Laserfiche WebLink
Contributions <br />Employers, <br />Argument Against Proposition 226 <br />PROPOSITION 226 IS NOT WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE <br />Are you tired of being asked to vote on another ballot <br />measure that talks about two very different subjects? Are you <br />tired of being asked to vote for ballot measures that say one <br />thing but mean something else? <br />If you are, please look closely at 226. <br />226 WILL NOT REDUCE FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS <br />The authors claim 226 bans foreign contributions. But <br />existing law already prohibits foreign contributions to federal, <br />state, and local candidates. <br />But the fine print of 226 does something else. <br />You will see that Section 3 contains language clearly stating <br />that foreign nationals .should be allowed to contribute to the <br />qualification or passage of California ballot measures. See for <br />.yourself by readuig the initiative's language in this handbook. <br />Foreign interests should not be aall owed to influence the <br />outcome of our California ballot initiatives or bond measures. <br />Section 3 also allows subsidiaries of foreign corporations to <br />contribute to candidates. <br />PROPOSITION 226 WAS PUT ON THE BALLOT BY <br />OUT-OF-STATE INTERESTS <br />Proposition 226 was not written by people who care about <br />California's working families. <br />Official campaign disclosure reports filed with the Secretary <br />^f State dated November 7, 1997 show that more than 60% of <br />funds used to place 226 .on` the ballot came from individuals <br />io do not live in California. <br />rHE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OPPOSES <br />PROPOSITION 226 BECAUSE IT WILL UNFAIRLY CREATE. <br />TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES <br />According to. the League of Women Voters, "Everyone should <br />play by.the same rules, especially when it comes to elections <br />that determine the future direction of our state and nation. <br />This measure sets up two sets of rules which is wi}y we oppose <br />226." <br />Read the language of 226 carefully. Section 85990 talks about <br />deductions from employee wages. But you will not find a single <br />word that.protects the individual rights of shareholders when <br />the corporations they own make campaign contributions. <br />Section 85991 regulates union dues. But there is not one <br />word that restricts how corporate interests and their political <br />allies use their members' dues on politics. <br />By placing costly new bureaucratic regulations on unions, but <br />not on corporate interests, the backers of 226 are trying to <br />silence unions and give an unfair adbantage to corporate <br />interests, starting with the election for Governor this <br />November. <br />Passing a law that creates two sets of rules at election time <br />just is not fair. <br />PROPOSITION 226 WILL COST TAXPAYERS MONEY <br />226 will cost state government millions of dollars to <br />implement. And it will cost local governments and schools even <br />more to implement the new bureaucratic rules'required of their <br />employees. <br />And 226 is so poorly written it will cost California taxpayers <br />additional millions trying to defend it in court. <br />That is why the California Organization of Police and <br />Sheriffs, the Sierra Club, the Congress of California Seniors, <br />Clean Water Action, the California Public Interest Research <br />Group, and the League of Women Voters of California all urge <br />you to vote NO on Proposition 226. <br />LOTS TINSON <br />President, California lbachers Association <br />HOWARD OWENS <br />Executive Director, Consumer Federation of California <br />DAN TERRY <br />President, California Professional Firefighters <br />Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 226 <br />Powerful union leaders are wagin a deceitful campaign to <br />defeat proposition 226, because it will eliminate their ability to <br />direct tens of millions of dollars to political candidates and <br />causes without approval from their members. THEY KNOW <br />THEY CANNOT DEFEAT 226 ON THE MERITS, SO IT IS <br />THEIR INTENT TO MISLEAD VOTERS. <br />UNION LEADERS SO FEAR HAVING TO ASK THE <br />MEMBERS' CONSENT TO SPEND THEIR MONEY, THEY'LL <br />SAY ANYTHING TO DEFEAT 226. <br />HERE ARE THE FACTS: <br />• Union leaders say 226 will silence unions politically. <br />WRONG. IF RANK AND FILE MEMBERS BELIEVE <br />THEIR LEADER'S POLITICAL AGENDA WILL <br />• Opponents claim 226.says that foreign nationals "should <br />'be allowed to contribute" to ballot measures. IT DOES <br />NOT. Read it: 226 only provides that its foreign <br />contribution prohibitions "shall not apply" to BALLOT <br />MEASURES, leaving that to EXISTING STATE LAW <br />(signed by Governor Wilson) THAT PRESENTLY <br />PROHIBITS foreign contributions to ballot measures. <br />REMEMBER: EVERY TIME YOU SEE AN AD TRASHING <br />PROPOSITION 226, IT IS BEING PAID FOR BY UNION <br />LEADERS —WITH MEMBERS' MONEY —BUT, WITHOUT <br />THEIR CONSENT. <br />PROPOSITION 226 IS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP IT. <br />BENEFIT THEM; THEY WILL GIVE THEIR CONSENT. <br />• UNION MEMBERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT <br />226, AND THE CALIFORNIA POLL SHOWS THAT 72% <br />OF CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT 226. <br />Opponents make deliberately misleading claims that <br />EXISTING law prohibits foreign contributions to <br />CANDIDATES. They know that only FEDERAL law does <br />so,' and .the state has no power to enforce federal law. <br />That's why 226s STATE prohibition is required. <br />MARK BUCHER <br />President —California Foundation for <br />Campaign Reform <br />LINDA HUNT <br />Member California Nurses Association <br />ROGER HUGHES <br />Member -California Federation of nachers, AFL-CIO <br />140 <br />P98 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. 31 <br />