California women interested in profiting from their eggs — often handsomely — have long availed themselves of private opportunities to do just that. Now, they could have another chance to do so on the medical research market. 

“Sponsored by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the leading body for the fertility industry, AB2531 would overturn a 2006 law barring researchers from paying women,” as BuzzFeed reported. “The bill is pitting some scientists who want to use the eggs for research against women’s health advocates, who say it would incentivize poor women to take unnecessary health risks.”

“Adding urgency to the issue, many scientists are eager for more eggs to study cloning, stem cells, and fertility in a state that invests more in biomedical research than any other.”

An acrimonious history

Golden Staters have experienced controversy around human egg sales before. Over a decade ago, the politics of bioresearch became a hot-button issue statewide. “The fight began in 2004, when California voters passed Proposition 71,” Undark recalled. “This initiative made stem cell research in the state a constitutional right, but state legislators — following ethical guidelines developed by the National Academy of Sciences with regard to eggs donated for stem cell research — incorporated restrictions on donor compensation.”

The limits were codified in Section 12355 of Chapter 2 of the California Health and Safety Code, which prohibits “payment in excess of the amount of reimbursement of direct expense incurred as a result of the procedure […] to any subject to encourage her to produce human oocytes for the purposes of medical research.”

Then, three years ago, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, leaving California one of just three states, in addition to Massachusetts and South Dakota, that prohibits compensation for eggs provided to medical researchers. 

“Not everything in life is for sale nor should it be,” Gov. Brown wrote in his veto statement. “This bill would legalize the payment of money in exchange for women submitting to invasive procedures to stimulate, extract and harvest her eggs for scientific research. In medical procedures of this kind, genuinely informed consent is difficult because the long term risks are not adequately known. Putting thousands of dollars on the table only compounds the problem,” he noted, invoking the kind of deep and extended philosophical reflection for which he has become a figure of some political fascination — and, at times, irritation — among fellow Democrats.

Scrambled battle lines

In the wake of Brown’s veto, an incensed Bonilla told the Huffington Post that women “should be very troubled that Gov. Brown doesn’t think they should be able to have a choice when it comes to their own eggs. There’s a deeper level in his veto statement that questions the ability of a woman to engage in informed consent and assess the risks for herself of this procedure. It’s regressive to women’s health, medical breakthroughs and the fertility issues that are so very important for a woman.”

The issue has remained sharply divisive. But it has also united traditionalist conservatives, hoping to stop fertility from complete commodification, with progressive liberals alarmed by in inequalities of power and privilege the bill could encourage. 

“Opposition to the measure includes Dorothy Roberts, a nationally recognized bioethicist who serves on the research standards group of the California stem cell agency. Also opposed is the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley,” according to the California Stem Cell Report. Executive Director Marcy Darnovsky, the site added, “noted that the proposed law conflicts with the standards of the California stem cell agency and recommendations of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences.” Meanwhile, Michael Hiltzlik suggested at the Los Angles Times, despite claims from the Bonilla wing of the Democratic Party, “it’s not about equity or discrimination. What worries the bill’s critics is that the measure may allow women to be misled into taking uninformed health risks by the prospect of easy cash.”

A perfect storm

Although the trend has reached statewide, unions recently suffered their most painful blow in an East Bay race that Republicans strategically withdrew from. “Centrist Democrat Steve Glazer’s victory over more doctrinaire Democrat Susan Bonilla in a special election for a state Senate seat in the East Bay is just the latest, and perhaps most profound, evidence that public-employee unions are losing their control over the California Legislature,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

In that race, Glazer, a career Democrat and former adviser to Gov. Jerry Brown, drew vehement opposition from organized labor for his support of pension reform and his tough stance against striking workers at Bay Area Rapid Transit. As the pro-union left sided with Bonilla, Glazer scooped up more business-friendly Democrats — along with Republican voters, thanks to California’s open primary system. “The union issue was front and center in both races and voters in Democratic and Republican districts rejected union priorities,” concluded U-T San Diego’s Steven Greenhut.

A Republican pivot

Although, by ordinary measures, the outcome was an embarrassment for the GOP, Republicans were quick to declare a certain kind of victory. As Joel Pollack observed at Breitbart news, “Republican strategist Richard Temple told the Contra Costa Times that Glazer’s win was a ‘repudiation of union politics.’ For Tony Quinn of the Fox & Hounds blog, the race was also a revolt against political insiders, their endorsements and their junk mail. ‘This result shows there’s room for independent Democrats who don’t have to cower to labor,’ he adds.”

