Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 113

Thread: california prop discussion

  1. #1
    Member KerriAnn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    411
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default california prop discussion

    Wanted to post a thread to hopefully start some conversation about the props on the ballot for november. I haven't had a lot of time to research what's going to be on the ballot yet, but i have looked at two so far:

    Prop 32, which I plan on voting no, unless someone can convince me otherwise.

    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...tiative_(2012)

    Like I said, I haven't looked into much of it yet, but it seems like another state statute that has exemptions for large corporations to give them an advantage over other smaller corporations.


    Prop 34, which I think I will vote yes...

    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...tiative_(2012)

    I'm all for repealing the death penalty!


    Here's a link to the rest of California's ballot measures coming up in November:

    http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/inde...t_propositions

    Comments?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Member KerriAnn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    411
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Prop 37: Mandatory labeling of GMOs

    http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/inde...ed_Food_(2012)

    Monsanto is the biggest "no" donor. Not surprised. I will vote yes, just because of that.

    And this is interesting-

    "Other opponents include:

    The California Republican Party."

  4. #3

    Default

    I'm in CA and I'm pretty torn on some of these myself.

    Prop 32 won't really affect corporations because that isn't how they give money to political candidates. It was written by one of the Kochs in order to stop the tide of money coming in from unions. If it does hurt the ability of small businesses to donate, I'd like to know more. It would be a HUGE blow to the ability of Democrats to raise money for political races around the state, though.

    Philosophically, there is nothing stopping the individuals in those unions from donating to those same politicians or political organizations on their own, so I'm not sure if I have a big problem with it. Some people are forced to join unions, and even though apparently you can jump through some hoops to have the portion of your union dues that go towards that sort of stuff exempted, money is fungible and you are still forced to support an organization that is fueling differing political beliefs.

    I have a thread on that prop here:

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...unded-by-Kochs


    Prop 34

    I want to repeal the death penalty, but I don't want to increase police department funding by $100 million even if it is "for rape and murder" because again... money is fungible. They are supposed to be solving rape and murder cases with the money we already give them and on top of that they do a lot more that they shouldn't be doing. If you give them more money to do what they are supposed to be doing already, that gives them the money they already have to do more of what they shouldn't be doing like arresting people for growing cannabis with or without a medicinal license.

    Undecided.


    Prop 37

    This is an extremely anti-liberty proposition, but we live in an extremely anti-liberty country, so lets see if things balance out. We subsidize GMO with our tax dollars and so it's in the vast majority of our food supply, not to mention our food's food supply (most cows eat GMO food).

    People don't have a fair choice between GMO and non-GMO foods because the GMO foods are so much cheaper due to the subsidies.. So most people choose the food that is more affordable not knowing whether it contains GMO ingredients.

    Theoretically I could have no problem with this bill, but I need to know a little more. Let's say I want to start making and selling my own baba ghanoush. I need a licensed food kitchen. Check. I need to put the required nutritional information on there. Check. I need to put on there that it is non-GMO. Ok. Now how much does the certification cost me? If it costs very little, then great.. but if it costs a lot then this is going to favor bigger food businesses who can afford the non-GMO certification.

    I need to know more.
    Last edited by dannno; 09-25-2012 at 05:17 PM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  5. #4

    Default

    I don't know about prop 32. Like you I was going to vote no on it, first, because that is my default vote on propositions, second, because I understand it cherry picks to whom it applies and with the Kochs involved, that is quite possibly more than just targeting unions. As a general rule I don't think govt should handle this except through the appropriations process. No one with a govt contract above $X can lobby, that sort of thing. Otherwise there are 1st amendment concerns and I think we have to be really careful. Public unions I can see targeting because the taxpayers are paying for the manipulation of the taxpayers. Otherwise, the Kochs are corporatist and I don't like them writing legislation any more than I like our state legislators writing legislation.

    But I'm still not really sure on that one.
    Last edited by sailingaway; 09-25-2012 at 05:24 PM.
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear. -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  6. #5

    Default

    ^32
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    ^32
    yeah, I edited it.
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear. -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  8. #7

    Default

    Prop 32 is simple. It prevents unions and corporations from automatically deducting union dues from members' paychecks.

    I don't know of any corporations that do this so this is really just targeted at unions.

    If you don't believe public sector unions should automatically deduct union dues from their members, vote yes on Prop 32.

    This doesn't ban unions or corporations from getting involved in politics. This bans AUTOMATIC payroll deductions. If people want to voluntarily give to their unions, they still can.

    This seems like a no brainer to me to vote yes on Prop 32.

