Californians......Vote NO on 30........and YES on 32!!! PLEASE!!!

[redgtxdi]

Exactly. We need real reform, not this half-assed amendment being pushed through by corporations to exert even more control and influence over public elections.

Let's do this right.

You NEED TO READ!! Are you simply just watching the commercials and deciding that's the truth? AP just busted the yes on 30 folks yesterday for their misleading ads and the no on 32 folks are doing the same thing. The union machine is buying $30 million dollar lies.....READ!!!!!.........

http://www.yesprop32.com/downloads/Myth_Facts.pdf?_c=10w2yzbsxq2h2di&sr_t=p

And here's AP's catch in the yes on prop 30 lies.

MUST READ ------->http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_21696305/california-governor-jerry-browns-tax-ads-mislead-voters

And since I'm concerned not many are reading this stuff, I'll give it to you in a nutshell.....

The yes in 30 folks are saying (lying) that the money has to specifically go to schools and that it cannot be touched by politicians.......horsesh1t!!! The bulk of the money goes to the general fund and ABSOLUTELY CAN BE TOUCHED BY SACTO WHACKOS!!!

Again.........

VOTE NO ON PROP 30

and

VOTE YES IN PROP 32

To restore some order to this state!

 

[zinfamous]

I understand prop 30 to be the crucible of Brown's current budget plan, so I've never been under any delusion that it involves education in any meaningful way. If it fails, we basically get another dick wagging in Sacramento until they shit out another budget plan.

the schools get their money from the state, anyway, so while the ads may be misleading, it doesn't really matter what they say.

 

[DCal430]

Sorry, we need real reform, not this. With Citizens United, corporations can give unlimited money from their general treasuries to these super-PACS. Unions could still do it too under prop 32, but their source of funding is drastically reduced. This law would dramatically reduce union money without touching corporate money at all. I don't understand how anyone can support so-called reform that operates in this manner. This "reform" favors the interests of corporations, who represent their owners over those of unions who represent the interests of workers.

I understand what you're saying about not wanting the unions to take money out of your paycheck, and I want to see that end as well. But there is no reform that doesn't go both ways. This is no different that the dems trying to make rules to reign in corporations and exempting unions from those rules. True reform has to be bi-partisan and with the goal of cleaning up the system. It can't be motivated by partisan or special interests or it WILL fail.


- wolf

This is real reform, all it does it make union political contributions voluntary.

 

[DCal430]

Can someone tell me why they are so against making union political contributions voluntary, the only thing prop 32 does to unions is makes it so the political contributions are voluntary.

 

[zinfamous]

Can someone tell me why they are so against making union political contributions voluntary, the only thing prop 32 does to unions is makes it so the political contributions are voluntary.

the explanation that I am reading in this thread is that due to the financial structures within corporations and Unions, this gives a monumental advantage to corporations. Union revenue is exclusively through membership dues, so any type of donations have to be voted on as it is. Unions can no longer "force" these donations under prop 32.

Corporations are not beholden to this structure. Their donations are already "voluntary," so all it does is limit unions and keep the status quo with corporations....but the end result would be that they are more powerful.

None of you guys have addressed that analysis at all. All I see here is teabagging skullduggery.

 

[DCal430]

the explanation that I am reading in this thread is that due to the financial structures within corporations and Unions, this gives a monumental advantage to corporations. Union revenue is exclusively through membership dues, so any type of donations have to be voted on as it is. Unions can no longer "force" these donations under prop 32.

Corporations are not beholden to this structure. Their donations are already "voluntary," so all it does is limit unions and keep the status quo with corporations....but the end result would be that they are more powerful.

None of you guys have addressed that analysis at all. All I see here is teabagging skullduggery.

"Donations" implies they are voluntarily being given, when it isn't.

Union increase in political contributions do NOT have to be voted on by members, also the majority of union elections are Non-Binding elections and advisory only. Not everyone who has money taken for political contributions have voting rights, many if not most do not.

