Prop 75 question

[Mark]

Ah, so you have no argument to support your view, just wild conspiracy theories?

Look, CFR restricts expression of views. By definition. A "campaign", in this context, means "an effort to express political views". Restricting the ability of people to fund efforts to express political views restricts the expression of political views. How can any rational person dispute such an obviously true statement?

Union members can already refuse to have their dues pay for politcal contributions. Are you aware of that? They can already do this!!!!!!!!

The ONLY purpose for this proposition is to prevent those who WANT to contribute from doing so, since they tend to support Democrats. This is just another corrupt, Republican power grab, as I said before.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Union members can already refuse to have their dues pay for politcal contributions. Are you aware of that? They can already do this!!!!!!!!

Ah, so you hijack the thread to whine about campaign finance, and when you are unable to defend your claim on that issue, you go back to the original issue? Can you you back up this claim? If it is true, it would have been a useful addition three weeks ago. Perhaps if you weren't so busy hijacking the thread, you would have found time to mention it.

The ONLY purpose for this proposition is to prevent those who WANT to contribute from doing so, since they tend to support Democrats.

Except that it will not prevent them from contributing. Given that differentiating between those that do and do not wish to contribute necessitates effort on the part of at least one of those groups, there certainly are legitimate arguments to be made in favor of the position that the burden should fall on those that wish to contibute.

 

[Mark]

Ah, so you hijack the thread to whine about campaign finance, and when you are unable to defend your claim on that issue, you go back to the original issue? Can you you back up this claim? If it is true, it would have been a useful addition three weeks ago. Perhaps if you weren't so busy hijacking the thread, you would have found time to mention it.

Except that it will not prevent them from contributing. Given that differentiating between those that do and do not wish to contribute necessitates effort on the part of at least one of those groups, there certainly are legitimate arguments to be made in favor of the position that the burden should fall on those that wish to contibute.

Pardon me for responding to your latest post.

Back up what claim? That union members can already opt out of political contributions? It's public record.

Try this (emphasis mine):

Union members who do not want their dues to go to political purposes already have the right to opt out. Doing so earmarks their dues for only nonpolitical purposes such as salary and benefit negotiations with their employer, and the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed union members’ rights to opt out. Additionally, public employee union members already elect their union leaders and participate in internal decisions. They may not like every decision, but that’s the nature of democracy. If members disagree with the positions that their union has taken, they can elect new leaders.

http://calpirg.org/CA.asp?id2=19508

From the same site (again, emphsis mine):

Proposition 75 singles out public employee unions such as firefighters, teachers, and police officers and prevents them from using their members’ dues on political activities, even when ballot initiatives or the positions of candidates directly affect union members. Prop 75 doesn’t apply the same rules to corporations by requiring them to first get approval from shareholders before making political contributions, nor does it apply the same restriction to any other type of organization.

Where is your grave concern about Free Speech? Is that a right reserved only for Republicans and their corporate contributors?
This remains a despicable Republican power grab. Nothing more.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Pardon me for responding to your latest post.

My last post was with regard to CFR, not Prop 75. Your post did nothing to address the question of how limiting the financing of political expression does not limit political expression.

Back up what claim? That union members can already opt out of political contributions? It's public record.

Try this (emphasis mine):

http://calpirg.org/CA.asp?id2=19508

Not exactly an impartial source, is it? All this establishes is that you are not the only one making this claim. It does not to support its veracity.

Where is your grave concern about Free Speech? Is that a right reserved only for Republicans and their corporate contributors?

That's ridiculous. Democrats are free to make political contributions, regardless of whether 75 passes. If you are restricted from using your money to express political views, that's a free speech violation. If you're restricted from using someone else's money without their consent, that's not. Now, as for that second quote, that's rather misleading. The fact is, corporations and other organizations are restricted in their campaign contributions. No, there aren't any included in 75, but what relevence does that have?

 

[Mark]

My last post was with regard to CFR, not Prop 75. Your post did nothing to address the question of how limiting the financing of political expression does not limit political expression.


Not exactly an impartial source, is it? All this establishes is that you are not the only one making this claim. It does not to support its veracity.

That's ridiculous. Democrats are free to make political contributions, regardless of whether 75 passes. If you are restricted from using your money to express political views, that's a free speech violation. If you're restricted from using someone else's money without their consent, that's not. Now, as for that second quote, that's rather misleading. The fact is, corporations and other organizations are restricted in their campaign contributions. No, there aren't any included in 75, but what relevence does that have?

Misleading? If Prop 75 passes unions will be prevented from making political donations even with their members permission! And corporations will be allowed to make all the donations they want. Which is exactly what the corrupt Right-wing leadership is trying to accomplish with this dishonest proposition.

