Prop 75 question

[Mark]

That fixing an injustice will benefit a particular party hardly means that it is nothing more than a power grab. According to your logic, when Democrats try to keep blacks from being disenfranchised, that's "nothing more than a blatant power grab". It's the Democrats that are guilty of a blatant power grab, by forcing every Californian to support their agenda. The Republicans are simply trying to take that power away from them.

Your false dichotomy of "it must be either campaign finance reform, or nothing more than a power grab" is ridiculous. It's neither.

Please. As I've pointed out over and over again, real campaign finance reform would solve the problem completely, without anyone being able to complain about being unfairly singled out.

The fact that this is not even being discussed indicates to me that no one cares about anything other than getting the upper hand over the other party. That applies to both Democrats and Republicans.

It is a blatant power grab; it is partisanship at its worst. I, for one, am not falling for it.

 

[Grammatron]

Please. As I've pointed out over and over again, real campaign finance reform would solve the problem completely, without anyone being able to complain about being unfairly singled out.

The fact that this is not even being discussed indicates to me that no one cares about anything other than getting the upper hand over the other party. That applies to both Democrats and Republicans.

It is a blatant power grab; it is partisanship at its worst. I, for one, am not falling for it.

How is this a power grab? If the union members feels the same it should 0 effect on things.

 

[Mark]

How is this a power grab? If the union members feels the same it should 0 effect on things.

Oh, c'mon, Grammy. You (and others) actually want me to believe that these altruistic Republicans are harping on this issue just because they want to "right a wrong?" The fact that it will eliminate a HUGE chunk of the Democrats' campaign funding is just a coincidence, is it?

Give me a break; you aren't that naive and neither one of us is that stupid.

 

[Grammatron]

Oh, c'mon, Grammy. You (and others) actually want me to believe that these altruistic Republicans are harping on this issue just because they want to "right a wrong?" The fact that it will eliminate a HUGE chunk of the Democrats' campaign funding is just a coincidence, is it?

Give me a break; you aren't that naive and neither one of us is that stupid.

That's the thing I want to know, why would it ilimate it, are you telling me the union members are mostly against this, then why are union leaders doing it if that's the case?

 

[Mark]

That's the thing I want to know, why would it ilimate it, are you telling me the union members are mostly against this, then why are union leaders doing it if that's the case?

I am not certain what you mean with this, but will try to answer. Unrestricted campaign contributions (on both sides) are destroying our representative government. Stopping one party is merely a power grab. Stopping both parties is reform.

I favor reform.

 

[Grammatron]

I am not certain what you mean with this, but will try to answer. Unrestricted campaign contributions (on both sides) are destroying our representative government. Stopping one party is merely a power grab. Stopping both parties is reform.

I favor reform.

My question is, why would it stop? I am honestly confused by Prop 75. If unions represent its members and the members are fine with their actions, then this prop would have 0 effect on things.

 

[TragicMonkey]

But if you're forced to give them money, then you should be allowed to vote in their elections, without having to give money to whatever they tell you to. It would be like if a city charged everyone property taxes, regardless of whether you vote. And if you want to actually vote on what the taxes should be, you have to first give money to the mayor's favorite charity. That would be declared unconstitutional in nothing flat. How is this different?

I'm not really following this thread, because I can't bring myself to care much about unions when union workers all seem to make a lot more money than I ever have, but this struck me. "It would be like if a city charged everyone property taxes, regardless of whether you vote." Ummm, they do. Whether you are eligible to vote or not, you still have to pay property taxes.

eta: If you were being ironical and I missed it, sorry. I'm kinda slow sometimes.

 

[RandFan]

Of course it's true. If they wanted to solve the problem, they could pass campaign finance reform.

What exactly was McCain-Feingold?

 

[TragicMonkey]

What exactly was McCain-Feingold?

The sexiest romantically mismatched duo ever?

No, wait, that would have been Rick Santorum and Eminem.

 

[brodski]

That's the thing I want to know, why would it ilimate it, are you telling me the union members are mostly against this, then why are union leaders doing it if that's the case?

I may be misinformed on this, but I was under the impression that this proposal would mean that unions had to get individual consent on all political donations, rather than just majority consent. The logistics of achieving this would be a nightmare for the unions. How would a corperations take it if they where told to get indivudal consent from each of their sharerholders before making political donations?

 

[peptoabysmal]

I may be misinformed on this, but I was under the impression that this proposal would mean that unions had to get individual consent on all political donations, rather than just majority consent. The logistics of achieving this would be a nightmare for the unions. How would a corperations take it if they where told to get indivudal consent from each of their sharerholders before making political donations?

