patrick.net

It won't though.

It'll only stop some contributions from Membership Organizations like Unions, NRA, ACLU.

Corporations will be able to give all they want. Mr. Ernesto Fernandez the firefighter won't be able to give easily via his Union. Mr. Daddy Warbucks the DoD Contracting Firm Owner can still donate millions.

It should be the other way around. Organizations made up of concerned citizens should be able to get together and donate. Property should not be allowed to donate money.

thunderlips11 says

It'll only stop some contributions from Membership Organizations like Unions, NRA, ACLU.

Workers can still contribute to political campaigns – but unions and employers can't automatically deduct money from paychecks for politics.
And that sounds right to me, no one should be forced to donate money to a politician under a banner of "union" or "corporation". What we have now, is forced extortion from the working class to politicians, and this prop does away with it.

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.

So I think you are a bit wrong there.

thunderlips11 says

Mr. Daddy Warbucks the DoD Contracting Firm Owner can still donate millions.

"Prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees."

Prohibit government contractors from contributing money to government officials who award them contracts;

Prohibit corporations and labor unions from collecting political funds from employees and union members by means of payroll deduction

Make all employee political contributions strictly voluntary, requiring annual written consent.

... cookies laced with his bodily fluids

Or as Fox News reported: We're Hungry! Students Revolt Over Michelle Obama's School Meals

well ACLU doesn't like prop 32, so there is something to it:

https://www.aclunc.org/legislation/ca_propositions/index.shtml

FortWayne says

well ACLU doesn't like prop 32, so there is something to it:

https://www.aclunc.org/legislation/ca_propositions/index.shtml

Freedom 1789-2012

From the ACLU page,

Proposition 32 (Special Exemptions Act) is a deceptive attempt to discriminate against labor union political speech, allowing special exemptions for corporate special interests to continue to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

I don't live in CA, so I haven't heard or read anything about prop 32. Nevertheless, if what the ACLU claims is true -- if there are exemptions for corporate interests -- then they have a perfectly valid complaint.

I just read the text of the proposition and since I don't speak legalese, I don't know whether or not the ACLU's claim is true. The text itself doesn't seem to really address the problem as it's so vague about what is a violation. Seems like you have to show that the money goes specifically for something you benefit from and money is fungible. Seems like the language is too vague to do anything useful.

Well, what is to prevent them from forming their own Super Pacs?? After all that NV gambling king alone has donated over 100 million dollars?

Hey Folks ---

It doesn't prohibit Corporate Contributions. It prohibits Corporate Employee Lobbying Groups from having contributions deducted from their payroll.

During an election year big corps try to organize employees to voluntarily pledge maybe $50 each from their paychecks. Some go along thinking it's a way to kiss the bosses ass. Compulsory political donations from employee's paychecks has been illegal for about a century now. The Money raised by voluntary employee contributions to Corporate Political Groups is minimal in the overall scheme of political contributions.

The real big money donations are from the Corporations directly, and there is absolutely no restriction in Prop 32 from Corporations giving money out of their budgets, or combining into Super PACS, to donate money. The whole "Balance" is a red herring; Corporations are free to give as they always have, while Union Members can't voluntarily chose to deduct from their own paychecks for political contributions unless they meet a host of obsene requirements, like annual written permission. Something the CEO does not have to get from the Shareholders on the other side of the equation.

Unions are one-man, one vote democratic groups.

In Contrast, Corps can give virtually unlimited amounts of money without shareholder approval. Unlike one-man, one vote Unions, Corporate Boards are usually controlled by a tiny minority of shareholders (because institutions like pension plans and mutual funds abstain on voting, often by law or their own bylaws). Go to a Shareholder's meeting for a big US Company when you own 100 shares, speak up, and see how long before Security escorts you out of the Marriott. Then go to an IBEW Local and make a complaint about something and see how folks react.

Ask yourself, why are all the Corps behind Prop 32?

Where Prop 32 came from: 3 Ultrarich Republican Activists from Orange County, and bankrolled by various CEOs, including Thomas Siebel of First Virtual Group, which is a Real Estate/Agribusiness not doubt swimming in bailout funds and a big beneficiary of the Financial Crisis. It's mostly engaged in non-productive, rent-seeking parasitic unearned income collection.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/california-budget/ci_21139320/union-political-donation-ballot-measure-questioned

Siebel gave $500k to get Prop 32 passed; but he wants to forbid the 10 firefighters at station 23 from combining a $20 donation, so $200 in total, to give to a local candidate who fights against lowering their retirement age.

