Street Spealclngs ervlcu dm1attd to Miami, PL 33138 ARC, rcsulling i11p ayn1e11frto m Keppler ~ssociates, ltrc.

4350 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 700 Arli111l10V11A 2220J1 N.8. Street Spenlci11sge rvices d011all
r .

2/19/96 JP. Morgan Services Inc. L Due: 3f.l61Xl $800.()()0.00 $1.()5S.000Jl0 Wilmingtoo,O1! 19801-3015 Rate:8 .1 S’1 0 Self-Employed $1,0.55,000.00 SSOOP00.00 Consullarl AlhertGn,CA9 4027 Jn/96 L Due:3 fl!W6 $600,000.00 $1.6’5,000.00 J.P. Mergan ServicesIn c.

0.pcrtino, Rtlo: .8 .7.5’1, SUBTOTAL $1,.650,000.00 SUBT
2 Amountr eceivedu nder $100 lfu perlod.

3. Tolll lOIUIrSc c:olvcdahlsperiod.

TOrAL~—–~—–..

Loons R1c1IP1d-Pan II Summa11 4. Loanso f$l00orm0f’Crepaid. S’81 00 s. umes. oo .. $0.00 Loans 1 rtptid.

6. Total IC811rSq lald. TOTA L S.581,30000 7. Net ChangeI bisp eriod. NET $1,068;100.00

Schedule B -Part I: California1 994 Form 419 . ‘ . Loan1R a;civcd l 1.

s~ roe•.

l/95 I.P. MCi’pn L Due: 3/1.696 $60,000.00 $180,000.00 90′.lMAJkclStrccl Interest Wilmlna1ooD. B, 19801-3015 &.

Slt

s..e,

>.t% ~ Servba Inc.. Due: 3f.l6/96 L $75,000.00 $255,000.00 WilmlnawnI. >li1 9801-3015 R~o: 8.7S,L SUB10TAL $1lS.uoo.oo SUBTOTALs a-…..

, R1tllnd • I-tin I SUlltltllll1 .

:,·= ~··schoc: dul·~ : · · . California1 994l um 419 S1atcn1e~c1o vers ~od from OctoberI , 199S~ ugla Decembe3r1 , l99S ~:iP,:a yments. Made~ y an Agenao r IndependentC ontractor Page# 30 of 36 rmc• lo Re,llaliu .Calf/orn/4 JDIWSOJOO :,,;amc;l” C’ll/s1u,C ommunlaotlanJ · 8411 lt’hllJNrlq 011kl u4 , , · NamoandMdlcs.1of Amowu · EsahcadD ba>untS ofiwam $50UO ·.· SJI Fl,lq.r Drl~ · Namoa nd A~ or RenoAlr 8Jl(>JgS SJC-SNA $6 0 . Rcao.

NV 89520-3009 10/1V J.5R A SJC·LAX l $164.00 10/11,4}R’ A LAX-SJC $184.00 ‘ / Sou1.b1csAt lrUncsC o. T 10/4/9.fS IC-LAX $161.00

.o:

Box3 661I 10Jll/!il5S JC-LAX $144.

Dallas Uaitcd Airlines T 9/13/95S fO.LAX•SFO $201.00 •0 .80Jla>64 9/i0/’95S fO-SO-SPO.

$158.00 11/3 !IO-LAX-.SFO $201.00 m Ml A8121 J AlaskaA ir T 9/30/1995S JC-PahaS prings $433.00 P.O.B ox6 8900 10/1195P alm. Sprinas-SJC $178.00 Seattln fulecutlvoJ et .AviatlonI, nc, T 10/.Il ./.1l SJC-SNA-SJC .

Columbus OH 43236-9099 De.1ettS prlna• Mmiot Mamo 74-8.SSC OlllttyC lub Drive p Chic Um®S no · 9n.1/9S $380.00 641I !. ArqucsA venuo Na.uanaCl mfercnco of· Chri.sllanai nd Jews F . $500.00 . ..” ..

965 MissionS ltoct, Suite4 30 San Francisco CA 94 I0J•2’1l … t~ Proulx Suhtoral $2287.30

—

I: 2· • i’ 5′

6

mnn:o STATES OtSTlUC’t COURT DlST.IUCTO T CAl’..Il”(WltA 1sll _____________ 14 f ,ECtlRITla:5 Ut!GATlON ) MM’tlllt !’%IE BO.

• ) c-a,-io7s6(A)-WU 1s,l ___ 16Ji ,

111′

1a·!

20’1 1. I am a rHidcl’t of MoJntail Vi•v, CltJ.itoad.a.

~ :r. ~ibz calendar )’oAn 1983 llM-1tH Z WI 2’anrie.al Jfanager Cor 7n ‘!’ra.nsport11.tio1:2. a freiC)b.t farv&t,&or in .$an =1 .:ro… ~ Terminal Xaruu;er I YaR i’a. ~rge_ ot 7ff•• cpoJ.”•tJ.oru..

wa• curing-this thta one of Z’S’I”• ujos: euatatdn. sa~te Technaloqy f1 2G- 2.J!

‘l: 2.f’ i;

.!i .). >.-; th• end of qu.Artors in c.Alendnr ya.u-• l~U a.nr.ll .9U, Seagate cleared out ite varc.b.oueo~. vaa dlroct.a to au p1e~ I!

=P• Wu.u41, lsol,idays and lat.e ot. n.f.qllt, wa:nasQ thar t:.ruckn••

aaar

cuch HI ~ ~riean Van Unu. Oil ~ oee&liou, ot: :rst’.

e Pft•• ‘9iax~ ve,:a b~ht t:o wr•~ in •&11.t•C l•~• or sa.n .:rose ..

‘1 4. % r-Miber. part:1cul.u-ly ma quarter ~, -1th.er in a 01sC.,..r nu or 3~ 1.984, wen tnil•~ ttuaJc ~ ct cl1$c d.riY ..

n-:•a an-t••d -.ll zu-ght:, until VOll patt •Ld.n1Qbt. •t 11U’ahouaa frn rsT’• -..pt.a. In all, Ceqat• atond tn va,:-.Jio&ata on. 1:b&t oceGaian :uso~ 11et. of di&c 4r.1va•, a’t i6-dJ■c ddv-M ~r pall&t. fhaN 250 pa11•ts v•r• ~ ln the vareow;a W’lt:il a.t. l•ut i.12.tDt be follovu,.g 12 · 5. Gen•r•Uy, in at l•n•t IS!I of tb.41 cu .. , ~t• pi:-ap.aid l.( ‘ c:h&l,J•• all ot l’Sl”• ~ .. inc:1udinq any ~ar n~ouai:ng drive•.

161 ‘:t ■nd tJ:l,a deetu-. W’ld•r penalty perjury t.at. foreqoinrJ la !:.,:-Ue oorreat an4 to t:h• bt•t of ,oy inovl.adqe. J:x~td thi11 5th d•Y of lif O..,nbtr, in $umyval•, C.lifom.11.

18:i 201!

20f 2,

‘ 3!/ & I’

L. r-

s !

12, 13; 1, _ li’l This ncx:uc:e~ ‘to: Relata■ > D~TION or 1sll l ———-_________ lSJ,; ~ll I 1. I am a resident c! San Jou. c.&.li!ornia. l ~ing calendllr years 19113 and 1914, I vorJc•d as an t i.Nlepement. c•~).

OO?l.1:.ract.o:rw itll P’S’l’ ~ran■portat1.on. l~c-tlurin.g 2,, m· tot-

(“Saagat.c”>·

2,S• :ut •, I : Iocatiom:. .l.laeng t:hea:• locatio.rw to ._.hicJi I vow.d truck tinJ.1~ed I I·

• 2P 1, 9ood• troa sa.n Seagate vorc the JcH Airport. t:h• San Fr11n«risco Airport, FST’s warehouses san~a Clara or San Jo~, and a ~•rki~q !’ ~’ lot in Scott.a Valley.

:, • ‘ftia P””kinq lot 1ft Scott.I Vulay Vllich r ref•rN4 to i:i th.a prac:edin; p&l’lffllph U.Hd to N -~ or nelt’t to the loc:ation Of an

:i

(1 b&liffa thia pa::1uftg JttC ia. u • par.’U.nt; Jot for: ridUh.U’ars.) Xn thLI parki..ng lat 1:11 t1n1s1-Mid gond• fx:oia S.aqatb’s tcott.a ‘allay taeilitioa. ‘.f.heae
16

goods fr0111 Seagat•’• SeoHs V.11tl ay f’aeilit.l.«a, there: varo also 13,: 14, , conttd.ned 111 tr.-c::tor tro.il•n pa.rked l.n this lot raw :aa’l:ariala or th”• parts. % understood thiil :u.w –.tariala or par.ta stored in uiis lo~ •o that S•agate vould not h4tve to record th~ in S••gat•’• • 161′ 1,;f innntorv for .Pt,&”tiwlar }’4riod.a• •:£• •• At one t.i:e 1:l•N von: 1JP to tull tractor ‘trailers • 1a!f t’ ih. thi• The•e parked pa~Xi’ftlJ lot at nnta • • vill,11ge. trac..tor trailers I!

19•j •

20

•t l•a11t aoma oecasions. Tb• ‘t!’aa,:.o,: U-•i1ara v•r• leaaed 1,y ,s: t.ra11 A.’l’J’, • tt”Uc’k leasirliJ busin•u based iJs st. :t.ouf.a vit.h otf1c.s in san • 23 t?lHfl taciliti• i”1 Sa:n Jo••• d.ro”‘• t.nct.o::–t.railer• to th• .&a.nu•• :t Village lot, an4 then ttturned the•• HJLe uailenr to six »ont:lu: l.a~t”. A.a ta~ •• I bov, on ~o ,:.vo occ:a■icna tta. t:-actor tr•H•” 2Gli cat. :r pic,~ad up at Ur and 1.-u.b,sflquently rct::u.rnad to 1wl’ had •t all 2-‘; td.lllln: :r…,itua-d in the Sant:A’ a ‘i71llaqe p.,a~lting r1llad Yitl’l S•agate ‘P.I 28: ~ini5hec:l 9oodc. rav mat..erialt. o~ parl•• I;

31: I at~• cl01e or quartar~.

It vau at tllis ti.,. in partir:uln· t:J’l.at l ” and ot.h•~ tniCMr5 pick.ad up f.Sniah■d ‘JOINt or ,Use ckives tro:m Scaqata’a Scott.a va11ay facilitiaa t.o S&.nta’ s Villa9u paTki.t:9 lot. tor •toraqa or •1-to 1’ST’• warab~s tor 8′ vaN?:lau.s• for a.110Unt a~ t.ractor •t.orage. :t under~ thet. driv•• wx-. 1tl :nr.r•s trailer& t’illad vit.h. qoods vo~ld •t.ar on 78!”• pruuua !or at 1uat t:vo or three dar•• £:aJUtrally, at. the and cf t:he quart.er• durirw.r Cllenda:-~•r• 11n .end 1984, :r an4 otbar F’S!’ b:’vek drill!ra a■•1gn64 to s.aac;ate buaib..aaa vwl4 vork 1111.Ktaeol: : •~uen hou~ dll)”t 12: troa ::r: believe t.”t.at: other sis.9at• truckcr11, apart l’S”l’, qenet:ally 13 (J 1)!

lfarked verr lo.nq houra at qlarter «111, .l.nc:L~inq Jiortll AMric::.an Van Lina•.

l!

I tteclu• Ubder &Mnan.y and ~v.ry ca~ the fo~izl~ !a ‘true 1s·

•v

19!!

20′ %l .,

EVlTALIZE LI FORNl A MEMORANDUM Hhll,) 1•..:,11·1, DATE: November 15, 1995 , .. , …… ,..,,… 1… … , ••, . .. ,..,hJ.,’•, u,…, TO: Tom Proulx FROM: ARC C:lmp:1ign Senior Starr ..,..,,..”.. . ………….. ,.,..,.,…,,. . . …0 ·, , RE: Steinberg polling d:lt:1; no-fault Arnold Steinberg recently conducted an exhaustive publico pinions urvey on all three of our proposed initiatives. His results reveal a great deal about the probability of our success and .,.•:•UflM,111 • ._.,.,.,h,•.·11…-the strategy most a.pproprfate for our campaign . Steinberg polled an unusually large sample of likely1 U.~ ,C,’1r,••,·r.:°,l;”t:•,• California primary voters. A total of I 800 interviews were ,,;,.,RI{‘ l’•””””‘ conducted between August l 6 and August 3 1. The sample was U:t1111,’-·,…..,,ottt-r,,1e..,.. .’f:,,. .. ,. divided into three pans. Each of the 600-person subsamples were 1′.-\11) F. hll•l:1.IS asked detailed questions about one of our three initiatives. Additionally, all l 800 respondents were asked numerous questions ‘·:..u,,…u ·• 1.·L> ,, … ,_,., that applied to all three initiatives. Thus Steinberg’s sophisticated , r L .’ t t t i:,~.•. methodology pennits us to make reliable assumptions about the three initiatives individuaUayn d as a packnge.

1’111111′ I.. fllll’~1:P Main Conclusions:

.-ttff.llt,.,.,U lo.,…,,….._,..,’IAI N …..” ‘k l.n• .U Given 1800 respondents and 102 different questions

r tl “‘ ,. t:,,,; I-I -. asked of some or all of them. the data collected is voluminous. However two very salienl points cmcrg_e that are of panicu!a.r .·.:.. ….. ……..,., ·,.,.,_…. ..,, .tt imcrcst to us .

1) The d:ita cle:irly indicate that no-fault :into insurance b:1s better than SO-SOc hance of passnge •••i ..C.itJ!

,,R,,t p~rccived to be nnrt of tin over:1U tort reform packaie.

J , …..,., r.~ .-..,.. …n. .,”, .., · 2) If voters believe th.at consumer groups are t.,,._.,-.,…., ,,…~.,,,,,,w.., .

or

ffilintcd with holh sides the b.attJe, the prospects for adoption [: ,:u-..,• r no-fault insurance arc very favor:able. Voter :ittitudcs about l.awycr and legal abuse:

The following questions were asked of all 1800 respondents. No interpretation is necessary to understand their meaning or imponance.

Which is closer to your view about lawyers and lawsuits?

a) Lawyers stir up litigation, like boasting in TV ads about how much money they can get you for accident injuries? 75% b) Lawyers do not stir litigation, they simply represent people need help. lSo/o up who Which is closer to your view about the foes that lawyers arc paid from lawsuits? f a) These ccs are too high; they encourage lawyers to file unnecessary or frivolous lawsuits. 80°/o b) These fees are not too high; they encourage lawyers to fighL hard for their clients• rights. 13% Which is closer to your view about the amount oflitiga1ionw e have?

a) We have too much litigation. because inany lawsuits should never have been filed or should have been settled out of court. 87% b) We do not have too much litigation. because mo.stl awsuits are necessary to protect people’s rights. 8% Which is closer to your view :abouth ow litigation affects the economy? a) Litigation hurts our economy, becau~e lawsuits burden businesses with unnecessary costs. raising prices and eliminatingj obs. 68% b) Litigation helps our economyw ork. because lawsuits protect consumers against dishonest businesses and unsafe products. 21% Which is closer to your view about lhc number of law-ycrsw e hilve?

a) We have too many l::iwyers,a nd, as a result, too many lawsuits. 78% b) We do not have too many lawyers. because they are needed to get people their day in court. 153⁄4 Which is closer to your view about how our ‘legal system works?

a) It works unfairly like a lottery, resulting in some injured people getting far more than they deserve. and others getting little or nothing.

64% b) It works fairly in most cases. al!owing injured people to get pretty much what they deserve. 29% The order in which these questions were presented was randomly rotated. as was the order of the two alternative responses presented in each qacstion.

‘fhese numbers speak for themselves. They are a po~~~l i~dication that if we can frame the debate around rhcsei ssues, we can win.’ The Voter Revolt people among us point out that the poJlingn umbers in support of auto insurance reform in 1987 were on the same order as these numbers in suppon oflcgal reform. That is, before Proposition l 03 even got on the ballot, voters started out in favor of a generic auto insurance reform initiative by margins in the neighborhood of 85% to 15%. It was this lopsided margin that convinced them that Proposition 103 could win, even without an advertising budget. Our campaign begins with comparable numbers on legal refonn. and will have an advenising budget. · Vorer attitudes about the threc-initi:ativcp ackage: After the series of questions above, Steinberg asked all 1800 respondents the following question; Let me ask you about some ideas 10 deal with the issues we just discussed. No-fault auto insurance eliminates lawsuits for auto accident injuries.b ecause each driver collects from his own insurance company. Attorney fee limits would limit to 15% the contingency fees that lawyers could charge for ca~ that settle quickly but would aliow clients to pay more for lawsuits that take longer. Loser pays in shareholder lawsuits means if a group of shareholders sues their own corporation. the losing party pays the witting party’s legal fees. Generally speaking. do these ideas seem to you to be mainly: l) Good ideas 62 % 2) Bad ideas 173⁄4 3) Unsure/don’t know 21% or The order prcscntiny the three ideas was r;1ndomly varied and appcnrcd to have little impact on the outcome.

Voter .attitudes about e:icb of lhe three i11iti:1tivcs: Steinberg then askeda ll 1800 respondents about each of our initiatives separately. Given the publicity and advertising likely to result from the campaigns for and against these initiatives. which will lead to unusually high levels of public awareness. he used the same brief descriptions above rather than the cumbersome and difficult ballot language. The descriptions were recast as ballot initiatives and once again ~heo rder was randomly varied.

Vote on no-fault auto insurance initiative: Yes; 63% No: 25% Undec. tlo/• Vote on attorney fee limits initiative: Yes 70o/.

