Prop. 32 could end union stranglehold on government

Oct. 16, 2012

By Dave Roberts

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

— Thomas Jefferson

Propositions come and propositions go, with many amounting to little more than bumps on California’s road to oblivion. But Proposition 32 has the potential to fundamentally transform California, ending the union stranglehold on state government that has led to perennial multi-billion-dollar deficits and the worst business climate in the country.

“After the presidential election, the most consequential political contest in America this year is that over Proposition 32,” declares John Fund in the current issue of National Review. He equates it with Proposition 13, the 1978 tax limitation initiative, in its seismic potential to remake the political landscape.

Prop. 32 bans unions and corporations from using paycheck withholding to fund political activities. Because very few corporations automatically take from employees’ pay to fund political candidates and proposition campaigns, but nearly every union does so with its members’ paychecks, the proposition is actually targeted at unions.

It could have an enormous impact. The top contributor to California politics in the last decade has been the California Teachers Association, with $118 million, according to California Watch. California government employee unions have poured $285 million into state political campaigns from 2001-11.

Unions have pledged $45 million to fight Prop. 32. So far $19 million has come from CTA, $6.7 million from the Service Employees International Union, $2.6 million from California Professional Firefighters, $2.1 million from the AFL-CIO, $1.7 million from the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, $1.5 million from the California School Employees Association, $1.5 million from the Peace Officers Research Association, and $1 million from the California Faculty Association.

That flood of union political spending would likely dry up to a trickle if Prop. 32 passes. Instead of automatic deductions, union members would be forced to write out checks if they wanted to support their union’s political activities. Nearly 95 percent of Utah public school teachers opted not to contribute when it became optional to do so in 2001, according to Fund. More than half of Wisconsin state employees dropped out of AFSCME when the automatic deduction of union dues was terminated last year.

Democrats

The only people who may be more terrified by the passage of Prop. 32 than union officials are Democratic politicians, who are the prime beneficiaries of the millions of dollars sucked out of union members’ paychecks every year.

That may be why Democrats acted as prosecutors, judges, jury members and would-be executioners at a recent informational hearing of the joint Assembly/Senate Budget Committee on Prop. 32. For more than an hour — like a multi-headed Joe Biden on steroids — they grilled, ridiculed and condescendingly lectured Prop. 32 proponents John Kabateck, the California executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business, and David Wolfe of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Oakland Assemblyman Sandré Swanson’s over-the-top rhetoric was typical.

“There’s nothing less than the viability of our democracy in California that’s at stake for the voices of the people to be heard,” he said. “This measure raises serious questions about whether or not the people of the state of California through their organizations and representatives will be able to clearly communicate their positions. I think this is pretty fundamental to our democracy.”

Sen. Lieu

Senator Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, was another attack dog.

“It’s sort of weird to say that Howard Jarvis and the National Federation of Independent Business are now gung-ho union and ‘We are protecting union members,’” said Lieu derisively. “It just smells deceptive. And this whole Proposition 32 is deceptive because of the way it’s being sold. It’s not reform. What it is is taking one thing that unions happen to do, which is payroll deductions, that small businesses don’t, and it’s eliminating it. Unions now no longer have that payroll deduction, so you have just knocked them off at the knees. But billionaires and corporations can keep doing what they are doing.

“So that’s a problem with this proposition to me. It’s not reform, it’s simply a straight power grab. Now you can do that. Just be honest to the voters that that’s what you’re doing — you’re trying to simply shift power to billionaires and corporations — and then we have a debate on it. But this is not campaign finance reform. This is a naked power grab to share power to other entities. And to me it is enormously deceptive. I just don’t really think you should pitch it any other way. Because I think the voters in California are smarter than you think they are.”

Lieu was responding to Kabateck’s argument that, while unions and corporations have dominated state politics, small businesses and average residents have been forgotten.

“During these very troubled economic times I’m hearing the same two things from up and down the state from not only mom-and-pop small business owners but from many other struggling Californians,” said Kabateck. “First of all, they’re very uncertain. Frankly, they’re scared about what tomorrow will bring them, their small business, their employees and their families. Secondly, they are outright frustrated with a government that continues to be in gridlock, and government leaders many of whom just simply aren’t listening to them and instead are choosing to place special interests above theirs.

“But the one silver lining here is that in recent years we are finally witnessing the people of California awakening to political reform, saying enough is enough. And actually taking decisive action to put the power back into the hands of the individual voter and actually hold the elected officials more accountable to the people they are responsible for representing and serving. I think this is best evidenced through recent efforts, certainly voter decisions, to pass historic redistricting reform and voters’ decision to pass an open primary system.

“Proposition 32 is the third leg of important political reform to give the voters more control of their political destiny and make sure that politicians are earning their vote from the people they are expected and elected to serve. It actually ensures the democratization of all Californians by restoring the power to the individual. If you have a heartbeat and you can go into a ballot box to vote, then you, not a corporation or special interest, ought to be the one determining the fate of those serving your district or community. If you’re making that hard-earned dollar in your union, your company or association, then you, not your boss or board of directors, should have a say as to if and, frankly, where that dollar should go politically if at all. I think that’s what our democracy is all about after all.”

