DiscussMormonism.com

MeDotOrg wrote:Prop. 32 promotes itself as a way to cut the ties between special interests in politicians. It says it prohibits both Labor Unions and Corporations from contributing to political campaigns.

What's curious is that I can't found ANY corporations that have made significant contributions to NO on 32. You would think if corporations felt that their power was being jeopardized, they would have given generously to No on 32.

Is it because Corporations are so noble that have magnanimously decided to bow out of this Proposition in the name of good government?

Yeah, that must be it....

It may seem unorthodox for an unelected citizen to sit with Sacramento's elite as they pick winners and losers in the annual spending sweepstakes. But few major financial decisions in California are made without Nuñez, who represents what is arguably the most potent force in state politics.

The union views itself as "the co-equal fourth branch of government," said Oakland Democrat Don Perata, a former teacher who crossed swords with the group when he was state Senate leader.

Backed by an army of 325,000 teachers and a war chest as sizable as those of the major political parties, CTA can make or break all sorts of deals. It holds sway over Democrats, labor's traditional ally, and Republicans alike.

Jim Brulte, a former leader of the state Senate's GOP caucus, recalled once attending a CTA reception with a Republican colleague who told the union's leaders that he had come to "check with the owners."

CTA is one of the biggest political spenders in California. It outpaced all other special interests, including corporate players such as telecommunications giant AT&T and the Chevron oil company, from 2000 through 2009, according to a state study. In that decade, the labor group shelled out more than $211 million in political contributions and lobbying expenses — roughly twice that of the next largest spender, the Service Employees International Union.

Since then it has spent nearly $40 million more, including $4.7 million to help Brown become governor, according to the union's filings with the secretary of state.

And CTA's influence, unlike that of other interests, is written directly into California's Constitution. More than two decades ago, the group drafted an initiative to guarantee public schools at least 40% of the general fund and waged a successful multimillion-dollar campaign for it. As author and defender of that law, the union established a firm grip on the largest chunk of the budget.

CTA has since used its institutionalized clout, deep pockets and mass membership largely to protect the status quo. The union's positions often align with those of the smaller California Federation of Teachers, but its resources are unmatched. CTA has ferociously guarded a set of hard-won tenure rules and seniority protections, repeatedly beating back attempts by education groups to overturn those measures, increase teacher accountability and introduce private-school vouchers.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/18 ... a-20120819

Opponents argue that this creates "exemptions" because other business entities that aren't corporations could still give to campaigns. But when you look at how the federal government applies a corporate ban, every contribution from those entities has to be applied to an individual and is restricted to campaign-spending limits. No loopholes.

No exemptions.

Their final argument is that Prop. 32 provides an exemption" for big political action committees – Super PACS – and wealthy individuals.

This argument is the most laughable of all.

The Supreme Court has the final voice on interpreting the U.S. Constitution, and the high court has ruled that the First Amendment protects independent campaign spending and issue advocacy for all.
That's not a "loophole."

cinepro wrote:It's because Corporations don't use the same tactics that unions do to influence our state politicians, and they don't strive for the same type of power and control.

MeDotOrg wrote:So "Corporations don't use the same tactics that unions do to influence our state politicians"? Are you saying corporations don't spend money to influence legislation, propositions and voters?

As for 'striving for the same type of power and control' I suggest you read the history of the initiative process in California. It came about because government was in the pocket of big business.

cinepro wrote: And when you've got a former State Senator and Democratic majority leader supporting Prop 32, you know the problem is really, really, really bad!

Editorial: Yes on Prop. 32 (unions)

Eliminating paycheck deductions to fund political campaigns would help correct power imbalance in Sacramento.


THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

Anyone familiar with California politics knows that the most powerful forces, by far, in the state Capitol are the public-employee unions. Their clout was demonstrated this year when the California Teachers Association, the most powerful of them all, killed Senate Bill 1530, which would have made it easier to fire bad teachers for actions "that involve certain sex offenses, controlled-substance offenses or child abuse offenses."

SB1530 was not concocted by a conservative Republican, but by state Sen. Alex Padilla of Los Angeles, a liberal Democrat. The bill advanced after several cases of teacher abuse against children came to light, especially a disgusting scenario allegedly involving Los Angeles Unified School District teacher Mark Berndt. The bill passed overwhelmingly in the state Senate, 33-4. Then the CTA killed it in the Assembly Education Committee.