Why couldn't a union manage a response to a checkbox on a form? Either way, prop. 75 may not have much impact on the issue it is addressing.

Signing this form authorizes your union to use the amount of​

$ .00 from each of your dues or agency shop fee payments
during the next 12 months as a political contribution or
expenditure.
​

” ( )
Signing this form requests your union to make a deduction of
$ .00 from each of your dues or agency shop fee payments
during the next 12 months as a political contribution to the
(name of the committee). ( )
Check applicable box.
​

OFFICIAL VOTER
VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/text75.pdf

A television ad Proposition 75 opponents launched Tuesday noted the Republican governor's plan to withhold school money from the budget and that " ... teachers like Lisa Dickason mobilized to stop him. Now Prop. 75 slaps teachers and public workers with new restrictions so the next time they can't fight back."

The restrictions, however, would apply only to members' dues diverted to political committees, according to the initiative. Unions could continue to use money from employees who refused to sign the consent form to advocate on issues before the Legislature or the governor.

The mobilization to which the "No on 75" ad refers, in fact, did not show up as an expense of the California Teachers Association's political committee. It was part of the $8.2 million listed on its lobbying reports through June 30 as "other payments to influence legislative or administrative action."

The money went to a television and radio attack that asked the governor to "stop balancing the budget on the backs of our children." The January ad campaign was the opening volley leading to Schwarzenegger's steep slide in public opinion polls.

Prop. 75 loophole limits its impact

 

[Mark]

What exactly was McCain-Feingold?

Inadequate, IMO, but in any case we are talking about California State politics.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Please. As I've pointed out over and over again, real campaign finance reform would solve the problem completely, without anyone being able to complain about being unfairly singled out.

And as I've pointed out before, this is a false dichotomy. You're not making any sense. You can't just pick out an objective, point out that it doesn't accomplish that objective, and claim that means it's a power grab.

The fact that this is not even being discussed indicates to me that no one cares about anything other than getting the upper hand over the other party.

It says to me that people care about people being forced to pay for political campaigns, WHICH IS WHAT THIS PROPOSITION IS ACTUALLY ABOUT!

Obviously, some people support it for partisan reasons, but it's ridiculous to claim that no one has any other reason.

It is a blatant power grab; it is partisanship at its worst.

Even if it is a power grab, it's a power grab accomplished by fixing an injustice, which in my mind eliminates it from the "partisanship at its worst" competition.

You (and others) actually want me to believe that these altruistic Republicans are harping on this issue just because they want to "right a wrong?"

Being motivated by self-interest and "blatant power grab" are two very different things.

Stopping one party is merely a power grab.

But one party isn't being stopped. An unjust source of funds which tends to benefit one party is being stopped. If there were a law against black people voting, and the Democrats challenged its constitutionality, would that be a "blatant power grab"?

TragicMonkey

I'm not really following this thread, because I can't bring myself to care much about unions when union workers all seem to make a lot more money than I ever have,

These particular union workers are being paid from taxes, so it's not merely a union rights issue.

"It would be like if a city charged everyone property taxes, regardless of whether you vote." Ummm, they do. Whether you are eligible to vote or not, you still have to pay property taxes.

Just making sure everyone knew the parameters of the hypothetical. After all, once we've posited a city that requires charity contributions to vote, property taxes aren't much of a stretch.

eta: If you were being ironical and I missed it, sorry. I'm kinda slow sometimes.

I'm never ironical. Sometimes I am ironic, though.


brodski

How would a corperations take it if they where told to get indivudal consent from each of their sharerholders before making political donations?

I've already explained why this is completely different situation. The liberal position on this is hypocritical. If people were forced to pay dues to a church in order to keep their jobs, they'd be up in arms. But forcing people to pay dues to a union is perfectly fine.

 

[brodski]

brodskiI've already explained why this is completely different situation. The liberal position on this is hypocritical. If people were forced to pay dues to a church in order to keep their jobs, they'd be up in arms. But forcing people to pay dues to a union is perfectly fine.

I don't agree with the idea of a closed shop. In fact I think that closed shops are a form of extortion. And i am glad that they are illegal in my country.

That said I am an active union member and support the right of unions to make political donations.


My comment was specifically aimed at the question raised by Grammatron that if unions would only run afoul of this if they where not reflecting eth wishes of their members. i do not believe this is the case, prop 75 appears to be trying to introduce hypothication into unions political donations. take the closed shop out of this, and apply the same restrictions to private organizations, then you may see why many people are opposed to this.