    Here are the top 10 contributions to No on 32:

    CA Teachers Assn $16,452,509
    SEIU $6,788,969
    CA Prof Firefighters $2,601,580
    AFSCME $1,634,725
    CA Labor Federation $1,372,431
    Peace Officers Assn $1,276,846
    CA School Employees Assn $1,050,000
    CA Faculty Assn $1,027,471
    CA Federal of Teachers $800,000
    Intl Assn of Firefighters $500,000

  9. #8

    Default

    bump
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #9
    Member KerriAnn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    411
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    Prop 32 is simple. It prevents unions and corporations from automatically deducting union dues from members' paychecks.

    I don't know of any corporations that do this so this is really just targeted at unions.

    If you don't believe public sector unions should automatically deduct union dues from their members, vote yes on Prop 32.

    This doesn't ban unions or corporations from getting involved in politics. This bans AUTOMATIC payroll deductions. If people want to voluntarily give to their unions, they still can.

    This seems like a no brainer to me to vote yes on Prop 32.
    My husband is a union worker, and he currently has his dues taken out of his paychecks. It wasn't always like that. I can remember when the dues weren't automatically deducted, and if he forgot to pay his stupid dues, he would have been in big trouble (contract!).

    I don't see how changing the process in which dues are collected would benefit the worker.

    Not trying to argue with you, just trying to see this clearly.

    EDIT: I am reading the bill, and I don't think it's about what you think it's about... Isn't it about Unions using thier members dues to contribute to politics?

    Here's an excerpt from the "no" camp:

    "Business Super PACs and independent expenditure committees are exempt from Prop. 32’s controls. These organizations work to elect or defeat candidates and ballot measures but aren’t subject to the same contribution restrictions and transparency requirements for campaigns themselves. A recent Supreme Court decision allows these groups to spend unlimited amounts of money. Prop. 32 does nothing to deal with that. If Prop. 32 passes, Super PACs, including committees backed by corporate special interests, will become the major way campaigns are funded. These groups have already spent more than $95,000,000 in California elections since 2004. Our televisions will be flooded with even more negative advertisements."
    Last edited by KerriAnn; 09-25-2012 at 10:34 PM.

  11. #10
    Member KerriAnn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    411
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    WOW! and just when i thought prop 37, the GMO labeling initiative, was a good thing, i read this:

    "Exempt from this requirement: made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves"

    That's bullshit!

  12. #11

    Default

    Prop 32 is about prohibiting unions or corporations from using automatic deductions for political purposes. Political purposes mean contributing directly to candidates, committees that help candidates, or independent expenditures for candidates.

    Prop 32 at its heart is whether or not automatic dues from union workers' paychecks should be used to fund political activities. Prop 32 is not about stopping unions or corporations from spending money on politics. They are and will still be free to do so.


    Edit: For example, currently a union employee has 5% of his paycheck automatically deducted and contributed to the union. The union then takes that money and buys an ad for a candidate.

    If Prop 32 passes, the employee will still have 5% of his paycheck deducted. However, the union cannot use that money to buy the same ad for the candidate. Any money the union wants to use for political purposes, it has to come voluntarily from its members.
    Last edited by tsai3904; 09-25-2012 at 11:21 PM.

  13. #12
    Member KerriAnn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    411
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    Prop 32 is about prohibiting unions or corporations from using automatic deductions for political purposes. Political purposes mean contributing directly to candidates, committees that help candidates, or independent expenditures for candidates.

    Prop 32 at its heart is whether or not automatic dues from union workers' paychecks should be used to fund political activities. Prop 32 is not about stopping unions or corporations from spending money on politics. They are and will still be free to do so.


    Edit: For example, currently a union employee has 5% of his paycheck automatically deducted and contributed to the union. The union then takes that money and buys an ad for a candidate.

    If Prop 32 passes, the employee will still have 5% of his paycheck deducted. However, the union cannot use that money to buy the same ad for the candidate. Any money the union wants to use for political purposes, it has to come voluntarily from its members.
    What about the exemptions? "Business Super PACs and independent expenditure committees are exempt from Prop. 32’s controls"...

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KerriAnn View Post
    What about the exemptions? "Business Super PACs and independent expenditure committees are exempt from Prop. 32’s controls"...
    Yea those are exempt. This really isn't a full blown campaign finance reform. It doesn't stop much spending by corporations or unions.

    It boils down to whether unions should be able to automatically deduct money from their members and use it for political purposes. The Pros and Cons will tell you its about special interest money and campaign finance but I think its because the Pros don't want to make this about unions since CA is heavily Democratic.