The rhetoric underscored how influential Republicans have found an opportunity to continue the party’s pivot away from immigration and social issues, which are often seen as playing especially poorly in the deep blue state. Even where unions appeared to be advancing, such as the fight over raising the minimum wage, opportunities have arisen for the state GOP to let its foes shoot themselves in the foot. In the latest instance, for example, “labor leaders, who were among the strongest supporters of the citywide minimum wage increase approved last week by the Los Angeles City Council, are advocating last-minute changes to the law that could create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

Leadership questions

With Republicans looking to exploit the Democrat divide over labor issues, leading Democrats in Sacramento faced a sharp choice over how to respond. Party leaders’ frustration with Glazer has been clear. But they have not signaled how cold of a shoulder he will receive in the state Senate.

Some analysts have seen evidence that Democrats will seek to shore up their pro-business support by making Glazer welcome. As Dan Walters noted at the Sacramento Bee, “Marin County’s Marc Levine and Santa Monica’s Richard Bloom, two other Democrats who defeated union-backed Assembly incumbents in 2012 with business support (and Glazer’s indirect help), were not punished in that house.”

“Their wins hinted that when Democrats duel Democrats in relatively affluent, sophisticated areas, union support doesn’t guarantee victory, and business can engage effectively. Glazer proved it, and that’s the true import of his victory, given the perpetual war between business and liberal groups, including unions, over so-called ‘job killer’ bills and other legislation.”

In the wake of a tight first-round vote, Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord — the runner up to Orinda Mayor Steve Glazer — snagged the endorsement of the California Democratic Party in her bid to replace state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, freshly elected to Congress.

Formalizing its support even further, the Party has now cut Bonilla a sizable check to help defeat Glazer, as the Sacramento Bee reported:

“The California Democratic Party has contributed more than $73,000 to Bonilla’s campaign, state filings through Thursday show. It is the first time the party has spent significant money in an open race featuring two Democrats.”

A rare battle

The state Republican Party did its best to bow out of the race in the 7th Senate District, which former state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier has vacated upon his election to Congress. Although she dropped out of the race, Republican Michaela Hertle’s name remained on the first-round ballot. As a result, Hertle earned just 17 percent of the initial vote.

The absence of a viable Republican candidate helped create near-perfect conditions for a divisive struggle that could pit Democrats’ left wing against its center. Glazer, a business-friendly Democrat who recently served as one of Gov. Jerry Brown’s key advisors, took the lion’s share of the vote, but not enough to prevent a runoff election. “Glazer topped two fellow Democrats with 32 percent of the vote. He was followed by Bonilla of Concord with 24 percent and former Assemblyman Joan Buchanan of Alamo with 22 percent,” the San Francisco Chronicle recounted.

Big consequences

Typically, close runoff races have provoked bitter campaigns between rivals. This time around, the battle between Bonilla and Glazer has taken on an extra edge because of its potential impact on Democrats’ policy agenda in Sacramento.

Voters have been hit with an avalanche of mailers castigating one candidate or the other, often with so little context that local papers, such as the Contra Costa Times, have had to provide fact-checking breakdowns of which allegations hold the most water.

As the San Jose Mercury News pointed out, no matter how much the contending interests behind the candidates amp up outrage around the big issues dominating statewide politics, voters may well choose between Bonilla and Glazer based on their opposing positions on a more local issue: labor strikes affecting the Bay Area Rapid Transit metro system. Glazer, according to the Mercury News, has come out in favor of banning the strikes, while Bonilla would head them off by doubling down on negotiations.

But the bare-knuckle conflict has left no doubt that major fissures within the California Democratic Party are in danger of widening. “Bonilla sees high-speed rail as a necessary alternative to congested highways; Glazer sees it as a high-minded concept with no feasible funding plan,” the Mercury News noted. “Bonilla thinks voters should decide whether to extend Proposition 30 sales and income tax hikes; Glazer thinks they should sunset as originally intended.”

While unions and activists have shelled out seven figures to praise Bonilla and sink Glazer, Bee columnist Dan Walters has noted, corporate groups and private supporters have done the reverse — both struggling to tip the balance of power within the Democrat-controlled state Senate.

“Only 19 or 20 Democratic senators, just short of a majority, are reliable votes for the most contentious business-related bills, such as those on the CalChamber’s target list. The May 19 election could tip the balance either way. A Bonilla win would enhance the bills’ chances in the Senate, while a Glazer victory would make their passage even more difficult.”

