CA Prop 32 Ends Union Political Contributions - Funded by Kochs

[dannno]

Wikipedia says:


If approved, Proposition 32 will:

Ban both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates
Ban contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them
Ban automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics


However...



Proposition 32's biggest donor? The American Future Fund, a conservative "Dark Money" group from *** IOWA *** with anonymous donors and ties to the Koch Brothers:

http://www.factcheck.org/tag/american-future-fund/

Proposition 32's biggest lie? That it applies to corporations:

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_21444739/mercury-news-editorial-deceptive-prop-32-would-worsen


Here's how the scam works: It does ban corporations as well as unions from using paycheck deductions for political purposes, but corporations don't do that. Their political donations come straight from the treasury or executives. By contrast, paycheck deductions are the primary method California's 2.5 million union members use to fund political spending ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-b-dean/prop-32s-rich-backers-try_b_1852422.html


The proposition ... exempts such common business structures as LLCs, partnerships and real estate trusts. If you're a venture investor, land developer or law firm, Proposition 32 doesn't lay a finger on you.

[dannno]

So, don't we believe in free political speech for unions as well?

What's your take?

[dannno]

bump

[GeorgiaAvenger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H46YRBgTzZ8&feature=plcp

[Smart3]

I'm voting for it because I hate Unions, but the polls show it will not succeed:
September 9-16, 2012 PPIC 42% 49% 9% 2,003
September 6-18, 2012 Field Poll 38% 44% 18% 1,183

[torchbearer]

you don't have the right to tell you neighbor how to spend his money, where does the government derive that power?

[Smart3]

you don't have the right to tell you neighbor how to spin his money, where does the government derive that power?
so if I wanted to donate to Al-Qaida, should I be allowed?

[GeorgiaAvenger]

so if I wanted to donate to Al-Qaida, should I be allowed?
The difference is this: campaigning is not against the law, terrorism is.

[torchbearer]

so if I wanted to donate to Al-Qaida, should I be allowed?

you can fund anyone you want if its not a contract for murder. (or theft, etc)
thats the caveat- if you fund islamic schools or want to donate to an islamic religion, or whatever- its your freaking money.
want to hire a mexican? your money.

[dannno]

so if I wanted to donate to Al-Qaida, should I be allowed?

You don't know anybody who donated to Bush?

[dannno]

//

[dannno]

I find it pretty hilarious how un-libertarian this bill is, yet look who is funding it..

[tsai3904]

I find it pretty hilarious how un-libertarian this bill is, yet look who is funding it..

Many unions automatically take money out of workers' paychecks to fund their union activities, including political donations. Voting yes on Prop 32 would prohibit this.

If people want to contribute to their union's political activities, they should do so voluntarily, not as a requirement to be a part of the union.

[torchbearer]

Many unions automatically take money out of workers' paychecks to fund their union activities, including political donations. Voting yes on Prop 32 would prohibit this.

If people want to contribute to their union's political activities, they should do so voluntarily, not as a requirement to be a part of the union.

their should be a bill to address this one specific issue. force union dues should be illegal. (its the force that is immoral).

[dannno]

their should be a bill to address this one specific issue. force union dues should be illegal. (its the force that is immoral).

The argument I'm hearing is that nobody is forced to join a union.

In reality, I think it should be *nobody is forced to join a union.

*Insert a whole bunch of shit right here

I just don't know what *A whole bunch of shit is exactly.

[BenIsForRon]

I find it pretty hilarious how un-libertarian this bill is, yet look who is funding it..

The Kochs are oligarchs, not libertarians.

Regulation is bad when it hurts them, good when it helps them.

[The Free Hornet]

their should be a bill to address this one specific issue. force union dues should be illegal. (its the force that is immoral).

Another good strategy is to not force employers to remove dues from the employees' paychecks. When unions actually have to collect dues, they often find out how unpopular membership is:


Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees-the state's second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers-fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed Afscme's figures. A spokesman for Afscme declined to comment.

Much of that decline came from Afscme Council 24, which represents Wisconsin state workers, whose membership plunged by two-thirds to 7,100 from 22,300 last year.

A provision of the Walker law that eliminated automatic dues collection hurt union membership. When a public-sector contract expires the state now stops collecting dues from the affected workers' paychecks unless they say they want the dues taken out, said Peter Davis, general counsel of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/dramatic_drop_in_union_membership_among_wi_public_ employees.html#ixzz1wUmEkdVC

[Adrock]

So, don't we believe in free political speech for unions as well?

