Critics: CA Union Using Identity-Theft Scare Tactics to Trick Voters

A new, controversial organization called Californians Against Identity Theft has launched (CAIT)

Opponents claim CAIT is a front group for unions in the battle against pension reform

Critics also say CAIT is exploiting citizen fears about identity theft so they do not support ballot measures

The 2012 political season is beginning to heat up. The evidence is apparent in California, where signature gatherers are hitting the pavement in an effort to gain support for various ballot measures.

But a new group that claims to be working to protect citizens from identity theft is creating some angst over allegations that it is attempting to discourage Californians from engaging in the democratic process. Critics claim that the purported citizen protection group is actually a front organization crafted by a building trade union.

The drama unfolded last week when a curious radio campaign and web site emerged, telling voters that signing petitions in support of state and local ballots increases the risk of personal identity theft. The new group disseminating this message -- Californians Against Identity Theft (CAIT) -- is under fire for allegedly exploiting citizen fears and misleading the general public. On the group's web site, the following mission statement is presented:

Identity theft has reached crisis proportions in the U.S. Californians must be protected against the theft of identity that may take years to restore often with irreparable harm to the victim. It is our goal to inform the public of the dangerous practices that allow for their identity to be stolen. Our elected officials and enforcement agencies must make a priority of stopping the destruction of our lives by thieves who steal our identities. But for now, it is up to us to protect ourselves against these predators!

Seems like a noble cause, no? But, while these words seem reasonable -- even palatable -- some consumer advocates are blasting CAIT for having hidden, pro-union motives. Furthermore, others are perplexed by the group's refusal to disclose its backers.

Last week, San Francisco's KGO-TV covered what it called CAIT's "un-substantiated warning" that signing petitions can be dangerous to one's identity. Below, find some of the radio ad's text, which clearly discourages the signing of ballot initiatives, touting the bizarre claim that one's identity may be stolen and sent to India:

Female voice: Ugh, I just got back from the supermarket and those push signature gatherers are back.

Male Voice: Oh hunny, please. Tell me you didn't sign their petitions?

Female Voice: Well, yes. I did. Is there a problem?

Male Voice: You know, you put yourself at risk to identity theft...California doesn't license or bond signature gatherers. Many of them are from out of state and move from city to city to carry petitions...anyone can do it. Even convicted felons and forgers.

Female Voice: You mean I may have given my information to a criminal?

Male voice: That's right. I even read that names and addresses on petitions were sent to other countries, including India.

Female voice: Who knows what they did with it.

Male voice: The legislature called it an identity theft starter kit.

Listen to the ad for yourself, below:

It is these words and their intended meaning that have some up in arms. One of these critics, Tony Manolatos, who serves as a spokesperson for the Comprehensive Pension Reform campaign, writes, "This is nothing more than a labor front-group playing upon people’s fears." Derek Cressman, western regional director for Common Cause mirrored this statement, saying, "It sounds like they're trying to intimidate people from exercising what is a constitutional right."

At the heart of the debate is a local measure that would filter most San Diego city employees to a 401k-style plan rather than a pension. In order to get the measure onto the 2012 ballot, by this upcoming October, supporters need to collect 94,000 more signatures from the city's nearly 629,000 registered voters. Some allege that the union coalition behind CAIT is exploiting identity theft through this newly-formed venture to scare people into not supporting the measure.

On Thursday, the Miami Herald reported that San Diego councilman, Carl DeMaio, sent a complaint letter to the Fair Political Practices Commission to address his concerns. DeMaio, who is supporting an effort to push for a local pension-reform measure, alleges that CAIT is violating state disclosure laws and "knowingly using false information to alarm voters and stifle the constitutionally protected rights of individuals." Via a written response, the commission has declined to open an investigation.

The councilman also sent a separate letter to Attorney General Kamala Harris, asking for an investigation into the advertisement and other activities that he believes are hampering the rights of San Diego voters. The Herald sums the brewing controversy up as follows:

The timing sparked questions about whether the real goal of the campaign is to derail efforts to qualify measures circulating for local or statewide elections.

Kevin Dayton, a lobbyist for the Associated Builders and Contractors of California, said he believes the union is targeting three local measures to ban project labor agreements that typically favor unionized workers for publicly funded projects, including an effort seeking to qualify in Sacramento.

The Sacramento Bee reports that CAIT's backers have been relatively silent. Bob Balgenorth, the president of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California has been quoted as saying that he is not directly involved in the project and that it was formed by "some other people" (and he claims he doesn't know all of the people behind it). The Bee has more:

But Balgenorth is listed as a principal officer on the committee's statement of organization, which identifies its primary sponsors as the building trades union and the California State Pipe Trades Council. The two other officers of the committee, who were listed elsewhere as the president and secretary of Californians Against Identity Theft, also have ties to the building trades union.

The San Diego Union-Tribune claims that CAIT's web site is registered to the same phone number and address as the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California. The Union-Tribune, contrary to the Bee, reports that Balgenorth does, indeed, financially support the effort. Additionally, he helped to organize it and believes the concern espoused in the radio ad is real. When it comes to signature gatherers, he is quoted as saying:

“They are bounty hunters. It is the wild west out there. You don’t want to take away the rights of voters to put an initiative on the ballot, but you have to have transparency.”

And, Tony Adams, secretary-treasurer for CAIT, agreed with this assessment, but elevated the rhetoric, claiming:

“I think the public is largely unaware of the seamy underbelly of paid signature collectors and the abuses that can occur and our goal is to shed a light on these problems.”

Roger Salazar, a spokesman for CAIT, (who has, coincidentally, worked for a number of Democratic candidates and causes) explains that the group has filed as a political committee. He also explains:

"There's no issue from our end of disclosing our donors and we're going to do so as required by law. And I think we have every right to talk about the potential abuses there in the initiative process."

Salazar also took on DeMaio's complaint letter, calling it "political grandstanding." You can read CAIT's 34-page response to DeMaio's quest for the case to be further examined here.

This is not the only alleged example of a labor union involved in an anti-ballot initiative. The SEUI, though it has denied involvement in CAIT's formation and operation, has a separate initiative going on in California called "Think Before You Ink."

In the end, CAIT's statements about ballot measures leading to stolen identities are certainly questionable. Usually, Social Security numbers lead to identity theft, whereas ballots do not ask signatories for such sensitive information. Typically, they only require that citizens share their names and addresses. Considering revelations about the campaign, CAIT's next moves will certainly be under heavy media scrutiny.