SEIU the largest union doesn't even have fair elections for unions reps, instead the current union heads selects who is allowed to run, it isn't a fair thing at all. It is the same as if Obama decided who could be the next president.

 

[zinfamous]

"Donations" implies they are voluntarily being given, when it isn't.

Union increase in political contributions do NOT have to be voted on by members, also the majority of union elections are Non-Binding elections and advisory only. Not everyone who has money taken for political contributions have voting rights, many if not most do not.

SEIU the largest union doesn't even have fair elections for unions reps, instead the current union heads selects who is allowed to run, it isn't a fair thing at all. It is the same as if Obama decided who could be the next president.

uh, right....which is exactly what I'm saying--this changes only the Union ability to "voluntarily" donate money, but not corporations. You continue to ignore what this actually does to corporate donation.

the wording of the prop is that the rule applies to both entities equally--which is fine. However, it changes nothing with corporations, as this remains the status quo of how they have always operated. The reason you see some of the largest corporate entities piling cash and attention into this prop is that it squarely gives them an even greater advantage over Unions in terms of what they can donate--nothing less, nothing more than what they currently enjoy, but it greatly limits Unions. so instead of a hypothetical 60/40 split in corporate/union influence, you would now get something like 80/20--the total money is likely reduced due to the chains placed on Unions, but corporate donations now represent a much higher percentage of that coffer of bribes.

I'm not a huge fan of the majority of Unions and how they operate, but I see very little incentive to prefer corporate influence over Union influence, as this prop seems designed to allow.

anyway, that is how I see the standard criticism of this proposition from this who call this no true reform. It favors corporations by simply limiting the ability of Unions to compete in the bribery game. That seems completely asinine to me, and the worst kind of blatant skullduggery under the guise of reform.

 

[redgtxdi]

You sure about that?
.
.
:whiste:
.
.

FACT: If Prop 32 passes, it would prevent corporations from spreading their influence across ideological, partisan and political lines by blanketing every individual member of the state legislature with donations.
 According to a recent LA Times story, “AT&T hands out, on average, more than $1 million in political contributions each year. Every current member of the Legislature has received at least $1,000; chairs of the committees that oversee the telecommunications industry get far more.” (Shane Goldmacher and Anthony York, "AT&T wields enormous power in Sacramento", LA Times, 4/22/12)
 If Prop 32 passes, corporations like AT&T would no longer be able to contribute directly to politicians. (Text of Stop Special Interest Money Now ballot initiative.)
FACT: Prop 32 closes a gaping loophole that exists at the federal level, where corporations get around the 100-year old direct contribution ban by using wage-withholding from their employees to fund corporate PACs.
 According the Federal Election Commission, corporations organized nearly 1700 corporate-sponsored PACs raising and spending over $300 Million dollars in the 2009-10 election cycle. (Federal Election Commission Summaries)
 According to Roll Call, a CQ MoneyLine analysis found that roughly half of these corporate PACs raise money by withholding funds from their employees’ wages. While not every corporate PAC reports wage withholding, CQ found that "more than 800 employers reported using some type of payroll deduction during the 2010 cycle... Nationwide, well more than 100,000 salaried workers authorized their employers to withdraw a total of more than $70 million from their paychecks through June." (Knott, Alex, “PACs Collect Millions From Workers’ Paychecks,” Roll Call, 10/25/10)
 If Prop 32 passes, this will never happen in California. (Text of Stop Special Interest Money Now ballot initiative) ----> http://yesprop32.com/downloads/Initiative.pdf?_c=10hcuptybkl103q

:whiste:

 

[DCal430]

Exactly. We need real reform, not this half-assed amendment being pushed through by corporations to exert even more control and influence over public elections.

Let's do this right.

