MO 1998-031 to 1998-035 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Contributions Employees, Argument in Favor of Proposition 226 Proposition 226 is very simple. and clear. It will reform California's elections two ways: • It stops unions and employers from taking money from members or employees paychecks for political purposes without their prior consent. It will prohibit contributions to state and local candidates from foreign nationals and foreign corporations. RANK AND FILE RIGHTS: BOSSES SHOULD NOT SPEND WORKERS' MONEY WITHOUT CONSENT IT IS MORALLY WRONG —DEAD WRONG —TO TAKE MONEY FROM YOUR PAYCHECK, WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT, AND SPEND IT TO SUPPORT A POLITICAL CANDIDATE OR ISSUE THAT YOU OPPOSE. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, said, "To compel a man to furnish oontributions of money for, the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical." The United States Supreme Court agrees and has ruled that it is illegal and unconstitutional to do so. But since Washington refuses to implement the court's Beck decision, California must act -to end this outrageous violation of fundamental fairness and the rights of California -union members. UNLESS PROPOSITION 226 . PASSES, UNION BOSSES —NOT INDIVIDUAL UNION MEMBERS —.WILL SIDE HOW THE MEMBER'S MONEY IS SPENT ON ,ITICS. ITS LIKE LETTING UNION BOSSES GO INTO VOTING BOOTH TO MARK THE MEMBEWS BALLOT. or years, union members . have been exploited by union leaders who took their money and spent it for political causes they opposed. FOR EXAMPLE, UNION MEMBERS SUPPORTED AND VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY APPROVED THE "THREE STRUMS AND YOU'RE OUT" INITIATIVE FOR HABITUAL CRIMINALS. YET UNION LEADERS SPENT MEMBERS' MONEY TO OPPOSE THREE STRIKES. No wonder polls show that union members —by a large majority —support Proposition 226. For some union members who don't want to make political contributions, Proposition 226 will. save them about $200 a year. t BANNING FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS PROPOSITION 226 WILL ALSO BAN ALL FOREIGN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES AND PARTIES. It will prevent foreign money from buying political influence, ending both the fact and appearance of its corrupting elected officials. The special interests that oppose Proposition 226 will say and do anything to defeat it. They know it will end their ability to direct tens of millions of dollars to campaigns and candidates that their members do not support. IT'S BITTER IRONY THAT THE CAMPAIGN TO DEFEAT PROPOSITION 226 WILL BE PAID FOR WITH WAGES OF UNION MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES WHO, BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY, STRONGLY SUPPORT IT. Union bosses attempt to justify extracting these involuntary contributions, claiming they know better than. individual rank and file members what's good for them. What arrogance! Proposition 226 will end this unfair and unconstitutional shakedown of California union members, protecting their paychecks and their rights. It will end the influence of foreign money on political candidates. BECAUSE -YOU'RE A UNION MEMBER SHOULD NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN. RANK AND FILE UNION MEMBERS DESERVE THE SAME POLITICAL FREEDOM OF CHOICE AS EVERY OTHER CALIF.ORNIAN.. GIVE THEM A FAIR SHAKE INSTEAD OF A SHAKEDOWN., Please vote yes on Proposition 226. PETE WI SON Governor, State of California ELIZABETH LEE Member, California Teachers'Association ROBERT EISENBEISZ Member, United. Electrical Workers —,local 99 Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 226 Too often, what proposition sponsors DON'T tell you is more im rtant than what they DO tell you. Sponsors of 226 combined two unrelated issues into one measure. They DON'T tell you they were combined to get voters who oppose "foreign contributions" to support a measure that is really designed to attack unions and employee organizations. 226- DOES increase government bureaucracy and DOES NOT reduce -foreign contributions to candidates. Existing law already does that. 226 was funded by out-of-state interests to protect big business, not California's working people. In fact, William Gould, chairman of the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, stated, "This proposal is mischievous, bad policy, and in all probability, unconstitutional." Attempts like this to deceive voters are regularly overturned in court and cost iyers millions. e State Controller estimates 226 will cost millions of rs to enforce. __3 tips the balance against ordinary people .even further, imposing pew bureaucratic standards against employee organizations while corporations go unchecked. Two sets of rules are unfair. The facts are: • Corporate interests contribute eleven times what employee organizations contribute to politics. • Union members typically only give one to two dollars monthly for politics, not $200 a year as proponents claim. Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader says:. "I have studied Proposition 226. A careful reading reveals it is a trick and a trap. Handcuffing working Californians increases the power of the few over the many. That always spells injustice." The only people this initiative is designed to help are those who wrote it. DON BROWN President, California Organization of Police and Sheriffs j's LOIS WELLINGTON President, Congress of California Seniors KIT COSTELLO, RN 1 134 President, California Nurses Association • 30 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.. P98