No llo/e Undec. 9% Vote on shareholder litigation initiative: Yes S2% No 31% Undcc. 17% on initiative :1ftcr Voter .attitudes each ••push” questions: At this point in the survey, Steinberg divided his sample of 1800 respondents into three groups of was assigned to one of our three 600 each. Each group initiatives and was asked a long series of questions in which numerous pro and con arguments directions.

were presented about that particular initiative. Thus the “push” was in both Steinberg tried to mimic the campaign :;cenario by presenting strong arguments for and against the initiative in question. At the end of this series of questions, the respondents were once again asked about their vote on the initiative_s.B reaking out the three groups separately. the results were as follows: or with the 600 presented pro and con arb,umentso n the no-fault initiative: there as a 7.5% increase in their suppon :is compared to their initial vote. limils initialivc; Of the 600 presented with pro and con arguments on the fee there was a 2.2 % increase in their support as compared to their initial vote. Of the 600 presented with pro and con arguments on the shareholder litigation initiative: there was a 2.8 % decrease in their support as compared to their initial vote. Steinberg’s bc(orc-nnd-after vote results indicate that if we c.:,,~ frame these issues around lawyer :ind legnl reform,. 1) we will be able to prevent m_uch of the erosion of support for no fault th:at usunlly occurs during the course of a campaign. and l) the no fault and contingency fee limits initiatives b.ave a better than average chance of winning.

In addition to the general conclusion above, Steinberg’s results on the impact of arguments individual pro and con on each of the three initiatives provides a road map for us with respect to our own message strategy-and the counter arguments we will need to most effectively meet the lawyers’ carnpaign.

Page S Voter attitudes: l:lwycrs vs. insur:mcc companies: Steinberg asked all respondents the followingq uestion: Thinking about .any plan to deal with the way in which lawyers and insurance companies function in our society. would you more likely look for guidance from: He then divided the sample into three randomly selected subsamples of 600 each. and presented each sub•samplew ith a different pair of aJtemative answers to this question. Each pair of alternative answers were also randomly varied with respect to which was presented first or second. The results follow: I) A coalition of insurance companies. 28 ‘Yo 2) A coalition of lawyers. 33°/4 1) A coalition of consumer groups and insurance companies. 42 °/4 2) A coalition of consumer groups and lawyers. 33% 1) A coalition of insurancec ompanies. 15% 2) A coalition of consumer grocps and lawyers. 60°/4 These pairings reveal a great deal about how we can change the usual dynamics in a fault initiativeb attle. The difficultyo f a no fault initiativeu nder the no passing usual circumstances is revealed in the last pairing. When voters perceive the battle to be between insurance companies an the one hand and coalition of consumer groups J and lawyers on the other~ they are overwhelmingly inclined to side with the lawyers. However, when consumer groups are perceived to be on both sides of the issue (the second pairing :ibovc), the lawyers drop from 60% support to 33% support, and the insurers rise from 15% support to 42% support, thus giving the insurer or to side the battle a 42% JJ3⁄4 edge.

· Looking at this data from another angle. in a straight-up contest between insurers and lawyers (the first pairing above), lawyers prevail 33% to 28%. However. when consumers are added to both sides of the equation (the second pairing above), the la~ers reaHzen o benefit and remain exactly where they were before at 33%. but the insurers move up 14% to 42%. a 9% advantage over the lawyers. This observation undcrsc:orcs the critical importance of Voter Revolt being put forward as an cqu:il partner in the fight for no fault :and the other initiatives. lawyen Other data: vs. insurance companies: Before any questions were .isked about the initiatives or about tort refonn issues. Steinberg asked a series of questions that began with the query:

Page6 Thinking about different groups in ·society. please give me your opinion of e.1ch group t mention. Please use a 1-to-6 scale, with l meaning not favorable al all and 6 meaning very favorable. Remember, 1-2-)-4-5-6. the higher the number. the higher your opinion of the group 1 mention.

Summarizing the results and collapsing variations used within each category on subsamples of the cota l 1800 respondents, these arc the results: Businesses. pro-business organizations. and corporations Consumer groups 3.9 Insurance companies. mutual insur:incc companies Elected officfo.lsp.o liticians 2.6 dealers, QT 2.S Car used dealers Lawyers, triaJ lawyers. personal injury lawyers 2.4 Given the extremely large s.impfes ize from which these numbers are derived, the differences, especially between insurance companies and lawyers. are highly significant statistically. It is also important to observe the esteem that these high propensity primary voters have for businessese. speciallyg iven that we arc likely to be cast as the pro-business side in the coming battle. The label is not likely to hurt us with these voters. In fact, it is clear that the opposite will be the c.ise. Conclusion: Steinberg came to the following conclusion in his study: “Our key finding is th;u when tort reform issues arc .presented to the electorate, a coalition that includes consu01cr groups ilnd insurance companies would be more th~n competitive with a coalition of consumer groups :ind lawyers. The opportunity for refonn is especially propitious given the type of electorate surveyed here, an attempt to simulate a March, 1996, electorate.

“The research convinces me that no t”ault auto insurance has a better than 50-50 chance as part of an overall tort reform package. This very substantial study indicates that once people see no fault within the context of an overall rcfonn package. its chances of passage are enhanced. Indeed, when voters understand that the battle is not insurance companies :1gainst lawyers, or insurance companies against both lawyers and consumer groups. but that consumer groups are divided on the issue. with some consumer groups affiliated with either side, then the prospects for adoption of no fault insurance are very favorable.”

· Zimmerman, Markman&:.H u.c.tcr Pol.:cicaJ Coe.ruttinmg c:Cl ommunia.tions CALIFORNIAT RIAL LA VYERSA SSOCIATION LAS VEGAS OCTOBER 18, 1991

PROPOSAL

by Submitted Bill Zfmmeimaa PRE.4.MBLE I hopet his Vril1b e oneo f the shoz-1p.r!Io’ posalsy ou :rec:ivet oday. If youa re loo:d.ngf or multi-colo:-ecdh u-1.aSn dp ageso f boiletpla.tes ta~ betweens lickp l.!.stic1 you.

covers,w ere thev ,rongp eoplef or Ourf irm is small.! lid intentionallsyo . We don’t take overc ampaigns.W eb uildt hC!!l.T o suit Out of existingr esource!, ttith expertisea nd t!leots ~”ifiC2.llya .~robledt o get the specificj ob done. We choose wor~ not to bri..ngth e same bloateds :.afft o every candidatew e with, or every s:i2.!ew e worki n, or everyi ssuew e worxf or. We thinkt hati s a better wayt o run our own company,a bett.f!w ay sp::d ourc lient’sm oneya, nd, ultimately,a betterw ay Day.

win on Electioil ‘”.• EXPERIENCE Since 1975I, h~Yem :;~a.geodr, p rw’iu:edp aidm edia (advertisingf)o r, more political campaignst ha.aI can count Actually, I stopped cou.ctinga t 143. These carnpaigns included ca.rHiidatemsn ning for President.,S enator. GoYemor, Cong:ressperscoM, ayor,C ity Council,S ra:.e. -s.se.mblya,n d rr.o~. >fuch of t.h..:,3:; J,k took place in Califomi~ the resti .a 15 other states across the coWJtry.A mong the.se campaigns were numerousl ocll artd5 tatev.1deb allot initiatives, pri..:;.arilyin Cilif Om i.a.

FA~fiLIARITY WITH THE ISSUE In 1987,I assistedin the drafting of Proposition1 03, and was responsiblfeo r severalo f its provis.ior.sF. ollowingit s submission1. managedt he signature gatheringe .ffo rt onit s behalf,a nd liter all aspectso f its ultim.a.telsyu ccessful campaign.

Since thep ass.agoef 103,I have s.:md u the PoliticalD irectoro f Vot1:t Revolt, and have workeds ide by sidew ith HarveyR osenfieldi n the effort to enforce the Proposition. In 1989-90I, was the campaignm anageri n ConwayC ollis’ unsuccessfurla ce.forI n.suraocCe omrnkroner. Du.ring four years,I the past hase had occasionalc ontactw ith Cl1.A staff and offi~ ~slly in recentm onths whenw e workedt ogetberto develops tr!!egyi n oppasi.tionto a possible1 992! lo !a.ultu ,Jtiative.

NATURE OF ‘IRE COMING CAJ~fPAIGN Tnc dcfw of no-fault.i n the I..ciWatuarned the ballot,r equ.L.–e.s mbstantialc o.aswneitn volvcmenLP ablicd istrust CTLA of l!W)’m IIlWlS th.e.t car:.nobt e the onlyv oiceo f opposition.A delicateb l!!!ncem ust be struckt hat enables lawyers! !idc onsumers warlct ogether achievea cOll’u-og.oonal trial to to It remaio.fso r focusg roupc d polling re.starcht o show us the best wayt o &!:nJctutrhe. isc ollabordiod.F or example.s.e parateO lp!li.zationso, ne consUA.”a’nildtt tbeo thert rial lawyerm, ayb e Or. el~vely, might avoid best -we distractings ide issue&l,i ke campaignsp oo.sorshibpy, overtlyc ombiningc onsumersa nd trial l.iv.-yers into a single effort. 11′.Ia’!. ruwert o dlis qu:stion can ELds hould be determined empiricallyt hrongh1 ~h.

Regardlesso f the investmenmt ade in paid advertising opposea no-fwt initiative, substantial &eam edia (press) work will be required. This pre.s.ws oum ust be creative,i ii order get a.ttentio!sl.. ndc redible, roove opiniono ncea ttentionL s to to focusedo n the issue. Advertising! .!oneis not enough to wi.o thisb attle, e.sw a.3 amplyd emonstratedb y our victOry’r rith Proposition1 03w hile recorde xpendi~-:s ,. on behalf of Propositia.u 100a nd 104d id not prevent tlleir resoundingd efeat. If consumeri nvolvementi n oppoiti.on no-fult is I am able to important, to play a unique role in ma.o.ag:initg. I am now, and alway! ha,·e been, part of the leaders.hipo f Vott:JR: c-.;olt I am a perso-~ friend of L-aA rlook, the Kational ga.a.izati Di.recto r of Citizen Action,a nd am CUIIeciya consult l.:lt to his or oa.. I l:…a-e a longstandingi nvolve:r.enitn cQnS.:lIIla.e.r.- -tivisman. d a=nw ell blown tb, and tr:.:.sted mig.:~2 by, other leaderso f ccru.S’.1..arcntehr- :3tg ro:.1pwsh o play an important rol: b the

• • comingc ampaign.I am a frienda .ndo ccasiondc ollaboratorQ f RalphN ader’s.w ho, • moret hana nyO!lec,o uldh avea decisivero let o playi n the co.mi.ryige ar• Perhapms ostc ruciala. .adm osJd elicatew, ill be the involvemenotf Harvey • Rosenfieldi n rhee tfott to defeatn o-fault Harvey’cse lebritya ndc redibilityQ, nce high with mspectt o the insuranceis sue,h aven ow waned.B ut a creative ,.

campaignc oulde asilyr esurrectt bezpl.e avingh im in position to play a powerfulr ole. ia opposition no-iaulLB ut Harveyes ffectivenwc ano nlyb e maintainedi f he remains indepe11dentht;u s the delicacyo f the rela.tionshipa,n d the need for careful managemento f it.

OUR FIRM ANDI TS RELATIONSHIPW ITHC TLA I now the specificq uestionsra ised in your October 8, 1991, Icr.er will tum to to prospectivep oliticalc onsult.tnts.

My partner,P ac:M1 arkmana, ndI managep olitical C!.lllpaigncs:,r we political communicationsst ratcgiel.a ndp roducep oliticala dvertising. For.mcrlyM. r. Markmanh ad a 2.S-yw.c a..-eer adverdsin1a .sa distinguished. in~ copywriterm d ~th-e directora,t tbee nd of whichh e wasE xecutiveV 1eeP resident a.nda membero f the Boardo f Directorso f DDB Needham,o ne qf the lGJes!td . agenciesin the world. Pacyh as wonv irtually er-er,c opyv,-rld.nagw ardth ereis , including lS CUO’s,m ore than anyooeI know. He lc.Ila d,-ertisingt o devote him.self politic,. moonlightinga sa mediap ersonf or manyy eara.

to after pclitie!l If youv ..oetroe h ire ourc ompanyto man.ageo~r co•me.nageth.,e C-!.mpa.ign against you wouldg et and Ko one els.!. I would buildt he no-fa l.llt, PL,–Y me.

campaignb y cambio.L,gh ireds peci!.!istsv .ithC. ILA stai.-a”fn dC TLA’s c-JI:rent consultants,a nd then integrate themw ith the COilSWI!oerrg s.niz.s.tfothn!s! could be ~ involved. As managerI, woulds upervisaen dc oo.rdina.tetb e work of.t be.-ianll . The ca.tu.reo f thes pecialistsa. nd thee xt.enot f reli~oceo o existingC TLAs t.di and • consultantsw, ouldb e determinedb y re.s.ea.r!c.hIl d cs.mpa.igsntr ategya ndp lan that L~e emergesf romi t · CTLAh as built a strong staffo pera.ti~ now Weil•s easonedi n the intricacies ■ of statewidei nitiativec ampaign!.I t ilia receivesh ighly capablep ressa ssistance from the Metzgerf irm. It wouldb e pointleSal nd ‘ili’!Stelutol ignore thise xperience, rather tlwl to integrate it. to t!:e m.a.,ti.:,.uem.x rentp ossib:e, into the c~paign again.st no-fault are no.Jobso r responsihilit:ie.s I wo:.:.:dca tegorically exc.hrde There that Ciw staff or co.csu.Itantfsr om performing for the ~aign without a ~–i.fic strategic reason for doing so.

‘

With regcrd someo f questionsy ou raised about leadershipa nd to the en.A operations; staffi nvolvemenitn contractirigs,t rategy,a nd day-to-day my approachis quite simple. CTLA payingf or thee ffort, should oein controlo f 1f is en.A it –at three areas.

all level!. Naturuly, I wouldm aker ecommendationsin all of these and wouldp robablyh avea strongp oint of viewe very Jl CTLA1 0:,cSot .nfideoci.ne time.

my recommendationasn d judgments,t herew ould be little pointi n my fo rclngt he issuet hroughc ontractw obligations.W e woulds implyp art company.

I th.inkt he ca.,ipaigna gainstn o-!!.!llta,s well as CTLAa .sa_n ongoing organization,w ouldb e significantlyst rengthenedif c’iery aspect of the operation requiredu nderstandinga nd approvaflr oo:ia small groupo f well-informedC TI.A officex1a nd staff. Ob,iolislys ucha pprovarl equires cffon on the pan _ofth e individualsi nvolvedt o stay well-informed.I would be happy to managet he ca.rn.paigsnu bjectt o m:h an approvapl rocesse, specially if ~~k-to-weekd: ecisions . requiredo versightf romo nlyo neo r two~ le. while a larger groupw a.rse spo!Ulble for month-to-montdhe cisions.

COMPENSATION Co.mpcnsatioisn n egotiable.S ince9 ur fiim. is merely providingy ou with a portiono f my time, and to a lesser extent} ir. Marl:m:m’sti me.t he fee we would chargew ould be determfoebd y the portionw ea greedw ould be appropriateat tbe of campaign.A s yardstick.i f my tir.”je variouss tages th: a rough one-h11o.ff total we.rer equired,w e wouldb ill at S9,000t o SlZ,000p er month (dependingo n media comm.issiontos )c ovemr y saiaiya ndo url imitedo fficeo verhead.

apect We wouldi lia to be inYolvedin the paid media (2.d1r-erti.swinogr)t donef or the campaign.A s you know, this work entails a 15% cornrnissiono n ili ti.mea nd spacep urchases.A long Marlao.a.nI, the capacity.a nd print with Mr. h.:.Ye the ~perience, to handlee Yerj aspecto f ptld advertising.f rom v..Titi.nthge s criptst o tapingt he spots to bu;i:lg the rime. We are willing to !hare the 15~ commission others.i f necessaryo, r rebate portioao f it back the campaign.T he exact ‘iltith a to woo: f omro.If.oar doingt his, towe,-e.wr, ill dependo n the natD:rea nde xtento f the involved,s omethingw e’ 3Dllotk nowu ntil muchl ater in the effort. W~w ouldi >e ‘.

happyto leave such a determinitionto fun:..:-nee gotiations._ With respe,..-tot contractsw ith other .-endorsv. ..-ew ould anticipatea sima.tion in wl:ich all line it!!DJb the campaignb udg:t were subject to CTI.A approval. Similarly with all contre..-Ufo r consultants and vendors.

Since the ac.:uaIc a.rnpaig:h:ie e.d.qua.r:::mr3i ght conceivably b-ein any of severJ locations, I h.a…o-en e a.cc:.itfonrael qui.rement. If canpaig:n the is , .,.

headquarteredo utsidem y office,I wanto nef ull-timea dmifli,tntivea ssistantw ho could paid by campaigno r through company: be directly the my Two issuesr cmairi.Y es,I wouldb e a.vails.btlot attendo therm eetin~ for ~ple, -withl ocalt rial lawyerg roupaa rollildth e state. And, no, I am not able to tell you about other 1992c ampaignsin whichw e !rillb e wooiog. We are in ~egotiation.ws ith se,-eral. However,I am willing fully informy ou of these they .iclation.shipa.ss developa, ndI am willingt o ~pl Jhit!rloru in the numbero f otherc ampaignws ei li on.o ncew e knowb owm ucho f ay tirr.ew ill be requiredb y CTLA.

,, ·,5

/ 7/ Zlmmarm&AtM uka:aa.nIC Huncer PoJhic:CtJo ~l.lui”Ia nd (:ttfflffiun1′:4d~,.,.

c11,,.>,, .,,,;.

-·—·————

DATZ1 A~gwa~ ift

19, TO: Bucldy Herzo~ Wayne Mc:Claan tenny Jtaquina FROM; Bill Zimmerllan Y hav• no~~•~ •••n “-ha (ooua 9roup rapo~t, ~ut11 raqarcS1••• ct .bowm any e1lver bull•ta” tcc:ua vrou.p• 1:.ha have ~•vo•l•d tar u•• againat • no•tault i~itiattva, we •till laQk • pro•activa atrataqy and an •tfact.ive counter initiative. H•r• ar• aome i4••• that miiht bathe baais tor turth•~ discuaaion to till that void.