Yeah, sounds balanced.

Prop 32 would be more interesting, if it were a direct attack on the Citizens United ruling. But it's not, it's clearly Richie Rich targetting small fry.

Vicente says

Prop 32 would be more interesting, if it were a direct attack on the Citizens United ruling. But it's not, it's clearly Richie Rich targetting small fry.

I think that's what the ACLU believes and why they are opposing it.

he wants to forbid the 10 firefighters at station 23 from combining a $20 donation
Looks like all the firefighters in the state are in the anti-Prop 32 camp for $3 million already. Firefighters need to lobby beacuse... why again? Firefighters in my town start at a salary of $80k.

For reference, this article says that a typical CTA member will pay about $170 annually in non-agency fees (this would become a voluntary contribution if Prop 32 passes). This gives the CTA about $50million per year to shower on Sacramento. Former state senator Gloria Romero of Democrats for Education Reform says California Teachers Association officials "walk around like they're God." She recalls knocking on Democratic doors trying to line up votes. "They always wanted to know where's CTA," because that's "their sugar daddy."
"I remember sitting in Democratic caucus" and hearing lawmakers call the unions "our allies, our friends and allies," she says. "And I thought, the NAACP is never included." Grass-roots school-reform groups were also "never included. Our 'allies' are SEIU, CTA, the California school employees."

TL said: unless they meet a host of obsene requirements, like annual written permission.
As far as I can tell, that is the only requirement. If you find anything else, let me know. I'm not sure how onerous that requirement is -- don't folks make health insurance selections each year.

EBGuy says

don't folks make health insurance selections each year.

All my selections like healthcare, legal, etc. are assumed to RIDE the same as last year unless I care to request changes.

My employer doesn't require me whip out my credit card to pay each and every one of my providers every month. The other major change in Prop32 is specifically to deny this convenient payment aspect, in order to make it harder.

Why should ANYTHING be deducted from a paycheck, shouldn't it be the employee's responsibility to mail FICA etc. in every month after getting paid?

So the analogy is poor, although I can see why you'd look at it that way.

The other major change in Prop32 is specifically to deny this convenient payment aspect, in order to make it harder.
You're right, and the analogy was incorrect. Amazingly enough, I (usually) renew my Sierra Club membership each year. I think that's the proper analogy. Elective and non-coercive.

What happened to Ceffer's post? I thought it was pretty good.
I saw my first No on Prop 32: Say No to Special Exemptions campaign sign today. I will give public employee unions some credit here; usually it is the right that comes up with clever memes (ie - death tax, etc). If anyone can find a "special exemption" in the text of the law (cite article, section), I'll give some serious thought to changing my vote.
Vicente said: Why should ANYTHING be deducted from a paycheck Federal, state, and local taxes, as well as union dues (agency fees) make sense. The idea that a lobbying organization should have access to anyone's paycheck strikes me as wrong. YMMV.

This is definitely the right time for decreasing teacher union's power. They're on the ropes. In California class sizes are up, many teachers such as in LA have taken pay cuts for the last 4 years. The teachers already feel powerless in this fiscal environment.

This is the perfect opportunity to voucherize public education. Kill public education. Fuck the greedy teachers ! They don't care about the kids. All they want is those awesome salaries and benefits they get for doing almost nothing.

Let's replace the public school teachers with computers and bring in $10/hr aides to help. And then voucherize it so that people with the money can supplement it and send their kids to private schols. MAybe some of the best public schools can be converted to private schools.

It's exactly the right reform for education if we really want to set the clock back 12 decades or so.

Chidren should be allowed to work too. It is a free country after all. We need to boost the population soon. What better way to do that than to make children a necessary source of income ! (for low income people that is)

EBGuy says

What happened to Ceffer's post? I thought it was pretty good.

Instant Rant Replay from another thread, since you asked.

"So, the argument against 32 is that unions should have the same corrupt lobbying abilities as crime lords and corporations, and they should continue to have unilateral power of involuntary and unlimited payroll withdrawals over their members to fund whatever they see fit anyway they see fit.