What's your take?

I would say that unions or corporations do not have natural free speech rights, only individuals do. Since the union or corporation owes it's existence to the state law that created it, it is within the state's rights to regulate it. That regulation should be applied equally to both. The relationship between individuals and those organizations should be voluntary.

[tsai3904]

The argument I'm hearing is that nobody is forced to join a union.

As far as I know, if you want to be a teacher in a California public school, you are forced to join the teacher's union and are forced to pay dues.

[angelatc]

As far as I know, if you want to be a teacher in a California public school, you are forced to join the teacher's union and are forced to pay dues.

I suspect that's what they're targeting. Kerry Bentivolio has railed against that, talking about being forced to join a union as a teacher, then having that union use his dues to support a political agenda he doesn't agree with.

[UWDude]

their should be a bill to address this one specific issue. force union dues should be illegal. (its the force that is immoral).
How is that force? They can always quit their job and go work somewhere else, right?

They can go work a non-union job, (which is apparently, to some, the ultimate free market awesome job anyway).

[angelatc]

How is that force? They can always quit their job and go work somewhere else, right?

They can go work a non-union job, (which is apparently, to some, the ultimate free market awesome job anyway).

I would agree with that if it was the employer that forced the employees to join the union. But the union should have no right to force the employees of someone else's company to join.

[amy31416]

so if I wanted to donate to Al-Qaida, should I be allowed?

Yes and no.

Yes--in the sense that it's your property and you are the one who should determine what happens with it.

No--in the sense that you shouldn't have to fucking ask for permission to do with your money as you see fit.

[torchbearer]

How is that force? They can always quit their job and go work somewhere else, right?

They can go work a non-union job, (which is apparently, to some, the ultimate free market awesome job anyway).

I was under the impression that in non-right to work states, if a union is made- you are forced by law to join it and pay for it.
why should i have to quit my job just because you got with your buddies and decided i'd be forced to pay for your club?

[Adrock]

I would agree with that if it was the employer that forced the employees to join the union. But the union should have no right to force the employees of someone else's company to join.

Exactly. The relationship between employer and employee should be voluntary. It is alright if the employer wishes all his employees to join a union as condition of employment. It is an improper use of force if the union lobbies for a state law that makes everyone join their organization in order to be employed.

[UWDude]

I would agree with that if it was the employer that forced the employees to join the union. But the union should have no right to force the employees of someone else's company to join.

Force? it's part of the contract the company signs with the union, so it can keep people working for it.
"force" sure is starting to become a real murky term here, isn't it?
I mean, I understand how taxes are force, since you can go to jail, and get shot if you resist arrest, so it is a gun to your head.
But there is no threat of violence if you refuse to join a union. You just don't work.
And I hear people all the time arguing that if you don't like the environment an employer has made at the workplace, you can just leave.
So why is it people support his line of logic, but when it comes to unions, they do not?


Exactly. The relationship between employer and employee should be voluntary. It is alright if the employer wishes all his employees to join a union as condition of employment. It is an improper use of force if the union lobbies for a state law that makes everyone join their organization in order to be employed.

That's not how it works. The state simply upholds the contract the unions won via strikes and collective bargaining, which requires employees to join their union, if they want to work for the union. The company then deals with the workers collectively, through the union, and not on an individual basis.

And I don't care what you say, getting a union job is a pretty sweet deal, and almost always superior to non-union for the same work.


I was under the impression that in non-right to work states, if a union is made- you are forced by law to join it and pay for it.
why should i have to quit my job just because you got with your buddies and decided i'd be forced to pay for your club?

Because that little club took the power by risking their jobs, so you could get the benefits. That little club has the bargaining power, and part of that power was to say that you have to join the union. If you don't like it, go work a non-union job, or start your own company.

But all of you keep using the word force so loosely.

1. It is not force by any definition, and
2. A vast majority of people working union now in non-"right to work" states knew they would have to join the union before they were hired. So it's not even like they were forced to choose between their current job or joining the union.

[FrankRep]

http://yesprop32.com/img/logo_yes_new.png?_c=10vun58j3repxbp (http://YesProp32.com)




http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LezTihQZl0Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LezTihQZl0Q


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUoTUK-pDkg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUoTUK-pDkg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wrjbFaH-8o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wrjbFaH-8o


Fox Business News: Proposition 32 stops special-interest money influence of both unions and corporations.