 

[Art Vandelay]

i do not believe this is the case, prop 75 appears to be trying to introduce hypothication into unions political donations.

What does "hypothication" mean?

take the closed shop out of this, and apply the same restrictions to private organizations, then you may see why many people are opposed to this

There is a bit of a difference that pays its members (corporation) and one that its members pay (union).

But if the union is not a public closed shop union or otherwise dependent on government support, then it would be a private organization and I would see a problem with this proposition. But that seems like a small price to pay for the injustice it fixes, and if its opponents were truly only concerned about that, they could put a counter-proposition on the ballot that exempts any union that does not depend on a closed shop. I wonder what would happen if a union made membership contingent on authorizing political contributions.

 

[brodski]

What does "hypothication" mean?

Hypothicataion is a term usually used in regards to taxation, it basically means earmarking particular income for particular expenditure, and is generally seen as very inefficient, it also restricts the ability of the organization to spend strategically.

There is a bit of a difference that pays its members (corporation) and one that its members pay (union).

But if the union is not a public closed shop union or otherwise dependent on government support, then it would be a private organization and I would see a problem with this proposition. But that seems like a small price to pay for the injustice it fixes, and if its opponents were truly only concerned about that, they could put a counter-proposition on the ballot that exempts any union that does not depend on a closed shop. I wonder what would happen if a union made membership contingent on authorizing political contributions.

How would you feel about such a restriction on corporations which where wholly (or almost wholly) dependent on government contracts for their income, should their political contributions be subject to the same level of scrutiny?

 

[Mark]

Obviously, some people support it for partisan reasons, but it's ridiculous to claim that no one has any other reason.

Right, and the Texas redistricting was nothing more than fixing a "wrong," right?

As I said, the problem could be much easier solved by campaign finance reform. Interesting that you don't want that.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Actually, although I really don't like the idea of a closed shop, as a libertarian I find their proscription to be a violation of liberty. From an economic point of view, a corporation making the payment of union dues a requirement of employment is the same thing as a corporation simply paying union dues themselves, and what right does the government have to tell private corporations not to pay union dues for their employees? When it comes to public workers, it's a different issue, because now the government is essentially paying union dues, so obviously the people have a right to regulate how that money is used.

Hypothicataion is a term usually used in regards to taxation, it basically means earmarking particular income for particular expenditure, and is generally seen as very inefficient, it also restricts the ability of the organization to spend strategically.

Suppose there were a law that says that in a class action lawsuit, "lawyer fees" must include only expenses actually related to the case, and not, say, political contributions made "on behalf" of the plaintiffs? Would that be an example of hypothication? Isn't every agent/client relationship an example of hypothication?

How would you feel about such a restriction on corporations which where wholly (or almost wholly) dependent on government contracts for their income, should their political contributions be subject to the same level of scrutiny?

No, not unless those costs are being passed onto the government.

Mark

Right, and the Texas redistricting was nothing more than fixing a "wrong," right?

Uh, what's your point here? That there exist things which have been called "fixing a wrong", but you don't believe are such?

As I said, the problem could be much [more easily] solved by campaign finance reform. Interesting that you don't want that.

What, are you psychic now? It seems to me that there is a very simple solution to this: require that if a person is required to pay dues to keep their job, that they have the option of opting out of campaign contributions. General campaign finance reform, however, is very complicated and has been debated for decades without real progress. Unless you are proposing widespread prohibition of political contributions, which would be a massive violation of the constitution, I don't see how it would take of this.

The fact is, campaign finance and this issue are completely different issues, and your attempt to link them simply obscures the issue.

 

[Mark]

Unless you are proposing widespread prohibition of political contributions, which would be a massive violation of the constitution, I don't see how it would take of this.

The fact is, campaign finance and this issue are completely different issues, and your attempt to link them simply obscures the issue.

They are not different issues.

And would you mind specifying which part of the Constitution would be violated by campaign finance reform? I hear that from the Right all the time...but they never quote anything from the actual document. I wonder why?

 

[Art Vandelay]

They are not different issues.

Oh, well, I'm convinced now.

And would you mind specifying which part of the Constitution would be violated by campaign finance reform? I hear that from the Right all the time...but they never quote anything from the actual document. I wonder why?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redressd of grievances."

Note that I did not say that campaign finance reform would violate the constitution, I said that "widespread prohibition of political contributions" would.