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. Our members are every-day Californians -- workers, parents, and community leaders who support adequate school funding, fair wages and benefits, workplace safety, smaller class size in our schools, better health care for children and senior citizens, and safe communities with sufficient police and fire protection.We’re proud to be joined by dozens of organizations representing everyday people from across California.http://www.stopspecialexemptions.org/about
Proposition 32 is Not What it SeemsSpecial Exemptions for Super PACs, billionaires, and thousands of big businesses...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.Prop 32 exempts thousands of big businesses, which aren't technically "corporations," but rather "LLCs" or "real-estate trusts" or any other form of business structure. This includes hedge funds, big Wall Street firms, insurance companies, and thousands of other business entities.Prop 32 creates special exemptions for secretive Super PACs, allowing them to continue spending unlimited amounts of secret money to influence California elections.
Proposition 32 is Opposed by Real Reform OrganizationsLeague of Women Voters, Common Cause and California Clean Money Campaign say NO...Prop 32 supporters claim their initiative is a legitimate reform, but their campaign is funded by some of the biggest special interest spenders in California - and the nation. So what are the real reformers saying?From the League of Women Voters to Public Citizen, every serious government reform group in the state has come out against Proposition 32. And none have come out in favor. They all agree that while California elections are badly in need of reform, Prop 32 is a deceptive measure that would make a bad system worse by giving its wealthy backers the keys to Sacramento.
In looking over the site, this popped up, puts them together nicely.. http://www.calaborfed.org/index.php/site/page/1252/The FactsProp 32 was written to limit the voice of union workers and create special exemptions for corporate interests, giving the wealthy and well-connected even more political power to write their own set of rules. Prop 32 exempts secretive Super PACs and corporate front groups, which can raise unlimited amounts of money from corporate special interests and billionaire businessmen to support their candidates or defeat their enemies. The measure does nothing to prevent anonymous donors from spending unlimited amounts to influence elections. Prop 32 is NOT campaign finance reform, as its backers claim. The wealthy supporters of this initiative created exemptions for Wall St. hedge funds, real estate investors, insurance companies and other well-heeled special interests allowing them to continue contributing directly to the coffers of political candidates. Prop 32 would severely restrict union members in both the public and private sector from having a voice in our political process. As a result, teachers, nurses, firefighters, police and other everyday heroes would be unable to speak out on issues that matter to us all—like cuts to our schools and colleges, police and fire response times, patient safety and workplace protections. This measure would give corporate CEOs and their lobbyists even greater influence over our political system. Corporations already outspend unions 15-1 in politics. This measure would effectively clear the playing field of any opposition to big corporations’ agenda, which includes outsourcing jobs, gutting homeowner protections, slashing wages and health benefits and attacking retirement security. Non-partisan groups like the California League of Women Voters, California Common Cause, Public Citizen and Public Campaign, who advocate for policies that curb special interest influence, are urging voters to REJECT Prop 32. Public Citizen calls it “an attack on labor masquerading as campaign finance reform”. California Common Cause says it “will do more harm to California's democracy than good.” The primary financial backers are retired CEOs and millionaires associated with the extreme right-wing Lincoln Club of Orange County. All of the primary funders of the measure would benefit personally from the exemptions created for certain companies and organizations.Despite the proponents’ claims that this initiative is geared toward “getting special interest money out of politics,” the truth is Prop 32 is a deceitful measure designed to silence working people while giving big CEOs and the very wealthy free rein to exert limitless influence on our political system.Prop 32 is misleading, deceptive and full of consequences that hurt all of us. It does absolutely nothing to limit special interest influence on politics while severely curtailing working people’s ability to stand up to powerful corporate interests. The result would be a devastating tilt in power to big banks, corporate CEOs and billionaires that would further undermine California’s middle class.
