The real issue is, IMO, largely being ignored. Republicans get vast amounts of campaign financing from corporations; and when anyone tries to limit those donations, the Republicans scream that their 1st Ammendment rights are being violated.
Ignored? Hah!
There are constant ads complaining about how this is about Dems vs. Reps. I find these ads (which are presumably paid for money stolen from union workers to begin with) to be very dishonest, as they claim that it slaps restrictions on public workers. LIE! It slaps restrictions on
unions.
Thats what this whole thing is really about. If anyone gave a ◊◊◊◊ about campaign reform, they would do it across the board (and I, for one, would wholeheartedly support it.)
No one's claiming that this is about campaign finance reform. They're saying that it's about fairness. There simply isn't a fairness argument with regard to corporations.
Metullus
If you are in a union, or pay union dues, it is your money being spent to a political end.
It's worse than that. Remember, in order to get a public job, you have to pay union dues. Which means that, in the end, public money is being used to subsidize unions. Every taxpayer in California is essentially being forced to contribute to liberal causes.
Meadmaker
Again, the theory is that the workers are paying the union for a service, which is the collective bargaining on behalf of the workers. However, some people pointed out that most funds raised by unions weren't used for that purpose. So, the courts said you could still be forced to pay that portion of union dues that were used on behalf of workers, but you could not be forced to pay that portion used in political activities.
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?
The anti-75 people keep saying that people can't be forced to join a union, but don't you agree that although this is technically true, in reality it's a load of crap? I find it incredibly disgusting that they're using public money to lie to the public.
Couldn't the union members just elect union officials that promised not to spend the dues on political activities?
Should 51% of the union workers be allowed to tell the other 49% what they should do with their money? The anti-75 position is that this is "Democracy", but it looks like thuggery to me. Also, keep in mind that anti-liberal workers are basically being blackmailed: "Yes, you
could join the union and vote against spending union money on political campaigns, but you'll probably fail, and then we get to take your money. Or you could pay your dues, not join the union, sit down and shut the **** up".
Lisa Simpson
I believe it says that union members must give permission before union dues are spent in the political arena.
More precisely, it says unions of public workers can't spend money on politics without permission.