Opting out

Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, countered that the status quo is not undemocratic because union members have the option of opting out by requesting that the political portion of their dues not be deducted from their paycheck.

“Well then, why not just make it an opt in?” asked Kabatek.

Bonilla responded, “Well, we have gone through that for the last 45 minutes. Because the process would be unfair in terms of this application.”

She didn’t elaborate, but was presumably referring to the fact that union spending for political campaigns would drop precipitously as a result, but not for most corporations or wealthy contributors. Several Democrats decried the $4 million to support Prop 32 being spent by American Future Fund, which they suspect is associated with the conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch. The Koch brothers are featured in an anti-Prop. 32 ad receiving regular airplay.

Bonilla’s response indicates she is more concerned about union officials keeping the dollars flowing than she is concerned about helping union members who may not want their dollars spent for political purposes, but may not know they have the option to opt out or may be unwilling to stick their necks out to do so.

Wolfe said that his mother, a conservative, was a member of the California Nurses Association for 20 years.

To know that she would have had to go essentially to her union rep and ask to be opted out of giving money for political purposes was not something she was comfortable doing,” he said. “She was concerned about the intimidation factor of going against her union. Yet she did it anyway. CNA still has a PAC. They can still spend money out of that PAC for political purposes. Nothing in Proposition 32 prohibits that in any way at all. And if individual nurses and teachers believe in the principles the union or the corporation is fighting for, they can give money for political purposes. So it’s not like unions and corporations won’t be able to spend money at all for political purposes if Prop. 32 passes. It just empowers the individual.

“I bring the perspective of our 200,000 taxpayers from across the state of California. Unlike corporations and unions, we don’t have the ability to use withholding to directly draw from our members’ paychecks. All contributions to our PAC are totally voluntary. As a consequence, we raised about .0001 percent of the money received by special interests. The playing field is not level and the taxpayers are suffering as a result.”

Two previous propositions seeking to provide paycheck protection — Proposition 226 in 1998 and Proposition 75 in 2005 — both failed 53-47 percent. Prop 32 also might be fated to lose by a six-point margin if a Sept. 21 Field poll is any indication. It was losing 44-38 in that poll, with 18 percent undecided.

22 comments

Write a comment
  1. surfpunk
    surfpunk 16 October, 2012, 07:13

    The goverment class is destroying the middle class.I do not have the money to donate to HJ to fight for this , getting harder each year to cover all the taxes now. I think 30 and 38 are going down which will force some change.Prop. 32 is the only way to stop the total destruction of the middle class.Move inland and pay taxes for crappy schools,or move out of state and pay less taxes.YES on 32 SAVE CALIFONIA !

    Reply this comment
  2. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 16 October, 2012, 08:00

    Proposition 32 is an insidious and devious proposition. This Special Exemptions Act is designed to serve millionaires and billionaires while silencing working people. That is why proposition 32 is backed by wealthy Republicans such as Charles Munger Jr. and former Univision CEO A. Jerrold Perenchio, as well as the American Future Fund, which makes independent expenditures on behalf of conservative causes and candidates. Surely they understand that corporations, unlike unions, rely on their treasuries rather than payroll deductions to make political contributions in California, and that they do so without asking permission of shareholders, employees or customers.Proposition 32 exempts the same corporate special interests that are funding the campaign: Big oil companies, insurance company executives, hedge fund managers, Wall Street bankers, big developers and Super PACs!!!!!!!!!!!!! VOTE NO ON 32

    Reply this comment
  3. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 16 October, 2012, 08:10

    Well said— it exempts llc’s, big oil, insurance companies and hedge funds—-What a travesty.

    Reply this comment
  4. us citizen
    us citizen 16 October, 2012, 08:31

    Yes on 32………its a start. Unions taking money out of its workers pockets to use for getting election results for the way they want them, is extortion

    Reply this comment
  5. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 16 October, 2012, 08:38

    us cit— it’s not ” a start”– it’s a bad start. If you like Citizens United”– You will love prop 32!

    Reply this comment
  6. surfpunk
    surfpunk 16 October, 2012, 09:35

    Socialism does not work, you ran out of my $!

    Reply this comment
  7. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 16 October, 2012, 10:25

    If you like Citizens United”– You will love prop 32!
    ==

    Actually prop 32 STOPS the abuses of cit United. Teddy, stop your arm chair legal analysis, you keep embarrassing yourself.

    Reply this comment
  8. Barb
    Barb 16 October, 2012, 10:41

    Vote yes on 32!

