—-editorial
Diet upsets
The traditional political diet of big money donations
and enormous campaign budgets does not set well with
the American people anymore. They voiced their distress
after the 1974 elections by demanding campaign reforms.
And Congress obliged by passing the fair campaign prac
tices act. The advantages of having enough money to run a
high-powered campaign are undeniable. The candidate
with limited financial resources just can’t expect to get the
same amount of name exposure as a candidate with the
money for TV spot ads, bill boards and newspaper. Federal
funding for major national campaigns was an attempt to
establish financial equity among candidates. At the Uni
versity a similar type of equity is needed.
The ASUO elections board has set a $500 limit on
campaign spending for ASUO presidential candidates.
This figure isn’t excessively large when one considers that
the cost of printing pamphlets and brochures can run in the
neighborhood of $200. Add the cost of newspaper advertis
ing and posters to this $200 and the limit is soon reached.
No matter what campaigning techniques are used, it costs
money to reach 16,500 voters.
The amount of money candidates spend can directly
affect their chances of getting elected, especially in a close
race where name familiarity could make the difference.
Given this political reality, campaigns can hinge on how
much money is spent. For this money some student candi
dates can look to political backers, special interest groups,
friends, family, personal savings or even bank loans. For
others there are simply no resources.
If ASUO presidential elections are to be as democratic
as possible, campaign funds must be made available to
those candidates without financial resources. The Emerald
is not advocating that such funds be given away. These
funds should be given in the form of a loan to candidates
that are willing to accept the responsibility of incurring the
debt and repaying it.
The money for the loans could be appropriated from
the ASUO budget or the ASUO could co-sign individual
bank loans. The loan, however, should not be made in a
lump sum. Candidates wishing to, could receive a max
imum of $250 for the primary elections. Those candidates
making it into the general elections could claim the remain
ing $250.
This proposal is not the only possible plan for making
such funds available. Rather, it is offered to encourage
students to recognize the inequity of poorly-funded candi
dates running against financially well-backed candidates.
Campaign spending is a political reality. The question
should be, where would voters rather see the money come
from: publicly sponsored funds or special interest man
ipulators.
7
Letters—
Freshness needed
In the campaign literature of Jim
Davis, both the Survival Center
and SEARCH have been misrep
resented as firm supporters of his
latest bid for ASUO power.
We wish to make it clear that in
the past Mr. Davis has shown little
support for our programs and
even less understanding of our
purposes.
Communication between Mr.
Davis and our programs has con
sisted of little more than Xerox
memos full of bureaucratic jargon
and rhetoric.
Now is the only time we can
make a change which would bring
about effective management of
student programs. The best way
we see to bring about this change
is to elect Jan Oliver to the position
of ASUO president.
Ms. Oliver has proven to be
both personable and up-front in
her dealings with programs; she
has impressed us with her ready
accessibility and creative poten
tial. What she does not know or
understand about needs or direc
tions, she has demonstrated a wil
lingness to investigate and learn.
Our first hand impression of Ms.
Oliver’s performance concerning
student interests has been one of
fair and mature decision-making,
coupled with a sense of honesty
and forlhrightness.
Page 4
We feel that the student gov
ernment of the University is des
perately in need of the freshness,
vitality and the spirit ot mutual
cooperation, which Ms. Oliver has
exhibited through her past per
formances in student affairs.
It is in this light that we strongly
urge each concerned individual to
examine thoroughly the issues at
hand in this upcoming election
and vote for Jan Oliver.
Richard Wilhelmi
director, SEARCH
Michael McClellan
director, Survival Center
Ruyle Spider
assistant director, SEARCH
Michael Connelly
seminar leader, SEARCH
Coverage thanked
Just a note to say we particu
larly appreciate your day to day
coveraae of the National Library
Week Celebration, the highlight of
which was Ken Kesey’s lecture
and that of Prof. William Handy.
Thanks!
Sue Riemer
program director
r
'■H.
A'
; Wl.titlhrtrMr
m msmrHomr*
I HOW ABE flMEJKy*
WHAT BRINGS VPU
' AUV*6”
; {MKHMawr rt>*
, 7W SJ6Hl5,S9TOSreAC
! 0<|1M VOU (?0T A MATCH?,
4ttfc
i
✓
opinion
Farm workers support refused
Two weeks ago the Emerald began printing
Carlo Rossi wine advertisements. Carlo Rossi is a
brand name used by the E & J Gallo Winery. All
Gallo wines are being boycotted by the United
Farm Workers (UFW) union. These Carlo Rossi
ads are part of a nationwide advertising campaign
by the Gallo brothers, who are attempting to break
through the UFW boycott and buy their way back
into the college market. Running these ads, with
out some significant demonstration of support for
the UFW, allies the Emerald with the Gallo
brothers, California agribusiness and the Teams
ter leadership in their campaign to smash the
UFW.