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 "corporations," but rather "LLCs" or "real-estate trusts" or any other form of business structure. This includes hedge funds, big Wall Street firms, insurance companies, and thousands of other business entities.That's actually the first thing I've seen that gave me pause. In re-reading what's there, I think this item has a point - it was stupid for the authors to actually use the word "corporation" and use only that word in describing which business entities Prop 32 would affect. I guess I'd have to agree that based on the text the only ones affected are corporations and LLCs and partnerships, etc. are not affected, and that's unfortunate.Prop 32 creates special exemptions for secretive Super PACs"Special exemptions"? So it mentions them and carves them out of the rest of the statute? Can you point that out to me, 'cause I don't see it. Here's the text:http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_California_Pro...How many PACs and Super PACs use payroll deduction anyway, any idea?Prop 32 supporters claim their initiative is a legitimate reform, but their campaign is funded by some of the biggest special interest spenders in California - and the nation."Biggest spenders"? Do we need to revisit RustyMath's link to see how much MORE has been spent on defeating it than there had been when he first linked it? It was something on the order of 3 or 4 to 1 against, if I recall. So it seems that the issue here is the source of the spending, not the volume of it.Prop 32 was written to limit the voice of union workersAgain, it does not limit the voice of union workers, they'll continue to have the same voice I have. What it seeks to limit is the voice of the unions themselves who can reach into the workers' paychecks and take what they want and spend it where they want. I don't expect staunch union-defenders to admit to seeing the distinction between the voice of the workers and the voice of the union itself, when it comes to political campaign activity, but it's there nonetheless.The question I have, is this: if the political campaigns and causes that unions support with dues extracted from their members are just and righteous and commendable, why are they so afraid of returning some semblance of choice to their own members, allowing them to decide whether they *want* to join their voice and funds to those of the union as a whole? The Prop even specifically calls out that voluntary contributions by payroll deduction to the union or its PAC or to the company or its PAC would still be allowable. Why isn't the union comfortable with putting a little checkbox on a form that says, "Yes please, deduct $X to be routed to the PAC" on whatever sign-in or proxy or voting form they'd need to. Seems to me it'd be pretty magnanimous of them to go to their members and say, "We typically spend $X million on political campaign activity per year, and historically that's come out of your dues/payroll deductions. We recognize that not all of you may agree with every cause we support, so we'd like to give you the option of supporting us and those causes by affirming that we can continue to use those funds." If the voices of the workers are indeed as closely-aligned with the voice of the union as the No on 32 campaign pretends they are, then there should be minimal disruption or change in the funds available to them - and you'd permanently shut up guys like me who believe that choice in all things is good, and choice in politics is even better.JT
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?As a very interested audience member who will get to ('have to'?) vote on this come November, I wanted to pipe up and point out how you say something is as important as what you say. I've read all the posts and links offered so far, because I try to take my voting responsibility seriously, not just look at one side of an issue.JT has been offering his opinion - which fortunately has experienced both sides, and without apparent bitterness. On the other side, we are getting attacks, straw-man arguments, hyperbole, and links to propaganda.Blech.That, almost as much as the facts, is convincing me to vote for 32. FYI.
Wow, you've quite an invested interest, obviously... That interest is what I suspected from the first response... I really have no tolerance for anti-union shills. As a member for 40+ years in the Machinist's IAofM. later CWA, family members in the Teamsters as heavy equipment Operators, repairmen, mechanics, to Carpenter's Locals, friends in ORTT, IBEW, we've covered a lot of skilled trades. A very proud membership. Not the whiny gamers who are the takers, that want all the benefits, defined pensions, Holidays, 40 hour work week, the thousands of benefits earned by collective bargaining over many years. You would have it go back to what we see in the Southern coal mines, shifty, greedy bosses, slave drivers of old, watching whole families die rather than provide the safety equipment, then whine when it collapses and their mess is displayed publicly.. We worked in may hazardous areas, conditions, we negotiated contrasts that covered our members safety, management was never going to step up.. So now you want to handicap the union mamagement and how it can use its influence, but let the corporate goons like the Koch brothers, others, run over them with unlimited funding... Prop 32 is a sham, as many before it... Interesting how it brings out the whiners, shills, scabs of old... As I said, I've no tolerance for any of 'em... Look at what others are saying if my intolerance is too