Oneofthesedays how would you like it if your company started taking large amounts of money from your paycheck to give to Romney and you couldn't do a damn thing to stop them. That is what happen to me, only it was the union doing it, and that is why I am voting yes on 32.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I understand prop 30 to be the crucible of Brown's current budget plan, so I've never been under any delusion that it involves education in any meaningful way. If it fails, we basically get another dick wagging in Sacramento until they shit out another budget plan.

the schools get their money from the state, anyway, so while the ads may be misleading, it doesn't really matter what they say.

You mean that dick wagging will be done by Democrats and the budget shoved out will be another one based on fanciful accounting, appeasing public unions and demonizing businesses and high income earners.

 

[EXman]

I hope you are not referring to proposition 8.

Well sure he is. People don't matter. Only the preception of fairness does. The masses are too stupid to know what is good for them!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Propositions in California are meaningless. Some judge there will decide he knows better than the populous and change the ruling to whatever result he wants, just like what happened in the recent past.

If a Prop is illegal, it deserves to be blocked.

 

[zinfamous]

You sure about that?
.
.
:whiste:
.
.

FACT: If Prop 32 passes, it would prevent corporations from spreading their influence across ideological, partisan and political lines by blanketing every individual member of the state legislature with donations.
 According to a recent LA Times story, “AT&T hands out, on average, more than $1 million in political contributions each year. Every current member of the Legislature has received at least $1,000; chairs of the committees that oversee the telecommunications industry get far more.” (Shane Goldmacher and Anthony York, "AT&T wields enormous power in Sacramento", LA Times, 4/22/12)
 If Prop 32 passes, corporations like AT&T would no longer be able to contribute directly to politicians. (Text of Stop Special Interest Money Now ballot initiative.)
FACT: Prop 32 closes a gaping loophole that exists at the federal level, where corporations get around the 100-year old direct contribution ban by using wage-withholding from their employees to fund corporate PACs.
 According the Federal Election Commission, corporations organized nearly 1700 corporate-sponsored PACs raising and spending over $300 Million dollars in the 2009-10 election cycle. (Federal Election Commission Summaries)
 According to Roll Call, a CQ MoneyLine analysis found that roughly half of these corporate PACs raise money by withholding funds from their employees’ wages. While not every corporate PAC reports wage withholding, CQ found that "more than 800 employers reported using some type of payroll deduction during the 2010 cycle... Nationwide, well more than 100,000 salaried workers authorized their employers to withdraw a total of more than $70 million from their paychecks through June." (Knott, Alex, “PACs Collect Millions From Workers’ Paychecks,” Roll Call, 10/25/10)
 If Prop 32 passes, this will never happen in California. (Text of Stop Special Interest Money Now ballot initiative) ----> http://yesprop32.com/downloads/Initiative.pdf?_c=10hcuptybkl103q

:whiste:

soooo, you're simply repeating exactly what we have been saying, which shows this to be nothing but a massive boon to the Cock brothers and their ilk.

Unions depend exclusively on membership wages to make such contributions. Corporations have other means--the vast and limitless pockets of their over-paid CEOs. This simply furthers the power of Citizens United (can no longer contribute directly to campaigns--lol--you think that is useful in any way? do you even know what is going on with Super PACs these days? ).

So, this cuts off Union influence exclusively, and gives the Cocks of the world uncompetitive reign over their little collection of politicians.

Prop 32 is teabagerry in its most profound, and morally bankrupt display of discordant social understanding.

Sorry, but I can't see how any rational person would vote "Yes" on this.

 

[redgtxdi]

The reason I posted that was to show you that it applies to both unions AND corporations (as you seem sympathetic toward union heads more than CEO's simply because they can exist based on profits and not on member dues/deductions)

(for the record, the unions get their money from more places than just union member wages).......

Union Dues and Fees. Approximately 2.5 million workers in California are represented by a labor union. Unions represent employees in the collective bargaining process, by which they negotiate terms and conditions of employment with employers. Generally, unions pay for their activities with money raised from (1) dues charged to union members and (2) fair share fees paid by non-union members who the union represents in the collective bargaining process. In many cases, employers automatically deduct these dues and fees from their employees’ paychecks and transfer the money to the unions.

