Posted on 06/10/2012 8:50:24 AM PDT by SmithL
Labor unions and business interests have been quietly raising millions of dollars and testing campaign messages for months, girding for a brawl over a November ballot measure that could fundamentally shift political power in Sacramento.
Now, on the heels of an election that saw unions handed a major defeat last week in Wisconsin, the opposing camps in California soon will launch a campaign battle likely to consume $50 million or more in political spending.
"Unions have just two channels of influence," said Daniel J.B. Mitchell of the Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA, "collective bargaining and the political side, so this initiative is extremely important to them."
The measure, which has not yet received a proposition number, would ban both unions and corporations from contributing directly to candidates, although both sides could still freely spend money on their own independent efforts.
Another provision forbids both sides from using money gathered from payroll deductions for political purposes. It promises to gut the power of labor unions because they raise nearly all of their money for political and other purposes via payroll-deducted dues from their members' paychecks.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Maybe you should read the rest of the thread before swinging your jowls.
California will be the next battleground. Bait or not, it will be on the ballot, and the unions have been gearing up for a royal battle over it. I assumed it would go down in flames, but after this week’s reform wins in San Diego and San Jose, I’m no longer certain about that.
Do I understand correctly there will be a single proposition with the dual functions of 1) prohibiting public employee unions from contributing to politicians and 2) prohibiting corporations from contributing to politicians.
These two functions should have been in separate propositions, NOT in a single proposition. What if the proposition is deemed unconstitutional because it is considered free speech for corporations to donate money to politicians?
I am adamant that we need to halt public union money from being donated to politicians. That is critical.
I am going to be furious if this proposition passes and is then overturned in total because the courts rule that we don’t have the power to prohibit a corporation’s free speech right to donate money to politicians.
I hope and pray this proposition is well thought out and does not violate a corporation’s free speech rights. I would be livid if this critical need to hamstring the CA state employee unions from extorting money to give to state Dems is overturned because it was combined with an unconstitutional provision.
I hope whoever wrote this proposition did their homework and doesn’t shaft us. It is just absolutely critical to starve the CA state Democrats of public employee union money, so this had better work. If it doesn’t, I’m going to scream.
Follow Wisconsin’s lead, California and begin to dismantle the union/’rat stranglehold on your state.
I’m tired of people lamenting the situation in California, then coming up with every excuse under the sun why Conservative efforts should not be undertaken in the state.
If you can’t get behind Conservative efforts in the state, then fine. Just don’t advocate for everyone else avoiding getting behind it.
Only the harsh reality of fiscal collapse might turn them around, and somehow I'm certain they won't acknowledge it until it's far too late to salvage the situation.
California has been in play, but the Rinocrats have abandoned us. They leave hanging out to dry and then have the gaul to pester us for money every election cycle. There is still a very strong conservative base here, some have just plane given up while others are just out right fed up with the “Republican Party.”
I’ve written off CA and NY. At this point, I think the only good outcome is to use them as leftist sumps and bad examples. Sorry to you Freepers caught behind enemy lines.
The union pension abuses in California are FAR worse than in Wisconsin and the public is fed up with it. So, it’s a winning issue. Look at San Jose (liberal) and San Diego (conservative, sort of). Both passed by behemoth margins major cuts in benefits for municipal employeess. The press in California has for years and years contained one story after another of outrageous benefits paid to retirees from municipalities, so the public is better informed on this issue. I say go for it!
While Michigan unions may have dropped the “recall Snyder” attempt, unions are actively working gather enough signatures to add to the November Ballot a measure that would open up the state constitution and amend it so that the right for Unions to engage in Collective Bargaining would be ensured right within the State Constitution itself, thereby making them immune from taxpayers and “hostile” government. You can bet this will be disguised in “legalese” so that most taxpayers will have no clue that they are voting against themselves. After the Wisconsin smack-down, unions will certainly become sneakier and more creative in finding ways to keep their power. Rather than boldly going after those who stand in their way, they will learn to work behind the scenes to keep their privileged status.
we’ll never know the actual figures from their side. the best estimates i’ve seen are upwards of 100 million total—for all the recalls and including payment for so called “grass roots” union boots on the ground, the dem governors, union pacs payed from union dues, etc. if we spent 60 million then we held at about 2 (for them) to 1.
then start adding in the damages for thuggery, opportunity cost for fighting an illegitimate recall, lost public sector union work days and on and on. heck, given the culture and media we are already at a 2 to 1 handicap.
look, we conservatives are always going to be “outspent” from all statist sources by the entrenched power in the R and D parties. we just have to make it competitive as we did in wisconsin.
we have to keep it in the ball park, say within 1 order of magnitude, i.e., under 10 to 1. our message will have a chance to carry the day. and then more importantly, we need more leaders like mr. walker who will stand and deliver. leaders like him are multipliers. that means we have to keep purging the cinos and rinos. in this case it looks like for once that we didn’t have to fight the R’s too, and that’s a rare blessing.
if that is true then conservatives have to reject it. free speech for all is a bedrock principle. if unions want to contribute from “voluntarily” paid dues from voluntary union membership, then so be it. right now, that isn’t the case. sounds like the usual trick propositions foisted on the hapless ca democrats by the powers that be.
That's odd... all 3 branches have, in a past ten years, declared it illegal for unions to use any dues for political purposes. I wonder where the unions are getting these billions of dollars from for the political purposes. They CERTAINLY couldn't be ignoring the law, could they? NAAAAH!
(By the way, why is it that dues collected by union are the only income in the US that isn't taxed?)
Whatever the amount they spent, any persuasion done by their side occurred prior to the actual campaign, as almost all of their eventual voters, at least 3/4, were already energized enough to sign the recall petition back in January. Maybe the Republicans figure it is to their advantage to allow a myth of the relative prowess of their fund-raising to persist.
I thought Walker was the first U.S. governor ever to survive a recall?
There have been only two successful Gubernatorial recalls, North Dakota removed Lynn Frazier in 1921, and California ousted Gray Davis in 2003. Scott Walker joined a long line of unsuccessful attempts at recall. California has attempted recall of every governor elected since 1968, including Ronald Reagan. Circulating recall petitions does not guarantee enough signatures to force a special election and getting the signatures does not guarantee enough votes to actually force a change.
Twenty states permit recall elections for governors (and other state officials). They are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia (allows recall by trial), Washington, and, of course Wisconsin.
The District of Columbia also permits recall elections.
The number of opportunities for recall is surprisingly high and yet the actual number of successful recalls (of Governors) is two.
Regards,
GtG
Make no mistake about it, whatever correcting gets done in the state will be without top Republican leadership’s help.
I totally agree with your take on it.
When open primaries popped up last year, the Republican leadership didn’t say one word in opposition. At least I never heard it.
The Dem coalition will fracture as soon as the component groups have to fight each other for limited funds.
Don’t count on it. Remember these are the same morons and rubberheads of the gimme mentality that re-elected governor Moonbeam.
Amen to that! There are still a lot good solid conservatives here in California; we are just out numbered by the lunatics along the coast, in LA county and Sacto. For years all the losers and lowlifes from other states were encouraged or sent to California for better welfare benefits, we are stuck with the boot scrapings from a lot of other states and they vote here the same way they would have voted in their home states.
Glad to hear from another North State conservative on these matters.
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.