I~'”tava ,n ;;:.:ms ft’e!’a:•••mPJ.•, or four ..m,. three• ••ntanoe atata~ent, tar exampla, “No law ahall limit any •••x eitiaan•• ri9h~ ta jus~ compensation tcr damage ar ot neqliqanca or malic• inju:y suffered baeauaa ~Y anotncr par~y. Ncr snall any law ~r•vent d•cisicns in sQgb matters tro~ being made by• jury.· Nor 1hAll any qcvernmant entity attempt to =•c;ulata the =ifht cf• ciient t0 antar into• relationship with an attorney hirad rap~•••nt him in aucn matters.” Th• wcrding i•n’t very eleqan~. but you gae th• iQea.

initiative like t.hia could~• ‘Cha ~aa1a tor An a~t•mpt indua~ aaunt•rinq -~~ by Che tc regulata

t•••,

-~~orney ••well•• a lonq•t•~• pro-4gtiv■ pr~je~t

empbaaizes

th• he~oio role ot tha cruaadia9 •ttorney ~innin9 juatioa tor v1ctiu of corporat• abu••· • T~• oampG1Q’na n ~•halt or an 1nitia~ive like thi• intuitive to woqld h«ve a g~••t deal of appeal ~o~ara • we ••v i.ft ~• foci.a c;,:ou.pa how c:o•ittad people a:-• tc t.ne id•& that wronqdoaa abculd be h•ld reapansibl• to• • 1:heir aa~iona, anc, 1t ;ivan the right Jund ot hypotha~ioal eituation, th• i4aa tftat ~uatic• aometimee r•quir•• high lev•l• ot coapen1ation, While pacpl• are • predispc••d to dislike attorn•Y•, they•~• a1ao ,~•4iapoa•~ ~o favor the tind ot justice 4elivarad by t.n• tort ay■te.

would respond invi~inf vo~• to read our vary simple

Th• campai;n to win auch an in~t1ativ• would alao :ace ••rious The inaurara would that oppoaition. claim the 1nit1at~ve was tantaaount ta a jo~ protection act tor • lawyera. ?lonath•l•••, l clol.bt tiiey would prav«11. we by initiative th••••lve• an4 ••• that it ia wi”itten entirely trom 1:1e at.Uldpoint ot p,:o~ec:unv tha.1.r l’ifh~. The

vote• would read the initiative t.hamsalvea and maka up

in•ur•ra would counter thei tfte lawya~• ware parinq tor it, and ~o would ••Y that tii• 1naurera were pay ni to detact it. ?nth• en4, faced with a large acale, • eont~adicto:;y, campaign ot thi1 natura, l baliav• the ~•i~ minda in our favcr •• it it ware briat, eaay to • und•r•tand, and 0laarly written with their P•~g•ived •••f-in~araat 1n mind • I JC.new 11:. is easy to d.i■misa this 1dea l)y aaying

continues by ••kin9 tlihemt o maka up tnair own minds by

that onca lawyer aponaorship is revealed, we are ;onera • lut r do no: that 11 tbe case. Por example, on• thiftlc open• reminding gould run a 60•seccnd apo• th&~ by • viewers of the contreve~•Y •unoundinq th• initiative.

listening to the full text ot the 1nit1ativa (it OOijld ~• that and then c0nclude1, wha~• the sponacrah~p

iaaue ol•ttly interaat, and that l•VV•r•

abortl}, line uaually 1’Pli’••••, wi tn acmethine; like, •tThis m•••ac;e

waa

b~aught to you, proudly, by the Lawy•rs Coum.ittae for the Publ.ic tn”araat,” or •om• •~ell ccuittae name. It we • ~••k th•t poat~re 4U:inq campaign –that thia was an th• in the pw,lic •verywha~e were proud to ~tand bebiJld it –we could both inoculate the puhliC aqai~at oppoaiti~n ar9″menta, and also =•gin 1′!.hel ong-term so n•cessary tor i~age-building C’l’LA.

raaaona a aove !h•r• are a~•~ !or making lik• this, t~••• •nd at :t such an •••ndaenc ware eo the thi• added oonati•u~ion, i~ wc~ld probulr mean the end of ~h• MIC»A • law. A 900d deal of •upport a fh’t be availa»l•, beyond CTLA’• usual reaourcea, t~r caa;aiqn would nave I that thia outcem.a.

Ftnally, you need ta oon•i4•r ‘the fact that ya~ olo•••t trianda in the l’A9ialatur• mighe not ba 1ong tor their poaitiona. Clivan una liai~, you auat tac• the ~e•l poa•i»ility that tna currant l•;isla~ive laaderahip may not aUZ”Viv•m uch lon;•r, and •v•n Democ:ratic control uy be lost. ?t might oe an appropriate ti•• to take ~•i”~ aanaqaabl• riau in iJI• present to avoid put into W1Winna1:>l1•i tuationa in the tutu~•· So much to~ the tirae initiative . .–~••now turthar viola~• yog. d11inclination toward initiattv•s bi •UCJqeating another. Th• aacond initia~ive doas not ~•present a pro-act1va move, but rather a detansiva play -An lik• to back the induatry ctt plans to aponaor • no-fault initiative. Thia 1.nitiative vould force mqtual inaurane•

compani•• divi«s. auz»lua .:I.Aooma•m on9 Ceir

t.o llharehold•r• an4 policyholdua i~•taa4 ot sq,:&irralinq £~ r•••n•••

1way in ini~iative 1:l1a wo~ld alaa

hav• intuit1va appeal to votara, and would be •••n as a way to g•t ~t least aom~o t ‘Cha inaure.noa eompani•• to act reapon•i~ly towa~d their paliaynoldara. Civen p•rcepti=n• that·tha =•mpani•• Are doin9 very wall financially, mast paapla vo~ld probably••• i~ a• only fair that they divld• the£r wealth aa.cnq those entitled aha.re in 1;0 it.

OQvio~sly this 1nitiativ• wc~ld net aerv• a• a.n et:eativa cou.ntar initiative it the induatry went to the ~Allct withe no-tault law. aut i• mi9ht ba used eo back them ott plan, w• could damcnatr•t• auoh • ii th.rough tocua groups and polling that i~ had~ d•c•nt ahance to win on al•ction day.

j r—————–, A PHONEB ill YOUC OULD AN EASYW AYT OP UT LEARNT O LOVE. YOURn oNEY WHERE YOURn OUTH [J YES,S IGNn E UP!

IS• •• ” – n

~R::C~”:”‘,!~~=::::~=.::;::-

CaltlM nu:nbef tor FORn OREI NFORnATION, CALLP HONEF UNDERSA T: 800-466-5859

“Reg,s1ereltd a demarkso f thesec ompanies. PHIINE I I· FOf.nERS

L———- ‘

11111

:~:i:r.;v~ SO GOOD BE SO EASY? Support .. J· . ;. HOW CAN sonETHING ·, VOTERR EVOLTA ND YOU

~fK!II0I 11IV i1tl11ue~1m g. he Sdvings,1, 11lh1e.l low VoterR evolt1 -=

)

OjlflO”IIOll1l 1111h1yt• Iulle .ince WithE very ,__; -=

deccpt1wIV ,1t1~V.o w,l levollk 11ockc1I …

hr,I hkl•y ou 11111111w 1• , Fm longD istance

I ow no I t1/K[ (/I.I<;,>011 (;1111011I1IO1,1ll’ l’S I

VoterR (!V()hlta sf oughtl or its full andf air ca1Y1 ou1 1ake.

0~ -: ~ N whll(!,a ccordingto the Boardo l Equalization1,0 3

w;; ,..-Save1 1oney, a~ :::,0

f .,,m distanceb ill everym onth Everyc allw ill be publici nteresgt roupsto begina n important

‘•I Too!

e f, YrI’ i·: .s ~ VoterR evolbt cilt the mnol nsumncein dustryin :.

6~!z Allsolutelyn ot.Y ouc anc all as littleo r asm ucha s 1988. Now,w ith the f!xtra moneyV oterR evolwt lll j co~ youl ike.T hereis no minimum.

,, ,.

IS IHrnEA S WllC.HOVC[lll1 /nGE? ‘ “‘( ;~.

I-OWD OI UP? t ~.

se11ici lI ll Wt!’IId o Ill!’ rest ‘i

(21313113-9618 ..

·.·,

BRIA,’ SHEAR.. ESQ. BAR NO. 126332 SPOLIN & SIL “ER..f.AN I 00 Wilshire Boulevard. Suite 940 Santa Monica, California9 0-401 (310) 576-1221 KEVIN MCSI-l._’c, Indiana Bar No. 9861-49 CLE11t!u<.. s 01srR1CTc ()tjRf

l

MCSHANE & GORDON l· ..

156 East Market Street, Suite 300 ut:C2 8 !003 ~ ‘ Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 684-0674 i~·: s,: Attorneys for Defendant 9’ TELECARE, INC.

” 10:: lJNlTED STATES DISTRICT COlJRT :1 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFOR.t~1IA PHON’E FUNDERS, ~C., } CASE NO.93-4112-TIB (Sx) ) Plaintiff, ) ANSWER AND AFFIR.1′-TfAIV E ) V. } DEFENSES ) TELECARE, INC., ) 17[!

) Defendant. ) isl!

19U ————–) n 20; Ai~SVER A..”1TAIF FIR.i.-fATIVDE EFENSES 2U!

n DefendantT elecare, Inc. (“Telec.are”)b, y counsel, and pursuant to the provisionso f Rules; –n 7, 8, and 14, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby submits his Answer and Affirmative ..,,, 2.) it p Defensest o PlaintiffP hone Funders’. Inc. rPhone Funders”) Verified Complainta nd Demand for; !l Jury Trial, as follows: ANSWER i ]JJRISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS 27: 1. T elecare ADl’vilTSt hat Phone Funders is a California corporation duly authorized to ; transact business in the state of California v1thi ts principal place of business in California,a s set

customer had actually signed the LOA, or that the customer had signed based on 2 material misrepresentation or omission of material facts by Phone Funders’ 3 s.2.lespeople.

4 19. From its own internal communications, as well as other evidence, it is apparent that Phone Funders was aware of the problems caused by its staffs 6 2ilure to obtain and submit valid LOAs, and to perform follow-up telephone 7 confirmation calls. Phone Funders knew that its new customers were canceling 8 6eir Telecare service because of misrepresentations made by its salespeople, and t.:eir failure to obtain authorized signatures on LOAs.

20. I!ie).igriificant number, by Phone Funders’__9wn count, of customers 11 who canceled due to misrepresentations, demonstrates a pattem~·of~:JfalJH~l~nt -· .-.~—:.~.~;. ~•~…-…·-.-.· ,-.-· · –·–. —-~.-. -·–. ·_· ····-· .·-. -~~~::~~–:7;~4~~.a: 12 pra¢ti£.~ by Phone Funders salespeople, as well as Phone Funders’ failure to 13 s-f i~~i-se the sales and telephone staffs.

21. Phone Funders provided Telecare with several thousand wrong 15 ;:ddresses, which necessitated costly attempts to obtain correct billing information. 16 The above facts constitute a breach of the Broker’s Agreement by 17 Phone Funders.

18 23. Telecare sent monthly commission statements to Phone Funders .. 19 beginning in October, 1992, and continued until the time of trial. _ Each commission statement contained a negative credit, which represented the amount 21 of uncollected bills from new customers which were ninety (90) days or more in 22 · arrears and had no current usage. Telecare considered those. customers to have 23 been defrauded or signed up without authorization, since they terminated the -24 service after receiving their first bill. Because of the negative credits, Phone Funders has never received a commission payment.

26

FACTVAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Phone Funders has failed to provide to Telecare written or recorded Letters of Authorization (“LOA’sN) for many of the Customer’s identified and supplied by Phone Funders to T elecare, in violation of the Broker Agreement.

2. Pursuant to the terms of the Broker Agreement.P hone Funders obtained and utilized the Sef’l;ices of a c.ertain “sub-broker”, Voter’s Revol~ for the purpose of soliciting prospective Customers to be supplied tQ Telecare.

Under the terms of the Broker Agreement, Phone Funders owed a duty to Telecare to 10; supervise sub-brokers engaged Phone Funders to assist in fulfillingt he terms of the Broker all by Agreement. Phone Funders breached this duty by failingt o adequately supervise Voter Revolt’s 12.; solicitation and canvassing activities. As a result of Phone Funder’s negligent supervision. Customers ~ere provided to Telecarewhorn had not executed_LOA’s. whom were not authorized. to change long distance phone service carriers for the telephone numbers provide
3. Phone Funders has failed to employs ufficient capital and personnel necessary to promote and effectuate the Broker Agreement,i n breach ofits express warranty to do so. as set forth in the Broker Agreement.

4. Phone Funders has failed to provide to Telecare monthly reports concerning existing 2F and prospective Customers. folIOv-upin quires, and or price quotations, in breach of its express warranty to do so, as set forth in the Broker Agreement.

5. Phone Funders has failed to communicateo n a consistent basis -μ,1the ach Customer who has executed an Institutional Agreementt o determine the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the! Customer with the services pro.ided and any other matter incidental to th~ relationship of a.si- …, customer, Phone Funders, and Telecare. in breach of Phone Funders express warranty to do so, set forth in the Broker Agreement.

6. Phone Funders has failed to notify Telecare immediately of all complaints or problems .., vith respect to any facet of the services provided to the Customers, in breach of its express warranty to do so , as set forth in the Broker Agreement.4 7. Phone Funders has failed to assist Jelecare in the timely and orderly processing of all 5 Institutional Agreements and applications for sen,ice transmitted to Telecare, in breach of its express warranty to do so, as set forth in the Broker Agreement.

7:: 8. Phone Funders has failed to strictly observe and act in compliance \~th the Broker Agreement, in breach of its express warranty to do so. as set forth in the Broker Agreement. 9. Phone Funders has failed to tin1elyp roduce valid LOA’s to Telecare following requests AJinet, elecare’s service proider, to e!ecare, to provide such documentation. 10:’ by T T 11:: Phone Funders failure to provide valid LOA’s to Telecare in express breach of its warranty to do 12,; so, as provided in the Broker Agreement.

13: , IO. Phone Funders supplied Customerst o T elccarew ho did not expressly approvea change in their long distance telephone senice pro.ider. In the telecommunications.i ndustry, this~, 15′; practice is called “slamming”. As a result, numerous Customers have had their long distance telephone service changed without their knmviedge or consent. Under the Broker Agreement, 17:; Phone Funders is liable for any sanctions imposed by any seivice provider. regulatory body. or 18;: the right governmental agency, upon Telecare; Telecare reserved to assess Phone Funders for any• such sanction. and to hold Phone Funders liable for any unpaid long distance telephone charges 20: that are not paid by “slammed” customers.

J 1. From time to time since the inceptiono f the Broker Agreemento n February 6. 1992. –,: Phone Funders has caused to be transmitted to T elecare, via \,ire in interstate commerce. Customer lists, billing statements, correspondence, and other documents, pertaining to Customers_ that it has solicited. obtained. and supplied to Telecare. 1-fany of these wire -transmittals contain. names of purponed Customers who had not executed valid LO A’s. or from whom LOA’s were obtained by misrepresentation or omission of material facts by Phone Funders sub-broker. Voter ~: 27 Revolt .

2s;; 12. As a direct result of the receipt by T lecare from Phone Funders of unauthorized, or

1 “slammed” customers. Telecare took the necessary steps to change those Customer’s long ” distance telephone senice from their existing carrier to Allnet, a carrier whose sen·ices were 3 . provided through Telecare.

4: 13. Numerous unauthorized or “slammed” customers have terminated their service 5 agreements Jiith T elecare. and refused to pay their long distance bills. due to the fact that they1 6:never gave Voter Revolt and Phone Funders express authority to change their long distance 7:; telephone service provider, or that their purported authorization Vas obtained by 8: misrepresentationo r omission of material facts by Voter Revolt representatives.a cting under the1 9′ supen–ision of Phone Funders.

l O’ : 14. As a direct result of Pho11eF underss ubmissiono f “slammed”o r otherwise 11: ! Tefecare,T elecareh as unauthorizedC uSiomerst o incurred uncollected long distance service 12:i charges totaling at least $234,694.00 In addition, Telecare has incurred additional expenses in 13 :; responding to Customer complaints, regulatory inquiries, account collections. and attorney fees, 14 result Phone Funders’ submission unauthorized. or “slammed”c ustomers. as a of to Telecare of 15 :, The true and total amount of these additional expenses continues to grow, and is yet to be 16;! determined.

17;’. II.

18;/ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE -Waiver all 19:; 15. T elecare adopts by reference and repl eads avermems set forth in paragraphs (1-14).

21 :!

16. Phone Funders has W AlVED its averments of breach of contract, by -inue of its own·

n’i

–:: breach of contract, breach of express warranties, negligent supE>n,isiono f Voter Revolt, and , _., submission of unauthorized, or “slammedH customers to Telecare.

24:; 25 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE -Estopped 17. T elecare hereby adopts by reference and repleads the averments set forth in 27 ‘ paragraphs( 1-16) .

28 ;; 18. Phone Funders is ESTOPPED to assert any breach of contract against Telecare, by

l · virtue of its own breach of contract. breach of express warranties, negligent supervision of Voter 2 Revolt, and submissiono f unauthorizedo r “slammed”c ustomers to Telecare. 4:: AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE -Fraud 5;: 19. Telecare hereby adopts by reference, a~d repleads the avennents set forth in 6:! paragraphs (l-18).

7:! 20. Many customer authorizationsw ere obtained by Phone Funder’s sub-broker Voter 8 :; Revolt. through misrepresentationso r omissionso f material fact. which induc-edC ustomers to 9:’ sign LOA’s. Some LOA’s submittedt o Telecare by Phone Funders bear forged signatures of the IO:: purported customers. Others have been determined to have been executed by minors. or persons n 11 who did not have authority to order a change in long distance sen-ice for the Customer’s 12:: telephone number.· 13,i Phone Funders knew, or should have known, that representatives of Voter Revolt were 14:; obtaining Customers through misrepresentations and omissions of material facts. ;1 ]5;: V.

16:; AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE-Payment 17 :; 21. Telecare adopts by reference and repleads the allegations set forth in paragraphs Is:: (l-20).

19:; 22. Telecare has sent regular billing statements to Phone Funders since the inception of 201: the Broker Agreement on February 6. 1992. Telecare has credited Phone Funders with commissions due and owing Phone Funders from Customers that Telecare has determined made ,,,: vaiid authorizations to Phone Funders to have their long distance service provider changed. After 23: ii crediting these commissions, a negative commission balance remains, exceeding $234,000.00. 24:.

This sum represents the uncollected long di.stance phone charges owed ~y cusromers from whom ,, ” Phone Funders did not obtain valid LOA’s.

2T: 281;

total amount of these additional expenses continues to grow, and is yet to be determined. ., FIRST COUNTERCLAIM ·3 . Breach of Contract 5 . Telecare adopts by reference and repleads the averments set forth in paragraphs (l-XXII). 6″ XXIll.

7:; Pursuant to the Broker Agreement, Phone Fur1dersa greed to provide Telecare with s:; Customers who had executed written or recorded LOA’s. PhoneF-undcsrusb mitted Customers to ,,, Tel~e without obtaining the requisite LOA’s. Phone Funders submitted LOA’s to Telecare· 9″ which contained forged signatures by purported Customers. Phone Funders submitted LO A’s to IO Te lecare bearing purported authorizations from persons. such as minors and non-telephone, subscribers. who did not have authority to changteh el ong distance service provider designated,: on the app~icationsa nd authorizations.°’T his conduct establishes Phone Funders’ breach of the Broker Agreement. By virtue of this breach. Telecare has suffered damages in the form of uncollected long distance charges and expenses associated with account collections. customer complaints, regulatory inquiries. and attorney fees. in an amount in excess of$234,694.00. The precise amount of damage continues to grow, and shall be fixed during discovery and trial. 17!i SECO]’.;UC 0uNIERCLAl11 18,!

Breach of Express· warranties 19:: 20,.

Telecare adopts by reference and repleads the averments set forth in paragraphs (I-xx.III).

n

., _., Phone Funders expressly warranted in the Broker Agreement that aU Customers supplied to Telecare would be confim1edb y ‘Nritten or recorded LOA’s. Customers were supplied to T elecare who did not execute LO A’s. Customers were supplied whose LOA ‘s were forged. 1 Customers were supplied who did not have the authority to execute LOA ‘s_.. X’XVI.

Phone Funders expressly warranted in the Broker Agreement that it would supervise all

.., As a consequence of the foregoing breach of express warranties, T elecare suffered a 3′ significante rosion ofits Customer base. and has been damaged in the amount of at least 4 S.234,694.00. The damages are continuing. ai,d shall be detennined in discovery and at trial. THIRDC OUNTERCLAIM 6i’ Failure to Supenise 8 T elecare adopts by reference and repleads the avermems set fonh in paragraphs (I-X:XX). . w· Phone Funders failed to supervise its sub-broker Voter Revolt in Voter Revolt’s 1 l ·· solicitation and canvassing of Customers. thereby breaching iis express promise to do so set fonh 12,. in the Broker Agreement. a result. Customers were supplied to T elecare Phone Funders As by 13: · who had not executed LOA ‘s, whose LOA’s were fored, or whose LOA ‘s were not executed to \-1thth eir authority. Funders’ failuret o supenise Voter Revolt resulted damage 14 Phone in 15:: TeJecare in the amount ofat least $234,694.00. The damages are continuing, and shall be 16!! detennined in discovery and at trial.

.., _.., Phone Funders’ sub-broker, Voter Revolt, obtained LOA’s and Customer authorizations to, change their long distance telephone service provider, by engaging in misreproentations and ,.

25: omissions of material facts. which induced prospective Customers to subscribe to the services ‘: 1 provided T C~oi’Ii~h ave that were not told that there was ~ 26:’ ultimately by elecare. reported they I .

27′.

a fee associated with the change of long distance service providers. that they thought they were … 28’i signingu p to “help the environment”,a nd that they never signed any authorizationa t all. Telecare( ‘8

has determined that some LOA’s provided by Voter Revolt to Phone Funders. and then forwarded ,., to Tele.caref or the commencemento f long distance sen-ice, bore forged signatures. Telecare’s 3 . Customer base significantlye roded as soon as these Customer.s began to be billed. Customers 4-, either tenninated the service. or refused to pay. r ” 5 Ph9ne Fundersio iew.’ors houlhda ve known. of the pattern of fraudp erpetrated by .. -.. — 6;’. representatives of Voter Revolt in its solicitation and canvassing activities; Phone Funders is ” 7therefore liable itself for the fraud.

As a result of this fraud, T elecare has suffered damages in the amount of at least $234.694.00. The damages are continuing. and shall be determined during the course of IO:’.

discovery and at trial.

n; WHERE.fO RE. T judgment Phone Funders. as follows: eiecare prays for against 1. Compensatory damages for breach of contract, breach of e.xpressw arranty, failure to l3ti supef-ise,a nd fraud, in the amount of at least $234,694.00i11 2. Other damages deemed la\iiill and appropriate under the circumstances; 3. Costs and expenses oflitigation. including reasonable attorney fees. and for all other appropriate relief Respectfully submitted, ” KEVIN MCSHANE ~-ICSHAi.’&1E G ORDON Attorneys for Defendant TELECARE,I NC.

,..,,.

_., BRIAN E. SHEAR SPOLIN & SILV ERMA_N Attorneys for Defendant TEL EC ARE, INC.

“slamming.” The Broker Agreement provided for a $200.00 “fine” per customer to be assessed against Phone Funders

3

if it slammedcustomers to Telecare. ~y _sanctions

4

imposed, and attorney fees and costs associated with

5

“slammed” customers imposed against Telecare were to be passedto Phone Funders, 110(0).

7

Telecare relied on Phone Funders not only to obtain LOA’s from all customers submitted to it by Phone

9

Funders, but also to submit valid LOA’s.

10

During the course of the contractual relationship between Phone Funders and Telecare, Phone Funders

12

submitted approximately Thirty Thousand (30,000)

13

customers to Telecare. Of these, as many as 28,000 we-re

14

obtained by Phone Funders and forwarded to Telecare

15

without the benefit of valid authorization from the

16

.f°eatu:red customers. The· marketing technique used by

17

Phone Funders was to dispatch its agents or sub-brokers

18

to public areas, where personal approaches and sales

19

pitches were used to induce customers to sign up. As a

20

hook, customers were shown or provided with a brochure

21

produced by Phone Funders, which indicated that a

22

customer could both save on their long distance bill, and have a percentage of their monthly bill donated to Voter

24

Revolt, a well known California Public interest group. A

25

tear-off page of the brochure, s~gned by the customer,

26 27

28

was to constitute the LOA.

1

Phone Funders’ marketing effort commenced in

2

approximately May, 1992, and wound do~ ~n approximately

8

December, 1992. Almost immediately upon receiving the

4

first group of _customers, both Telecare and Phone Funders

5

began to receive an extremely high volume of complaints

6

from the cus~omers. The type of complaints varied, but

7

can be generally categorized as follows:

8

a) CUscomers who denied ever signing any document provided by Phon~ Funders.

10

b) Cuscomers who a~~itted signing the LOA

11

forms, but who thought they were signing

12

a form to obtain more information about

13

Voter Revolt.

14

c) Spanish speaking customers who did not

15

knc~ that they had signed a form authorizing

16

the switch of their long distance service.

17

d) customers who believed that when they signed

18

the form, were agreeing to become involved

19

in “helping the environment” or aiding in

20

some other public cause.

21

In addition, after requesting and receive LOA’s from

22

Phone Funders, the Customer Service staff at Phone

23

Funders discovered that many LOA’s were not signed by-the purported customer< Some were signed by minor children,

25

and groups of LOA’s appeared to all have been signed by

27

3. Telecare claims that Phone Funders engaged in

1

fraud in obtaining customers for Telecare by inducing customers to agree to switching their long distance

8

telephone service to Tel_ecare, t-hrough misrepresentation

4

or omission of facts material to the switching decision.

Customers signed Letters of Authorization (LOA’s) which granted Telecare permission to become their long distance

7

service provider. Many of -customers were lead to ·these

8

believe that.they were signing a form merely requesting information. Others_ signed LOA s after being tol_d by

10

Phone Funders•• agents or sub-brokers that they were contributing money or seeking information that would

12

“help the environment” or aid in other civic or social

13

causes advanced ·by group known as Voter Revolt. Many .

14

LOA’s were submitted. to Telecare by Phone Funders in the

15

names of customers who did not speak English. These

16

customers were primarily Spanish speakers. Phone Funders

17

did not engage Spanish-speaking agents or sub-brokers,

18

nor did it provide prospective Spanish speaking customers

19

with written materials explaining the proposed switch in

20

long distance service to Telecare.

In addition, Phone Funders forwarded to Telecare

22

purported LOA’s which were not signed by the normal

23

customers, or which were signed by individuals obviously

24

lacking the authorjty to order a switch in long distance

25

services,~, minor childreniand persons without

26 273 28

of apparently forged LOA’s were also submitted by Phone

2

Funders to Telecare. In the telecommunications industry,

8

the practice of switching the long distance service of a

4

customer without their authority is called “slamming” and

5

amounts to fraud.

6

4. Telecare has asserted the affirmative defenses

7

of waiver and estoppel. Telecare contends that Phone

8

Funders has waived any claim against it of breach of

9

contract for failing to pay commissions, by virtue of its

10

own breach of express warranty as described in 1(2),

11

supra. Telecare further contends that Phone Funders has

12

waived its breach of contract claims by virtue of fraud,

13

1 ( as set -forth i_n 3) , supra. Tele care’ s estoppel defense

14

is similarly grounded upon_Phone Funders’ breach of

15

express warrant and fraud, as set forth in 1(2) and (3),

16

respectively.

17

5. There is no oral contract between the parties.

18

6. The specific terms of the Broken Agreement which

19

Telecare contends that Phone Funders breached, are as

20

follows:

21

110(F) Broker shall at all times:

22

(i) maintain accurate and complete records

23

concerning all current and prospective Customers which have either executed an Institutional Agreement or

24

expressed interest in the Network; (ii) furnish to Legacy, on a monthly or more frequent basis if requested

25

to do so at the op~ion of Legacy, reports concerning existing or prospective Customers, follow up inquiries

26

and/or price quotations; … {IV) communicate on a

——–,

FILED

.y~~~ ,_ Wnittb’ ~tatt$ i8i$ttitt utourt QC:intral~ i$tritt of cttalifornia ~t$ttrn Iilibi$ion 12 PHONE FUNDERS, INC., CV 93-4112 TJH (Sx) 13 Plaintiff, FINDIN-GS OF FACT AND TELECARE. INC., CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Defendant.

19 This cause came on for trial before the Court sitting without a jury. The 20 Court heard the testimony and examined the evidence offered by the parties. The 21 case having been submitted for decision, the Court makes the following fin~ings . 22 of fact and conclusions of law: .,.

23 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff Phone Funders, Inc. (“Phone Funders”) was engaged in the 25 business of obtaining and brokering new telephone subscribers (“customers”) for ‘-0 26 companies who provided long distance telephone service (“carriers”).

2. If a customer agreed to switch carriers,·the·decision was memorialized 2 a written Letter of Authorization (“LOA”).

in 3 3. Defendant Telecare, -Inc. (“Telecare”) provided long distance 4 telephone services to its customers by subcontracting with carriers. 5 4. On February 6, 1992, Phone Funders entered into an Agreement with 6 The Legacy Group, Inc. (“Legacy”). Under the terms of the Agreement, Phone 7 Funders was to provide Legacy with the names, addresses, and telephone numbers 8 of the customers contacted by Phone Funders who agreed to switch their long distance telephone services to Legacy. Legacy, in tum, was to pay Phone Funders 10 a commission, based on “net revenues,” which included the money paid by 11 customers, less applicable taxes and surcharges.

5. Before the_e ffective date of the Agreement, Telecare became Legacy’s 13 successor in interest. Telecare agreed to perform all of Legacy’s obligations under 14 the Agreement, and Phone Funders agreed that its obligations to Legacy would 15 become obligations to Telecare.

16 6. The Agreement required Telecare to be the intermediary between customers supplied by Phone Funders and the carriers. Telecare was required to perform all billing and collection functions and provide customer service. 19 Telecare, in tum, was to pay the carriers for the long distance services used by the customers, regardless of whether the customers paid Telecare.

7. The Agreement provided that Phone Funders could delegate its obligations to sub-brokers. The Agreement required Phone Eunder to supervise ,,.

all of its sub-brokers as well as obtain Telecare’s approval for each sub-broker. 24 26

1 8. As part of its marketing effort for Telecare’s carriers, Phone Funders 2 contracted with Voter Revolt, a public interest group, to use Voter Revolt’s name in promotional materials in exchange for Phone Funders’ agreement to contribute 4 ten percent of each customer’s long distance telephone bill to Voter Revolt. 5 9. In its effort to further market Telecare’s carriers, Phone Funders 6 engaged the services of Progressive Campaigns, Inc. (“Progressive”). However, 7 contrary to the express provisions of the Agreement, ~~:~•_Fundeffd. id not 8 execute a sub-broker’s agreement with Progressive prior to using its servic!s. 9 Telecare’s approval of Progressive’s involvement was neither sought nor given. 10 10. Phone Funders’ marketing campaign for Telecare began in earnest in 11 approximately June, 1992. Phone Funders, through its subcontractors, recruited 12 salespeople primarily through newspaper advertisements. The salespeople were trained to approach prospective customers at public areas, present a brochure, and 14 persuade the customer to sign a tear-off sheet attached to the brochure. The tear 15 off sheet authorized Phone Funders to select a new carrier for the customer. 16 These tear-off sheets were intended to constitute the written Letter of Authorization required by law and the Agreement prior to effectuating a carrier switch. 18 11. At the end of each shift, Phone Funders’ salespeople were to tum in 19 the signed LOAs to their supervisors who, in tum, took them to Phone Funders’ 20 office in Santa Monica, California.

., ·~~ 12. Prior to the forwarding of the customers’ names and addresses to ,, Telecare, Phone Funders was to obtain a telephone confirmation of each ,.-22 23 customer’s desire to switch carriers. However, telephone confirmations were not it 24 always obtained.

” 25 26

£x.1~–, h r 18

CAk/PAIGNS

TO: Potential Loaners FROM: Angelo Paparella, Fresidenc -?rogre.ssive Carnpaigns R.t::: Loan Xequ~::st -$25,000 eoc : ;ground Progressive Campaigns, 1nc. {PC!) is a policical fundraising and c.:om;ultiug company whit.:h b~gan op~z:ating iu May of 1992. It:s pu.r;-c~t: -i!i t.o rai~t: mon~~, and/or market :or political ,.ag=.n.i~at.iou::.. Cu:z:.r.’1:mtly, !’Cl i:s p:z:i.ma:tily t:mgagcd in a fundraising contract with Voter Revolt {~!R).

I am the founder and President of Progressive Campaigns, Inc. 1 have been in che policical fundraising business since 19S2 and my pas= accomplishm~nts include: 1982: !.>irect:ed door-to-door fundraising cperat.ion for the Rc:1lph Nader backed PIR<.; organizacion in San Diego. The raised $125,000 in office 13 wt::~ks c:tmJ pl.:t<.:t::d ::ii:::Cond j 11 t.ht::! nc:tt ion cue c:.,[ 25 u!!iCt!:i.

Promoted Regional Direccor of fundraising for the i’IRG necwork with primar~: responsibilicies in California. Oirecr.ed fundraising op~rations over a fiv& year period that raised: 1983 $600,000 ($400,000 during summer mths) 1984 $700,000 ($500,000 during summer mths} 1985 $700,000 ($500,000 during summer mths; 1986 SS00,0.00 ($600,000_.during summer rnths} 1987 $1,100,000 ($’850,000 during summer mths) co:r.m)ssioned fundraisar~ .

Iu a<..kl.il ..i(.m t.o th«= ubvve dollars rais~ through t:he door-co door operation, a phone bank solicication effort raised over $2~0,000 in each of the lasr 3 years indicated.

1967: One of che founders of Voter Revolt co Cut Insurance Rates. Responsible tor all gra.ssroot.s ope:r.:1tiuus .includinv signature

Q’1thering for r.h~ in i t:iative, fundraising and public education and get out the vote efforts. Raised over $650.,.0.00. dur lng the 1~88 .Prop 10~ campo.ig1~.

1-qa9 -·91: Direcr.ed tundrais.ing operations tor VR.

Door-to-door operations raised the follow.iniJ doll~r·s: 1969 $935,000 {$620,000 during summ~t· n-,ths: 1990 Sl, 300,000 ($815~ 000 dut ing SUIT’.mer mcli::;}.

1991 $413,000 (ir$164, O~O du.c.in.
199i: Left .VK to form PC:l. Du1:ing its first s1.llJm~-ro f existence (la~t. ::nlm.rr,er), P’…:l hod lirnited_fundraising contrilct with VR that resuited in $108,00U rai~t
r- PCI is now engaged ·in a door-co-door and phone bank rund=aising l camnaiqn for VR. addition,· PCI has been continuing to market.

for· .PF on a limiced .oasis for chi:: past three 11)(,nths. This contract: is. currently on hold_ pe:nding an a1rc:alysis of the ent.ire program. · PC! is currently receiving a fee ot 7% o! all money rai~:d for VR, plus the overhead costs of running ~he fundraising cperution.

