Nov. 4, 2012
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Forty newspaper editorial boards oppose Proposition 33, an auto insurance rate hike proposal funded by billionaire
, owner of Mercury Insurance.
Editorial pages decry Prop 33 as an abuse of the ballot by a billionaire to benefit his company at the expense of millions of consumers. They warn that Proposition 33's premium rate increases would make insurance less affordable, resulting in more uninsured motorists on our roads.
on Prop 33. Two years ago, voters rejected a nearly identical Mercury Insurance-funded measure. Editorial pages urge readers to send a loud message that "no" means "no" by defeating Prop 33 in a landslide. A sample of No on Prop 33 editorials:
Sacramento Bee: "Prop 33 is an old jalopy with a new coat of paint."
San Diego Union Tribune: "No on Prop 33 – it's just not fair."
Los Angeles Times
: "Raising the cost of coverage for those without insurance doesn't help anyone on
's roads. Voters should reject Proposition 33."
San Jose Mercury News: "
voters should vote no on Proposition 33 on
in such large numbers that Joseph never tries to dupe Golden State residents again."
San Francisco Chronicle: "
's compelling public-policy interest is to make sure that drivers are insured. Keeping rates affordable advances that goal. Vote no on 33."
Bakersfield Californian: "State's drivers don't need Prop 33."
Stockton Record: "Don't let Prop 33 fool you."
Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "No on 33. This retread is no bargain."
Riverside Press Enterprise: "a retread of a special-interest measure voters rejected two years ago. The new version deserves the same fate; voters should just say no to Prop. 33."