.......and as they usually outspend anybody opposing them 10's of millions to 1......I don't know that they even need more money these days.

Ultimately, the prop does what it says it will do. It *will* tie the hands of corporations just as it will unions. If someone who has a lot of money (Koch bros) can contrinbute because they own a business *and* have a lot of money because they earn it, good for them. I recently got outspent for contributions to a school district candidate by my employer because he, personally, makes more money than I do. If I want to do something about that, I can simply take on the risk of owning my own business.

But none of that means that it doesn't still close loopholes and unfair deductions that have applied to both unions and corporations for the last several decades.

YES on Prop 32!!!!!! :thumbsup:

 

[zinfamous]

The reason I posted that was to show you that it applies to both unions AND corporations (as you seem sympathetic toward union heads more than CEO's simply because they can exist based on profits and not on member dues/deductions)

(for the record, the unions get their money from more places than just union member wages).......

Union Dues and Fees. Approximately 2.5 million workers in California are represented by a labor union. Unions represent employees in the collective bargaining process, by which they negotiate terms and conditions of employment with employers. Generally, unions pay for their activities with money raised from (1) dues charged to union members and (2) fair share fees paid by non-union members who the union represents in the collective bargaining process. In many cases, employers automatically deduct these dues and fees from their employees’ paychecks and transfer the money to the unions.

.......and as they usually outspend anybody opposing them 10's of millions to 1......I don't know that they even need more money these days.

Ultimately, the prop does what it says it will do. It *will* tie the hands of corporations just as it will unions. If someone who has a lot of money (Koch bros) can contrinbute because they own a business *and* have a lot of money because they earn it, good for them. I recently got outspent for contributions to a school district candidate by my employer because he, personally, makes more money than I do. If I want to do something about that, I can simply take on the risk of owning my own business.

But none of that means that it doesn't still close loopholes and unfair deductions that have applied to both unions and corporations for the last several decades.

YES on Prop 32!!!!!! :thumbsup:

No one, including myself, has ignored the language of the proposition saying that the same rule applies to both equally. No one denies this.

Of course, the real issue, is that the same rule affects both entities differently.

I've already stated that I have little love for Unions, as they currently exist. Sure, I have less love for vague, nameless entities being created under the guise of consumer welfare, that are merely puppets for corporations--and this proposition simply encourages that practice more.

What a garbage piece of legislation. It's painfully obvious that it's nothing more than simple-minded anti-Union teabaggery at its worst. ah...you're comments about those with money deserving the greater support in political influence.

Methinks you need to read your history and Founder's opinions on such corporate dominance of government..but then that blind pro-business, anti-constitutional stance is popular with the teabaggers. So no shock there, I guess. Yes, the best solution is to buy more congressmen. Do you seriously think that is the appropriate response to government?

it's the Romney stance:

Small government is good when it ignores the majority of "little people" that make up this country
Large government is great when it continues the corporate welfare system that all businesses depend on.


wowow....I still can't believe that you acknowledge that buying congressmen is the way to fix this...and you think this is a good proposition....because it makes that the only solution. LOL--you essentially bring up that direct criticism of the unfair balance placed against union influence in that statement.

 

[DCal430]

soooo, you're simply repeating exactly what we have been saying, which shows this to be nothing but a massive boon to the Cock brothers and their ilk.

Unions depend exclusively on membership wages to make such contributions. Corporations have other means--the vast and limitless pockets of their over-paid CEOs. This simply furthers the power of Citizens United (can no longer contribute directly to campaigns--lol--you think that is useful in any way? do you even know what is going on with Super PACs these days? ).

So, this cuts off Union influence exclusively, and gives the Cocks of the world uncompetitive reign over their little collection of politicians.

Prop 32 is teabagerry in its most profound, and morally bankrupt display of discordant social understanding.

Sorry, but I can't see how any rational person would vote "Yes" on this.

