Molly Munger’s ads pointing out the different use of revenues collected by her Proposition 38 tax increase measure and Governor Jerry Brown’s Prop 30 tax increase measure has brought varied reactions from a couple of prominent newspaper editorial boards. The Sacramento Bee asks Munger to take the ads down. The San Diego Union-Tribune argues the ads “spread the truth” about Proposition 30.

At issue is Munger’s television ad that she put up to respond to Yes on 30 ads. Munger called those ads deceptive because they claim money raised by Prop 30 would go straight to the classroom and can’t be touched by Sacramento politicians.

Munger’s counter ads argue that while the new tax revenue gathered by Prop 30 might go through the front door of a school house, some of the money would come out the back door, controlled by politicians. Proposition 38 directs money to the local school districts without passing through Sacramento.

The Sacramento Bee editorial called Munger’s comparison ads “troubling.” The Bee editorial page, which reluctantly supports Prop 30, opposes Munger’s “truth” ads because the editorial states Munger’s ads would help defeat the governor’s measure.

On the other hand, the Union-Tribune editorial fires it’s wrath not at Munger’s comparison ads, but at the Yes on Prop 30 ads that prompted Munger to act. The San Diego paper called the Yes on 30 approach “dishonorable.” The editorial praises Munger for highlighting the differences between Propositions 30 and 38. The Union-Tribune actually opposes both measures.

Given uncertainties of policy outcomes with ballot measures, isn’t comparing different policy approaches an important tool for voters?

(Disclosure: I am part on the No on Prop 30 campaign.)