With 100 percent of precincts “partially reporting,” according to the California Secretary of State, here are the results:

Senate District 7:

• Orlinda Mayor Steve Glazer (pictured on the left), 32.8 percent.
• Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, 24.9 percent.
• Former Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, 22.6 percent.
• All are Democrats. Glazer and Bonilla will face off in a May 19 runoff election. Rounding out the field were Michaela M. Hertle, a Republican, 17 percent; and Terry Kremin, a Democrat, 2.8 percent.

Senate District 37:

• John Moorlach (pictured above on the right), a former Orange County Supervisor, 51.4 percent.
• Assemblyman Don Wagner, 45.1 percent.
• Naz Namazi, 3.5 percent.
• All are Republicans. Because Moorlach got a majority, there will be no runoff — pending any unlikely changes in the vote tallies.

Senate District 21:

• Former state Sen. Sharon Runner, a Republican, ran unopposed. As CalWatchdog.com reported in January, Runner declining to seek reelection in 2012 due to a life-threatening autoimmune disease. After a double lung transplant, she was proclaimed a “walking miracle” and now has successfully reclaimed her Senate seat.

Glazer

Glazer, as CalWatchdog.com reported yesterday, is a major ally of Gov. Jerry Brown, having been the top political strategist for Brown’s 2010 gubernatorial bid and Proposition 30, Brown’s $7 billion tax-increase initiative in 2012.

The state’s public-employee unions fear Glazer would bring Brown’s pension-reform penchant to the Senate. But union support was split, as the California Federation of Teachers backed Buchanan, while the Democratic Party organization mainly backed Bonilla.

For the May 19 runoff, it is likely that union forces will join and back Bonilla against Glazer.

This looks to be a close-fought race over the next two months. Hertle, the Republican, had urged her supporters to back Glazer, yet she still got 17 percent. Add that to Glazer’s 32.8 percent, an the total is 49.8 percent, tantalizingly close to a majority.

Then add together Bonilla’s 24.9 percent and Buchanan’s 22.6, and the total is 47.5 percent, also close to a majority.

Of course, the actual tally will be affected by many other factors, including voter turnout, different sets of voters in May than March, Republican reaction to not having one of their own on the ballot and the conduct of the actual Glazer and Bonilla campaigns.

With the Republican Party still struggling in California, it is races like this that show how democracy is bifurcating the Democratic Party to give voters a choice on state policies.

The election in Senate District 7 continues to shape up as a significant one for the future of the Democratic Party, the state Senate and California.

Moorlach

Moorlach is best known for warning in 1994 about Orange County’s impending bankruptcy as he ran for county treasurer-tax collector against incumbent Democrat Bob Citron. Moorlach pointed to risky investments of county funds, but was not heeded.

Shortly after Citron won the election that November, the county’s finances collapsed, Citron resigned and the county Board of Supervisors appointed Moorlach in his place. Citron later pleaded guilty to six felony counts of financial fraud, although not for personal financial gain.

In the year’s campaign, Wagner pulled in three times the campaign cash as Moorlach, according to the Orange County Register. Several flyers sent to voters by Wagner painted Moorlach as a greedy supervisor who goosed his own county pension. The website TheRealMoorlachRecord.com — labeled at the bottom, “Paid for by: Don Wagner for Senate 2015” — attacked him for similar themes as the flyer: “Career politician John Moorlach doesn’t like it when you talk about his record. He’d rather voters focus on what he says, not what he does.”

It attacked Moorlach for “rasing fees,” which Moorlach pointed out where for county services, such as parks, for which the tab otherwise would have been picked up by taxpayers.

The Wagner attacks didn’t stick. When he ran for supervisor in 2006, Moorlach was attacked for the opposite reason by local public-employee unions: for seeking to reduce their pensions. He was opposed by union-backed Stanton Councilman David Shawver, but easily won the election.

On the Board of Supervisors for eight years, Moorlach was known for warning of the dangers of excessive spending, especially for pensions.

Republicans, of course, are in the minority in the Senate. But Moorlach’s fiscal expertise still will be valuable as pensions become even more important in the coming years.

It’s too early to tell in two special elections for the California Senate. CalWatchdog.com will have more extensive coverage tomorrow. But here are the early returns:

For state Senator for the 37th District, according to the Orange County Registrar of Voters, John Moorlach leads with 49.7 percent and Don Wagner with 44.8 percent; both are Republicans. Two other candidates split the rest.

For state Senator for the 7th District, according to the California Secretary of State, Steve Glazer leads with 30.5 percent, followed by a near tie between Susan Bonilla at 24.6 percent and Joan Buchanan at 22.8 percent; all three are Democrats. Two others candidates split the rest.

