A Landscaped Campaign: Gig Companies and the Appropriation of Voice in California’s Proposition 22

Abstract

After a contentious debate with the California legislature about the legal status of rideshare drivers, Uber, Lyft, and other gig companies had the final word when voters agreed to pass their initiative, Proposition 22. The vote designated rideshare drivers as gig contractors, barring them from employment protections. Many Californians, including drivers themselves, claimed they were misled by the initiative campaign. Building on theories of voice and appropriation, I argue that the gig companies behind the Yes on Prop 22 campaign misled many California voters through a rhetorical process I term landscaping. This rhetorical process, distinct from faux-grassroots astroturf campaigns, works through the centering of strategically framed and selected aspects of individuals’ genuine lived experiences to recast a piece of corporate-authored legislation as democratic and socially progressive. Applying this concept to an analysis of the Yes on Prop 22 campaign website, I illustrate how landscaping works to create the impression that a policy is authentically in the best interests of those it harms. Landscaping represents one way in which corporate modes of appropriation work. Faced with the ease with which an astroturf campaign is uncovered and denounced, corporate rhetors take advantage of the fact that the apparent authenticity of individual voices persuades. To reckon with the broader implications of campaigns such as Yes on Prop 22, I conclude that rhetorical scholars must be attentive to the design of corporate strategies to mislead the public, and change their diagnostic tools accordingly.