Without corrupt powers of lobbying, the unions can never properly and competitively influence politicians under the table as an end run around taxpayer approval so that they in essence, can control the financial pot by continuing to bribe the politicians.

Without these special corrupting, lobbying powers, the process is just so much more inefficient. It would force the poor unions to actually argue the merits before the taxpayers when otherwise they can simply buy the politicians. It is terrible that taxpayers and voters would actually remove that power to influence and corrupt the politicians from our selfless teachers and government workers, who are only corrupting the pols for the good of the taxpayer, even if the taxpayer does not know or acknowledge this selfless act.

The only slight difference is that corporations are TAXPAYERS and the unions are TAXSUCKEES who are bankrupting our cities, counties and state. The TAXSUCKEES simply want the power to corrupt on an equal footing with the TAXPAYERS, they don't care a bit if the corporations rob us blind in some other venue, honor amongst thieves and all that.

Those are some great selling points for voting against 32, I vote for equal opportunity corruption, no on 32! So glad the unions are taking the high road again!"

Let's go one more round before the election. I'm still leaning toward voting Yes on 32. There's definitely some good con arguments, I just don't think I've seen them here.
Also, here's a meta question open to the group: why should ANY political lobbying organization be given access to workers' paychecks? (NOTE: this is a question about using paycheck deductions for political purposes, not agency fee deductions).

PACs dominate the elections.

Voting YES on 32 will allow the top 1%, their LLCs, Real Estate Trusts, etc. to give unlimited funds to PACs and SuperPACs, while establishing barriers to unions and other membership groups from doing likewise.

Payroll Union Dues cannot be used for political contributions at all, even though most union dues do not go to politics, but to Union Services for Members.

Even Voluntary contributions by Union Members must be accompanied by annual written permission; these permissions must be available and stored (an expense) by Unions and other Membership Organizations. This gives righties a great opportunity to stymie Membership Organizations from donating - they can create endless Court obstacles by demanding constant "proofs" of written permission. In this manner, they can drain time, money and energy away from their opponents.

According to opensecrets.org corporate donations outweigh union donations 15:1.

To make Prop 32 fair, it would require that every shareholder not only give permission for companies to donate to PACs, but disallow corporate cash from being used -- shareholders could only VOLUNTARILY donate their own money, and only then with written permission good for only one year.

EBGuy says

why should ANY political lobbying organization be given access to workers' paychecks?

Here's the problem:

Mexican standoff, but YOU drop your weapon first and I promise I'll drop mine later. Really.

Will Koch Brothers or Walton ultra-billiionaires be affected in their influence by Prop32? Nope.

Much like our ridiculous "free trade" agreements where we eviscerate our tariffs in hopes that everyone else will naturally follow suit. We've seen the end result of that, we get laughed about and taken advantage of.

I'd be totally OK with some across the board ending of money in politics. However that is not on the board. Prop32 is a straight-up effort by Richie Rich to eliminate competition for influence. The further you go down that road, the more firmly the wealthy solidify their grip. The End.

EBGuy says

Amazingly enough, I (usually) renew my Sierra Club membership each year. I think that's the proper analogy. Elective and non-coercive.

What? My AAA & DAN memberships are auto-renew. Don't other clubs do the same thing? This is more like voter-literacy testing, it's deliberate to make participation more likely to not happen at all.

Even Voluntary contributions by Union Members must be accompanied by annual written permission
My take was that they are targeting "set and forget" yearly contributions via credit card (PS - vicente, I just refreshed and see you've commented on this as well). It is one of the elements I'm not overly excited about, but at they same time I don't think the requirements are onerous. BTW, TL, that second sentence is masterful (though, perhaps, it would get flagged for weasel words in wiki). Just so that pat.net readers are clear, if Prop 32 to were to succeed, unions would still be allowed to make unlimited contributions to PACs and super-PACs.

EBGuy says

I don't think the requirements are onerous.

Onerous, perhaps not. But the intent is quite clear, to undercut the funding and hit it at the "little guy" level. I can't make it any clearer how insidious and evil this is.

Right now I renew my car registration online. How about they required your renewal be hand-delivered by check or cash (no credit cards) to the DMV office? Only a little inconvenient and not onerous right? It's just "reasonable" that we want people to run a minor gauntlet so we can somehow discourage bad things. People would be up in arms about it.