Which goes right back to my earlier point: if Republicans (or you) truly wanted reform, then across the board campaign finance reform would be the answer. But they don't. They only want to limit donations to Democrats.

I say again: Union members can already opt out of any political donations under existing law!!!!! This proposition is an utter lie.

 

[Grammatron]

Misleading? If Prop 75 passes unions will be prevented from making political donations even with their members permission! And corporations will be allowed to make all the donations they want. Which is exactly what the corrupt Right-wing leadership is trying to accomplish with this dishonest proposition.

Mark this not at all true. First of all it's only public unions, which is interestingly losts on some people. Prop 75 makes it so, and I quote, "Prohibits the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on a specified written form." Empesis mine. To say it completely prohibits it is not at all true. In fact, if Public Unions leaders represent the wishes of the Public Union members this proposition should have no effect except one more checkbox per year.

Which goes right back to my earlier point: if Republicans (or you) truly wanted reform, then across the board campaign finance reform would be the answer. But they don't. They only want to limit donations to Democrats.

Why would it limit anything, are you saying most Public Union members do not support the current Public Union political campaigns?

I say again: Union members can already opt out of any political donations under existing law!!!!! This proposition is an utter lie.

Then this would have no effect, would it.

 

[Mark]

Mark this not at all true. First of all it's only public unions, which is interestingly losts on some people. Prop 75 makes it so, and I quote, "Prohibits the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on a specified written form." Empesis mine. To say it completely prohibits it is not at all true. In fact, if Public Unions leaders represent the wishes of the Public Union members this proposition should have no effect except one more checkbox per year.

Why would it limit anything, are you saying most Public Union members do not support the current Public Union political campaigns?

Then this would have no effect, would it.

Yes, it would. Here's how it works: if a public employee union member does not want his/her dues used for political donations, they simply check a box to that effect. And if they don't like the way the union leadership runs things, they are free to vote against them.

It's called democracy; you know, the system of government the Republicans are trying to undermine with this proposition.

From the on-line voter guide:

Prop. 75 is unfair to teachers, nurses, police, and firefighters. It makes their labor unions play by different rules than big corporations. It’s unnecessary. The U.S. Supreme Court says no public employee can be forced to join a union and contribute to politics. It’s sponsored by corporations who oppose unions.

http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/ballot_measure_summary.shtml

(Emphasis mine):

Currently, union members can opt out of political contributions by asking that their dues not be used for political purposes.

Under the proposition, employees would have to specifically opt in, and the unions would have to keep close records on who contributed and ask members to renew their decision every year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9594230/

This last link shows quite well that the intent here is to make it very difficult for unions to raise money by complicating a currently very simple proces of opting out. Without making the same demand of corporations on behalf of their shareholders!

People love to say that corporations are "using their own money" and therefore should not be controlled this way. But that is also a lie. Corporations are owned by shareholders who currently have no option to opt out of political donations at all!

This whole thing is just ugly. It is a blatant Right Wing lie.

 

[Grammatron]

Yes, it would. Here's how it works: if a public employee union member does not want his/her dues used for political donations, they simply check a box to that effect. And if they don't like the way the union leadership runs things, they are free to vote against them.

It's called democracy; you know, the system of government the Republicans are trying to undermine with this proposition.

So more choice is undermining democracy? Please tell me you did not just imply that.

This last link shows quite well that the intent here is to make it very difficult for unions to raise money by complicating a currently very simple proces of opting out. Without making the same demand of corporations on behalf of their shareholders!

Why does it make it difficult? You have yet to answer this question Mark. If they Union members feel as strongly as those multi-million dollar comercials make it out to be, then this should have zero effect.

People love to say that corporations are "using their own money" and therefore should not be controlled this way. But that is also a lie. Corporations are owned by shareholders who currently have no option to opt out of political donations at all!

Except..."Hello stock broker? Yes sell all my shares in company X I do not like how they spend their money. Put it in Y instead" Yup, no option at all.

This whole thing is just ugly. It is a blatant Right Wing lie.

Yes, except for the Right Wing part, the lie and the ugly, the rest I agree with.

 

[Mark]

So more choice is undermining democracy? Please tell me you did not just imply that.

Don't try to play that sort of game with me, please. Burying your opponents in red tape is undermining democracy.

Why does it make it difficult? You have yet to answer this question Mark. If they Union members feel as strongly as those multi-million dollar comercials make it out to be, then this should have zero effect.

What is confusing you? Unions will be required to actively solicit permission from each and every member in order to make political donations. They will have to do that every year!!!! And they will be reuired to keep specific records on each and every person. Meanwhile, corporations who---coincidentally? Yeah, right---tend to favor Republicans, will be under no such requirement at all!