Over the past three years the UFW boycott has
significantly affected the sale of Gallo wines.
Sales have slipped 10 per cent each of the past
two years and a recent Harris poll revealed that
more than 11 million Americans are actively sup
porting the Gallo boycott. The Gallos have fought
the boycott by bringing out new wines, like their
varietal series and Madria Madria Sangria, and by
drastically increasing their already fat multi
million dollar advertising budget. However, their
ads do not emphasize the Gallo name. Ernest and
Julio prefer instead to run hokey advertisements
for Carlo Rossi and Red Mountain wines, hoping
the public will not recognize them as Gallo
products.
Clearly, Gallo farm workers depend on the
boycott to win back their jobs and to make the
Gallos negotiate a new contract with the UFW.
When the Gallos refused to sign their third three
year contract with, the UFW in 1973 and signed
instead with the Teamsters, virtually all of the
Gallo farm workers went out on strike. They were
all fired. For three years now, Gallo grapes have
been harvested by a shifting crew of workers hired
by Teamster labor contractors. These workers
have none of the protections of a UFW contract.
Three Gallo field workers have been killed in the
past year due to unsafe conditions and none of
the present workers has protection from pes
ticides, has job security, a guarantee of sanitary
working conditions or seniority rights. The original
Gallo farm workers will never get their jobs back
until the Gallo brothers are forced to negotiate
with them. It should be evident to anyone that
printing ads which promote the sale of any Gallo
wine directly hurts these workers and sets back
the UFW boycott.
The Emerald was not forced to accept Gallo
advertising. These ads could have been refused
as an expression of support for the UFW. The ads
could have been accepted, to avoid any charges
of censorship, and support for the UFW indicated
simply by donating the Gallo revenue to the UFW
clinic and retirement center. The Emerald could
also have declared a policy of "neutrality" in
cases involving labor disputes and refused adver
tising from both sides, much as the State Em
ployment Division refuses to refer unemployed
workers to plants where a strike is in progress.
Instead, the Emerald refused to support the UFW
and accepted money that is being used to con
tinue the exploitation of Gallo farm workers. The
Emerald did this despite the continually
demonstrated support ol students for the UFW
The crux of the problem is that the Emerald no
longer supports the UFW For two years, from the
start of the boycott in 1973 until this year, the
Emerald gave editonal support to the farm worker
movement and never printed a Gallo ad This
year, however, the editors have excluded practi
cally all mention of the UFW and local support
groups from the paper. They have not covered our
rallies, our picket lines, our petition campaign or
even our exhibit of Chicano art. All of these events
were simply declared "not newsworthy." The
editors have avoided printing national news about
the UFW as well. For seven months, not a word
appeared about the histone California Agncultural
Labor Relations Act, which resulted in almost 400
ranch representation elections this past fall and
winter. Not a word appeared about how the UFW
won the great majority of those elections and how
the growers then killed the law by cutting off fund
ing for it in the state legislature. And certainly not
a word about the UFWs new boycott of Sun Maid
raisins, Sunsweet prunes and Diamond nuts,
which was called in response to the ALRA defund
ing vote. Only now, after signing a contract to print
Gallo ads, has the Emerald decided that the UFW
is newsworthy
The Emerald may indeed feel a “commitment"
to publish Gallo ads, but it is not a commitment
that grows out of any concern for professional
standards or belief in free speech. It is rather a
direct consequence of the editors' opposition to
the farm workers' movement. That opposition has
kept the UFW out of the Emerald's news columns
for nearly seven months. Now the editors have
gone even further and decided to insert Gallo
wine in the paper s advertising section The only
thing the Emerald has not done is to openly de
clare its hostility to the UFW on its editonal page.
The editors have not done this because they
realize how unpopular such a position would be.
The Emerald should stop hiding behind the
platitudes of liberal journalism and explain why it
has abandoned the farm workers.
The Emerald will be running its Gallo adver
tisements for three more weeks. Unfortunately,
the UFW does not have the millions of dollars the
Gallo brothers are sinking into national advertis
ing in student newspapers. So we must ask you
now to remember that all wines bottled in Mod
esto, California are Gallo wines. They include
Andre Champaigne, Boone's Farm, Carlo Rossi,
Eden Roc, Madria Madria Sangria, Paisano, Red
Mountain, Ripple, Spanada, Thunderbird, Tyrolia
and Wolfe & Son. Remember these names and
read the label when you buy wine. And remember
the farm workers who are struggling for decent
working conditions and the chance to earn a de
cent living through the UFW. They deserve your
support.
VIVA LA CAUSA!
UFW Solidarity Committee
Eugene Friends of the Farm Workers
Kirt Willcox
Phyllis Wagoner
J