As someone affected by this, I do NOT see how anyone can morally vote No on this. It isn't right at all that the Unions can take my money without my permission, and not just a small amount too, they took thousands from me without my permission, for soley political purposes.

I shouldn't have to give to a political fund in order to keep my job, that isn't right and it isn't morall.

I do not support corporations at all, but what the union did me and millions of other public workers is WRONG.

 

[zinfamous]

As someone affected by this, I do NOT see how anyone can morally vote No on this. It isn't right at all that the Unions can take my money without my permission, and not just a small amount too, they took thousands from me without my permission, for soley political purposes.

I shouldn't have to give to a political fund in order to keep my job, that isn't right and it isn't morall.

I do not support corporations at all, but what the union did me and millions of other public workers is WRONG.

so....do you agree that this prop strikes an even greater imbalance between Union and Corporate influence? It's plain to several of this that the language of the prop is highly deceptive--pro or anti Union, corporation, whatever--this proposition is of dubious use, it simply shifts the monetary influence over to favor corporate interests above Union--which is certainly not an improvement. Those that support this seem to think that spending to gain political favor is in the best interest of this country, so....if that is your thing, then more power to you and you should probably vote "yes" in support of greater power for corporate interests buying your government.


But I do sympathize with your issues--I get that. With several Unions that I am aware of, you can request your Union payroll deductions to be returned to you if you wish, at the end of the year.

 

[redgtxdi]

No one, including myself, has ignored the language of the proposition saying that the same rule applies to both equally. No one denies this.

Of course, the real issue, is that the same rule affects both entities differently.

I've already stated that I have little love for Unions, as they currently exist. Sure, I have less love for vague, nameless entities being created under the guise of consumer welfare, that are merely puppets for corporations--and this proposition simply encourages that practice more.

What a garbage piece of legislation. It's painfully obvious that it's nothing more than simple-minded anti-Union teabaggery at its worst. ah...you're comments about those with money deserving the greater support in political influence.

Methinks you need to read your history and Founder's opinions on such corporate dominance of government..but then that blind pro-business, anti-constitutional stance is popular with the teabaggers. So no shock there, I guess. Yes, the best solution is to buy more congressmen. Do you seriously think that is the appropriate response to government?

it's the Romney stance:

Small government is good when it ignores the majority of "little people" that make up this country
Large government is great when it continues the corporate welfare system that all businesses depend on.


wowow....I still can't believe that you acknowledge that buying congressmen is the way to fix this...and you think this is a good proposition....because it makes that the only solution. LOL--you essentially bring up that direct criticism of the unfair balance placed against union influence in that statement.

Ahhhh, I see, you added to the original response. No worries, now that we know your real stance, there would be no convincing you otherwise. You only care about "who" is buying politicians, not that they're buying them in the first place.

Got it!

 

[DCal430]

so....do you agree that this prop strikes an even greater imbalance between Union and Corporate influence? It's plain to several of this that the language of the prop is highly deceptive--pro or anti Union, corporation, whatever--this proposition is of dubious use, it simply shifts the monetary influence over to favor corporate interests above Union--which is certainly not an improvement. Those that support this seem to think that spending to gain political favor is in the best interest of this country, so....if that is your thing, then more power to you and you should probably vote "yes" in support of greater power for corporate interests buying your government.


But I do sympathize with your issues--I get that. With several Unions that I am aware of, you can request your Union payroll deductions to be returned to you if you wish, at the end of the year.

Tobad the largest one does NOT allow it. SEIU. Though I think the CTA does allow it. CTA is the California Teachers Association. They could have more total members than SEIU, not sure though.

 

[zinfamous]

Ahhhh, I see, you added to the original response. No worries, now that we know your real stance, there would be no convincing you otherwise. You only care about "who" is buying politicians, not that they're buying them in the first place.

Got it!

and that is any different than how you feel, and why anyone who supports this prop would vote for it? It's basically what you have said.

This is how I interpret voting on this (regardless, Corps will continue to take an "unfair advantage" in the bribery bucket):

Yes: I favor corporate money in politician's pockets, and am likely anti-Union.

