SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- As part of KCRA's Commitment 2004 coverage, KCRA is looking in-depth at some of the political ads currently on television. How much of what these ads say is true? How much is relevant to voters? And how much is fluff?

KCRA assembled a panel of three political observers -- professors and analysts whose job it is to dissect candidates, campaigns and commercials. The panel includes Bob Waste, professor of public policy at California State University, Sacramento; political analyst Steve Swatt; and Barbara O'Connor, professor of communications at California State University, Sacramento.

The panelists were asked to play schoolteacher and grade each ad based on four areas: truthfulness, relevance, substance, and effectiveness.

The panel recently took a look at an ad about an initiative dealing with Indian gaming in California. The main image is a monopoly board, and the main idea behind the ad is that California Indian tribes have a monopoly on casino gambling.

Ad: "They bring in close to $8 billion a year, yet pay no taxes."

The panel had a problem with the truthfulness aspect of the ad's "no taxes" claim.

"First of all, because they are sovereign nations, they cannot be required to pay taxes," Swatt said.

"However, they do pay into mitigation funds to help cities and counties with some of the effects, but not all of the effects of their business," Waste said.

For truthfulness, the ad received a grade of "C".

Ad: "With California in financial crisis, a 25-percent fair share plan would mean $2 billion a year."

According to a report by the non-partisan legislative analyst, the $2 billion estimate is inflated, and the real impact would be closer to $1 billion. But the panelists think the ad's argument is relevant.

"The budget' is always relevant to California voters as we're cutting programs," O'Connor said.

"Absolutely relevant," Waste said.

So for relevance, the ad received its highest grade of an "A-".

The panelists say the ad lacks substance because it leaves out significant information.

"You'd never know it by watching this ad, but this initiative is all about expanding gambling in California," Swatt said.

According to the language of the November initiative behind the ad, if all the casino tribes do not agree to give 25 percent to the state, something else happens.

"You've got 90 days to pull 50 tribes together to agree to pay 25 percent to the state or else," Waste said.

The "or-else" is that card rooms and race tracks in California get the right to have up to 30,000 slot machines.

"Then all of a sudden, we see an explosion of increased gaming and slot machines in California," Swatt said.

"I think it's very significant," O'Connor said.

As for substance, the ad received another "C".

The panelists say the ad is likely to build support for the "fair share" initiative, at least until people find out more about what the initiative would do.

"This is a well-done ad. And it's going to advance the discussion. (It will) be interesting to see where it goes," Waste said.

Finally, for effectiveness, the ad got a "B".