Beca1J~e PCI did not conduct a door to dcor fundraising o:;,era~ion for ‘lR during th: swruner of · 92 but inscead ma.cketed PF for VR on ..,. a cost basis, the company was not: ab.1.e r.:o bankroll money to be -usad to run its doer-co-door operatioJJ ovar the w;!-itc-r and spring months •92 _to ’93). These are the touyhe$t fo:: fundraisinq on a door-co-doo:t.· basis };~caus1:: of the lack of. a la:::-qe recruitment: J;:OOl {college scudent.s-off tor Lhi: summer) and the slow down during t.he hol.i.day season.

In addit.ion,our staff durir.g the summer of ’92 was uot on the street fundraising but rather marketing Phone Funder,;;. We have had a parr.icula~ly rough winter because:. at the tran~it.iu.i from the door-to-door canvass to a to::ally di-fferent accivity has r’=zult~d in Che loss of some staft and mon<.!Y.

o.t pledge•s·donate: ~u~ 5,150 Avi::-ra~~ dunaL.i.uu $2.2: $11~.~oo r’CJ. t,lll::-; c::ll ·1t of ·all doll.:lrs raised hence a. net of $8. 085 will b~ Lt::!cit..:lu=
2. Summer Canvass ’93 ·rli~ 111e1.in:: ;ource of collateral is next summer• s door-t.o-d~or fundraising cperativn.

Th~ experience highlighted above with summer Ccmvasses fl..·om 1983- t1as since ) 991 been an average of $550,000 raised. Counting VR baen year 1988 only,-Lh~ c1vt=~::.~e has $!:dJ, 000 including. the ch1: .L~m!:)u.ta.ci.ly shut: down.

With thevse results in mind, r.he following a_re projections fer n~xt ::.ummer ‘.s contract with TR.: !:Qn~ ~-‘ v,,1-~ :ii:~ CQI]S~;r,:vat,i~!; f;t;:ob~bl~ r.10,1 Tocal ?.ai: $750,000 $ $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 Pel Fee: $21,00U $28,000 $35,000 $52,500 Since the fe-2 for I-‘CI is ner. aft~r coses, i-t: is iooi available for loan repayment.

PCI will earn between $21,000 on a worse case basis from r.he ::;uu,11~.c· PLU<.:~e
Finally, _next summer’s canvass does not rely incti victual, several who have been involved in these carr,.paigns and have work,~ct as an ~xpcrii:mced l.t::dm befol”e: Angelo Paparella: Since 1982 .i.rwolveu in similar crives resulting in an average of $556,000 ,.hmnifer Frank: Since 1986 wit!l VR; direccs overall field operation.

Since 1988 with VR; assistant director of overall tield operation.

Mikel Clayhold: Since 1987 with V!<; field office cJ

t

Since 1989 with v'”R; fi.eltl-o!f ice Steve Stoddard: di.tfo!l<.:I .Toe De Vries: Since 1986 with VR; fi~ld office dit·e,.-L ur.

All are commicted to ?CI and thE:! necessary work. for a lony term fut.ur’::!. Our confidence level tor paying back the loan is very nigh. Ten years ot experience and results back up this request tor capiL~ll~dllon .

., , ,.

:,

Minutes of a Meeting of the Board of Directors of The Access to Justice Foundation A meeting of the Directors was held on Thursday, June 10, 1993 at 10:00 AM by telephone conference call. The meeting was called by Harvey Rosenfield.

There were present by telephone, representing the directors: Harv~y Rosenfield, Executive Director “..

Chuck Blitz Gary Horowitz Martha Kowalick It was agreed that Philip Roberto would take the minutes of the meeting.

Harvey Ro~enfield:

There is one vacancy on the Board of Directors due to Jay Angoff’s resignation.

About two weeks ago, the Executive Committee of Voter Revolt {Bill Zim.~erman, Angelo Paparella, Carmen Gonzalez, Jennifer Frank, and myself) met to discuss disputes on how to operate Voter Revolt.

I’ll discuss the exact details in a minute. But to understand this meeting, the other members of the Executive Committee proposed ·a plan which I didn’t think was the best way to proceed to spend resources, was not in the best interests of Voter Revolt.

They asked me to step aside as Executive Director, and I refused because I disagreed with their plan and because I did not agree that the Executive Committee had the authority to take such action. I insisted that the dispute be brought to the Board.

As is probably clear, I have no intention of fighting about this, for reasons that will become clear, But it is important to you, the organization and the people who have supported it that you all understand the situation.

There are two problems, present for some time, which led to this, and have to do with how money is spent and which direction the organization takes.

(1) What has happened financia11y to Voter Revolt since the passage of Proposition 103.

In the Fall of 1990, we spent money we didn’t have and basically collapsed. We ended up with $60,000 in debt to outside vendors. This does not include $150,000 or so we

owed to Chuck Blitz, Bill Zir.:.merman (one of our largest debts, about $80,000) and Stanley Sheinbaum.

So, we added to that debt. There were lawsuits everywhere. Sor.e of the debt was even put in my name on credit cards.

I went out and raised money to keep VR going, for two reasons: one, pay off all the debts, two, continue vigilance on Prop 103.

We’ve tried to raise a lot of money since. 1992 Bill Zimmerman developed at what the time seemed like a great idea, Phone Funders, which had the potential to bring in about $60,000 per month within one year.

One of the requirements was to forgo the canvass operation –for IRS purposes. Bill Zimmerman would then hire canvassers to market phone subscriptions.

Progressive Campaigns Incorporated (PCI) was set up.

In the contract, it was specified that all expenses would be incurred by PCI. All costs would be advanced to PCI by Phone Funders. Voter Revolt was to have no risk, nor additional debt. That was the overriding concern, made sure very clear to PCI.

Not in writing, regretfully, was that Phone Funders would help raise $40,000 to cover Voter Revolt’s previous (1990) debts {since the canvass was to be eliminated that summer, we would have no source of funds to pay the debts).

Since, the following has happened.

{a) Phone Funders proved to be a disaster.

{b) The oral agreement (about the debt) fell through the cracks.

(c) PCI incurred expenses in Voter Revolt’s name.

Additional debt of about $10,000 was not covered in 1992.

(d) To cap it off, PCI was unable to pay the IRS about $25,000 in employee taxes. So, we had to allow PCI to recoup in fees enough money to pay the . taxes, or we’d have no grassroots operation.

Thus, the project actually cost about money, including more debts.

What occurred in 1992 demoralized me. Tension between me and Angelo, and to a lesser extent, Bill Zimmerman, increased. From that point on, I wrote contracts with PCI always trying to protect Voter Revolt from more debts, and pay off the old debt. Angelo and others considered this an atmosphere of distrust. They were offended. It was my fiscal VR.

responsibility –fiscal prudence to protect (2) What do you do when you’re in debt, how do you get out of debt. This 1ed directly to this situation.

For two years I’ve been raising money for program work, as well as to pay off debts. It was very tiring. It was just Phil and myself doing the program work. But, I felt if we did more program work, we could raise more money as well.

Last winter, it became clear we would have to scale back because of decreasing resources. After talking to Angelo, I decided to hire Jennifer Frank, {who was paid to interface with canvass), as a program person. She would work on program and also do some financial work. She agreed to spend most of her time on issue work.

About three weeks ago, the Executive Committee wanted to change this agreement. They wanted Jenny to work on the summer canvass. There would have been no money to hire anyone else to replace her on the program work she was doing.

Two weeks ago, the meeting was called due to this disagreement. Since funds were not available, Bill Zimmerman suggested we shut down the program work and use the money to build up the canvass.

I disagreed. I feel without issue work the organization loses its purpose.

Anyway, that’s the dispute. The Executive Committee said that’s what they wanted done and if I didn’t agree, then they said I should resign. To fix the situation now – we’d have to stop PCI, VR would still have the debt with no way to pay it –you can see why I’m not fighting for that outcome.

These two issues have created this situation and have led me to resign.

Any questions?

Gaa Horowitz:

You said that Phone Funders authorized $10,000 in expenses in Voter Revolt’s name. Who authorized it?

Harvey Rosenfield:

The contract with PCI specified that offices {leases) could be in Voter Revolt’s name, but they were to be paid right away. But not all were paid. Also, not all accounts {such as rental cars, phone lines, etc.) were changed over from Voter Revolt’s name, either. So, $10,000 in debt in VR’s name wasn’t covered.

Discussion of the resolutions.

Gar_yH orowitz:

So, we are now simply voting on your resignation.

Harvey Rosenfield: Right.

The second resolution is most critical. Hall and Phillips wants to continue to represent Voter Revolt. I would also like to.see them continue to do so. If Voter Revolt pulls out, it would be a disaster.

Bill Zimmerman, Angelo Paparella, and Jennifer Frank join conference call at this time.

Harvey Rosenfield:

Bill, I have briefed the Board members.

Bill Zimmerman:

All resolutions are agreeable.

Harvey Rosenfield:

When a firm represents two different parties, tte conflict can be over the tactic of how to argue the case.

I’m ass..uning you would be comfortable with it as I would take the hard line.

Gar:y Horowitz :

But that’s the point. It’s not appropriate to give a general waiver.

Harvey Rosenfield:

How about “and reserves the right to object to such ~ representation should the Board of Directors determine that there is a conflict of interest between Voter Revolt and Harvey Rosenfield and/or such other organization he designates in such proceedings. Voter Revolt acknowledges that at this time there is no such conflict.”

Martha Kowalick:

The Board of Directors will be able to object if there is?

Harvey Rosenfield:

Yes.

Resolution as amended: Resolution #2: Hall and Phillips will continue to represent Voter Revolt in Proposition 103 proceedings in which such representation is presently underway. There are: (a) the 20th Century Rollback Decision of the DOI and the Superior Court, and the appeal thereof to the California Supreme Court; (b) the administrative challenge to the California Casualty rollback settlement; (c) proceedings to develop regulations for intervenor funding by DOI; (d) the legal challenge to the exemption of surety from Proposition 103; (e) proceedings to develop regulations for the determination of “fault” in accident cases.

Voter Revolt agrees that Hall and Phillips may also represent Harvey Rosenfield and/or such other organization(s) he designates in such proceedings, and reserves the right to object to such representation should the Board of Directors determine that there is a conflict of interest between Voter Revolt and Harvey Rosenfield and/or such other organization(s) he designates in such proceedings. Voter Revolt acknowledges that at this time there is no such conflict.

Ayes–Chuck Blitz, Gary Horowitz, Martha Kowalick Nays–None Absent–None Motion carried.

Harvey Rosenfield:

Resolution 3⁄43.

The proposed resolution was read.

Gary Horowitz:

Why the copier and fax machine?

Harvey Rosenfield:

It’s a matter or corporate charity. These were the two items that Access to Justice had when I started it.

Angelo Paparella: We have a (another) fax and copier now. We can get along for now.

Chuck Blitz:

You and Bill Zimmerman are recommending this?

Angelo Paparella:

Yes.

Gary Horowitz:

Why the files?

Harvey Rosenfield:

It includes things I’ll be using to continue 103 stuff.

Gary Horowitz :

You’ll be using this?

Harvey Rosenfield: Yes. The financial stuff goes to Voter Revolt.

__· _1_1 Z.; mme;man: B1 Gary, we see Harvey as carrying most of the weight (in fighting for the implementation of Proposition 103).

Gary Horowitz:

I suggest we add “in a timely manner” pertaining to files being made available.

Harvey Rosenfield:

O.K.

Resolution #3: To facilitate Harvey Rosenfield’ s future efforts to effectuate the implementation of Proposition 103 and other matters, the following items will be donated to a non-profit organization designated by Harvey.

(a) Minolta copier.

(b) Ricoh fax machine.

Resolution #6: The new Secretary-Treasurer shall be William Westermeyer. His salary shall be up to $30,000 per year, plus any health insurance benefits set up by the corporation.

Motion–3ill Zimmerman Ayes–Chuck Blitz, Gary Horowitz, Martha Kowalick Nays–~one Absent–2~one Motion carried.

Resolution #7: Jennifer Frank is hereby designated to be charged with making any financial decisions necessary regarding the transition of Harvey Rosenfield out of Access to Justice. This includes, but is not limited to, decisions on vendor accounts to be closed, expense reimbursement decisions to be made, any logistical decisions regarding the office located at Hall and Phillips in Los Angeles under the supervision of the Board of Directors.

Motion–3ill Zimmerman Ayes–Chuck Blitz, Gary Horowitz, Martha Kowalick Nays–None Absent–None Motion carried.

Resolution #8: The composition of the Access to Justice Board of Directors shall be reduced from five to four, and Jennifer Frank shall be the new fourth member.

Motion–Bill Zimmerman Ayes–Chuck Blitz, Gary Horowitz, Martha Kowalick Nays–None Absent–None Motion carried.

Gar.yH orowitz:

I motion that the meeting be adjourned if there are no object.ions.

There were no objections, so the meeting was adjourned.

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TF..E ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOUNDATION ON JUNE 10, 1993 The following resolutions were lawfully adopted by the Board of Dire~tors of the Corporation on June 10, 1993: Reso1ution #1: The resignation of Harvey Rosenfield from the posi~ions of Executive Director of The Access to Justice Foundation and Chair of Voter Revolt is accepted as of this date.

Harvey shall not be responsible for any administrative or other duties of those offices as of this date. However, to effectuate the transition, Harvey will continue to represent Voter Revolt on policy matters until July 1, 1993. Further, Harvey will be available to assist Voter R~volt in completing legal requirements such as tax returns, etc.

Reso1ution #2: Hall and Phillips will continue to represent Voter Revolt in Proposition 103 proceedings in which such representation is presently underway. There are: (a) the 20th Century Rollback Decision of the DOI and the Superior Court, and the appeal thereof to the California Supreme Court; (b) the administrative challenge to the California Casualty rollback settlement; (c) proceedings to develop regulations for intervenor funding by DOI; (d) the legal challenge to the exemption of surety from Proposition 103; (e) proceedings to develop regulations for the determination of “fault” in accident cases.

Voter Revolt agrees that Hall and Phillips may also represent Harvey Rosenfield and/or such other organization(s) he designates in such proceedings, and reserves the right to object to such representation should the Board of Directors determine that there is a conflict of interest between Voter Revolt and Harvey Rosenfield and/or such other organization(s) he designates in such proceedings. Voter Revolt acknowledges that at this time there is no such conflict.

Resolution #3: To facilitate Harvey Rosenfield’s future efforts to effectuate the implementation of Proposition 103 and other matters, the following items will be donated to a non-profit organization designated by Harvey.

(a) ~..inolta copier.

(b} Ricoh fax machine.

Further, Voter Revolt files pertaining to Proposition 103, insurance and other policy matters shall also be transferred to such organization, with the understanding that such files shall be made available in a timely manner to Voter Revolt for copying upon request by the staff of Voter Revolt.

Resolution #4: Harvey Rosenfield, former Executive Director of Access to Justice and former Chair of Voter Revolt, is hereby instructed to transfer all bank accounts in his name to Access to Justice and/or Voter Revolt.

Resolution #5: The r.ew Executive Director shall be Jennifer Fran~, who upon acceptance by the Board of Directors will immeiiately resign her position as Secretary-Treasurer. The compensation shall be up to $45,000 per year, plus any health ins~=ance benefits set up by the corporation.

Resolution #6: The new Secretary-Treasurer shall be William Westermeyer. His salary shall be up to $30,000 per year, plus any health insurance benefits set up by the corporation.

Resolution 17: Jennifer Frank is hereby designated to be charged with making any financial decisions necessary regarding the transition of Harvey Rosenfield out of Access to Justice. This incl~des, but is not limited to, decisions on vendor accounts to be c:osed, expense reimbursement decisions to be made, any logistical decisions regarding the office located at Hall and Phillips in Los Angeles under the supervision of the Board of Directors.

Resolution #8: The composition of the Access to Justice Board of Directors shall be reduced from five to four, and Jennifer Frank shall be the new fourth member.

———··————————- 19 93 ond End1r9 __A__P_R__I_L 30 • 19 __9 4 Corporate or D-l0 MEDIC.1.ALI D FOR EL SAL’.’AOOR ; ‘C>'”‘ __J _- “‘ : 6030 :..-ILSHIREB LVD., SUITE 400 federal in
~ Thise ntityi s not a prha~ef cun-:iat,cW-:1e.h avea ttacheda completecdo pyo f IRSF orm9 SOo r 99CEaZn.d S cta:dulAe (Form9 90) andr elateda ttachmentse ‘lent hot:;~v .e~ ay te rt:cuiredto filet heseu n1lormfo rmsw itht neI RS)O. m:?ta rt Ill below. O Thise ntityt S a pm·atef oundationW. eh avea ttacheda ccmpletedco pyo f IRSF orm9 90-PFa ndr elateda ttacturents. Completael Partsb elow.

Grossr eceipts$ 727,494 • 99 Totala ssets $ 16, 653 • 26 Aret he progrcma ctl’iltieos t this entity !1rr:.tesoc !e!,t o iOritmak1ng..?. l Was5 0~ or m~reo fy ci:r reY!n.;ter: rr.~ :;ern~e·t .:igerec s’ lSeeh nel 1nst:uct,or..s •> . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . l It “yeS-a. ttacha sct:ecl:.s:!te:O WI:”.2~~ =~C)-S:i.: mea. :1:~esws.p ose oft lie ,ran! andt hea mounts. List t.,oc l,tterer.t ci;e”US: l’at :r:;,~et he iargm amounts.

