The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Folly in 50 States and the World / Folly in California


Subject:  Re: Who's Against Prop 32? Date:  10/8/2012  6:23 PM
Author:  TheJTrain Number:  12744 of 12902

That's quite a lot of marketing rah-rah and "these guys say this and those guys say that" without actually quoting anyone or anything other than (surprise surprise) union talking points, but did you really need to post four different times? I'll save my fellow citizens some clicking and just reply once.

The No On 32 campaign represents more than two million teachers, firefighters, police officers, nurses, school employees, and workers in the manufacturing, retail, construction, health care and other industries.

To be accurate, the No On 32 campaign represents the unions themselves, does it not, the organizations that actually have the power to use the payroll deductions the prop seeks to restrict? Those unions do represent their members to their employers, but to say that a campaign whose goal is the continuance of the ability of those unions to extract dues from its members and spend them on political campaign activity rather than on collective-bargaining & negotiation actually represents the members themselves is a different thing altogether.

Prop 32 supporters claim the law will limit big campaign spending from all sides. But the reality is that it would restrict everyday Californians from coming together to have a voice in elections while creating massive special interests for the same groups funding the campaign.

In what way would it restrict an everyday Californian's ability to participate? Any one of us could still go donate to a campaign, or a candidate, or (gasp!) a PAC. The truth is, it doesn't restrict everyday Californians from coming together, it restricts unions and corporations from *ordering* them to come together and deciding which causes they will support with their payroll-deducted funds.

Prop 32 exempts thousands of big businesses, which aren't technically "cor