    Corporations and unions will still be able to use their money for political purposes. The difference is if Prop 32 passes, all the money will have come voluntarily.

    If unions want to make a $100 million ad for Governor Brown, they can do so whether or not Prop 32 passes. If Prop 32 passes, their union members will have to voluntarily give money for that purpose. If Prop 32 fails, unions will use money that is automatically taken out of their members' paycheck for that purpose.
    Last edited by tsai3904; 09-25-2012 at 11:41 PM.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    Yea those are exempt. This really isn't a full blown campaign finance reform. It doesn't stop much spending by corporations or unions.

    It boils down to whether unions should be able to automatically deduct money from their members and use it for political purposes. The Pros and Cons will tell you its about special interest money and campaign finance but I think its because the Pros don't want to make this about unions since CA is heavily Democratic.

    Corporations and unions will still be able to use their money for political purposes. The difference is if Prop 32 passes, all the money will have come voluntarily.
    then why are there exemptions?
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear. -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sailingaway View Post
    then why are there exemptions?
    Because the Supreme Court decided on Citizens United and it is the law of the land.

    This doesn't affect corporations or unions spending money. It affects the way they collect money. They either collect it voluntarily or through automatic deductions from paychecks.

  17. #16
    Member Keith and stuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Live Free or Die state
    Posts
    9,403
    Blog Entries
    67

    Default

    Prop 32 may be the only good ballot question in CA. Most of the ballot questions call for increasing the government. Though, most ballot questions are about increasing the government so that is expected
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  18. #17
    Member KerriAnn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    411
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith and stuff View Post
    Prop 32 may be the only good ballot question in CA. Most of the ballot questions call for increasing the government. Though, most ballot questions are about increasing the government so that is expected
    I would agree with you if not for the exemptions. I hate the unions, but I don't think making business Super PACS exempt from this bill is a good idea. We will end up with Super PACS taking over campaign funding completely. This will give an unfair advantage.

    Dammit, why can't anyone just write a clean bill, with no exemptions or pork stuffed into it? AAAHHHHHH!!!! Makes me wanna just vote no on everything.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KerriAnn View Post
    I would agree with you if not for the exemptions. I hate the unions, but I don't think making business Super PACS exempt from this bill is a good idea. We will end up with Super PACS taking over campaign funding completely. This will give an unfair advantage.
    Super PACs are exempt because of the Supreme Court's decision on Citizen's United. California law cannot override a Supreme Court decision.

    Also, voting yes on Prop 32 doesn't give anyone an unfair advantage.

    If Prop 32 passes, individuals, corporations, AND unions can still give to Super PACs.

    If Prop 32 fails, individuals, corporations, AND unions can still give to Super PACs.

    The above statements don't change because of the Supreme Court decision.

    The MAIN thing Prop 32 does is it says that if you want to give money to a Super PAC, you have to do it from funds that were voluntarily given. If Prop 32 passes, union members can still voluntarily give to their union, which the union can then give to a Super PAC.

  20. #19

    Default

    Prop 32 levels the playing field in this sense:

    Look at the Liberty for All Super PAC. How do they raise their funds? Someone voluntarily gave millions of dollars to the Liberty for All Super PAC.

    Look at the unions. Unions donate a lot of money to Super PACs too. How do they raise their funds? Unions automatically deduct money from members' paychecks and use it to donate to Super PACs.

    All Prop 32 is saying is that IF unions want to donate money to Super PACs, they have to do it from funds that are voluntarily given to the unions, which levels the playing field because that's how it is for everyone else.

  21. #20

    Default

    the way you described it it isn't a matter of being voluntary but automatically removed from their pay. I have stuff automatically removed for my own convenience in savings accounts and it is still 'voluntary'.

    I'll read the actual provision, but thanks for the background.

    PS: I'm not trying to give you a hard time; my natural fall back on propositions is 'no'. I have to be convinced to put one into place.
    Last edited by sailingaway; 09-26-2012 at 03:47 PM.
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear. -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  22. #21
    Member KerriAnn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    411
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    Prop 32 levels the playing field in this sense:

    Look at the Liberty for All Super PAC. How do they raise their funds? Someone voluntarily gave millions of dollars to the Liberty for All Super PAC.

    Look at the unions. Unions donate a lot of money to Super PACs too. How do they raise their funds? Unions automatically deduct money from members' paychecks and use it to donate to Super PACs.

    All Prop 32 is saying is that IF unions want to donate money to Super PACs, they have to do it from funds that are voluntarily given to the unions, which levels the playing field because that's how it is for everyone else.
    I am going to look into this more. Thank you for your explanation. I may end up voting for it after all.