nasty for you... "...a fraud to end all frauds" - LA Times "...dripping with cynicism" – Sacramento Bee "...a sham...wouldn't even begin to do what its backers promise" - Ventura County Star "...would magnify the influence of wealthy interests while shutting out many middle-class voters" - San Jose Mercury News "...a phony veneer of fairness...one-sided and biased"– Long Beach Press Telegram "...a deceptive sham...would make a bad system worse" - Contra Costa Times "...would just expand unaccountable independent expenditure committees, the super-PACs" – LA Times."Vote NO on Prop 32. This is the outrageously deceptive measure that looks like campaign finance reform--but it isn't. It's yet another attempt by our traditional enemies to block our participation in politics in California and clear the way for SuperPacs, venture capitalists, and corporation" from my old CWA today... They'll get my support all the way... weco
JT has been offering his opinion - which fortunately has experienced both sides, and without apparent bitterness.Well, I sure don't see that, he/she started off anti-union, wanting the great job, but unwilling to support the folks that made it a great job through their years of bargaining, negotiating. He wanted a free ride! Palin and simple, so now he continues that same slacker attitude, that's what ticked me off... Look at the bill, see what it's doing, decide for yourself, not what some anonymous poster puts out there, me included, other than I speak/write from a lot more positive experience in the trades than JT has ever had, apparently.. If I come off intolerant, so be it, we've lost a lot of great people over the years from a variety of issues that we've worked hard to correct, eliminate... weco
Do you anticipate ever addressing the very specific points I've tried to make repeatedly and the very specific questions I've asked repeatedly, or do you anticipate continuing to rattle off your extensive experience as a union member, dropping names of other unions your friends and family members have belonged to, and reciting newspaper opinions that are 100% opinion statements (which are fine to have, as far as they go) but are devoid of actual elements of substantial arguments?Wow, you've quite an invested (sic) interest, obviously...What do you imagine that to be? My wife and I both work, neither of us has a portfolio outside of our retirement accounts, neither of us know the Koch brothers, neither of us are members of the Lincoln Club, hell, I'm registered Libertarian - this Prop passing doesn't affect me in the slightest. I do have an interest in spreading freedom and reducing coercion wherever possible, even in places where I'm personally unaffected (you know, the whole "when they came for X, I didn't speak up because I wasn't X"). I would think every citizen would have the same vested interest in other citizens' freedom to decide which political campaigns they wish to support. I'm not left-handed, but I don't think we should take left-handers' money to spend on causes they may not support. I don't have union dues extracted from my paycheck, but I don't think we should take union members' money to spend on causes they may not support.We worked in may hazardous areas, conditions, we negotiated contrasts that covered our members safety, management was never going to step up.. So now you want to handicap the union mamagement and how it can use its influence,Interesting choice of words, "handicap". It's very simple - I don't want to change at all what a union is able to do in the execution of reason for being: the collective bargaining that goes on between union and employer. What I desire is for the money that gets funneled into politics - from any source, union, corporate, private - to ALWAYS be voluntary and never, EVER compulsory. The union can still use its influence as it does now - but each member should be able to withdraw his personal permission to use funds from his own paycheck to exercise that influence. If the union's going to take $100 from Joe's paycheck, spend $80 of it on collective-bargaining with Joe's employer and the other $20 to bankroll the Basic Speed Law reduction bill, which has nada, zero, zilch to do with the collective-bargaining that is the reason the union exists, then Joe should be able to say, "No thanks, I oppose the bill so I don't want my money funding its passage."You would have it go back to what we see in the Southern coal mines, shifty, greedy bosses, slave drivers of old, watching whole families die rather than provide the safety equipment, then whine when it collapses and their mess is displayed publicly.If you truly honestly believe that this is the inevitable outcome - indeed, that this would even be possible in this day and age with the legislation that's been passed and the regulations that are in effect and the agencies overseeing those regulations and the trial lawyers itching to make their fortunes - then I've misjudged you for a reasonable person with whom honest discourse about the actual rubber-meets-the-road merits of the Prop was possible. It's obvious that neither one of us is going to change the other's mind about this, but I was hoping we could at least put something up here that would treat any other readers to a balanced look at the Prop itself so they could weigh it in their own minds and make their own decisions. Hopefully that will still happen, with or without your measured participation.JT