Learn more at: YesProp32.com (http://YesProp32.com)

[FrankRep]

http://034e52c.netsolhost.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/NFIB.png




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ0bBTMUrUM&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ0bBTMUrUM


NFIB/CA Endorses Prop 32 (http://www.nfib.com/nfib-in-my-state/nfib-in-my-state-content?cmsid=60654)



Today, the Yes on Proposition 32 campaign, supporting the Stop Special Interest Money Now Act, welcomed the endorsement of the National Federation of Independent Business/California, the Voice of Small Business in California and across the nation.

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is the nation’s leading and largest organization representing only small businesses in Washington, D.C. and all 50 state capitals. In California, NFIB represents almost 20,000 entrepreneurs across the state. Founded in 1943 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, NFIB gives small and independent business owners a voice in shaping the public policy issues that affect their business.

NFIB/California joins Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) California, former state Senator Gloria Romero, former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz and a growing grassroots coalition of voters, taxpayers, and small businesses in support of this initiative that will fundamentally reform the state’s campaign finance system—a system at the root of Sacramento’s dysfunction.

"California's political system isn't working because the politicians we elect only work for the most well-funded special interests. While big corporations and labor unions always get what they want, small businesses and individual Californians find themselves on the losing end of new regulations, higher taxes and declining government services," said John Kabateck, Executive Director, NFIB/California.

"Proposition 32 offers voters an opportunity to win back elected officials from the special interests that control them with their money and make politicians pay attention to California’s needs again. As the Voice of Small Business in California, we're strongly urging Californians to vote Yes on Prop 32 because it cuts the powerful money tie between special interests and politicians and returns power back to the voters."

Small businesses make up 99.2 percent of all businesses and create two-thirds of all net new jobs. They represent the majority of job creators and contributors to our economy and yet are dismissed or ignored by politicians who are more beholden to the influence and money of big labor and big corporations
According to the nonpartisan Fair Political Practices Commission, the top 15 special interest groups have spent more than $1 billion on influencing the political process in California over the past ten years while the state’s fiscal and economic climate has reached historic lows.

According to Maplight.org, in the 2010 election cycle, 79% of campaign contributions made to California’s legislators came from donors who live outside their districts. During that legislative season, the San Jose Mercury News found that more than 40% of the legislation introduced in Sacramento is written by special interest lobbyists, and these bills are much more likely to become law.

Proposition 32 addresses the problem of special interests across the board by curbing special interest power and taking money out of politics. It will:

1) ban direct corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates

2) ban contributions from government contractors to elected officials who control contracts awarded to them

3) ban automatic deductions by corporations, unions and government of wages to be used for politics, instead requiring annual consent of the employee

Prop 32 implements these reforms evenhandedly, without exception. It will appear on the November 2012 ballot.

For more information on the initiative, please visit www.yesprop32.org.

[GunnyFreedom]

Wikipedia says:

However...

If approved, Proposition 32 will:

Ban both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates

All this would do is drive the money underground where you and I can't track it.

Ban contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them

Probably a good idea if implemented correctly.

Ban automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics

The only automatic deductions a State government should have authority over are State employees. The rest of everyone should be able to do as they please here without Big Brother giving them the what-for.

--

The idea of banning private sector union members from using payroll deduction for membership dues if they freely choose that method seems awfully interventionist to me. I can understand say a State Government moving to ban all third party payroll deductions from actual State employees receiving State checks in order to avoid conflicts of interest.

But government should have no authority to decide how private third parties can set up their payroll like that. That's big brother big government, and it is certainly not a conservative value, no matter how they decide to reframe it.

[AlexAmore]

the union or corporation owes it's existence to the state law that created it, it is within the state's rights to regulate it.

That's what I'm thinking. If the corporations don't like it, then don't go to the state and incorporate.

[torchbearer]

Force? it's part of the contract the company signs with the union, so it can keep people working for it.
"force" sure is starting to become a real murky term here, isn't it?
I mean, I understand how taxes are force, since you can go to jail, and get shot if you resist arrest, so it is a gun to your head.
But there is no threat of violence if you refuse to join a union. You just don't work.
And I hear people all the time arguing that if you don't like the environment an employer has made at the workplace, you can just leave.
So why is it people support his line of logic, but when it comes to unions, they do not?



That's not how it works. The state simply upholds the contract the unions won via strikes and collective bargaining, which requires employees to join their union, if they want to work for the union. The company then deals with the workers collectively, through the union, and not on an individual basis.

And I don't care what you say, getting a union job is a pretty sweet deal, and almost always superior to non-union for the same work.



