PROPOGANDA OR JUST OUTREACH?

We have become accustomed -- or perhaps inured -- to government-sponsored
exhortations for us to act in ways deemed socially responsible.

We are berated to recycle our trash, use seat belts, stop smoking, be
careful with fire, car pool, conserve water, abstain from liquor while
driving and/or gestating, wear helmets while cycling with or without
motors, obey speed limits and avoid unsafe sex.

Government at all levels spends untold millions of dollars on these
campaigns, often farming out the details of indoctrination to private
public relations and advertising firms. Indeed, obtaining such contracts
has become a lucrative business in Sacramento and other political capitals.

The rationales for such taxpayer-financed behavior modification are that
government should promote public safety and welfare, and the programs
involve, for the most part, the dispensing of factual information.

There is a point, however, when government-produced propaganda crosses a
line into political advocacy.

California's anti-smoking advertising has flirted with that practice when
it moved from highlighting the health dangers associated with cigarettes to
moral condemnation of the executives of companies which produce them. It
was, in effect, hate-mongering -- choosing a class of people for official
execration, and in this case a class of people who were doing nothing
illegal.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority is operating close to the same line.

The nine-member authority, created last year, is charged with developing a
plan for a system of high-speed rail that would link major California
cities and, presumably, relieve pressure on airlines and highways.

Such a system would be enormously expensive, at least $15 billion. It would
take a major infusion of public funds, such as a bond issue and/or a
special tax.

The rail authority is on the verge of awarding a contract for a "public
outreach program," costing as much as $4 million, "to enhance and encourage
public participation in the planning process which is expected to result in
a measure to be placed on the ballot."

That sounds benign enough, not unlike dozens of other PR programs conducted
by state agencies under the rubric of "outreach," albeit somewhat more
expensive than most.

But will these millions of dollars be spent to help Californians
participate in designing a high-speed rail system or to persuade them to
pass a tax and/or bond financing scheme?

An earlier draft of the project uses these words to describe its goals: "to
promote the concept of high-speed rail in California in advance of a
statewide initiative to seek voter approval . . . "

The state's lawyers raised a red flag about that language, saying it would
amount to illegal use of taxpayer dollars to finance a political campaign.
So the words were changed. And the revision warns bidders that "the use of
public funds to advocate or promote a ballot measure is not permitted."

But has the real intent changed? One wonders. It will take a massive sales
campaign to persuade California voters to tax themselves heavily for a
high-speed rail system, and the $4 million would appear to be a down
payment on the drive.

How the actual "outreach" campaign proceeds will answer the question. But
even if the rail authority does develop a plan, including a financing
scheme, there's another questionable provision contained in the authorizing
legislation. The rail authority could place the issue before voters
directly, without having it even approved by the Legislature and the
governor. That's potentially an even more dangerous precedent.

DAN WALTERS' column appears daily, except Saturday. E-mail:
dwalters@sacbee.com; mail: P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, 95852; phone: (916)
321-1195; fax: (916) 444-7838.

Copyright ) 1998 The Sacramento Bee