No: If bribery is what we are to accept, then I favor a somewhat more equal disbursement of bribery between Unions and corporations--preferably with flush corps getting stiffed the most. OR, this legislation is pure garbage and does nothing to remove the money game in politics.


Which one of those on the No side do you think I gravitate towards?

 

[makken]

Just finished reading the props.
Right now, I'm leaning:

YES on 30
NO on 32
NO on 35
YES on 36
NO on 38
YES on 39

Others I don't have a solid grasp of yet

I'm still a bit unsure what happens if both 30 and 38 passes, seems to be a clusterfuck for the courts.

 

[DCal430]

Just finished reading the props.
Right now, I'm leaning:

YES on 30
NO on 32
NO on 35
YES on 36
NO on 38
YES on 39

Others I don't have a solid grasp of yet

I'm still a bit unsure what happens if both 30 and 38 passes, seems to be a clusterfuck for the courts.

It is complex but basically this:

If 30 gets more votes everything in 30 takes affect and nothing in 38 does.

If 38 gets more votes the tax increase in 38 take affect, while 30 does not take affect.

However the budget that passed has mandatory and automatic cuts that are triggered should 30 fail to take affect. So 38 getting more votes means higher taxes plus a mandatory and automatic spending cut.

I am doing

30 YES
31 NO
32 YES
33 NO
34 NO
35 Not Sure
36 YES
37 YES
38 Not Sure
39 YES
40 YES

Remember everyone you must vote YES and 40.

Originally I was going to vote No on 36, because I thought it was the same as the old Prop 66 that was to reform 3 strikes that failed a few years ago, but no it is very different.

 

[woolfe9999]

This is real reform, all it does it make union political contributions voluntary.

Which everyone knows will have the effect of drying up the money available to unions for this purpose, while at the same time will do nothing to the sources of corporate funding. Is there something in this measure which would require, for example, that a vote of all shareholders be taken, with proper notice, before any money can be used for political purposes? Show me where it is.

I understand why you don't like how the unions are getting the money, but the measure you support will silence one voice while allowing the diametrically opposing voice to have free reign. We need real reform, not this measure which is backed by conservatives who want to pick one winner and one loser in the political process. You can't reform politics by playing to a one-sided partisan agenda.

 

[DCal430]

Which everyone knows will have the effect of drying up the money available to unions for this purpose, while at the same time will do nothing to the sources of corporate funding. Is there something in this measure which would require, for example, that a vote of all shareholders be taken, with proper notice, before any money can be used for political purposes? Show me where it is.

I understand why you don't like how the unions are getting the money, but the measure you support will silence one voice while allowing the diametrically opposing voice to have free reign. We need real reform, not this measure which is backed by conservatives who want to pick one winner and one loser in the political process. You can't reform politics by playing to a one-sided partisan agenda.

1. Shareholders are free to invest were they want.
2. All shareholders have a vote.

It doesn't silence anyone, it just gives someone BACK their own voice.

It is easy for you to say you support the union doing this, but you aren't the one who had thousands of dollars taken from him for this.

 

[Pulsar]

It would be smart if school districts sent letter to parents warning if no more sports and after school activity if prop 30 fails.

You really ARE a dullard. I'm curious what your vested interest here is.

The simple facts are here:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_30,_Sales_and_Income_Tax_Increase_(2012)

The arguments are clear. The teachers union has spent over $7,000,000 pushing this prop. Let's get something straight: they aren't spending $7,000,000 to get new text books.

It's pretty clear from an outsider non-vested point of view that there is NO guarantee that any of this money will do anything for the schools at all. The really nice part is where they put a clause in the prop that says it can be used for anything EXCEPT paying administration. So it's ok to pay teachers with it.... just not the admins.

How you can't see this is insane. It's straightforward. If the money was meant for specific things, the law would have been written that way. It wasn't. It isn't.

Are you a teacher, by any chance?