2 Werey oua i;!tedt y ar.y, cv’!rnmenat~ er.:yt1 n:crne s:ii~e,dn audite icept:on1s nu cess cf$ 50.00b0e 1ntia len?• .•…… If “,-ts. .. ittac.ha co~yc t tl’e ai.d:tr eg::r:si) . aro e-:m heret he tctala mounti nvolved.. • •.•. 21 $ ____ _ 3 01:io r. ..,1i1:i 1nde::-tneeP:L1Dt !iacc cc;:nta:.s:!s ,.t J re:~rt on, cur hnanc1ast!a tements’ . . . • . • • • . . • . • • . . . . . . . 3 >——- 11″ )cS-.e nter1 1m. A.:co11r.ta!nb::·rs. ~_ ____________ Tete;,h~n{e 4 ls anyc f ~ p:o~rtyh eld1 nt he namec f or ccmm:r,lewd, t, the propertoyt any othero ran1zat1oorn p ersono.t htft han pooledt: Yestr.lefnut nds? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . • . . . • . . • • . . . . . • • • . • . . • . 4 II ..y es-.a ttach1 usti!:cat11onnc. lu::,,rf.:g.; e ofa ssetsc omm.nited. ~ Wereth erei ny co,tracts.l oans.l e!Wi or o!r.ert ,nanc,atlr ansactionbs etweenth e crian.zat,cna ni3a nyc ttcer.d uectetO f t.~:~ trr $ trusteet hereoef ithero ,rect!1o r1 11.at,n : ::M1 ,-: …i i.cha :1-s’u cho tltcerd. irectore r trusteeh ada n-,t ,na~c,ainl terest? If –yH. .. attacha del.i,!c~ e11;1a..,:.~,~, ; ~:.:~r’ T’: t•.,:=,. :J:J :’i~.;,.:-:1t nol,’l= ( TELE.’LRKETH)aiG S 188,313, 75 6 01dy ouC ~3te a.,rtr.,::tio ~,. OlCin,ntion: r;;! ,SM t :a,-eu::r:: ii un::~Sr ectioSn~ l ,r 501( c)(!, oft he IRC? . . . . 6 /_ II. .y es-.a :tachu p1anationa nc tnter the l;i,r- na,;H 31ueo ft he donation . . . . 61 1591794106 7 Didt his~ ,amzat;orne ~:ila~lsyo l·c1sat t;: !ie.s e”I; at,a;;e” ‘ c:l h11sftt ore.o r , contract invol,1.”th1e scl,c,ta:,cno r sa!ec ,f sa’,:i~, It ··!:S· . inct.:le amc:..nts, ••.••••••.•… , 7 ~1 I_ a an, ol clf1cersd. r€.lors c· :, .•~ ?:es :i:irt, any a I • an a.’esedb reachc l trus:7If ..) es. .. at:~:~e 1:;;l;1-:a:1Jn. ~ ••••••••••.•. 9 Wtrea :-)c r,3~1z;,t1,:)0f unjs us’!j :: ;;a,::-,.i t'”l ·, • “‘I?c : :-··· . . • . . . . . . . . 9 L……l..l.!._. I_ 11·· ,es·. attdctia n tJvldn,3t,on~ r.:e n!•.r!: ~rt: ~t! :.:ala ‘ • S_ ____ ~ *flQUESTIO~#; 5: EXPL~ATIOI~~ CLUL DETAILED ATTACHED, SCHEDGLAE, PA~TI II, LI~E ~ l_ Uttd•r p~n.:,—-6’1o f P~’;v,Y~ I o~clo1r tl’tor ‘ … ..,,.,t,n-.,; rrpor• ,,,,..,d,r,.g ucco ,>C111t•e>r>sl’cJh, 1tC<1lrso r>d 1tofern1tn>. Ofldr o rll1t bltlf of my

“”””:lffl”!~

S—–

If “yes”,e nterh eret he totala r:-oan,nt vcl,ed. . . . • • . . . • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • . 14d (e) Didt heo rganizatiomna kea nyl oar.sin excesso f $5.00-t3o anye mployee?• ••••.••••••••••••.•••.•• 14e If anyo f Quest,on1s4 (a). (b). (c}.( di. or (e) are answere”dy es”.a ttachs pecificd etailsto fully explain any. .y es”r esponsaen df ullyc cm;>lePtea rtI . S~!:;julAe ( form9 90). 15 [M: ,oum aiep aymenttso tathngo ,er $100 -)’.l)o ar., ,,depend:ncto ns111taonrt cso ntractorosl hff thanf or( a) lundrarSrn(bg). accountrn(,c. } le,all fes. (d, rn,estmenfet es?• .•.••.•••••••.•••••••••••••.•.•.. 15 If ..y es”.a ttacha fullyc o:nplettdsc hej.,•eI., ,~F ::rtI I ofS ciedi.lAe ( Form9 90)f ert hef 1eh ighespt a,d regardlesosf t hea mountsE. ntert :ere totalo t allp a,menttso aui ndependecnot ntractors.. . 151 the $ ____ _ -16 II ,o:.rin curreodr pa,da nyo f thef ollo.-.,tnai•. e~a r: er relate:pJe naltiees.n ter.thea mount1s nt he b;ankps ro,,ded.

a Payro(lle mployerp’so r!rocnf b~th’. e~rala r.j state) ……•…………•. 16a 12.105.74 b Sales( on, remsy ous old) . . . . . …………..•………. 16b c PersonaPlr operty . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . • . . . • • . . . . 16c d ReaEl state . . . . . . . . . . . . …………………… 16d e Unrela!e8d.i sinesIsn come ………………•.. 16e 17 W~rye oun l:nEda s a benet,c,artyo rece1.ae ocr:,;, ct comm~rct,raaln saction(cs oc::nerc,caol – ventures,o. ,ntv enturem arketinogr. cause-reia:~:n:Ja rket,r,}?

II. .y es”.e nterh eret heg rossa mounrte ce,~ea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17a $ ____ _ tlS-30 not currentlyin use)

~-!EDICALA ID Fe:, EL SAL’A~R 95-3c~3u46 F0~~1_,2~_QS, l’.:HEDl…’.AL,E ?ART III, LI~E 2(c~: ?A’ryt”~1 FOR SERVICES: ~fEDICAL AID FCR tL 3ALYAOO?H. AS A C·’iT?.ACT ldni FRO:-iTLISEC AMPAIG!S, ISC; TO ~ THEIR TELc.M.. R !CET!:-.·:f;U XDRAISING. 5!LL z~~:—iAN, A:’i OFFICER A~.:;D IRECTOR OF ~’.::i)ICAL. -ID FOR El. S..;LVADORI,S ALSO- :,.~T. HE BOARDO F UlRIXTORS OF f?.O!-.T.L.H:E CA!·:?AICt:S, INC. IT SH,)i.11) BE ;;on:oT HAT :-~. ZIMXE.~~iANL~ ‘!:.::i HiE MEi:-ICALA ID FOR EL S,L’ADOR BOARD:- ~C:TI~S ~:-:ENA NY ~i=:•:.’7LI~E! SSt:ES ARE DlSCl”~~i::J OR VOTED m:. HE DID !~OT ‘OTC:o :-:T riE ORIGI:-iALC C:iT”F.ACT?,- i◊R DISCt.;SS ‘..’ITH Tl-It. l:’0ARDO R ST.-:.FFA NY FRO!ITLnE CA.’-lPAIGSA CTIVITIES.

—·-·——- ,_ –·——–···–·· ···•-•.- l_

GOODSON AND WACHTEL November 22, 1995 Office of the Attorney General Charitable Trusts Section300 s. Spring Street Angeles, CA 90013 Re: Dissolution and Disposition of Assets of Medical Aid for El Salvador Dear Sirs: In accordance with Section 6716(c} of the California corporations Code, this is to request a written waiver of objections to the disposition of the remaining assets in connection with the dissolution of the above-named California corporation.

Medical Aid for El Salvador (M.A.E.S.) was incorporated on Mays, 1981, as a nonprofit corporation (copies of the original Articles of Incorporation are enclosed) and was granted exemptions from both federal income and state franchise taxes. Up to the cessation ot ~ operations effective April JO, 1995, M.A.E.S. was governed a by a Board of Directors, consisting of nine persons (the authorized number of directors was ten), and had no corporate members.

Enclosed is a copy of M.A.E.S.’ election to wind up and dissolve, together with a certified copy of the I_ Resolution of the Board of Directors of M.A.E.S. by which the election to wind up and dissolve was made. This Resolution includes a plan of co~plete liquidation and the proposed disposition of M.A.E.S.’ remaining assets. The proposed distributee is FUDESOR, a corporation organized and operated for charitable purposes selected the Board of Directors in office at the time of dissolution, as required in Article V of M.A.E.S.’ Articles of Incorporation.

I_

• GOODSON AND WACHTEL t Office of the Attorney General Charitable Trusts Section November 22, 1995 :i Page 2 t ,_ FUDESORi s an organization located in El Salvador which has been the recipient of significant amounts of M.A.E.S.’ funds in recent years, in implementation of M.A.E.S.’ charitable purpose. Oocw:ientation regarding FUOESOR’s organization and charitable purpose is enclosed. Please contact me in the event you require additional documentation.

assets of x·~A.E:.S. on April 31, 1995, the date The of cessation of ~perations, were $18,063. Officers of M.A.E.S. us of were (or have informed that none its assets were purchased with) proceeds of restricted funds or gifts, nor did they consist of the proceeds of fundraising campaigns through which special representations concerning the use of such proceeds were made to donors. $8,063 of that amount was set aside for the payment of estimated ~~nses, taxes, unascertained or contingent liabilities, and expenses of winding-up, distribution of assets, and dissolution. The remaining $10,000, plus any funds remaining after all liabilities have been ascertained and satisfied, will hopefully paid to FUDESOR, to used for be be charitable purposes by which to continue to reflect the mission undertaken by M.A.E.s. during its existence.

Also enclosed for your information is a copy of M.A.E.S.’ Form CT-2 for the fiscal year ended April 30, 1994. If you need further information or have any questions, please call us at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours, ~~0/·;:)~ /777:(~-<-q} Hal Katen HK/je

llu~GELOP APAREL~A lCJcJo as, QQ ··•·–:l CONTltACT “”—-111 c11_.i0.-.c_ _•,o _M____P LAJ ..::eo=:.;;;c;.;.0.._.;_.; Mc~_:P:_:IJ. A ~,~’N-T N_T_•_ _ ___ _________ -·······-..,…_ 7· nu, 1. a. i. • c:::bJt e,t ~l&lntlft( Mmt): d • oorporalfon qvauftad lo do bLllln. .. In Cllllornla t::] an unlnc:orporaled °'”‘,’, ,,1-4,,,,J.:: c::J ~ ·.

11.c :::J,r a1ntU(fn •m•J; ~ !

i

4

c::::J ArtHnmtnt ~o. · • · · C who Jolntd to C:odt of Cfvll a111;rlo~nI Z ft” (n•me.s;.

4–·- f j’ f ,

-=——_] s_H_Q.;_. ..cR ..-. r;u.;:. ;;.:,!.;;.:A.;.N_v_._P___U___A__!_ EL_L_A __ ,._..ar .sm…..-..—CAUSE0 1′ ACTION-Breacho f Contract ~• }~ :~

I c,111• ol lcrrn lot Ht:11c .111• 1l:llon.)

ec.,. . W&yne McQle.n, Jtcbart a. sceinberq:Cynt:h.lc1. R.

& an ttjrouq,h IIJtS’l’ %.OS ANGELl:S IANX,9u&rantetc! ~y plaintif!a, wouid rn.iktt ac ed l * Ln,er••• P•” l i payment• monihly be9iMin9 May 25, 1993, with th~ pr~ balanc:•. along” with remaining accrued interest ·due on or b,ef,,ra Ooto~•r·25, 1993. · o, &bout IC.L Ott (d•t,,,>: · October 2 5 19 9 3 ~fandant bre•cfltcl Art&ohm.,,, Sy2 GJtn• .ta.ilini ~o pay 1:he loan when it .boc:ama ·due, .s..1.cn.

10-1, c:::JO ther.

I

~,-.•., c,”.:;:~~;:;;:,.;:~:::~:i”‘i&I;:;”h’::1r.•=-,,,-,.——–_–_–_-_–_.-.-_ – -··…,.,·• -+–+ tU,1m, _C~Ulljf~ A~TIO~-IJreac~ of contra,u c~ ,.,,

1_._.-:_M_e_c_:._1:_A_N_v_._._P___A___P___A_R_ .!_L_t_A ,_ __ _….:3..,.;,….sp~~–CAUS!O F ACTION-Fraud ‘··–·

l.X.J ,.u,.

(UU , IIPlfltt ol aotlcn lorm fol Hoh NWH ol ,c::on.)

l’A•1. ~lltltf(n,m•J: WAllNE McC:::.ZANIIA N UltZOGI .ROS ERT· S • s-:ren me::rH; I C8?AlC•JlAU’l’K1LOXEZU .?!1GAR~ PAot.

u,ar aJI-SN deNntWlt (,,.,,,f.): ANGELO PAPAA.&LLA on or ~boi,t(dal9): April 23, 1993 utraudtcs ;a/1lntfffa s to11a~a: ,-11.2.G : fntanuan•lo , Nttllt•nt WJar1prt1111t1&1o·n t:Jat •• Otftr,dant ma~t rt;l’MefttaUan1 of ffl.111ti&fIa ct uar~ In A”-t,IJ’enr ,A-2,J J)alandant, in prcmJ.1ed pl,il;tifta hca writ.i:9, the that -wvu and could the loan in at c:,t ~•pay full tha_ apec1!icad d..ite “‘ lo&J” • maturity, nuely October 25, 199J·, I) b. Th111 repr••n111toM wtrt In fcot fallt. TMr ~Ut wu CJ uatat~ In Atrachmenr FA•2.b: ~a:s tonof.s: •it:y Defendant: did not have~• lW’da nor did htj ha,re tho .ib.1. to, %1p&y · the lo&A &I promJ.••d.

G. Otftndanc ffllctt ~lllfte&tlona wftll 11tl nltnt to dtftll.ld and lnell,fcrplainc11tto I r· d•$Cribfd ra,· * 1ftI tem ,R.s. At the lime plalntut acc.d, plaldff did nor k~• me rept111,1artoiw •• ,. ncr bisllev~_- vsayw ere uμe. Pi.lnliff actect1 11J Ultlft&rOwllaan ce ypon rn1 trutlt of th• rfprn,nt.adon,. : . flJ14. t; C:onnalrnen1 •• 0tftndant ;onc:tllld 0/ IIDPtllltd mat.rl&l flGII □as mttd In Athl;ltmtnt FA-J… .,.. tollows: 1 Defendant never had any aouro• of fund• co pay .bAck t’:ht : n · upon lll&~t.n:s.~y&, nd the promi.••• h• iava to p la.int ~t.fs wc,re . •d , on ~ntrutha and un3~~an~iated t&cta, which he kntw w~:e fa: II. conc:a&lld n,attrtaf Olftndltt 0, IUHIIINd (,Otl . ~ .

. Ci ~ Glf1M¥t Wll tloun~ to ~Ina. · Q “f t” ,iiw.

o. Ctftndant acnc1aJtc:SO l’ aupor. . Hd oi.. fMts with “‘• Intent to defrllud .and Induce ntlrf to ~t •• dt1Grtb84 1ftI tem Al tl’I• trm•p UlntUfa cted, Pllifttj~ WU unawa.,. . , u,. COICHJtd 1Jps;i,11t•◄d ,.-,…….–..,-lft-,—————····——·····-····.-.– — -.~..l.f fl–, Ctv,,_., i -. llfNff’lt ,IUNf,Y t, I flt ! I ‘ “‘”‘”‘·””‘ CAVSa 0~ ACTION-~rfud ‘ cc””·j•

, Mc:Ct!AN Y.PA.P>.l’t!LLA ———-··· .. •. . ______j _ __ ..

c:II c:J ATTACkMINTT 0 Compl&llt Craa-Com~ Exbihit 21 IX•1. Al CddltlonafU IN81f tialnst dlflnd&nt (ncmt): · ANCEtO PAPAUtr.A ,· -· ,11lnfflfl lltgff d•f-“dlllt WU 9utttyO f • cz:jm111oa ~ Clj fraud .

J aJ.o ppr1111on II defined In Civil Cocs1 ~oi, ~29′. an4 lllald lhoulG raco~e,, In 1dGltlon IO &cw~ d:ut1,l ◄· dam•;• ca.tt,,unc.. · . 1 ; to makea n exampt•o f 1114a op vllln ne 1 ‘ £IC•2, f&atl 1upc,crtf”I c,1&11tlol’lt&’I lm& rt•• followa: .

.’ .

IX-4. The lfflownto f uamplary GlffllOUS OUOh1t1 L QC not lhctwn, DUl’llllllt to C4dt Of Civil” °4adlltt aectlon .C2~.la. b.c::]S .,.

~,- .;.;… .:.i.T i·=ltj=.”:.:·.-= —;-:-1–:-::- -.:.· __________ ._ ·-·. .· ..· ‘ i -~:…-=.~,(~·:~

Exbibit21 t • —-u~i tad States BankruptcL’J1QS’S -5-S-&3-S ~ARY PETITION — CE!!TRADLI STRICTO F CALIFORHIA hltor: 11″‘-0 IH ~i •——————–•flDd:’1ai. r. lard • 476 NAM! OF JOINT DEBTOR ASGiLOA . PAPAlll.I.A BT3.3 flfflll:.

NOJ OINT D!BTOR A!.!. OTHER NAMES ————mmr.o7 fC21LmJ l4U: 02/02/9.f 09:00 FOl sec.

S!C ./TAX I .D -NO. —–ffllfflHI Dl!I -llll!llG COJtlW?IOIJ 114-54-1722 : ST:.E!T ADDRESSO F DEBTOR——–•** FILED••~ : 1071 SOUTHM ANSFIELDA VENUEl a/28/93 . 11:06

o.J.w amcr

: LOS ANGELES, CA. 90019 Cl.al, COOlf ; l COUNTY OF RISIDiNCE ———-41fflL DlfflICTO FC WP. l : LOS AMGXLES DllVff:t U : ! 1u:LING AODRiSSO F O:ESTOR– -..uemT .,: 1.U-074241 S lH.H l l 1071 SOUTHM ANSFIELDA VENUE __________ : t LOS !NGiLES, CA. 90019 · · . : ·: Vi~Ui ………………….. ~——LA.S.3–SS233.==-KM——-. .. ————: !Debtor has had a residence in this District fo~ 180 days immediately : : pre:ading th• date ct thia ;,etiticn. : :—————-INFORMATIORNE GARDINDGi3 TOR ————————: TY?3 OF DEBTOR : CHAPTARO F BANKRUPTCCYO DE WHICHTH ! PETITION Individual : UHD!R FILED : NATUREO F DEBT IS : No~-Business/Consumer 7 : A. TY?i OF BUSINESS -FILING FE!