Except..."Hello stock broker? Yes sell all my shares in company X I do not like how they spend their money. Put it in Y instead" Yup, no option at all.
Yes, except for the Right Wing part, the lie and the ugly, the rest I agree with.

That is absurd. A shareholder being forced to sell their stock in order to protest a vote is in any way similar!?!?! All a union member has to do to opt out right now is make a check mark! Under 75, the union will be forced to solicit specific permission from each and every member; and you think that is the same as forcing a shareholder into selling stock?!?!?

I say again, right now---under existing law as held up by the Supreme Court!---all a union member has to do to opt out of political donations is check a box on a form! In light of that, please give me any---ANY---justification for this proposition.

It is nothing more than an attempt by dishonest Republicans to limit donations to the Democratic Party.

That may please you, but as a supporter of the 2 Party System, it distresses me very, very much.

 

[Grammatron]

Don't try to play that sort of game with me, please. Burying your opponents in red tape is undermining democracy.

One form, once a year is not what I would call red tape Mark.

What is confusing you? Unions will be required to actively solicit permission from each and every member in order to make political donations. They will have to do that every year!!!! And they will be reuired to keep specific records on each and every person.

I understand there are some forms they get every year already and that will simply be added on to those forms. That's it.

Meanwhile, corporations who---coincidentally? Yeah, right---tend to favor Republicans, will be under no such requirement at all!

You are convienty leaving out every Union that is not Public out of this, why is that? Do they tend to favor Republican?

That is absurd. A shareholder being forced to sell their stock in order to protest a vote is in any way similar!?!?! All a union member has to do to opt out right now is make a check mark! Under 75, the union will be forced to solicit specific permission from each and every member; and you think that is the same as forcing a shareholder into selling stock?!?!?

Mark both examples provide you more choice not force.

If you don't want to invest in a company that contributes to politicians you are against, you simply don't, they are plenty of companies out there that you will find one with agreeable profit margins and political contributions. Further more, in both instances you would be earning money and it won't be deducted to contribute to politics.

In the example of Public Union you have a choice of Political Contribution or no Political Contribution.

I say again, right now---under existing law as held up by the Supreme Court!---all a union member has to do to opt out of political donations is check a box on a form! In light of that, please give me any---ANY---justification for this proposition.

What Supreme Court case is that Mark?

It is nothing more than an attempt by dishonest Republicans to limit donations to the Democratic Party.

That may please you, but as a supporter of the 2 Party System, it distresses me very, very much.

The only way it would limit the donation to the Democratic part is IF Public Unions only donate to the Democratic Party and IF most Public Union members do not support Union donations to Democratic Party.

Is that the case?

 

[Mark]

One form, once a year is not what I would call red tape Mark.

I understand there are some forms they get every year already and that will simply be added on to those forms. That's it.
You are convienty leaving out every Union that is not Public out of this, why is that? Do they tend to favor Republican?
Mark both examples provide you more choice not force.

If you don't want to invest in a company that contributes to politicians you are against, you simply don't, they are plenty of companies out there that you will find one with agreeable profit margins and political contributions. Further more, in both instances you would be earning money and it won't be deducted to contribute to politics.

In the example of Public Union you have a choice of Political Contribution or no Political Contribution.
What Supreme Court case is that Mark?
The only way it would limit the donation to the Democratic part is IF Public Unions only donate to the Democratic Party and IF most Public Union members do not support Union donations to Democratic Party.

Is that the case?

You are being disenguous (that's the polite word for it). That is one form, each year, for millions of members. And close records MUST be kept on each one of them. That is red tape, Grammatron. Even when it hurts Democrats.

I am leaving out non-public emplyee unions because they aren't part of the proposition. Duh.

All you are claiming is that this proposition won't do any harm (which is ridiculous). But you have yet to give one single example of a positive thing this proposition will do (hurting Democrats doesn't count).

Finally, in Communication Workers of America v. Beck, the Supreme Court already has ruled that nonunion workers who pay agency fees to unions to support their collective bargaining efforts are entitled to a full refund of that portion of their dues used for political activity.

http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0511/prop75.html
That was in 1988, Grammatron.

 

[Grammatron]

You are being disenguous (that's the polite word for it). That is one form, each year, for millions of members. And close records MUST be kept on each one of them. That is red tape, Grammatron. Even when it hurts Democrats.

Are all of them Democrats? If so this Proposition would do nothing.

I am leaving out non-public emplyee unions because they aren't part of the proposition. Duh.

Neither are corporation, so why do you bring them up?

All you are claiming is that this proposition won't do any harm (which is ridiculous). But you have yet to give one single example of a positive thing this proposition will do (hurting Democrats doesn't count).

More freedom to choose, I thought I already covered that.

http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0511/prop75.html
That was in 1988, Grammatron.

