Posted on 10/27/2005 10:12:51 AM PDT by calcowgirl
Most political analysts would agree: The single most politically significant measure on the Special Election Ballot is Proposition 75, dubbed “Paycheck Protection” by its proponents. Proposition 77, the Redistricting Reform measure, is also a major reform. But without a change in the campaign funding paradigm (especially at the state legislative level), fair districts will not necessarily be competitive districts--Republicans are significantly outspent by the majority party.
No, it is the major loss of political resources by public employee unions that would rock the foundations of the status-quo in Sacramento.
Most political insiders, let alone members of the public, are unaware that while everyone is totally engaged in this battle over whether public employee union members should have to affirmative designate donations to their union’s political activities, union leaders are quietly getting ready for some payback via a measure they are dubbing, “Shareholder Protection.”
The “Corporate Political Accountability Act” (as called by its proponents) basically works like this: companies would have to obtain permission in writing from shareholders before spending money for political purposes. A company would have to send its political ‘spending plan’ for the coming year to stock holders, who would vote. A company can spend a percentage of their planned political giving equal to the percentage of shareholders who vote affirmatively for the plan. So, for example, if 42 percent of stockholder vote yes, then a company can spend 42 percent of what it has in its spending plan.
Signature gathering is under way for the this ballot measure, with the statutory deadline for turning them in being Dec. 30, although advocates has said they intend on cutting that short--who wants to be out gathering signatures between Christmas and New Year’s?
The analogy that is being made is that if union members should have to positively affirm that their pay can be used for political purposes, then corporations should get the same sign off from their shareholders. This is a flawed argument that is really comparing apples to oranges.
Public employees cannot realistically quit their jobs because they object to the way their union’s PAC is spending the money taken from their paychecks. An investor in a company, on the other hand, is very easily able to sell off shares. If a company experiences a lot of shares being sold because of its political leanings, that would certainly be a market-factor that would impact the ‘behavior’ of the company.
To put this in terms that are easier to digest: If you object to Paramount Pictures giving money to the California Democratic Party, and you owned shares of their parent corporation, Viacom, you might be mad. If so, you can call up your broker, or pull up your E-Trade account online, and sell that stock. You can then use those same funds to go buy stock in a company with political leanings you like, or one with no political leanings at all!
The political reality is that this is about unions trying to “even the playing field” by drying up corporate contributions-which the unions feel go largely to Republican candidates. But just go back and look at how much corporate money went to Democrat Gray Davis to realize that is not always the case.
So, where does it go from here?
Well, a lot of that may depend on what happens with Proposition 75. If it passes, big public labor unions like the California Teachers Association will actually be in debt and hardly in a strong position to finance a statewide campaign for “shareholder protection”--especially while they, along with every other public employee unions, will be focused on the time-consuming task of lobbying their own members to donate to their union PACs.
However, let us not forget that while it is public employee unions that donate the most funds towards political candidates and causes, other unions such as the AFL-CIO and its affiliates give millions, and they, along with wealthy businessmen like George Soros or Stephen Bing, will make this measure their number one priority.
There are two factors that could make this issue very interesting to watch on the June, 2006 ballot. The first is that the Democratic primary for governor will be taking place, which is likely to increase liberal turnout.
Even more interesting is that Gov. Schwarzenegger, as recently as at a public forum this last Tuesday night in Walnut Creek, has voiced his support for the concept of ‘shareholder protection.’
Governor's surprising plum for unions - Corporate political agenda needs to be OKd, too, he saysPrior Capitol Weekly article
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | October 26, 2005 | John Wildermuth
Schwarzenegger signs off on shareholder protection
by Capitol Weekly Staff (published September 20th, 2005)
Since most California companies are run by liberals, it's fine with me.
The CAGOP is going to rue the day they jumped on the Austrian's bandwagon during the 11th hour.
In a state where municipal employees' union fees are compulsory even for nonmembers, it's a no-brainer to see the comparison between shareholders and employees are steak vs potatoes comparisons.
lOL,, Hey now, what about all the folks in the country and tennis clubs,, they're sure not all liberals.. ;-)
The more campaign finance laws they have in CA, the better. Since CA is heavily Democratic, it's the Dems who will suffer. They'll be able to raise less money, and they'll be the ones who most often get indicted.
He supports the concept of many things. Two are driver's licenses for illegals and homosexual civil rights. Yet, when it has come down to signing or vetoing specific bills, he's vetoed those two time and again. He's sided with the People.
It's ultimately up to the voters. At least a half-dozen elections have shown CAGOP is toothless, incompetent and irrelevant.
I'm so pist at the CAGOP for forclosing on any primary contest for Governor that I could just SPIT!!!
A side note to your comment about getting indicted
Not a lot of folks know that the 'Rats have and are blocking additional funding for the FPPC to handle an overload of cases, a lot of which they won't be able to investigate.
The dems scream about being violated themselves when they are exposed.. now why wouldn't the 'Rats want to fund it adequately to ensure we all live up to the highest standards of conduct in the spirit of Good Government? hhmmmm...
-----
FPPC at FR search results
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=any;o=score;s=fppc
They need a "private attorney general" law.
lol.. Moonbeam wants the job..
State AG, that is
Exactly. Shareholders aren't having money forced from their paychecks - do shareholder's recieve paychecks?
Shareholders receive dividends. Money contributed to political candidates is not deductible for tax purposes, hence comes out of profit, which leaves less for dividends.
I don't want any corporation in which I hold stock making political contributions. Let me have the money and let me make whatever contributions I wish.
If you do, it's then that you'll learn of the minutia and pure unadulterated B.S. that a candidate from the "grass roots" must try to get volunteers to look after like professionals.
Sure as heck, your incumbent opponent will play "gettcha/gottcha" through the local press/media to bury you in the supposed violation of some obscure FPPC rule/regulation!!!
It happens everytime it's tried!!!
We already have a "private attorney general" law that the Liberal EnvironMental/GovernMentalists have absolutely run into the ground in CA!!!
Ping!!!
Ping!!!
Ping!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.