Town Square

Post a New Topic

Vote Yes on Proposition 32

Original post made by Hank Lawrence, Menlo Park: Sharon Heights, on Aug 23, 2012

"The measure (Proposition 32) would change campaign finance rules by banning corporations and unions from contributing to candidates. It also would ban spending for "political purposes" any money received from payroll deductions."

According to the Legislative Analyst's office:

"A Yes vote on this measure means: Unions and corporations could not use money deducted from an employee's paycheck for political purposes. Unions, corporations, and government contractors would be subject to additional campaign finance restrictions."

Don Perata, the President pro tempore of the California State Senate from 2004 to 2008 said that the Union(s) are "the co-equal fourth branch of government."

It is ingrained in the California Democratic Party to give Unions a prominent seat at the legislative table and let the public be damned.

According to the Los Angeles Times:

"CTA (California Teacher's Association) is one of the biggest political spenders in California. It outpaced all other special interests, including corporate players such as telecommunications giant AT&T and the Chevron oil company, from 2000 through 2009, according to a state study. In that decade, the labor group shelled out more than $211 million in political contributions and lobbying expenses — roughly twice that of the next largest spender, the Service Employees International Union.

Since then it has spent nearly $40 million more, including $4.7 million to help Brown become governor, according to the union's filings with the secretary of state."

Web Link

Now the "Non-Partisan" League of Women Voters objects to Proposition 32 because it has a more adverse impact on the Unions. It does! Prop 32 does hurts the Unions more because they give more than companies and thus have more influence.

The League of Women Voters also complains that since companies don't engage in legalized theft (payroll deductions for political purposes) from their employees and the Unions do the it is somehow unfair to the Unions. The League of Women Voters is upset because Unions have an unfair advantage of the payroll deduction and it does not want the Unions to lose that unfair advantage. I like their logic.

As most people are aware the League of Women Voters is an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party. Its membership is heavily skewed towards women who are registered Democrats. It makes the specious claim that it is non-partisan because it does not endorse candidates. However, if you look at the measures they support they are almost always liberal causes supported by Democrats.

Comments (8)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Irene Lopez
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 23, 2012 at 11:32 am

Hank Lawrence's opinion "As most people are aware the League of Women Voters is an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party."

Hank believes not only that, but the LWV is full of gosh durn WIMIN!!! Things ain't been the same since wimin got the right to vote. All downhill from there! Right, Hank? Keep 'em in the kitchen? Women shouldn't be able to control things, especially their healthcare and the right to make decisions about their own body.

Prop 32 is designed with loopholes for corporations and superpacs so big you can drive a truck through them.

32 is bad policy. Unfair. Doesn't stop the SuperPACs. Hank and his fringe will vote for it. Decide if you like Hank's world. Go read his other posts about politics. They're arrogant and full of rhetoric, name-calling, etc..

Thanks for reading, have a good day!

No on 32: Web Link

Who's with No on 32? The folks that Hank Lawrence detests:



California Clean Money Campaign
California Tax Reform Association
Common Cause
Consumer Watchdog
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
Equal Justice Society
League of Women Voters
Public Campaign Action Fund
Public Citizen
TURN - The Utility Reform Network



ACLU California
Asian Law Alliance
Coastal Alliance United for A Sustainable Economy
Dolores Huerta Foundation
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
National Organization for Women, California
Stonewall Democratic Club of Greater Sacramento


California League of Conservation Voters
Endangered Habitats League
Forests Forever
Sierra Club California

California Democratic Party


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 23, 2012 at 8:52 pm

Irene:

you forgot to mention all the public employee unions and other labor unions that are against 32 also. I have yet to delve fully into prop 32, but based upon the radio adds and who is putting them on alone - public employees unions and other labor unions - the folks that contribute THE MOST money to politicians to buy their favor, my inclination is to vote for it. I'm sick and tired of not having a seat at the table when our elected representatives are negotiating with these unions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jane Lea
a resident of another community
on Aug 24, 2012 at 8:05 am

If you go to the Secretary of State's page the definition of Corporation is clear. It does not cover LLC, Partnerships, Insurance Co., Super PACs, individual billionaires, and multi-millionaire CEOs to name a few.
Corporations don't use payroll deductions for political purpose. That's like saying, "we're going to crack down on counterfeiting by collecting all the 3 dollar bills printed." Sounds good however, counterfeiters don't print 3 dollar bills.
It doesn't stop any corporation from using unlimited profits to contribute to state or local campaigns. And the Supreme Court already confirmed that Corporations have the same rights as individuals and therefore, can contribute unlimited funds to any campaign. Corporations already outspend unions 15-1.
Labor rights aren't etched in stone. They were won through politics and collective bargaining. So if you're the 99% that have to work for a living say, "good bye" to, vacation leave, health insurance, 8 hour work day, minimum wage, work place health and safety laws, overtime pay, unemployment, child labor laws, meal breaks, nurse patient ratios just to name a few.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ethan
a resident of Menlo Park: University Heights
on Aug 24, 2012 at 3:58 pm

So how about requiring publicly owned companies to get permission from shareholders before they make political contributions? After all, the shareholders are the real owners.