Not sure if you missed the important different between that ruling and Prop 75:

Finally, in Communication Workers of America v. Beck, the Supreme Court already has ruled that nonunion workers who pay agency fees to unions to support their collective bargaining efforts are entitled to a full refund of that portion of their dues used for political activity.

 

[Mark]

Are all of them Democrats? If so this Proposition would do nothing.

Neither are corporation, so why do you bring them up?

More freedom to choose, I thought I already covered that.


Not sure if you missed the important different between that ruling and Prop 75:

Freedom to choose already exists and you know it.

Grammatron, you are the one supporting this measure. Please name one positive thing it will accomplish that isn't already state and federal law right now.

 

[Grammatron]

Freedom to choose already exists and you know it.

No I don't "know it" stop saying that.

Grammatron, you are the one supporting this measure. Please name one positive thing it will accomplish that isn't already state and federal law right now.

It allows Public Union members to opt out from their dues being used for political contributions.

 

[Mark]

No I don't "know it" stop saying that.

Really? Then please explain how union members don't have choice right now.

It allows Public Union members to opt out from their dues being used for political contributions.

I thought I made it clear that I was looking for something that was not already law! Union members can opt out with just a flick of a pen as things are under the law right this moment. Since you have not given any example of how this measure will provide anything new (other than hurting Democrats), I have to assume it is because you can't.

 

[Grammatron]

Really? Then please explain how union members don't have choice right now.

If they are part of the Public Union and don't like politicians or parties the Union contributes to you don't get a choice.

I thought I made it clear that I was looking for something that was not already law! Union members can opt out with just a flick of a pen as things are under the law right this moment. Since you have not given any example of how this measure will provide anything new (other than hurting Democrats), I have to assume it is because you can't.

Mark, the law you have quoted only applies to nonunion workers, heck you quoted that part. If you are part of the union, you get no such choice.

Unless there is some other law you are reffering to, then the current Public Union members have no such recourse.

 

[boooeee]

So.....If I can sum up the last page of sniping:

Current Situation: Public union member dues are used for political purposes unless the member specifically opts out.

Proposition 75: Public union member dues cannot be used for political purposes unless the member specifically opts in.

What if the IRS sent out a postcard to everybody that said that an extra 2% payroll tax will be levied on all workers to help pay for a state of the art facility for the promotion of Intelligent Design? However, if you don't want to contribute this tax, just check "No" on the postcard and send it back in, and you won't pay the extra 2%. Everybody has the choice not to contribute, but it hardly seems fair, does it?

Basically, my feeling is that if you're using somebody else's money for a specific purpose, it should be your responsibility, not theirs, to secure permission.

That being said, I'm still not sure if I'm going to vote for this one, because it does seem like a pretty blatant power grab. I doubt its sponsors are kept up at night by the thought of all those poor Republican union members (all three of 'em) having their dues sent to the Demmycrats.

 

[Grammatron]

So.....If I can sum up the last page of sniping:

Current Situation: Public union member dues are used for political purposes unless the member specifically opts out.

That have not been demonstrated yet, do you a source on that?

Proposition 75: Public union member dues cannot be used for political purposes unless the member specifically opts in.

What if the IRS sent out a postcard to everybody that said that an extra 2% payroll tax will be levied on all workers to help pay for a state of the art facility for the promotion of Intelligent Design? However, if you don't want to contribute this tax, just check "No" on the postcard and send it back in, and you won't pay the extra 2%. Everybody has the choice not to contribute, but it hardly seems fair, does it?

Basically, my feeling is that if you're using somebody else's money for a specific purpose, it should be your responsibility, not theirs, to secure permission.

That being said, I'm still not sure if I'm going to vote for this one, because it does seem like a pretty blatant power grab. I doubt its sponsors are kept up at night by the thought of all those poor Republican union members (all three of 'em) having their dues sent to the Demmycrats.

But what if <EXAGERATED FALLACIE DERAIL>?

 

[Mark]

Basically, my feeling is that if you're using somebody else's money for a specific purpose, it should be your responsibility, not theirs, to secure permission.

That being said, I'm still not sure if I'm going to vote for this one, because it does seem like a pretty blatant power grab. I doubt its sponsors are kept up at night by the thought of all those poor Republican union members (all three of 'em) having their dues sent to the Demmycrats.

If you feel that shareholders of major corporations should have the same right, then I don't disagree with you. It is this notion that mainly Democratic Party contributors should have special rules only for them that I find objectionable.

 

[Mark]

If they are part of the Public Union and don't like politicians or parties the Union contributes to you don't get a choice.

Mark, the law you have quoted only applies to nonunion workers, heck you quoted that part. If you are part of the union, you get no such choice.

Unless there is some other law you are reffering to, then the current Public Union members have no such recourse.

That is completely incorrect based on both state law and Supreme Court ruling.