    How do you feel about the GMO prop? Or the death penalty prop? Those are the two other props that i'm contemplating. I hate that they threw in the 100 million for the police into the death penalty prop... but i really hate the death penalty.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sailingaway View Post
    the way you described it it isn't a matter of being voluntary but automatically removed from their pay. I have stuff automatically removed for my own convenience in savings accounts and it is still 'voluntary'.
    What part are you referring to?

    Do you believe public sector unions should be able to automatically deduct money from their members' paycheck and use it for political purposes? Remember, most public sector union members have zero say in these automatic deductions. They are taken out by their union, not at the discretion of the union member.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KerriAnn View Post
    How do you feel about the GMO prop? Or the death penalty prop? Those are the two other props that i'm contemplating. I hate that they threw in the 100 million for the police into the death penalty prop... but i really hate the death penalty.
    I'll be voting yes on repealing the death penalty. That $100 million is not extra money. They would be transferring money from the General Fund into a new fund to investigate certain crimes. As someone said in the other death penalty thread, I would rather have the state government spend its money on investigating crimes than almost anything else they do with General Funds.

    As far as the GMO, I'm not really convinced either way. I can see both sides to the argument and I'm leaning more towards no.

    To me, Prop 32 is the most important issue because it will take away the significant influence the unions have on our politics. CA will have a huge pension problem in the future and if we can't limit the unions' influence, we're gonna have huge problems. Prop 32 isn't even about limiting union influence too but that's one of the benefits. It boils down to force and coercion. Many public sector jobs require you to join a union and as part of that requirement, you have to pay union dues. Those union dues are then used for political purposes. All Prop 32 would do is say that instead of forcing union members to pay for political ads, the unions must solicit donations and people must voluntarily contribute.

    Basically, the unions don't want to spend their time fundraising and convincing people to donate to them. They want to be able to automatically take money from their members' paycheck.
    Last edited by tsai3904; 09-26-2012 at 06:46 PM.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    Prop 32 is about prohibiting unions or corporations from using automatic deductions for political purposes. Political purposes mean contributing directly to candidates, committees that help candidates, or independent expenditures for candidates.

    Prop 32 at its heart is whether or not automatic dues from union workers' paychecks should be used to fund political activities. Prop 32 is not about stopping unions or corporations from spending money on politics. They are and will still be free to do so.


    Edit: For example, currently a union employee has 5% of his paycheck automatically deducted and contributed to the union. The union then takes that money and buys an ad for a candidate.

    If Prop 32 passes, the employee will still have 5% of his paycheck deducted. However, the union cannot use that money to buy the same ad for the candidate. Any money the union wants to use for political purposes, it has to come voluntarily from its members.
    Money's fungible, they'll just use the 5% they deduct to cover the expenses of the ad buying or whatever. Totally pointless, and makes me immediately think there's something else going on with the proposition.

    As usual, I'm voting no across the board.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Money's fungible, they'll just use the 5% they deduct to cover the expenses of the ad buying or whatever. Totally pointless, and makes me immediately think there's something else going on with the proposition.

    As usual, I'm voting no across the board.
    Of course money is fungible, but where does the union get their money...from payroll deductions. That's their main source of income. Lets just say a union collects $100 million a year. $80 million is from payroll deductions. If Prop 32 passes, that limits them to only $20 million in political spending when they were normally spending more than that. This leads to a decrease in political influence by unions.
    Last edited by tsai3904; 09-26-2012 at 06:53 PM.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    As usual, I'm voting no across the board.
    You want to keep the death penalty?

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    You want to keep the death penalty?
    No, I don't want additional funding being put towards policing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    No, I don't want additional funding being put towards policing.
    A transfer from general funds to investigations of homicides and rapes would prevent you from voting to repeal the death penalty?

    Edit: Yea, money is fungible...also, its a transfer of $100 million over four years.
    Last edited by tsai3904; 09-26-2012 at 06:57 PM.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KerriAnn View Post
    Prop 37: Mandatory labeling of GMOs

    http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/inde...ed_Food_(2012)

    Monsanto is the biggest "no" donor. Not surprised. I will vote yes, just because of that.

    And this is interesting-

    "Other opponents include:

    The California Republican Party."
    I'm definitely voting yes on Prop 37.
    "The bird or the cage?"-The Lutece Twins

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan

    "That every man may act... be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose"- Jesus Christ, Doctrine and Covenants 101:78-80

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    A transfer from general funds to investigations of homicides and rapes would prevent you from voting to repeal the death penalty?
    $100 million more to policing is enough poisoning of the well, yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •