In California, proposition 22 seemed innocuous. It was a simple ballot measure, should drivers that use apps like Uber and Lyft be considered employees, or independent contractors? The vote passed at a 58-42 percent majority in favor of independent contractors. From the outside, it sounds like legal jargon. Yet the distinction sparked a $200 million ad campaign from rideshare apps, national debate, and a demonstration of corporate control that rivals Putin’s hand over Russia. So why did this all happen?
The crucial piece of information is that the difference between being labeled as an independent contractor vs an employee is important for labor rights. Employees get healthcare, a minimum wage, and a slew of other protections. Independent contractors don’t. This means that classified as contractors, rideshare apps can pay as low as $5.64 an hour to their drivers while giving limited to no benefits.
Seeing these apps wanting to avoid labor responsibilities, tons of democrats and national figures came out against proposition 22. Rising star Alexandria Ocasio Cortez said that the companies “have made very public that they want to roll back” key labor protections, and she was just one name on the anti-proposition 22 list. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren. All of these big name democrats spoke out against the proposition before the vote with a clear message: a yes vote is a vote against the working people of America. With California as a deep blue state, it would make sense that the people’s opinion would match up with popular democratic figures. But on election day, the opposite was shown. The people of California, known as one of the most liberal states in the U.S.A., voted to strip potential labor rights from working class citizens and to extend the profits of Uber, Lyft, and other large gig companies. Why?
An ad campaign is an understatement for what Lyft and other app companies put together. The coalition of gig based businesses launched an information flood of over $200 million. It topped any spending for a single ballot measure in U.S. history, and had the infrastructure of a congressional campaign despite it being for a referendum. The slogan was simple and admittedly, catchy. “Yes on 22”. It was plastered everywhere. Youtube, Facebook, major news channels. If you lived in California, you couldn’t escape the messaging.
But how can ballot referendum ads be seen as democratic erosion? The problem is in the massive spending difference between the two ad campaigns. On the side of Uber, Lyft, and other apps, the “Yes on 22” campaign totaled 200+ million dollars. The sides of unions, labor, and the democratic party? A mere 10% of that at $20 million. In the end, this money in politics shows the same effect of Putin’s media control. Scott Gehlbach describes the way that Russian media is set up in his piece “Reflections on Putin and the Media”. Putin doesn’t influence every media outlet in Russia, only the ones that reach the greatest number of Russians, such as the 3 largest TV networks. The lopsided media coverage creates an information environment that is heavily conductive to state power. Similarly, the “Yes on 22” campaign had an overwhelming influence on media consumption. While it did not dominate every media platform, the largest ones reaching the most Californians were completely flooded with “vote yes” messaging. Youtube, Facebook, Reddit, and major news channels all displayed constant advertising for the Uber-backed movement and very little for the opposition by comparison. The average voter watched national news focused on the presidential election and didn’t do independent research on ballot reforms. This means that their interaction with proposition 22 discourse was mainly Uber and Lyft’s messaging campaign. So while Putin creates an uneven information plane by controlling what popular media outlets say, Lyft and others create the environment by using targeted ads since most voters have little knowledge of proposition 22, and national media rarely covers it. This blurs Dahl’s conception of the right to alternate sources that he lays out in his ideal version of a democracy. While there is nothing to stop the average voter from reading an article about voting no, the reality of niche topics like ballot measures is that voters do not pursue information about them. Due to that fact, the massive campaign that Uber and Lyft put out creates a drowning effect for Californian voters. Not just are they only presented why they should “vote yes”, but fear tactics from these companies also make it even harder for the voter to make a nuanced decision. Common “Yes on 22” ads stated that voting “no” would “shut down Uber and Lyft”, increase unemployment, and made it seem like a yes vote was in favor of labor rights.
In the end, it worked for the gig companies. It worked so well, in fact, that people who voted yes are coming out to say they did not even realize what they were voting for. The Washington Post talked to a voter who said she felt deceived, and thought voting yes would “help the drivers”. She now knows the apps were “ just trying to save their own pockets.” With how much Uber, Lyft, and others brute forced their messaging into the California public, it is safe to say this voter’s experience is not unique.
A common counterargument to the democratic erosion viewpoint is that Uber and Lyft played by the rules. They simply had more money to invest in advertisements and therefore were able to promote their cause to the voters more than the opposition. They didn’t pay off any media outlets, nor do anything illegal. The idea is wrong due to the conflation between capitalism and democracy. While many associate the two together, considering socialist/communist states as dictatorships and capitalist states as democratic, the reality is that they are separate. It was legal and capitalistic to buy an extreme amount of ads and messaging, but it still inhibits America’s democracy. Voters were not presented with clear alternate sources and points of view in their discourse over proposition 22. They were constantly bombarded with pro yes messaging filled with fear tactics and manipulative wording that made it seem like the Yes vote was not only pro business, but also pro labor. It ended in voters not only voting against their preferred party’s platform, but even voting without knowing what they were voting for. This type of manipulation cannot occur in a healthy democracy, capitalistic or otherwise.
The reason that this is so dangerous for America’s democracy is the precedent it sets. Lyft’s chief policy officer said that the proposition 22 framework can be “replicated and can be scaled”. Uber and other gig based companies found out they could manipulate voters to vote for their preferred policy, and are already looking towards Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania as potential targets for a similar campaign. The point is, this type of corporate meddling is not over. Uber and Lyft will no doubt look to lower labor rights by democratic manipulation, and voters have to be aware of their strategies.
This post is thoroughly researched and well-written on one of the more under the radar issues in the 2020 Election. California ballot propositions have a history of going against the state’s typical deep-blue perception. A previous example came with the now-infamous Proposition 8, which was passed with 52% of the vote and banned same-sex marriage in California as recently as 2008 until the Supreme Court ruled in Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013) that the law’s proponents did not have standing to defend the statute in lieu of the state.
Uber and Lyft did not violate any laws in their volume or means of advertising but undoubtedly were able to sway public opinion through their ads and threats to leave the state. The amount of corporate money in politics often brings the debate back to the landmark Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC (2010), and this is another example of the power of advertising.
Uber and Lyft do make some legitimate points. Offering the benefits of employment in a state with strict labor laws such as California to gig economy jobs that are intended to serve as part-time side money is an extreme burden on a business’ bottom line. They likely would have followed through on their threat to dramatically cut the amount of service provided in California, pass on major cost increases to users, or leave entirely, which would have a net negative consequence on drivers and users. Nevertheless, voters saw this perspective as the “pro-driver” choice, which speaks to the effectiveness of the advertising and the volume of Yes on 22 ads given that this was the position of the corporations. Given the history of similar results of ballot propositions in California, this feels like another data point of subtle corporate voter manipulation.
I find the comparison to Russia very interesting, especially considering that due to the lack of national media coverage, the volume of advertising made the perspective given to the voters very one-sided, and concerning for ballot propositions moving forward.
While I am not a resident of California, this is one ballot measure that I have been following prior to election day as it is a major indicator to the success of similar proposals across the United States and beyond. As you had mentioned, California is well known as the most liberal state in the country which creates even more concern regarding both predatory employment (or contracting) practices and the influence of money in guiding what information is presented to American voters. Many Americans are hyper-focused on federal and gubernatorial elections, resulting in major issues in their locality which have far more impact on their daily lives. The rise in popularity of political social media campaigns highlights the influence which the repetition in advertised opinion has over voting bases across the country taking their side without a proper critical analysis of what is being shown. The regret of the Californian voter which you quoted shows the importance of diversity of opinion in issues being advertised is something that must be addressed and improved upon to ensure that American democracy is better representative of the voters.
First, just wanted to say this post was so so good, informative but engaging throughout and I really enjoyed it. I knew about prop 22 vaguely before it was voted on and I saws articles about how people were being deceived by a massive campaign but I didn’t pay much attention to it because I didn’t actually think it would pass. I don’t think i realized until prop 22 how normalized the idea of a $200 million campaign has become in my life because of the way political campaigns are usually run. As you said, this was clear democratic manipulation but its also a symptom of backsliding that capitalism sets off. The Russian example was great and I think it highlights how democratic erosion is easier to hide in a country with so many different states and elections happening at once and how national attention is only given to these issues fully once the damage is done. I think one of my questions that comes out of this is, how can this corporate meddling targeted at voters be regulated? Are there states that this wouldn’t have been possible in? Also, can voters go to court and revoke their votes on the basis of misinformation? Again thanks for your post and all the questions it made me have !
I was thoroughly shocked while reading your post. I had not heard about this proposition during the election, nor since but after reading your page I was actually quite frustrated with Uber and Lyft. I definitely agree with your reasoning for finding this undemocratic, as we have seen that money can often undermine democracy. Your point that capitalism is often equated with democracy is also such a valuable point in my opinion and I find that statement to be correct. This is a fascinating perspective that manipulating people in this way is undermining democracy, and if you think about most campaigns there is almost definitely countless lies told by politicians, yet I had not in the past equated this to eroding democracy, but after reading your post I see the connection clearly.
Thank you for drawing attention to this! Corporations have such a stealthy grip on public opinion. Corporate funded PR firms and think tanks like the Cato Institute have allowed corporations and neoliberal conservative politicians to sew doubt about human-made climate change despite total unanimous recognition among scientists globally.
What I find particularly alarming about Proposition 22 is what you’ve highlighted about how it caused so many Californians to vote against their party’s platform unwittingly, and the template this provides companies to further use their money to trick citizens into supporting less worker protections.
This also makes me think of a documentary I watched for another class called Merchants of Doubt, outlining the tactics corporations and politicians use to influence public opinion in their favor. (ie. Cigarettes cause cancer, but rather than denying the science, which would have been a lie, they sewed doubt about the science, and they doubled down on their ad campaigns to make smoking an essential ‘cool’ thing to do.)