It's clear Richie Rich chips away a little here, chips away a little there, all "reasonable" and not onerous measures considered as invidual measures. As a whole cloth though, it's clear that the wealthy class is gaining more power and fewer restrictions over time, and everything is eroding for everyone else.

You really should ask yourself if Prop32 is to REDUCE BRIBES why it doesn't include corporate contributions to political candicates and groups. So only some kind of contributions are bribes, the other kinds are perfectly legit eh? Yes I see how Mr. Wayne thinks about it, but we Americans are supposed to be all equal before the law. These days corporations are not only people, they are "more people" than we are. We've been demoted from citizens to consumers.

As they saw "all politics is local." For the local perspective, every man, woman and child in my town is responsible for a $5k unfunded liability for city employee pensions and benefits. The city council's way of dealing with budget shortfalls is to fill in swimming pools with dirt (and then throw a parcel tax on the ballot). One city council challenger has the endorsement of the public safety groups. The firefighters independent expenditure committee just spent $7.5k on her behalf. I have to admit, I like the new CA laws that require committees to file disclosures online; they lead to a more informed electorate.
Prop 32 is a big hammer to deal with issues that must be addressed at the state level. My only misgivings are whether it's too big of a hammer.

Vicente said: You really should ask yourself if Prop32 is to REDUCE BRIBES why it doesn't include corporate contributions to political candidates
Uhh.. It does. From the proposition text:
85150. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, or public employee labor union shall make a contribution to any candidate, candidate controlled committee; or to any other committee, including a political party committee, if such funds will be used to make contributions to any candidate or candidate controlled committee.

Vicente, please don't tell me you fell for that "special exemption" gambit.
To be clear, the Citizens United ruling allows unlimited contributions by corporations and unions to PACs and SuperPACs. These entities can NOT coordinate with a candidate controlled committee.

The poster formerly known as Shrek said: Because the US Supreme Court has declared such legislation to be unconstitutional anyway?
No. You're incorrect. The five-justice majority in Citizens United ruled that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements. The decision did not disturb prohibitions on corporate contributions to candidates.

Vicente said: But the intent is quite clear, to undercut the funding and hit it at the "little guy" level.
One last go around. Who is the little guy? It certainly isn't public safety officers, prison guards, nurses, or even teachers. And certainly not you. The public sector unions are placing a tremendous strain on the states finances.
The lowest rung might be service workers employed by low bid contractors.
Two different perspectives on the Displaced Property Service Employees Opportunity Act (SB 350) which was passed last year.
http://activerain.com/blogsview/2448938/california-s-legislature-unclear-on-the-whole-jobs-thingy-
http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2011/sep/12/property-service-workers-deserve-job-security/

EBGuy says

Vicente said: But the intent is quite clear, to undercut the funding and hit it at the "little guy" level.

One last go around. Who is the little guy?

So teachers are not citizens? Perhaps you grew up in some alternate America where Mrs. Grundy doesn't count. In the America I grew up in, Americans were CITIZENS not consumers, and corporations were not "people".

EBGuy says

To be clear, the Citizens United ruling allows unlimited contributions by corporations and unions to PACs and SuperPACs. These entities can NOT coordinate with a candidate controlled committee.

This notion of some invisible wall where they hardly know each other exist, is complete nonsense. Obviously they coordinate, they just don't do it OPENLY. It's like saying that Al Qaeda cells don't coordinate. Just because they don't have an org chart and a phone directory?

Colbert already covered this PAC idiocy well.

http://colbertsuperpac.com/

Please explain why 11 MILLION DOLLARS of money went into this Prop. 32 nonsense from the Koch Brothers? Yeah we are really getting corrupt influences out of government aren't we, by letting big money umm....errr.... help us with that. In secret, because if the backers weren't hidden it might poison the notion that this is grassroots thing....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/california-11-million-campaign-donation_n_2078917.html

So teachers are not citizens?
Where did you get that? I'm not going to put them in the obscenely compensated category, but with pensions, they do okay for themselves. I don't think they need to be showering $50 million per year in Sacramento (unless they elect to do that). Teachers protect me from the Koch Brothers how?
I've been following the corporate personhood meme long before Citizens United. I am not, by any means, defending it. Don't worry, I'll show up for the protest and sign the petitions. I still haven't marked an X on this sucker. The unfunded liabilities aren't going away.... sigh.