In the recent election, as has become common, there were many negative advertisements and significant sums of money spent targeting various candidates. Negative ads are not always effective, and some candidates manage to overcome this barrage and win their races. However, why are false claims permitted in political advertising in the first place?

The Freedom Forum has a great discussion on this topic at https://www.freedomforum.org/lie-political-ads/. “In general, the government cannot regulate the content of candidates’ political ads. The First Amendment protects political speech… “Lying,  by itself, does not automatically lose protection as free speech.” 

However, there are exceptions. If an advertisement makes materially and substantially false claims about an individual, particularly in a way that damages their reputation, it could potentially cross into the realm of defamation. Yet, proving defamation carries its own challenges and is often considered a high bar to clear.

The discussion continues by stating, “The First Amendment offers strong protection for speech, even in cases where the speaker is not truthful—whether intentionally or unintentionally. False statements about public officials or figures are protected as long as the speaker does not know they are false or does not act with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements. In addition to the ‘actual malice’ standard, to qualify as defamation, the false statement must:

• Harm the subject’s reputation.
• Be ‘material or substantial’ (not minor).
• Be a provable assertion of fact (not merely an opinion), and more.”

We saw examples of deceptive ads in this political season.

This advertisement and six others created by Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform were specifically sent to voters in the city’s 4th District to target council candidate Kitty Jaramillo. Each “fact” presented is misleading and false, and the small print claiming to provide a “source” does not lead to any verifiable information to support the claims made. And neither Jaramillo or her “Team” were “Busted.”

Claim: The advertisement attempts to connect Jaramillo and her campaign team with 4th District candidate Scott Markowitz, who was arrested and charged by the Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) for fraudulently claiming that he had witnessed all 30 signatures on his nomination papers.

The ad cites the OCDA as a source for this claim; however, the OCDA did not make any statement linking Jaramillo or her team to the charged candidate. Another source mentioned, “Socaldailypulse.com,” leads to an advertising website that features paid stories without attribution, and it notably lacks the specific article claimed by the ad.

Moreover, the reverse side of the postcard ad states “Team Jaramillo Perjury in City Council Election”  (no such perjury took place) and  “Scott Markowitz Pleads Guilty” with The OC Register as the source. While it is true that the Register and other newspapers including the Observer carried the Markowitz story –  there was no connection made to Jaramillo or her campaign – as is deceptively implied by the ad.

Truth:   Jaramillo said that she has no connections to Markowitz and did not know him. She emphasizes her complete unawareness of his actions. Jaramillo is a law-abiding citizen and a lifelong resident of Fullerton, dedicated to serving her community.

This series of misleading advertisements raises ethical questions about the current political landscape in Fullerton and highlights the need for voters to critically evaluate the information presented to them as they head to the polls in future elections.

This is one of the seven misleading postcard advertisements created by Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform that misrepresents Jaramillo’s record on legal cannabis in an apparent attempt to scare voters. The sources cited to support these false claims do not provide any evidence.

In California, voters have legalized cannabis for adults, and since Fullerton lacks regulations on where clinics can operate, illegal dispensaries often emerge in various locations without oversight.

Previously, Jaramillo has stated (based on her experience working for the City of Fullerton in the code enforcement department and for the Fullerton Police Department) that allowing a limited number of well-regulated legal dispensaries to open in areas away from homes, schools, and parks would provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to shut down the numerous unregulated illegal dispensaries. She has advocated for legal dispensaries in Fullerton to serve residents who use cannabis for various medical conditions and has voiced her opposition to the idea of placing all legal cannabis dispensaries on the south side of town. 

However, this important context was absent from the FTFR hit flyers, which misrepresented her stance, giving the false impression that she was irrationally advocating for clinics to be located next to homes.

Claim: Jaramillo supported Ordinance 3289, which would permit marijuana dispensaries within 100 feet of residential homes.

Truth: Ordinance 3289, titled “Commercial Cannabis Regulations,” is a 32-page document outlining specific regulations, permitting processes, location restrictions, and enforcement measures for legal medical cannabis businesses in Fullerton. Originally approved by the City Council on November 17, 2020, this ordinance was later rescinded. (See full ordinance below).

Neither of the two sources offered on the postcard support the flyer’s claim.

Source 1: City of Fullerton City Council Minutes 3/16/2021,

merely lists 21 people making public comments. However, we know what she actually said at the meeting because there is a video  –  though few would probably take the time to go there. (See the video at https://fullerton.granicus.com/player/clip/1265?view_id=2&redirect=true)

What Kitty Jaramillo really said on 3/16/2021: “I also want to mention that isn’t it ironic that there is an illegal dispensary across from Woodcrest Park. This is where most of the Hispanic women who were against legal dispensaries live. Over three years, we had numerous community meetings, town halls, and presentations. So, it was not pushed through or rushed, as Dunlap said at a council meeting. You and Jung obviously had no clue about all that had been done before to do the right thing for the City of Fullerton.”

Source 2: Fullerton Collaborative Candidate Forum 09/09/24

We know what was said at the Fullerton Collaborative’s candidate forum because there is a video available for viewing on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbt-s-MxsZk

The video starts out impossible to watch but gets better about a quarter of the way in. Jaramillo talked about the needs of District 4, which she said has been neglected for years. Her comment regarding allowing cannabis clinics to operate in Fullerton is in the last eighth section of the video. 

What Kitty Jaramillo really said: “There are 13 illegal shops in Fullerton now, and it is like whack-a-mole – code enforcement goes out and tries to shut them down, tying down two to three police officers at each location. My goal when I get on the city council is to go after the illegal shops because there is no control over the illegal shops. Those are the ones that parents need to be worried about – not the legal ones. If we ever get them here, it would help our city immensely financially – and they are regulated to the hilt. 

Excerpts of Ordinance 3289 (full ordinance available on the city website)

“WHEREAS, the City Council desires to allow certain cannabis-related uses in limited areas within the City subject to specified requirements which are intended to mitigate potential negative impacts, prevent cannabis from reaching minors or the illicit market, preserve public health and safety, protect the environment and promote economic and employment opportunities.”

The proposed amendments implement the provisions of the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”) to accommodate the needs of medically ill persons in need of cannabis for medicinal purposes as recommended by their health care providers and to provide access to the same.”

On pages 2 & 3 of the document: “The proposed amendments to the Fullerton Municipal Code are also intended to provide access to adult-use cannabis for persons aged 21 and over as authorized by MAUCRSA while imposing sensible regulations on the use of land to protect the City’s residents, neighborhoods, and businesses from disproportionately negative impacts.”

On page 16 of the document, the locations are regulated. The ordinance would have permitted a maximum of 5 state licensed retail facilities located in industrial areas citywide and no closer than 800 feet from any school, park, daycare, youth center – no more than two in any one council district and no more than three allowed south of Chapman/Malvern Ave.

(On page 28 of the document (and apparently where the ad. Claim comes from), item A directs, “Each commercial cannabis business shall also provide the community relations contact information to all businesses and residences located within one hundred (100) feet of the cannabis business”  (This seems to conflict with the 800-feet rule and industrial/commercial/manufacturing zoned area locations elsewhere in the document.)

Support our advertisers click an ad below.