In both races, if no candidate gets 50-percent-plus one votes, a runoff will be held May 19.

Looks like it will be a long night for the candidates and their supporters.

In the third state Senate election, for the 21st District, Republican Sharon Runner is unopposed.

That’s what the winners are going to need in today’s St. Patrick’s Day election for California state Senate District 7.

Long-brewing tensions among Democrats have come to a head in a bitterly fought race. The candidates seek to replace Steve DeSaulnier, who resigned after his election last November to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Five candidates are running in this primary election. Unless one candidate gets 50 percent plus one votes — almost impossible in this race — the top two will face off in a May 19 runoff.

The Democratic Party has helped corral most unions behind Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord. Former Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo, has secured the support of the California Teachers Association.

But with neither woman willing to drop out, Orinda Mayor Steve Glazer well could wind up with enough support to make it into the top two. Glazer’s extensive resume in Democratic politics has been eclipsed by his recent willingness to support reform in areas fiercely guarded by organized labor, including pension and education issues.

A fourth Democrat, Terry Kremin, is on the ballot but is expected to get few votes.

Adding to the strangeness, every Republican candidate who entered the race later dropped out, except one. Michaela Hertle, a business woman, remained on the ballot — then endorsed Glazer.

That created an opportunity for rival Democrats to attack him as a virtual DINO — a Democrat in Name Only — despite his rock-solid credentials as a career party strategist.

As a result, Republican fortunes in District 7 have been reduced to possibly becoming a kingmaker — or unmaker — for Glazer. And Democrats have been forced into an embarrassing conflict over wedge issues that won’t go away anytime soon.

High stakes

The contest has quickly been cast as part of a decisive battle between labor and business interests for influence over California Democrats. Glazer has become a lightning rod for that controversy in recent years.

In a boon to all Democrats, Glazer was the top political strategist for Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2010 gubernatorial bid and Proposition 30, Brown’s $7 billion tax-increase initiative in 2012.

But then, as Ben Adler at Capital Public Radio noted, Glazer “helped elect business-friendly Democrats on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and called for a ban on public transit worker strikes. So unions spent big to defeat him in an Assembly race last year.”

That race resulted in a Republican win, despite an 8-point lead in registrations among Democrats. Glazer came in third in the June primary. In the November runoff, Republican Catharine Baker became the first Bay Area Republican in the state Senate in two decades, defeating Democrat Tim Sbranti, 52 percent to 48 percent.

Stuffed with ambitious, rising Democrats, California labor interests haven’t always been able to consolidate their support for a single candidate. In District 7, that potential problem has come into sharp focus.

Dirty politics

With so much perceived to be on the line, some Democrats haven’t hesitated to push the envelope in defeating Glazer, who inevitably will attract the support of a significant number of Republican voters.

In one recent move, a Democrat-led political action committee appeared to campaign disingenuously for Hertle in order to draw votes away from Glazer. “The Asian American Small Business PAC has reported spending $46,380 on research, polling and mailing on behalf of Michaela Hertle,” according to Political blotter.

Glazer retorted on Monday, “It’s gutter politics. There’s no Asian American in the race, and the Republican has withdrawn and endorsed me. It’s clearly an attempt to confuse the voters and smear me.”

Then the PAC printed and distributed pro-Hertle flyers bearing the distinctive Republican elephant symbol — an unauthorized use of a trademarked image. That led to a trademark infringement lawsuit from the California GOP.

In a statement, the CAGOP noted its cease-and-desist warning flagrantly was ignored by the PAC, leaving Republicans little choice but to seek injunctive relief in court:

“Deceptive ads like these mislead voters and misinform them about the positions and endorsements of the California Republican Party,” said California Republican Party Chairman Senator Jim Brulte (Ret.). “It’s egregious on the part of a Democratic Political Action Committee to intentionally deceive Californians with its use of well-known Republican images.”

This is part of a general theme on which CalWatchdog.com has been reporting. With the California GOP in such a weak condition, and only starting to pick up a little steam, it was inevitable fractures would develop in the majority Democratic Party.

Throw in a close ally of Brown, a popular governor with a history of opposing too much spending and being unpredictable, and the 7th District’s three-way race might just portend the future of California electoral politics.

Between now and then, the California GOP may be able to use focus groups and internal polls to test certain themes, issues and talking points. Nevertheless, elections have a special value in helping parties refine their message and build momentum.

