MO 1998-031 to 1998-035 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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