BTW: The health insurance industry contributed $86 million to the Chamber of Commerce in 2009, earmarked specifically for efforts to kill a public option in the ACA. Your insurance premium money at work. (Premiums went up 5% that year; inflation actually fell by 0.7.)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by COMMUNIST
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Aug 24, 2012 at 4:28 pm

Oh my gosh. A group of AMERICANS wants to contribute money to politicians OPENLY and HONESTLY, so, let's stop that! Other Americans (who can't breath, die, vote, procreate, serve in the army... but can be owned by other Americans... which is against the LAW...) these Americans will be able to contribute ALL the money they want as long as it goes through a PAC...

Outlaw PACS and anonymous contributions that BRIBE our politicians and then outlaw unions from doing the same. Go ahead and TRY to outlaw their freedom of ($$) to buy "Free" speech to sway public opinion. Oddly you are seeing that the evil foul smelling dirty rotten communist unions LABEL their advertising.

As a UNION member I am asked "DO YOU WANT YOUR MONEY USED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES?" Thank you my fellow Americans, for trying to protect my rights, but I would LIKE to save everyone the trouble of a huge lawsuit when you try to ram this down the unions' throats. What is your fear of people getting together with a common voice? Do you really want to spend the administrative cost for INDIVIDUAL bargaining? Doing the bargaining as collective, if you trust your representatives, saves you money.

Unions represent an ever smaller piece of the American work force. The Public Unions represent half of the remainining unions in America. Big Money in America wants to silence this last opposition voice. They have you running in fear. Unions are not killing America. Shoes made my New Balance made in America sell for LESS than those they get Communists to make over seas.

Contribute MORE to their pensions? Sure, if that's what it takes. You are all contributing 4.2% to your social security now. I'm paying more taxes to support your lack of funding, but, hey I'll up my 8.7% contribution to 10% as long as my boas puts in what used to be the Social Security amount in private business at 6.2%. There's no reason to toss out pensions or social security if we support one another. You want to trust the price of gold or Wall Street for your retirement? The Big Banks and Wall Street would LOVE to have that money and THAT is what this about. Plain and simple. Follow the money! We're going back to the pre Depression era of Laissez Faire... "FREE Market" because that worked so well! It worked really well so fat to toss us back into an "almost" depression, so sure, let's follow what these folks say is in our best interest and blame everything on the UNIONS..... damn their 5 day week... 8 hour days... 40 hour work weeks... over time pay.... health care.... Let's all work free and happy like the Chinese!! Big Money will take care of us! Just like they did in their wonderful company towns of days gone past. History? Who needs to think about THAT!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 24, 2012 at 7:27 pm

Communist:

Labor unions have their place and need. Public employee unions do as well. The problem is that as a tax payer I have to fund your retirement which is better than anything available in the private sector. I have to fund your wages which are higher than comparable work in the private sector. I have to fund your paid vacation, which in Menlo Park is an insane six weeks. The deiffernce between the public and private sector is that the employer in the private sector is the one negotiating with the unions. In the public sector, the employer - the tax payer, has to rely on elected representatives to negotiate for them. What's the problem with that? THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS HAVE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR OUR REPRESENTATIVES! So they don't actually represent us and we have no seat at the negotiating table. We don't get to push back at what we see as unresonable demands. The politicians the unions have bought just roll over and give it to them. Then we as the tax payer get to pick up the tab.

Frankly, I'm sick of it and so are a whole lot of other people.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Garrett
a resident of another community
on Aug 25, 2012 at 10:10 am

Why not have opt outs for employees. What about private sector Unions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Aug 25, 2012 at 10:15 am

Employees don't own businesses, shareholders do.

If I own a restaurant, am I allowed to give some of my money to a political candidate without getting approval from my wait staff?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 3,198 views

Ode to Brussels Sprout
By Laura Stec | 20 comments | 2,477 views

Go Giants! Next Stop: World Series!
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,861 views

Charter School Proposal Steeped In Unintended Consequences
By Erin Glanville | 38 comments | 1,698 views

Measure M-- I am not drinking Greenheartís expensive potion
By Martin Lamarque | 8 comments | 440 views