And until 2016, the most important election in the state for Republicans may well be the special election to replace Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, in the state Senate. Gov. Jerry Brown will set a date for the election soon after DeSaulnier officially resigns from his current office.

Musical chairs

On Election Day, Nov. 4, DeSaulnier prevailed in his effort to replace retiring Rep. George Miller in the 11th Congressional District. After his victory, DeSaulnier took pains to point out that “civic illiteracy and complacency” had nonetheless gotten him down — in other words, low turnout.

Although depressed voting numbers didn’t hurt DeSaulnier, he understood as well as any California Democrat that Republicans in the state often benefit from the phenomenon. Sure enough, in the race to replace him, Republicans may be competitive for that reason as well as others.

That’s why Mark Meuser — a Republican attorney from Walnut Creek and no stranger to DeSaulnier — has jumped into the race, announcing recently he hopes to prevail in the special election for the soon-to-be-vacant 7th state Senate District seat, which encompasses most of Contra Costa and Alameda counties.

As the Antioch Herald reported, Meuser’s campaign will likely focus around economic themes — not just jobs in the abstract, but the dynamism of small business and innovation. “The spirit of entrepreneurs in California is as strong today as it was during the gold rush,” Meuser announced on his campaign site. “It needs an advocate in Sacramento, and Meuser wants to be that advocate. Ensuring that our communities stay strong — and grow stronger — requires a long-term vision for future generations, and Meuser has that vision.”

Meuser is best known as the Republican who ran for that same seat in 2012, losing to DeSaulnier. Then, Meuser won 38.5 percent of the vote, with DeSaulnier getting 61.5 percent. This time around, expectations have changed — in part because more than one Democrat also is angling for the seat, and there will be no incumbent.

Healthy competition

As the Contra Costa Times reported, two well known and influential Bay Area Democrats are expected to throw their hats in the ring: re-elected Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, and term-limited Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo. With the state Capitol teeming with Democrats drawn from the well-to-do power corridor between Sacramento and San Francisco, there are more ambitious politicians than there are elective offices for them to fill.

Bonilla and Buchanan are both credible candidates sure to appeal to voting Democrats. It is less clear, however, whether either has the ability to turn out Democrats in large enough numbers to deal another loss to Meuser — particularly if they have to campaign against one another, and not just Meuser. According to California law, if no candidate gets 50 percent-plus-one of the vote, a runoff election then is held.

As the Antioch Herald also reported, both Democrats will be influenced in their decision-making by California’s particular rules restricting length of terms in office. Whether serving in the Assembly or state Senate, legislators are capped at a total of 12 years in both houses, according to Proposition 28, which voters approved in 2012. But it only applies to those elected to office after its passage.

Yet “because Bonilla was elected before June 5, 2012, she is restricted by the previous term limits, approved in 1990, which limited legislators to three terms in the State Assembly and two terms in the State Senate. Since the election will be past the half-way point in DeSaulnier’s term, if elected, she will serve less than two years, allowing her two more full terms for a total of close to 10 years. The same would apply to Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan.”

Looking forward

The 7th is not the only state Senate District soon to be up for grabs as a result of a special election. Similar circumstances have also created upcoming vacancies in the 21st District and the 37th District, where Republican state Sens. Steve Knight and Mimi Walters, respectively, were elected to the U.S. Congress. No date for an election has been set. But these are seats in heavily Republican districts, so the makeup of the Senate won’t change.

And on Dec. 9, an election will be held to replace Democratic state Sen. Rod Wright in Senate District 35. He resigned after being convicted in a corruption scandal. If necessary, a Feb. 10, 2015 runoff will be held. According to Ballotpedia, “Louis L. Dominguez (D), Isadore Hall, III (D), Hector Serrano (D) and James Spencer (R) will face off.” As Wright got 76.5 percent of the vote to 23.5 percent for Republican Charlotte A. Svolos in the 2012 election, one of the Democrats is almost assured of victory, meaning this race also won’t change the party makeup of the Senate.

Given the familiar faces and competing ambitions at work in the presumptive 7th District race, however, Republicans may likely be tempted to use Meuser’s and the other two campaigns to road-test strategies that could pay dividends in 2016. If races can be targeted where Democrats compete, turnout is low, and seasoned Republican candidates can deliver a well-tailored message, the California GOP could see a better return on its investments. However, with 2016 being a presidential election year, turnout likely will be high, which would benefit Democrats.

Ultimately, the success of such an approach could hinge on whether the Nov. 4 elections did not quite capture the full extent of voter frustration with Democrats; and on how President Obama’s recent amnesty plays out among all groups of voters.

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.