The episode illustrates what has happened since California public-employee unions were given collective bargaining rights in the 1970s by Gov. Jerry Brown. This occurred even though such stalwart liberal private-sector union partisans as President Franklin Roosevelt had warned that public-sector unionization would lead to too much union power and the loss of public trust in the government.

...

Able to raise almost unlimited funds from union dues – money deducted from salaries funded by taxes – these unions run roughshod over the Legislature, especially its majority Democrats. They have stymied pension reform and education reform and have backed almost every tax increase imaginable.

Proposition 32 on the Nov. 6 ballot would reduce the unions' indirectly tax-fueled influence by prohibiting union contributions to state and local candidates. It imposes a similar donation ban on corporations, but our analysis shows that this would be a minor factor, given that business entities and wealthy owners have many other ways to influence campaigns.

Most importantly, Prop. 32 would ban automatic paycheck deductions for political purposes by unions or corporations. Again, more damage would be inflicted on unions, for whom payroll deductions are crucial for fundraising. Union members already can "opt out" of such deductions, but few choose to do so. Under Prop. 32, union members still would be able to make personal contributions to campaigns.

"The electorate understands that the system is broken," Gloria Romero told the Register's Editorial Board. Ms. Romero, a former Democratic state senator, broke with her party after her education-reform efforts were thwarted time and again by union power. "Money plays a significant role in that dysfunction. Reforms run up against the most powerful special interests that use fear and intimidation against Democrats who know that reform is needed."

Prop. 32 opponents, among other things, bring up free speech, which also concerns us. And opponents pointed out that union members would not be able to "opt in" for having paycheck deductions fund union political activity.

"In the constitutional framework we live in, you can't just eliminate the speech of people," Catherine Fisk told the Register's Editorial Board; she is a law professor at UC Irvine and opposes Prop. 32. "What Prop. 32 is trying to do is to eliminate one speaker from the conversation," referring to unions.

In response, Mark Bucher told us that Prop. 32 only limits using government's or a corporation's paycheck mechanism to deduct the money. An Orange County businessman, he is chairman of the Yes on 32 campaign. "It's easy to make a contribution from a credit card or bank account. But you shouldn't force the government to do that work for you."

Mr. Bucher pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association. A summary of the 7-2 decision posted on the legal website oyez.org said, "[T]he court reasoned that Idaho's law did not restrict political speech, but merely declined to promote speech by prohibiting public employees from directly contributing to partisan activities from their government-issued paycheck."

We believe that the need for this reform is compelling, and that any infringements on free speech will be sorted out by the inevitable court challenges. We recommend a Yes vote on Prop. 32.

cinepro wrote:

MeDotOrg wrote:So "Corporations don't use the same tactics that unions do to influence our state politicians"? Are you saying corporations don't spend money to influence legislation, propositions and voters?

As far as I know, they don't deduct money from their employees' paychecks and use that money for political purposes. If they do, Prop 32 will end it for them too.

cinepro wrote:

MeDotOrg wrote:[As for 'striving for the same type of power and control' I suggest you read the history of the initiative process in California. It came about because government was in the pocket of big business.

Well, it worked. I'm not worried about the Southern Pacific Railroad having too much influence in Sacramento anymore. From the look of things, the unions are running the show now and it's been impossible to get any positive changes enacted through the legislature, so perhaps it's ironically appropriate that the initiative process can be used to help correct the situation?

This has nothing to do with stopping Corporations, it has everything to do with stopping Unions.

Vallejo, about 35 miles northeast of San Francisco, became the poster child for the failures of municipal budgeting in 2008 when its cash reserves dwindled to zero and it was unable to pay its bills amid falling property tax revenue and the soaring cost of employee compensation and pensions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

Public safety workers have faced an outcry from taxpayers over the size of their pensions. San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, a Democrat elected in 2006, blamed cuts in city services such as library hours and police staffing largely on rising pension costs.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 33138.html

Patrick J. Morris, San Bernardino's mayor, said in a telephone interview that the bulk of the city's debt was due to "unfunded liabilities related to pension and benefits" for the city's employees, and "obligations to employee groups in labor contracts."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/ ... YU20120802

MeDotOrg wrote:
Does money and corruption in politics need to be addressed? Yes.

But this initiative is not the way to do it.