Because that little club took the power by risking their jobs, so you could get the benefits. That little club has the bargaining power, and part of that power was to say that you have to join the union. If you don't like it, go work a non-union job, or start your own company.

But all of you keep using the word force so loosely.

1. It is not force by any definition, and
2. A vast majority of people working union now in non-"right to work" states knew they would have to join the union before they were hired. So it's not even like they were forced to choose between their current job or joining the union.

I live in a right to work state. I don't have to join the union to work, it is nice. I have a choice, and i'm not punished for wanting to have and individual contract with my employer. When I don't have a choice- that is force. either join the club or go work at mcdonalds isn't a choice for skilled labor. is misallocation of skilled resources to accomodate a club of whinny people who can't negotiate a contract on their own merits.
P&G has to 'abuse'' temp labor because they over-pay and can't fire the nonproductive workers at their plant. it seems everywhere these unions are involved, there are lazy workers with 'tenure' jobs.

[GunnyFreedom]

Right to work should be a no-brainer. I am horrified at the idea of eliminating a person's right to contract their labor as they please. For whatever good a union may do where they are needed, and for whatever good they want to do in the future, lifetime income slavery cannot possibly be the answer. As far as I am concerned, opposition to right to work is irrational even from the left, because you end up with a large bulk of the membership who hate you, which if you believe in fair play is a wrongness.

[tsai3904]

But all of you keep using the word force so loosely.

1. It is not force by any definition, and
2. A vast majority of people working union now in non-"right to work" states knew they would have to join the union before they were hired. So it's not even like they were forced to choose between their current job or joining the union.

You have to differentiate between private and public employers. A private company can stipulate whatever they want in contracts with their employees. However, a government job should in no way require someone to join a union to become an employee.

It all comes down to whether or not government employees should be in unions and the answer is no. The government should always have the people's interests as a priority but when there are government unions, the priority shifts to pleasing the government unions. I'm not saying there should be a federal law against this but each state should have the opportunity to ban government unions or, at the very least, not force government employees to pay for union activities, which is what Prop 32 does.

[UWDude]

When I don't have a choice- that is force.

Wow, really? That's a whole new definition of force, and that really opens a whole new can of worms, doesn't it?
IF Coke is the only soda on the store shelf, you are "forced" to drink Coke?


either join the club or go work at mcdonalds isn't a choice for skilled labor.

that isn't your choice, that's your hyperbole. You are always free to start your own business, and many times free to find a company without a union contract.

it's either work for yourself, work somewhere else, or move somewhere else. Unions can only require joining them before working for companies they have made a contract with.



lifetime income slavery cannot possibly be the answer. As far as I am concerned, opposition to right to work is irrational even from the left, because you end up with a large bulk of the membership who hate you, which if you believe in fair play is a wrongness.

"lifetime income slavery" --- that is some inappropriate hyperbole
Large bulk of union members hate their union? Whatever, dude. People join the union before employment. They know before they start working they have to join it. And why are they applying for a union job? Because it pays so damn well, and has such great benefits.


not force government employees to pay for union activities, which is what Prop 32 does.

By this new definition of force, then corporations should not be allowed to donate to campaigns either,because that would be "forcing" the employees of the companies to work for political campaigns.


You have to differentiate between private and public employers. A private company can stipulate whatever they want in contracts with their employees. However, a government job should in no way require someone to join a union to become an employee.

It all comes down to whether or not government employees should be in unions and the answer is no. The government should always have the people's interests as a priority but when there are government unions, the priority shifts to pleasing the government unions.

This all reads like personal opinion based on sentiment. Is there any moral or logical reasoning for this line of thinking?

[tsai3904]

By this new definition of force, then corporations should not be allowed to donate to campaigns either,because that would be "forcing" the employees of the companies to work for political campaigns.

You're mixing up two different things. I have no problems with unions or corporations donating to campaigns. The issue in Prop 32 is whether or not unions can automatically take money out of their members' paycheck to support union activities. If a requirement to get a government job is to join a union, I don't believe union dues should be automatically taken out of your paycheck. Again, I differentiate between public and private employers. If a private company and a private union had a deal like this, I have no problem with it.


This all reads like personal opinion based on sentiment. Is there any moral or logical reasoning for this line of thinking?

FDR had some good thoughts on it:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

[Feeding the Abscess]

I find it pretty hilarious how un-libertarian this bill is, yet look who is funding it..

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/08/hot-david-koch-i-am-no-longer.html

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/08/hot-david-koch-calls-for-tax-increases.html