N/A Attached aRI!:LY DESCRIBNE ATUROEF BUSINESS —————————-: -:S.

NIA : STA!’! STI CAL/ ADMnUSTRATIVE IUE’ORHATIOli–ATTOR1tiYN AMEA NO >.DOR ESS–! that, CKERn L. CHRISTOPHER, Dtctor estimates attar any sxe!!pt ESQ.: prc~e~ty is exclud~ and administrative: ex~enses paid, there “ill no S22S vltSgIU SLVD.

be funds : ! availabls f~r distribution to unsecured : SUITE 804 : cre:ite~s. . : LOS ANGELES,C A. 90038

BAR

·:———~~———–~•–~~~-~—~~-•–~: STATE N0.92872 =ance {sard cod•> : (213) 933-9375 NO. OF CREDITORS1 -1S Cl) :—————————-; :————-•————-~————-!

TO ATTORNEYS DESIGNATED : ASSiTS (thousands) Under 50 {1) : REPRESENTD EBTOR :—————————•————-: CHERYLL. CHRISTOPHER.E SQ.: :LIAS:L. (thousands) 50-99 (2) : AND ROBERTE US~XS. ESQ. : :————~—~——~———~——-: l : ;—————————- NO. OF !H?lOTiis M/A :—————————————–:TH!S !?ACE FOR COURTU SE ONLY :ZQ~I?r S!C. HO~D!RS M/A ——————————~———-

THE $TRING$? Transamerica Ins. Co. $50,000

,Ir $531,989

Progressive Zimmerman Campaigns and Markman private firms over $3 million to campaign for ————-“Voter Revolt” to convince voters that these $226,902 PROGRESSIVE CAMPAIGNE MPLOYEES SOLICIT $ FROM PUBLIC IN NAME OF VOTER REVOLT, KEEPING5 0% OF AMOUNTT HEY COLLECT CAPI: 310-475-0424

SdleMC

Page 15of2l F«mi’ ◄lt f · ACUIICdE spmra c..ll/1t11’4.

JanuaryI , l99S • March3 1, 1995 CODES FOR CLASSll’YINGR XPBNDITUlllS C Coo&ribudOMG&on: etaryu d lc.-K.ind I indtpcodcln!tJ pcndilun:s ‘• • L Ulal!W’O B Dl’OlkkutA dvertising N Ncw1papc1rD CPI ai
Do n.ot.U tmbc ,ccrued aptll.lCI on Scbed.ultE . Repoa1.. .Sy du: ….. , 111m•I 111chp aymmta on Upe 4 In the 1umm:ary.

… nr n • ..a.. nr — Namea lMIA ddaul of Amount 1-• Cmk nt-:—AWJ1&11 Mal)mao p 7immamao& $18,750.00 s ProgreasivcC ampaigns $l,09S.7S MichaelJ ohnson G $14,400.00 339 NOlthO raagcD iivc Loe Anaelct. CA 90036 &; 0 $11,’91.M ., lS.5S . GnMSA veoue l.o, Angeles.C A 90071 .

SUDTQTAL .:t, $46,939

s,,.,,,,_,

A”1’Mld E.q.,,Jn I. Acaucd e1peoscst hiap eriodo l $100o r mOR..

$46.939.35 $100 (do ilcmlza:). $0.00 3. Tota! accmed Cllpc:ISCI ,iDCwred thia period.

4. Total aumed CllpclllCI paid thil period, S. Net ch.t.ogdc ua period.

$46.939.JS

Do not ltemlze aCIQ’UCaCpaI uea Sd,,echalc :a.l lcport only the 1uaao f -.mp ayments Line 4 in Uacs ummary.

Naae andA ddnMo f Amount f.u«. Cmlc Daal•tl•n bbl p Robed Kaplan S7.000.00 Los Anaclca, CA 9002..S .. $2,.500,00 T Sec Schedule0 $290.tl6 p ZimmcrmlU& Mlllkman $3,750.00 J T Sec Scbodulc0 $337., ..

250 Sixd i Street.# 202 Santa Mooica.C A 90401 p Steinberg andA u.ocitJcsI nc. $S.OOO.OO 33S saunRao ad Niland Desiga L $2,993.11 9-C2S outh VanN eis Aveooc L $2,993.27 San Prncisco, CA 941 IO FedEx L $138.IQ P.O. Box 11◄0 L L $49.3S • $119.20 Accupciol L $3,SOO.OO 846 S. RobcrtaoaD lvd, Cwlmud °”Not,..,,

Accrued Expenses (Unpaid Bills) Page #I 18 of Alliance to Re,•italize California JD#950300 CODES FOR CLASSIFYINGl ~Xl•l~Nl>ITUltES

Amount Nnmc 11mAl ddress of 1•_vnc e._.crrui.lf!r….o.r:Jkdnk.ut !![ Cruk A~1mu:d

Progressive Campaigns s

$3,528.60 p Acuprint 1>rinlinga, clilions $338.58 K46S . Robertson lllvll. 1,ri11tinpge titions $2,370.681 l.oush•illc. KY 102K5-50IO Three l111harcmlcrLol’ lllcr, Scw111hP loor SUDTOTAL $(10,921.17

Stalealenl periodm n J1IJ I, 1995d iroughS eplanbu3 0, 199S Aa:rucd lhpelllCS( UnpaidD Ws) =’l Page# 22of 29 =’l AUianc~ lo Re,ltallu Calif am/a IDl9S0300 t:: CODESF OR CLASSIPYINCE XPBNDITURIS C C-oalribuoou: Monetarya nd In-Kind I lndepcncleGBI xpeadilun:I L ·Utr.ralln B Broadwt Advcttising N Nenpaper IJMPI criodicaAld vawing 0 OullhloA dva1.isinJ S SUfYCPS,l palW’eO atherlngD. oor-To-DomSo licbtlmt F Pundrawq Hwau · G Oeaaal()pauions and Ovcdteall T. Tnvd. AcaNamodadon■ nd Mcall (Mllll” 8 Deaibed) P Protcsakml Managemcna1n dC ouuldna Senka . …….

• Do lmnlse auratd anlllll!I on I. .a, the I•••• ef •di …….. Llu411111M!1•111111″J· Progn:uivc · aot SdHd■le RI! 11111 ·– …-111″ I . —-. – Namea nd Addn.11u1l ·-.-..-…

Campqns s $66.614.15 2()6.i s l43S OceanP llk Blwl.,S uite 16 $64,800.00 Sama CA 90405 p ZimmCIIUII& Marlcman $15.000.00 1250 Sialll Street,’ 102 0 $456.0S Santa Monlct.C. A 90401 T $369.99 Tont Proulll 0 $1.5.000.00 S39 flctcl1tt Ddvc Pnstman. Carlu.. DiS111r&e PRudcnbecger T Sl47M ms.4a 18881V oa ICanunA ve11uSe,u i&1c1 ◄50 0 Irvine.C A ffllS Stq>banle . 0 Sl,441.86 Castor 44SR oosevehA venue_A pa,tmcnDl Suonvnlc.C A 9-t086 p Steinberga ndA S1ociatt.s $50.000.00 llS SeuntR oad Calahuu. CA 91302 p Harold Marsh $10,000.00 P.O. B~ 1Sl719 9001S Los Alw:les.C A SUBTOfA$L1 24.965.17 Coldl1111″‘ Nmr .,,

Califmua1 994F onn4 19 ~ · . · ScheduleI! : :’11 SllleoleDml ven periodfr omJ ulJ I, 19″ lhroup Seplem~ 30, 199S ~ Paymentsa nd Contribution(sO ther Than Loins) Mo Page# 16o f 29 C«li/•~ Allian,:1 ,,, R,rllalbl 1Dff50300 CODES ma CIASSU’YINGE IPKNDfflJJlBS C Ccntribu&ioosM: oaeurya ndI n-Kind I lndepcndcatB xpeadilUICI L LitaaCum B BruadcaltA dffllisiag N NC’iVIPll)CMId’ Perk1dkaJM vertlting OOUbidcAdvatiaJna S Sum,ys, Sipllblle OadaiPg, Door-To-DooSro llckldom F FundmilillaE Wlllb ad C General Opcnl1ooa Ovahcall T Travel,~ and Mcall (Mmt be Dacn”bcd) P Profasbtal Mtnlganeol _. Consulna Services

Do ■oe llenlbe ■U1’11td ScW■lt IL ..,_., 1-, aadl en Une th

apmsa 011 anl1 tlte ma af pa,-ab 4 • 11111111WJ.

Zinunennan & Marbn111 l 250 Sulk SIR.el.

Niland Desiga $408.S0 942 Soulh VanN ea Avcnw:r San Fmu:isco CA 94110 Pc:dEJL 0 $2A3AJ 0 $137..()J P.O. Do• ll40 M is TN l8101-U40 0 SI 179.S Cort Furniture 0 $124.69 2915M eadA w.nuc 0 $124.69 Santa CA 9SOSl 0 $124.69 Acuprint .$1,SS4.70 pri•lin1 petiliont 846 S. RokJUon Blvd. prillti1p1 e(Wonl $2JS4.70 Los Angefr.sC, A $].9’21.66 priulia&p elidoM prillliq pcdtiou $1,-41S.9l priatllt&pctkiols $1,732.0II prhfn&pc lltlou . $1.732.00 priMhtgp diou $3,464.00 ODS $3~.00 SUBrofAL $68,216.20

r,,,,

Collliluw 011N at

Slalcmcn~t ven periodf ro11O ctd>ctI , 1995~ II Decembe3r I , 1995 ind Coniributlo1(O11~ u Than Loans) Made ,.~·•·;_fJ~··· ……~.. . ..

PagoI 23 of. 36 p J.. i Van.dcnbeft& A.uoclatcs • $11.000.00 p ,_ ‘ SS12 W~fr Avenue1 303 SU,000.00 S . T Lab:wood.CA 90711 SeoScht.dalcO $1~721.63 C’J 0 SeoS chedllo0 $3.28].77 VIVIDB wlnt.ssSystems 0 co $201.50 ‘? flOOa t CaralnoR eal,S ulto1 80 0 $701.31 ,- Mounta.lVn iewC, A 94()40-2567 ·o $2.08U2 0 $60fi.6S 0 $360.00 0 S292.50 0 SS06.2S w.111.,_e~ o· BankPees $221.27 ~ 135S amaC ruz. AV CIIUD MenloP ull. .

CA 940H WUl.lamW uwneycr. T SW 9(19 SAC-LAX-SAC $14◄.00 VotuRcvoll, 18141S lreel SacnmenloC. A 95816 p Zimmumu A Markman $15,000.00 p l’l.10S blh Stncl.1201 $15,000.00 ~ SantaM ook:a.C A 9
~ S”n;,..,,

ia1111111i1 c,,,1,111unointo1b I. Paymcali Pw!ol hb perlodo f $100., men.

2. Pl)’ll’OIIImI ldot hlaperiodo hndcrSIOO(do 1101k e11lze).

l. To~ lnrc,cap&a idt blJ pedocle n ooestandlnlgo ans.

~ … Total accniedC lpo~scp• a)d dill period.

~ .S.T otal plJIMIIII madet hlt period. …00

··— c! 419 · California1 994f “Ofm Paymcnll aod Contributioos(O therT I111L1o aRa) Made Staren1cn1 ,c-,foctf,omJ antwy l.1″6dwo•llfcol’uery 1996 A lliattc• ,_ ~· vllaliu Cllllfo r,,., A Coll’lltlillHfo r Propositio,u 100, 201 1tn42 oz IDl9Stl300 : ,1(1,00 WdtlParpllant 0 J3j $a,q (ntl Awc:acii 0 U4fl.OO Ma.to hrk. CA 94025 0 ,22.00 0 SIJO Zim
flll,036.tl .,

:;choduJcF : Saoo,mc,11covupsa i>d from Februaryl l. l9961hroughM arch9 .1996 AccruedB xpc~s (UnpaidD ills) Alllane~ u, Revltaliu Califomla, A.C ommltte,rfo r Proporitlon, 200, 201 and 202 P~gc# or ID/1950300 … ■ .. .

and of Amount Name Ad•rct11 COM VoterE ducation Project L,I Sla!eMallcr . $2$,000.00 4041 MacAdhur Blvd., Suit.a1 90 I Mislctlo L,1 SlalO ~ewmrt Beach,C A 92«.0 Nali011T31ax LimitalimC ommi~ PACS lalO 1..,1 Slall:Mail,r $7,000.00 1817 Capitol Av r.:namSl.l iteA SPCTillllenClOA, 9’814 Maller $11.935.00 20S PennsylvaniAa vea~ SB Washlna-toDn. C. 20003 Your BallotG ulde L,l Slalo Mailer· $10,000.00 -yenrwa l 5233 Blvd., Suite2 30 ShermanO llkt…C A 91403 p Sldnlierg 1111Ads socwes. lru:. $18,225.00 335 SI.UnRi oad r-• ” —CA 91302 Zimmcrmu & Marbnm B,I $60P()0.00 1250 Shllh SCRCt#. 202 0.1 $35,>00.00 Santa Monica.C A 90401 S9S.OOO.OO SUBTOTAL I. Accruede xpenseIsl ls or$ 100 or mro, S3l2.697.7S period 2. Aq:ruedc apcnse~si i periodo f under$ 100( do not hcndzc). S0.00 3. Tolala ccruede xpensesin curredth Jsp eriod. $332,697.75 4. Totala ccruede xpemcsp a.lethi is period. stiJ.]86.30 sn 1.111.•s 5. Netc tumgoth isp criJd.

rn~•i·w ,~n”~”‘””r,~ . …,.. ,u,. .•.: ··

–··–······-………..

$8,333.33

4041 M11cArth11rBuula:vS1u1itret~ 1 90

l”t1I'””B ead1.C .’ !,26t,O • SlnteM nilersf o1~· lnrch 1996 Prhnar)’ Ele~tion1 0311296 KationalT nx I.imitationC onunitte, PAC Sl:de s2.J:11.33 181i Capitolr t’ettut. Suit~. – J 1~:ft t11 Sacr1mt’nf,-C,, . 14 ~•l11U-:-~,J· ·1r•:hti ,,:,,~ !Slit!•’ 11 ~ t’t’il!IJ” ~•· :ti,,u _____ ~ > ‘AoliJ: ;·(,11&1,i, ui $ • ,u111,1.r/.tJ1r, , i”l’u -~•.u11,:,;;,1; 0~,. l•J J ,mci ,,; ………………… ..· ··-····-·— QJ/12·96 Zinuuenmm aud 1’fnrkm11nIn.c . $:W.OU0.00 1250S ixU1S lrMI. 11202 Santa~ fonicaC. A 90401 TV ProductionA dvance ,Vme: Tot.,/ 11.1J $e,;t.l,O(J,i.1J0/I0’w1p·w l111.m$ 2,j(t_ ;l)J w,,;} ,j; •,.

b.•• Treasurer Jl•epnre,I3 111/96 I irgit,in L. Do,.1·,I.

! Allin11c:lot llt1·itt1li1C.t nlif,m1in Form .t/19,S clwl,,le E or1

s

[ .i ‘”

s

s

s s s s

s .$7,000.001

s

s s

s s

s

s

s

Muuc .Stutcmcncl oven; 1,criodl ‘rum April I, 1995 throughJ une 30, 1995 ,r s $28,000.00 Alliance to Revitalize Califur,lia 1/)#950300 Page# 13 of 25

s

Pro~ressiveC m11’~aj;11~ $32,904.25 3435 Ocec1nP nrk 13Jvd.S, uite 206-116 s $30,000.00 Santa Monica, CA 90,105

s

s $1,125.85

s

$15,000.00 s $302.20

s

$29,000.00

s

$13,557.50 s $30,500.00 s $40,000.00 s $671.15 s $41,000.00 s $42,000.00

s

$1,177.IO s $57,000.00 s $3,’/03.50

s

$65,000.00 s $62,000.00

s $1,48{.15

s $K 1,000.(}() s $363.35 $2,867.36 GTE Cnlifomi.1,l ‘uymcnt Center $480.26 lau?lewoodC, A 90313-0001 Tele-CommunicationsI nternational $900.00 8383 Wilshire Dlvll.,# IOOO Beverly l-lills,C A 90211 Konica Uusincss Machines, Pile 11531:IK$3 67.911 Los Anl!.elesC, A 90074-3138 City of Hope, Properly Mgmt Dept $1,200.00 208 W. HIitS lrecl Los Angeles, CA 90014 Postage by Phone System, Dox 7900071 $600.00 $982.15 St. Louis, MO 63179-0071 Office Depot $104.39 223 I S. l3arringlonA venue Los Angeles, CA 90064 SU0TOTAL $579,995.11

ii I

‘ • I .J h• .. ir ~- -~ ~ ;

·J

IJ ,~.

=I ~~· il} N i _r f u I r .,.

., ,· l u ig Ii !e >’ ~ -~- ‘f ~ if ‘

0

i r J

~

I.

r I –

s

i

~

s

fl

, l ‘ .

I· O•••••~•••••••••••••••••••

• i!i Ii B

l ii

‘ .

I ~ 6 ff ff

l

,.

