california prop discussion

[KerriAnn]

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.

 

[tsai3904]

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.

 

[tsai3904]

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.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

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.

 

[tsai3904]

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.

 

[tsai3904]

As usual, I'm voting no across the board.

You want to keep the death penalty?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

You want to keep the death penalty?

No, I don't want additional funding being put towards policing.

 

[tsai3904]

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.

 

[PierzStyx]

Prop 37: Mandatory labeling of GMOs

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/ind...abeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_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.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

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.

 

[tsai3904]

Here's the text of Prop 32:

http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief/elections2012/propositions/prop-32-read-the-text.html

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Here's the text of Prop 32:

http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief/elections2012/propositions/prop-32-read-the-text.html

Thanks, I'll read it when I get back from the gym later tonight

 

[KerriAnn]

Meh. I think I'm still voting no on 32. It only targets unions, and I don't think passing this prop is going to help anything in the long term. In fact, I bet they are waiting to set up a team of bureaucrats for the investigations of these matters right now. We don't need more legislation of this kind. Unions will find loopholes. I can just see it now, my husband coming home with a letter from Hoffa saying that they should sign contracts allowing the union members to use their dues for politics or else they will all lose their jobs. And most of the union members will do it.

 

[tsai3904]

Meh. I think I'm still voting no on 32. It only targets unions, and I don't think passing this prop is going to help anything in the long term.

It will only affect unions because only unions are taking money out of their members paycheck and using it for political purposes.

This will affect them significantly because it will force them to actually go out and fundraise just like every other organization.

You can see how much they're worried by comparing the top 10 contributions for and against.

 

[Smart3]

Prop 30: NO
Prop 31: NO
Prop 32: YES
Prop 33: YES
Prop 34: YES
Prop 35: NO
Prop 36: YES
Prop 37: YES
Prop 38: NO
Prop 39: YES
Prop 40: YES

 

[KerriAnn]

Prop 30: NO
Prop 31: NO
Prop 32: YES
Prop 33: YES
Prop 34: YES
Prop 35: NO
Prop 36: YES
Prop 37: YES
Prop 38: NO
Prop 39: YES
Prop 40: YES

that's a lot of yeses... care to expand?

 

[Smart3]

that's a lot of yeses... care to expand?

Sure

Prop 32 = fights unions
Prop 33 = insurance based on previous coverage
Prop 34 = ends the death penalty
Prop 36 = saves a ton of money, and people don't get locked up for life because of drugs
Prop 37 = the "no" side is sponsored by Monsanto
Prop 39 = ends tax loopholes, $1billion/year+
Prop 40 = redistricting, saves $1million

 

[tsai3904]

Here's RLC of CA's voter guide for the props:
http://www.rlcsb.org/wp-content/uploads/Voter-Guide-November-2012.pdf

Prop 30: NO
Prop 31: NO
Prop 32: YES
Prop 33: YES
Prop 34: YES
Prop 35: NO
Prop 36: YES
Prop 37: NO
Prop 38: NO
Prop 39: NO

 

[tsai3904]

California teachers' union donations surpass $20 million to fight Prop. 32

http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_w...n-contributes-1-million-to-fight-prop-32.html

This is the crux of Prop 32:

Both could still donate unlimited sums to independent expenditure campaigns, which are considered a constitutionally-protected form of free speech. But unions wouldn't have as much money to spend, since in California they raise their funds almost exclusively through payroll-deducted member dues. Corporations get their money from individual donations and their company treasuries.

If unions still want to spend money on political activities, they can but they have to raise the money from voluntary individuals instead of through automatic payroll deductions where the individual has no choice.

This is what Kerry Bentivolio, running for Congress in Michigan and a Ron Paul Republican, said yesterday in an online interview:

Q: As a former Fowlerville H.S. PUBLIC school teacher (and I assume a member of the MEA)... do you support Democracy in the workplace? collective bargaining? Proposal 2?

A: Well it's not "democracy in the workplace" to force every public schoolteacher to pays dues to a union. In fact, if workers had the option to refrain from paying dues, the effect would be to democratize unions and make them accountable to the workers as much as possible. "Collective bargaining" does not empower workers, it is a deprivation of their right to participate as individuals in a union or not to. Everyone should be permitted to join a union... or not.

Q: Its NOT mandatory to join a Union... you are incorrect! AND also... DID you ACCEPT the PUBLIC School salary that was collectively bargained for??? Or did you opt out and hire in as a non union employee...and negotiate your OWN salary???

A: Yes it is mandatory. Even if you exercise Beck rights, much of the money unions spend on "non-political" activity which is often indirectly spent on politics. Plus you become a political target. It's almost impossible not to pay dues to a union when the entire workforce is union.

If it was the case that union membership was optional, unions would not oppose Right to Work laws, since they wouldn't change anything.

 

[sailingaway]

Here's the Green Party in favor of Prop 36, they make sense, although I still have to read the proposition itself. This would keep the third simple possession from triggering the lack of sentencing discretion, for example: http://www.cagreens.org/elections/propositions/36