    Reply this comment
  9. Hondo
    Hondo 16 October, 2012, 11:21

    Prop 32 may not even be necesary. There is no more money left to steal. If 30 and 38 go down a crisis ensues. We will be told my Jerry Clown and the unions we must shut down all services to pay the service workers. We must shut down the schools to pay the teachers, we must empty and close the prisons to pay the prison guards, we must close all the police stations so we can afford to pay the police pensions. Richard Trumka has already said he is ‘weaponizing the public unions’. The ensuing crisis I don’t look forward too.
    Hondo………

    Reply this comment
  10. Queeg
    Queeg 16 October, 2012, 13:20

    Hondo

    No panic…it will all work out! Cheer up!

    Reply this comment
  11. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 16 October, 2012, 14:31

    LOL Poody– THE same Lincoln Club folks who were behind the Cit United suit wrote prop 32! Wake up little buddy. Why do you think they exempted LLC’s, big oil, and insurance super pacs??????????????

    Poodle is a classic example of the sleepy, fat American voter!

    and
    he
    is
    still
    0 for 13 ™ !

    Reply this comment
  12. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 16 October, 2012, 14:32

    Cheer up Hondo!

    Reply this comment
  13. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 16 October, 2012, 14:51

    Teddy, am I in your mind 24/7??? Do I live in your tiny head all day long 😉

    Reply this comment
  14. Queeg
    Queeg 16 October, 2012, 17:36

    Be happy…CWD posters need some good news! Teddy is always chipper and cordial…a true gentleman.

    Reply this comment
  15. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 16 October, 2012, 17:41

    Thanx Queegster!! I try to treat all with courtesy!!!

    Reply this comment
  16. lee
    lee 16 October, 2012, 23:53

    Can you back Citizens United (opposed by most liberals and the union types) AND vote for prop 32? I don’t think you can.

    Some aspects of campaign contribution is a form of protected speech. Why should the government interfere with anyone who wishes to contribute to a politicians, even for a rotten reason?

    Of course, it’s hilarious that the same leftists who insist the citizens united ruling will lead to a corporate takeover of America are not rushing to defeat prop 32, which will theb allow corporations to do exactly what they apparently fear.

    Reply this comment
  17. Queeg
    Queeg 17 October, 2012, 09:30

    Prop 32 is DOA!

    Free speech is tedious at times…..CWD has it’s share of tedious, but where in the whole wide world could you collect such a misinformed/daff group of posters concerning the human condition.

    Reply this comment
  18. Ted Steele, The Decider
    Ted Steele, The Decider 17 October, 2012, 10:34

    Of course I can back it— like every other thing I say out here lads.

    The crony Lincoln Club was behind cit united and prop 32—I thought EVERYone knew that?? Helloooooooo McFly!

    http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/gop-backers-citizens-united-now-seek-ban-special-interest-money-15274

    Reply this comment
  19. Moravecglobal
    Moravecglobal 21 October, 2012, 13:17

    No on 32, 30, 38. Best Hope to Fix Calif. Education.
    “All y0u have to do is spend more (Prop 30, 38) on education” should be ignored as Prop 30, 38 do not serve our state’s children. Additional money (Prop 30, 38) is not the magic elixir. We are kidding ourselves by believing that education funding shortfalls disappear with Prop 30, Prop 38.
    Prop 30, Prop 38 levy significant taxes on each one of us. The wounds that Prop 30, 38 are to heal have been self inflicted largely by our elected Sacramento politicians who simply do not say no to any influential interest group be they teachers, University of California (29% increase in salaries last 6 years), public employees, business, or other unions or lobbyists.
    As election day approaches Prop 30, 38 are used by Sacramento politicians and lobbyists to blackmail us.
    Vote No on Prop 30, 38, 32. Save Calfornia education for our school and university children.

    Reply this comment
  20. David
    David 21 October, 2012, 16:45

    This union-dues skimming for politics is horrible and needs to end, both as a matter of members’ rights and for the good of the state. Good article!

    Reply this comment
  21. Michelle
    Michelle 30 October, 2012, 18:20

    I work for the University of California. I am forced to be in this horrible, low-life union, the Teamsters, who do NOTHING for its members. They take money out of our paychecks every month, even if we do not want to be in this union. I urge everyone to vote YES on 32. I’m a Democrat and I am voting YES on this. I do not want to pay for this union’s political activities, and I should have the right to say that I don’t want my forced paycheck deductions to be used for political purposes.

    Reply this comment
  22. Goddess
    Goddess 4 November, 2012, 14:42

    Michelle say good bye to your sick days ,vacation days, health insurance, personal days, and hello to your fired for no reason.. Wow your a joke……

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*



Related Articles

I would be a lousy politician

JULY 9, 2010 There seem to be two types of people today – those who are political junkies and those

Faulconer election won’t stop ‘Los Angelization’ of San Diego politics

On Tuesday, San Diego voters will decide between two City Council members in a special election to fill the remaining

FPPC investigates ‘No on 17’

JUNE 14, 2010 By LAURA SUCHESKI Proposition 17 may have been defeated at the polls, but that doesn’t mean the