!I

C

illlillliilil~ii!lil11lll1 I~

•

( l ~ : 1,

tit

;=f

!;s

(: ~–·’Schedule B: c.alifomia1 994F am 419 · Statemenct oversp eriod rromO ctober.I , 199.Sth.r oughD cieeml>3e1r , 199S :._ ;.·. : Paymcntiand Contribudons{O therT han Loans)M ade Pago f 22 of 36 · lllianc, lo Re11ilaliu California 1D#950300 Pro~yp Campalaos s t 3ffi0ccai, Plllk Ul vii., SuI to ~ 116 s s Santa Monica. CA 9040.5 $22.299.00

s

. s ‘ $32.400..00 s $20,164.00 s s $34,01.1.00 s .s s . ~.;: s ‘ s 0 $8S0.OO :, I V, ndon uc1Mn1 $110 or mo,•: $625.00 :I Cable & Wlrclcss, Inc,. P.O. 801 371968 Piusburah. PA 1.5250-1968 -Sl,86S.03 om A.A.A..R eesTckco11 2180 Westwood Blvd• . n~NL. A.CA fflOl5 Konica. P.O. Box 64065.St Paul MNS5164-006S .:J· • City af HClpoP, ropcnyM s.mtD ept,2 08 W. 8lh St. 3 monU11$ 3,000t’mlhk cnl-$9,000.00 PlulcyB owes~ h Coq,.,P .O.B 01 IS460 ‘ LouisvilleK. Y 4028S.544SO US PostalS ervice $1,0So.20 PostegcbyPhooeSysem $300.00 Oll:llud SuoolvH dwr.2 020 S. Bundv.L A.CA 90025 $177.70 ,., SUl.’6 “,. , Roval U,d1dnR.2 050 S. Bttndv, LA.C A ~ $378.99 ,., Loa Anaotu. CA 9002.1 ‘ ,., Michelle Jose $4.290.00

Culi(ornia1 994F onn 419 ~chcduf~B : Paymentsa itd Contribution(sO therT han Loans)M ade Page # 30 of 44 Alliance to Re~ California, A Cammilte•Jor Propolitlo,u 200,201 and 202 ID/1950100 P••-· • .. r.n.t. …

Name anclA d•• GI

…o .. n■ • Paid

State Compemation fund $329.61 1nsunmc:c 0 P.O.Dox1’9S0 San Francisco.C A 94120-7980 S&G Madcelia& L,I postagef orm m mailing $75,000.00 1891G . WoUneS.-U’Cet L.J post.agefo t massm a.Ulna $120,000.00 Fairr1etdC. A 94533 · p Sleiobc,gand AssociateIsn c. $10.500.00 p CA 91302 $8.375.00 StewartT ltJo . $3,fi90.00 a 2044 GatewayP lace,S uito 150 SanJose.CA 95110 · ProgressiveC allpaigns S,I Novanba’Sipawm $9,974.50 3435O caR ParkB lvd.,S uilO2 06-116 S,J $32.527.00 Saata MOllltaC. A 9040.S S,I NovanbeSr lpaluRI $19,100.70 S,I $28,895.00 S,I $31,842.00 .. -·-.

· S,I NowmbcfS i~ V ,ndorsr tt,Mn• 1100o r ,nor,: a copyit1 AT&T $91/JO P.O. Boll1 0103.V an Nuvt. CA 91410-0103 oflb &upplla $229.87 GTEC aliforniaP. aymenCt cor« telepkme $850.00 InrdewoodC, A 90013-0001.

City of llopo. MamaD ept.2 01Iw .B lhS L rent Propaty $3,000.00 CA 9001-4 by $j()0.00 Pos’-SC PhoneS yslatl pol&ago P.O. 7900071.S L Loot.. MO 63179-0071 St3ples,2 052 Bundy Drive $284.~ Los Aniz:e!eCs.A 9000.5 Michelle Iliff $1,43000 3756 Cmdiff,-H1 3. Los An1tclcsC. A 90<84 & P,1 $2.000JJO .5532W oodmfAf werue# 303 P,1 $7.00000 Lakewool, CA 90713 P,I SZ.00000 T Seo Scbedu0& c $1M94 ,, SUBTOTAL $397,188.96

Slalcmcncl oven period fl’OllF ebruary l l, 1996l hrougl March P, 1996 · A~ed Expenses( UnpaidB ills) Alliance 10 Rtrilaliz# California,A CommUI••f or Propo,itlont 200, 201 and 20Z 32of 44 Page,, ID#9S0300 CODESF OR CLASSIFYINGE IPKNDlTllRIS C · Contributions:M oocuryon 4l n•Klod I ltldcpcndenBl xpcndillftl ~ L Literature D BroadcaAsdt vertising N Newspapearn d PeriodicaAl dvcrtislng 0 OutsideA d,ertislns S SurveysS. igna&wOe alberinaD. oor-To-DoorSolicbliou F FundralsingB Yfflll G OcneralO penllons _. Overhead T Tmvel.A ccommodationasn 4M olll (M111b1 ol)oacdbcd) Consultina P ProCesionaMl anagemenatn d Service, or

Do not lt emb taccn11dn m11st1oraSchtdule E. RePCll1onlyth elampsum such oa,mnllon Llne4 ln tie sammary.

PM!H. nr u-1 ,.:_ _; . .. ,. . a~—– Code nr • ,,, Namea ndA ddresosf Amolant r.. .. …

p UndaKMm & Aaoclatcs $8.750.00 980N inthS tree1S.u ite2200 Sacramcn1C0.A 9S8l4•2742 Anthc:mBy dl $2.84.00 J31l 1 Ventur.aB lvd., Suite2 0’1 StudioC itv.C A 91607 CaliforniaR epublicanP arty L, I ~IaraM air« $98,236.00 1903’N est MagnoUaB lvd.

Burbank.C A 91506 0 $63.39 p Tho Waterga11 2c600V irginiaA venueN W lfJOl $1)11.6] WashiutlooD .C. 200J7-190S p KennethL Kbachigian $U.OOO.OO 209A venidaD el ~. Suilc2 03 0 $192.86 San ClememilC. A 92672 T SS!Jl.29 p Vandenber&g Associalt.s $2,000.00 ~532W oodruffA vcouo# 303

v·

ProgrcssivcCampa.igns S,I Novanber $46.JSSAO 3435 OceanP ark Blvd..S uite2 06-116· S,I Man:h $30,420.00 Monka.C A 90405 ThomasA . Proulx 0 $30,000.00 339 A:leher Drive 0 Sl,747.61 Athemn. CA 94027 T SI Pl3.S7

Sc~ul~O: 1 · Sta&amcCnOl ‘ml periodI ran Pdmwy II, 1996l hrougl Matdl 9. 1996 PaymentsM aic by an Agento r lndepcndcn.C&a ntractor Page# 40 of 44 .A.Uianc1to1 R evltallu Calif a,,,., A Cammltt,• jar Propori/ia,u 20{),2 01 and 202 ID#9S030, .· , .

Namer Zlmlftfl7fta & ManlfUffl USO SutA Stmt, IZOJ ..

· SanuiM olllt:0C A IOIOI .

Nameu dAdumof ‘Pa~.• … n• ■ ~f,I ‘ -·· . -…. J- ‘ .

r.n&i Hancb0 ~ Prodoctiou B,I $163,S2l.OO 2709B riahtwoodA vaaao $174.00 Nashville1.N 37211 B, I $7,500.00 Rol>aSt tarr .

1418V ,illatahlty Awme LosA n1c,1eiC. A 900t9.

Eu.

1888C c:nlUIP)’ alk Sulla 1900 1.-0As mrelcsC. A 90061 Alflouch ~llular 0 $122.17 P.O.B ox 19651 • lrvlno.C A ~713 om .

G SIU.40 P.O.B ox 1098 .

HunllnirtoBn each.C A 92647 fed& 0 $141.25 McmllhllT. N 38101-1140 TOfAL $180.J~B.20

FAX COltlMUNICATION -···- (One page onJy} DATE: November 1, 1995 TO:

9161/111111

1 hear you’re planninga n initiativet br the November b~ BravoJ How are you goingt o get the $ignaturcs?A spin-offo’ f~ regressive Campaignsi,.s now the largesta nd most dlicieat signature operationin California. Theyg ot the signaturesf or tr.c tort reform initiatives. On September l l. we turned in 2.2 millions igoaturest o qualifya ll three. It wast he largest signatured rive in US history, even surpassingP erot’s effort.n ationwidei.n 1992..

At the ~e time we were doing that.t he trial lawyers hiredK elly to get _thes ignatures for a counteri nitiative. In fad. they got their title and summaryb ack on :

ot

exactlyt he samed aya s we did for one our three initiatives. AU three of ours have now _beenc ertified for the March ballot The trial lawyersw ere unable to gel sufficient we all three signatures to qualifyt heir one measurew hile got enough to qualify of ours. _Ther eason was probablya very low vaJjdityr ate. We got a 74.So/e’ lfalidityra te ~1.alewide combining all thr~ a very high.v alidityr ate, whicha lso saved us money on the absolute numbero. f signa~ weh ad to coJJeor.

Our pricei s the samea s e”Cl)’Oneels e’s. 70 ~t_s per signature. If you • want to tailc about our getting or any pan of your signatures. give me a call. z.tznm~~4- “~ ~ am. {!)

. . . . . .

• Feb. 20, Rep. ·carlos J. Moorhead~ Chairman • House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual _Property House Judid. ary Committee House o.t’ Representatives

Horowit1vJ6f

Washington, D.C • Dear Chairman Moorhead: • ·on February 10, 1995, Michael the Hudson – Institute testified before your.Subcommittee on H.R. 10.

Among his numerous misjudgements was a false statement . on page his testimony, to “The is led

? 0£ wit: alliance

~ilicon Valley entrepreneur Thomas Proulx, insurarx: e by critic and consumer author Andrew Tobias and, remarkably, Voter Revolt the Nader-affiliated consumer grouo viich Ill e insurance rate re uct on.

s onsored caiifornia Pro osition !0~ mandatin shar auto- •· Although in”·:t988 -Y worked with Voter Revolt, there was no

~ME’ft.’mt klk

,7_?_~ –

1

. ‘ –,…-lj¥.;+?,~> .

:·:11ow,ptffl.S tr—:ae~ i it a_tiye1 ..

,–.–n,•··, ,_·Th,y·a1″1r-Jf00’~-•££ilu~•d~~if.or.-:any:.o.t.:.i,llzi,;.o~ganisi1Uon••·~•-., • affiliation in the proper dictationarr sense of that word.· To in any way indica~e, as Mr. Horowitz did in his testimony that.Voter Revol~ is’now permitted to use-my·name cir be · described as “Hader-affilia’ted”. is untrue. I request that · the hearing record be corrected by placing this letter 1n the prin~ed hearing volume, along wi~h my submitted testimony_ ~hat ydur Statt permitted earlier ~his month.

111· •· PO Box l9:3l2 Washington, D.C., 20036 • Enc. attached testimony · P .s. Please confirm your acceptance o! the above :request .•.

• Thank you • •• •

t){t•h&1r

1) Shift accident costs on to health insurance policyholders, workers and employers.

an __ Under SB 941, ~uto insurers~at injured policyholder first collect avail~~nder his or her he,.,]tb insurance policy. This would spare auto-insurers consid erable expense, but would place an added burden on healt.~ insur ers that.would result in higher health-insurance premilll:.S. In addition, SB 941 wo~ld allow auto insurers to deduct fro~ the benefits that they-are required to pay injured policyholders the a.mounts that the policyholder is eligible to receive in~rkers’1 c · · securit disability and. state disabilfty – benefit_ij.. Again, t.1is reduces e co en on au o _nsurance policies, but increases costs for the workers and eI!!plo}·ers who fund these other be~efit progra~s.

2) Drop property da~age coverage from the mandatory policy: Even though the bill would leave in place the current fault based legal system for assessing responsibility for property danage, liability insurance ~~at covers property damage ~ould not be included in the ?IP policy, nor would drivers be required to buy it separately. This cost-saving feature of the bill would benefit a particular class of drivers –those people who would not _buy property da.J:?age liability insurance if the law did not r_equire to. Generally, these are people who ew-n no siqnif i them cant assets and thus would not likely be sued over an auto cident anyway. For them, noney not spent on liability .

surance-is money saved. Yet money thereby saved by this is money that other, insured, drivers must spend to cover group the damage that these uninsured drivers cause.~ 3) Charge the sa~e price $tatewide for the mandatory policy: -··•:.,,iiJf–:~:-_-;;._”.• ·· _:·· .• -.

· · · Since insurance costs are higher in denser urban areas than in rural and sJburban parts of the state, flat-rating the policy would effectively force rural and suburban residents to subsidize residents. this would tend to benefit low-income urban While drivers, nany or who!l live in the inner-cities, would also · it give residents of Beverly Hills a break on their premiUI!lS at the expense of less well-off rural policyholders.

4) Offer extremely linited wage loss benefits: Under the proposed PIP policy, wage loss benefits are c:app at $1000 per month. This means that a motorist who earns more than $12,000 a year and is injured through no fault of his own would be deprived of a portion of his income if rendered unable to work. In order to match the coverage provided under the present liability system, drivers earning more than $1000 per month –the majority of motorists –would have to purchase wage-loss insurance. .

supplemental

effect is designed to lower premiums for low-income-drivers. Wh ile making insurance more affordable to low-income drivers is clearly a pressing social need, the method employed by the bill – -redistributing the cost burden under the guise of a general reform of the insura~ce system –is deceitful and, ultimately, self-defeating.

Employing such an indirect approach makes for messy public policy. For starters, the subsidies contained in the bill cannot be directed exclusively to those who need them because they are not acknowledged to be such. Second1y, the bill-would visit massive chaos on the insurance system just ~hen-the new insurance1 col?Utlssioner is ori the verge of putting Prop~ 103s major provi sions into effect. And last but not least, the bill would give insurers what they -ant from no-fault —greater control over benefit payments.

There is. a better vay: Legislation sponsored by Speaker Willie Brown provides a ~ore honest and efficient way o~ ~aking insurance affordable to low-inco~e drivers. His bill would dramatically toughen enforce- -ment of the mandatory insurance lav and u~e t-~e savings from the resulting reduction in uninsured motorist pre:miu.:ms to offer insurance subsidies to qualifying low-income drivers. Because the subsidy in Brown’s bill is explicit, it can be ta~geted and its cost minimized. And that, after all, is the goal.

Thank you for your attention.

,

A cunt~ more respectable groups. bill W

mer,et• 0ota&,er 1, 1.191 Kr• blpb IINR llull.tng’taft, ·DC Paar ltalDIU I a uitin,J to aplain-, dacd,8.1.ont o 1•• PU11o CJ.tJ…,.

to..-__,ni, •• U4 -iat in 1:M eteOR a iuuranae ·J.aw in Clll.iforn1a.

M you lcnoltt, % b&Ye·d e¥D’t.lN1l1 11Gdb _., t.tJla IIDcl en..u d a COUUIIN’ aft0Go1iie ~ ~1YW, wan ~ tor 1nauranoe refora • .% -ati:n.atad to W• iaaa, dellJd_te Da IIIU’dane •=jec:t: atte, .NCIIUe X Nl1″N … ,~ u p&’Mem:ed villa.

fQlden ,eop1e at oppo&”t.unisy ~ daDUt:rate 1:0 t:ba’t 1:be kind work dO can in liv•• &eoeMly, we uJce a UllVillla tiff__.. tbeh w t:1ae•• .boWffer, % haw … 1:118o wluion tllac c,ur rJ.pd ~.1.tlon wu.nncae w n~f•u.1• runa aounar u nfNII ud ciltsan aapc:,1MZ119nl, llaY!.ng played. nl• in lift£1’19 YOt=e ~ .. vit:b ,ro». frut:rat£nr, …. -aiclinlJ oppoait;ion 103 Ud ‘tMft 1:lle 1:0 no-!ault., X , .. 1 a deep ~1 MN nowt 😮 -~ DUZ&’ent efforu to •U1:>1iu • _..,a111• _,…. in Galitoenta •. ..,. i• •~ naut t:ban..,. £flauanoa nfon. nae votan’ lait:11 ill fO”Dl- ant and tza.b aldlii:l’ ta influwe L~ ia Miftf eteaclilf. endad Pftllliae of 1CMar nt:u aont:inuaa to to 11111aifl •• 103’• led.. ._.

% knolf •lJ. J’OV eN&’t :bac 1• osJ.nt gemira.1 4m9N Wit:b rNpen u a11u a IOl’tll will daft • .._ •lJ.ncy alo,e toNrM -.1on JaliYidua1 ~…-. ‘8 ._.-.,-tell in 1:be Df -.ia Illa Yw UC CJ.U••n lllin 1,, gtmeal. Pl&bl.io illPl’••ICI la,Oft -· ..

lttroftl ton arata 1lo. ,~ daoontlo .. nece■azy. .t.a and· aoei•l’• u oani~ u ala,-t:o ·murift9 % reaa.1n 1;oday ~ that i11:JIU:’ad aiU•–UMZ’IWHlcl altilJ.-1:o •- no& .. 1n ~I” juatiae ha powrhl nontdaan. .

llowavc, i do not. a.11..,. ~is • .,,. t:be aaw ol 1-a,oau on all Ptt1iopo1den. ‘CZIMiebed, -t:he ~nud, npn”■-•evinf a ·—1=:’t .,.. f• u.-‘tO IQlllol11 U I.IIYil.OlablAt 1n,-..

tu •ri~• of a.11.-U? aau aooi.,_. •ift!Jllt·to oolleot: 1:b£• coapenaa’tion for p&1n ana auit..,._ -nwi •rilllt• wnaoua aoat:a l~ ~-, and 1ottery•1£u ir.lnd!&l.1 …….. t:ba. &NI UIICIG£•1:.INI ‘rith 9eneza1 ••••911 alalllll ariainq out•~ a1l’to aoa.1.dana ue vodinv, ,,_ alt.1.nint, pul,Uo”• fm: .tile n■peot: t>se ~ ., ….

z aa aure t:aa’I Y• lla,re i:boae aii-1:00 popul• NUIPff ■tiok• IINII en x ura ~’C read, •Hi•., naac1 &be mcmay.• ie OOUldn ot: be

Read the full report (PDF).

Download the report PDF197 pages · 6.5 MB · PDF

Share This Article

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print

Tags: Affordable Insurance Reports