He wanted a free ride! Plain and simple, so now he continues that same slacker attitude, that's what ticked me off... Who's the bigger slacker, 1) the guy who believes he's got the skills and work ethic to work harder and perform better than his coworkers and wants to actually be rewarded for working harder and performing better so he wants to be free of the union contract so that he can negotiate his own terms of employment with his employer, or 2) the guy who comes in and sees the terms that have already been negotiated for him on his behalf and says, "meh, that's good enough" and proceeds to punch a clock for the next 40 years, working just hard enough not to get fired 'cause he knows the contract inside and out and knows exactly where he can toe the line and be protected? *Wanting* to work harder and be rewarded for it is exactly the opposite of wanting a free ride.I know that unions are full of diverse people whose principles and work ethics are distributed all along the continuum between those two extremes, and I do believe you fall somewhere in the fat part of the bell curve between the two. I have very, very few negative feelings & memories with my time at Boeing where I worked for a time in a unionized job as well as in a non-unionized support role alongside unionized guys. I worked with folks all along that spectrum. At no time did I wish any of them ill or want to take anything away from any of them. Why do you insist on impugning my own personal motivations for just wanting to be my own man? If I had seen the union who "represented" me do some good stuff to make our deal better, maybe I would have chosen to pay the dues and be a voting member. But I did not see that - in fact saw the opposite (nor did I have any desire to spend any of my time *not* doing the job I wanted and was being paid for - see above about wanting to work harder), and I withheld my support. Personally, I'm glad I had the option, and wish everyone else had the option as well.JT
OK, now I see, a Texan spouting off on a California board where he can't even vote! Pointless Libertarian dribble... A shill. As suspected... I should have looked earlier...
OK, now I see, a Texan spouting off on a California board where he can't even vote!<eyeroll> You're hilarious, man. This is way too amusing to let die.Yeah, I lived in San Antonio for 3 years but moved back (yes, back - I was born and raised here) 3 years ago. I went to college out of state, too, if you care. That makes me uniquely unqualified to offer commentary and arguments about a Prop for which I have the sample ballot with my name and address on it sitting on the desk next to me, right? Forgive me for not updating my Fool profile at the same time as my driver's license. I could have entered Hong Kong though and you'd never know the difference, so don't put too much weight to what you see on profiles. I'll resist the temptation to impugn your integrity by suggesting that you're from somewhere else.Now, do you have anything constructive to offer, or just more unsubstantiated ad hominem?JT
Yes, you are still wrong, ugly behind the veil.. Libertarians remind me of Birchers..
Yes, you are still wrong,Here's the two questions I asked in the post you replied to:That makes me uniquely unqualified to offer commentary and arguments about a Prop for which I have the sample ballot with my name and address on it sitting on the desk next to me, right?Now, do you have anything constructive to offer, or just more unsubstantiated ad hominem?Since you don't seem to know your way around quoting people when replying, I suppose I'll assume you were answering the former (for reasons that should be obvious to anyone reading), unfortunately. So you're saying that having lived in another state from 2006-2009 makes one uniquely unqualified to even discuss a 2012 election? Is that seriously your contention?ugly behind the veilI'm ugly because I'm offering logical arguments against your stated position in a democratic republic? When did I ever call you a shill, or a slacker, or anything derogatory at all? You even called yourself intolerant and said "so be it"!Libertarians remind me of Birchers.. You'll have to fill me in on what a Bircher is, sorry I'm not up on my political buzzwords. I can't wait to see what other supposed opinions are about to be assigned to me based on the fact that you disagree with me and can't offer arguments that contradict mine!JT
You'll have to fill me in on what a Bircher ishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society
Interesting. I thought it was a typo for Birther, and totally didn't get it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Societyestablished in Indianapolis, Indiana, on December 9, 1958By the time of Welch's death in 1985, the society's membership and influence had dramatically declinedco-sponsor of the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference, ending its decades-long exile from the mainstream conservative movement.Oh, well those dates (coupled with my entrance into caring/commenting about politics at Davis' recall election in 2003) explains why I'd never heard of them.supports anti-communism, limited government, a constitutional republic and personal freedom.They don't sound too bad...upholds an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which it identifies with fundamental Christian principles, seeks to limit governmental powers, and opposes wealth redistribution, and economic interventionism.Sounds good so far..."There are many stages of welfarism, socialism, and collectivism in general," he wrote, "but Communism is the ultimate state of them all, and they all lead inevitably in that direction."Starting to go a little over the top, but I understand the underlying sentiment.It not only opposes the practices it terms collectivism, totalitarianism, and communism, but socialism and fascism as well, which it asserts is infiltrating US governmental administration.Wait, really?both the U.S. and Soviet governments are controlled by the same furtive conspiratorial cabal of internationalists, greedy bankers, and corrupt politicians.Wow.People in power being greedy for more power I can fully understand and get behind (does a more true truism exist?) - after all, once a politician gets elected the answer to every single question in their own mind is always "Which answer will get me re-elected?" - but I draw the line at seeing multinational conspiracies. Talk about jumping the shark. No thanks.JT
"...a fraud to end all frauds" - LA Times "...dripping with cynicism" – Sacramento Bee etc. etc....In the interest of equal time:http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposi...Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012 "Yes on 32" The Bakersfield Californian: "Prop. 32 won't fix everything in Sacramento. But the measure does ensure that unions, one of the most powerful groups in the Capitol, are deriving their funds in a fair way from informed members." The Long Beach Press Telegram:  The Los Angeles Daily News: "Unions will still have the power of numbers. Their members will continue to be able to mobilize in support of candidates and political stands, and to donate money on their own, but it would be their decision." 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 Press-Enterprise: "The meat of Prop. 32 is a ban on the use of payroll deductions to finance political spending. That provision targets one of the largest special interests in California politics: public employee unions. Automatic deductions from paychecks are the primary way unions fund political campaigns — and ending that financing mechanism would ease unions’ stranglehold on political decisions." The Redding Record Searchlight: "Nothing in Proposition 32 would stop unions from holding fundraisers, from asking members to write a check to support a good cause or candidate — from raising money just like any other political advocate. It would, however, slow the river of money that has drowned independent thinkers in Sacramento." The San Bernardino Sun: "The complaint that Proposition 32 is unfair because it will affect unions more than corporations falls flat. It's less common than one might think that unions and corporations act as counterweights on political issues. It's more like they are the upper and lower jaws of the monster that ate good government." The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Of all the measures on the California ballot this fall, the most important is Proposition 32. It has the potential to change the balance of power in state and local governments in a hugely constructive way. How? By limiting the power of California’s unions, the 21st-century version of the railroad companies that were so perniciously powerful a century ago that Gov. Hiram Johnson established direct democracy so voters could overrule a state Capitol in thrall to one interest group." The San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "To understand the need for Proposition 32, all a voter has to do is look at the the vast sums of cash pouring into the campaign against it. A total of more than $50 million has been donated to the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. Of that, the vast majority has gone to fund advertising for the 'no' side. And of that, most has come from unions representing California teachers and other public employees." Rusty
Forgot to thank you RustyMath, for taking the time to snip those quotes.JT
Forgot to thank you RustyMath, for taking the time to snip those quotes.More of a copy and paste job than a hunt and snip. But you're welcome all the same.http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition...Rusty
I've been hearing lately that the Koch brothers just made a huge (like $3 million?) contribution supporting Prop 32. That's enough for me to vote No on it.6
I've been hearing lately that the Koch brothers just made a huge (like $3 million?) contribution supporting Prop 32. That's enough for me to vote No on it.Which brings us full-circle back to the beginning of the thread:Second thought is "holy crap how messed up is our system when our only two choices are between 1) the rich d-bags running the largest corporations who have half the ambitious self-serving politicians in their pockets and 2) the rich d-bags running the largest unions who have the other half of the ambitious self-serving politicians in their pockets?"Sucks that politics has become mostly a popularity contest of "who's got the stronger transitive property?" When people are voting for or against the d-bags rather than for or against the issues, it makes people who can't stand d-bags sad. But I guess, if money is fungible, then so is popularity, and so are votes. It's the system we've got, and we've got it, good and hard.JT
Sucks that politics has become mostly a popularity contest of "who's got the stronger transitive property?" When people are voting for or against the d-bags rather than for or against the issues, it makes people who can't stand d-bags sad. But I guess, if money is fungible, then so is popularity, and so are votes. It's the system we've got, and we've got it, good and hard.It's just a different decision. Romney vs Obama? Nope. Union bosses vs Koch bros. And I definitely have my favorite between those two :)6
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |