Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Let me get this right... Arnold is FOR Prop 75 right?<< Prop 75 is about pushing his opponents forever out of the political forum. What do you think?
Originally Posted By friendofdd >>>What do you think?<<< The kinda' move any politician would be proud of.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger CrouchingTigger's propositions, take 2: Every corporation must annually get permission from each stockholder to use corporate money for political purposes. Those stockholders who do not give their express permission will receive, as a dividend, their share of the money that the corporation would have spent.
Originally Posted By RC Collins Or they can not buy the stock. Or they can sell the stock. Or they can not buy the corporation's goods or services.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www2.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_3046669" target="_blank">http://www2.presstelegram.com/ opinions/ci_3046669</a> >>In other words, if you belong to a public employee union, and you would like part of your dues to be used for political campaigns, you would have to "opt in." If you don't choose to support political candidates, presumably you would do nothing, and your dues would be decreased by a few dollars a month. Unions would have to maintain and, upon request, report their members' political contributions to the Fair Political Practices Commission. But if your only exposure to the measure is from radio and television ads, you would be led to believe, by opponents of Prop. 75, that Gov. Schwarzenegger, who only recently came out in favor of the measure, would get dictatorial powers. Police, fire, teachers and other government employees would lose their First Amendment and other unalienable rights, and corporations would continue — unhindered — to contribute huge sums of money to take away people's rights. In 1998, California voters defeated Proposition 226, which would have required all union members to declare whether their dues could be used for political purposes. That measure failed after unions spent nearly $27 million to defeat it. So much for the amount of money fat cats have to throw around.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://xgen.vitalstream.com/mcasx.asx?media=1942768&package=1842389" target="_blank">http://xgen.vitalstream.com/mc asx.asx?media=1942768&package=1842389</a> <a href="http://xgen.vitalstream.com/mcasx.asx?media=1942767&package=1842389" target="_blank">http://xgen.vitalstream.com/mc asx.asx?media=1942767&package=1842389</a>
Originally Posted By cmpaley DB, you should WARN people when you link directly to media files. It is especially helpful if you warn people that you are linking them to Schwarzeneggers' ugly mug! >>>>@ (Me puking)
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/22/state/n170431D63.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/22/state/n170431D63.DTL</a> >>A small group of teachers and lawyers who are seeking class action status for a lawsuit against the California Teachers Association was drowned out by screams and chants Thursday as they tried to hold a news conference outside the union's office. The National Right to Work Foundation, which filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Jose on behalf of six named teachers and professors, claims the CTA is illegally collecting a $60 levy in each of the next three years to pay for electioneering. The union voted to raise dues by that amount in hopes of raising $50 million to pay for a campaign against Propositions 74, 75 and 76 on the Nov. 8 special election ballot. The foundation unveiled its lawsuit at the CTA offices Thursday, but all its speakers were outshouted by around 100 teachers and other union supporters carrying pro-union placards and yelling "Shame on you." "This is an example of the kind of intimidation, bullying and thuggery that our public school teachers are enduring (from the union) every day," said state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, who was there to support the lawsuit. The suit asks that all 335,000 educators who are members and "fee-payers" — those who already opt out of other political union activities — be notified in writing of their legal right not to pay the levy for a political campaign and have their money returned right away. The 335,000 teachers, professors and others who are represented by the group were not consulted before the vote and "they certainly were not allowed an opportunity to object to, and prevent, this extraordinary expenditure of their money for politics," said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the foundation.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www2.dailynews.com/news/ci_3054116" target="_blank">http://www2.dailynews.com/news /ci_3054116</a> >>The lawsuit was filed on behalf of teachers who said they don't want their dues going to the campaign. While they acknowledged that there is a process to refund the money, they said it takes too long and is too difficult. "It means that I will have to give them a forced loan," said Judy Liegmann, a fifth-grade teacher from Sunnyvale. "They get to use my whole $60 to fight a political battle that I don't necessarily believe in." Liegmann is not a full CTA member, but under state law pays dues to the organization for representation in collective bargaining. The CTA is considered one of the leading groups in the anti-Schwarzenegger effort and has already contributed about $23 million to the effort. Full union annual member dues are $603, including the $60. <<
Originally Posted By Beaumandy After looking at this measure, it's going to pass. The amount of money the democrats and labor unions are spending just to lose is amazing yet predictable. I see the democrats are once again resorting to running ads that are misleading and don't tell the real story about this Proposition. This is where Arnold wins. He doesn't have to lie and hide what he is doing like the democrats are doing. He can take his message straight to the people and tell them exactly what he is doing and why. Basically, it's politics as usual with republicans and democrats. When are the dems going to learn that decepetion makes people very angry and that angry people don't vote for you. Look for ALL FOUR propostions to pass ( 74, 75, 76, 77 )
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Look for ALL FOUR propostions to pass ( 74, 75, 76, 77 )<< And if this happens, look for the quality of life in California to descend to levels that New Orleans couldn't even IMAGINE.
Originally Posted By RC Collins My advice to people is to just read the Proposition. <a href="http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/entire75.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections /bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/entire75.pdf</a> Page 5 has the actual text of the Proposition. There's nothing sneaky here. THAT text is what matters, not what anyone says on either side. I have confidence that if people read this, including the public employee union members, they will be inclined to vote yes. I personally know a few government employees who are union members who do plan on voting yes. And those are just the people I've bothered to ask. One of them is very liberal, too, and usually supports the same political agenda of the union, but she thinks the union needs to stop being a political interest group and concentrate on working conditions and compensation. I can understand why people oppose Prop 75. When this has been tried in other states, union members DO opt out in significant numbers. It is natural for union management to want to keep power and control of money. That's a very natural human trait. But... we're talking money that members have earned as wages, and the burden of getting approval and collection should be on the begger (the union) and not the earner (the member.)
Originally Posted By Beaumandy >>Look for ALL FOUR propostions to pass ( 74, 75, 76, 77 )<< And if this happens, look for the quality of life in California to descend to levels that New Orleans couldn't even IMAGINE.>> You are kidding right? You sound like an ad the democrats are running that tries to scare the people, yet it's totally not true but totally misleading. cmpaley, you know how much I love to gamble. Want to bet a Disney pin that at least 3 of the 4 measures pass even with the massive amounts of cash the democrats are spending tying to stop it?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop75/args_rebuttals.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.go v/prop75/args_rebuttals.shtml</a> >>Argument in Favor of Proposition 75 PROPOSITION 75 PROTECTS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FROM HAVING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TAKEN AND USED WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION. There’s a FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS IN CALIFORNIA: Hundreds of thousands of public employee union members are forced to contribute their hard earned money to political candidates or issues they may oppose. Powerful and politically connected union leaders—a small handful of people—can make unilateral decisions with these “forced contributions†to fund political campaigns without their members’ consent. The workers have no choice—money is automatically deducted from their dues. Firefighters, police officers, teachers, and other public employees work hard for the people of California and we owe them a huge debt for the work they do on our behalf. That’s why it’s only fair that public employees give their permission before their hard earned dollars are taken and given to politicians and political campaigns. Many public employee union members don’t support the political agenda of the union bosses and it’s not right that they are forced to contribute to political candidates and campaigns they oppose: Campaign finance records document that several public employee unions have spent more than $2 million to qualify a ballot measure that would raise property taxes by billions of dollars—rolling back Proposition 13 protections. Many members of these unions may oppose this, but the union leaders just take the money and spend it even though individual union members may disagree. That’s not right and it’s not fair. HERE’S WHAT ACTUAL UNION MEMBERS SAY: “I’ve been a public school teacher for 20 years. I joined the union when I started teaching because of the benefits it provided and I’ve always been a proud member. However, despite the many good things the union does, it . . . contribute a portion of my dues to political . . . campaigns I often disagree with. That’s simply unfair. I want to be a member of the teachers union, but I don’t want to be forced to contribute my money to the union leaders’ political agenda.†Diane Lenning, Huntington Beach “I’m a member of the largest state employee union. I believe in the union and what it does. It supports me in many ways, but I don’t need it spending a portion of my dues for political purposes. If I want to make a political contribution to a candidate it should be voluntary, not mandatory.†Jim Prunty, Glendora PROPOSITION 75—IT’S COMMON SENSE. Here’s what it’ll do: Give public employees the same choices we all have. Require public employee unions to obtain annual written consent from members before their dues are taken for political purposes. Allow government employees to decide when, how, and if their hard earned wages are spent to support political candidates or campaigns. Proposition 75 will NOT prevent unions from collecting political contributions, but those contributions will be CLEARLY VOLUNTARY. Vote YES on Proposition 75. Give California workers the freedom and choice we all deserve and help restore union members’ political rights. Learn more, visit www.caforpaycheckprotection.com. MILTON FRIEDMAN, Nobel Prize Winner LEWIS UHLER, President National Taxpayer Limitation Committee ALLAN MANSOOR, Member of Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs ****************************************** Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 75 Despite what union leaders would like you to believe, public opinion surveys show that nearly 60% of union households SUPPORT PROPOSITION 75. Proposition 75 is NOT about the political influence of unions or corporations—it’s simply about INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. A nonpartisan employee rights group measured the results of a Paycheck Protection measure in Washington State. Its findings showed that 85% of teachers chose NOT to participate in their union’s political activities. Consider the recent actions by the prison guard union and teacher union—is this fair? Despite opposition from more than 4,000 prison guards, their union increased dues by $18 million over two years to pay for political campaigns and to give to politicians. WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP, the teachers union recently increased dues by $50 million over three years in order to fund political campaigns. This is NOT a fair choice—it’s not what our teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public employees deserve. YES ON 75 will simply ask public employee union members for their approval before automatically using dues for political purposes. Proposition 75 will NOT prevent unions from collecting political contributions, but those contributions will be CLEARLY VOLUNTARY. It will hold public employee union leaders more ACCOUNTABLE to their membership. There are no hidden agendas. No power grabs. Just protecting workers’ rights. Read the official Title and Summary for yourself—it’s really that simple. VOTE YES ON 75—let individuals, not union leaders, decide whether their dues should be spent on politics. JAMES GALLEY, Past Vice President AFSCME/AFL-CIO, Local 127 ARCHIE CAUGHELL, Member Service Employees International Union PAMELA SMITH, Member California Teachers Association
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.californiafamily.org/Site/isBrief_Detail.asp?PID=86" target="_blank">http://www.californiafamily.or g/Site/isBrief_Detail.asp?PID=86</a> >>Public-sector unions spend heavily against the governor and often for mostly liberal causes. A few powerful, politically connected union leaders make decisions affecting members’ political sway. Records show that several public-employee unions spent in excess of $2 million to qualify a ballot measure to raise property taxes by billions of dollars. The rank-and-file union members should have more say and give informed consent to have their dollars used for political purposes. Earlier this summer, without a vote of the membership, the 800-member California Teachers Association (CTA) “governing body†voted to increase dues by $50 million over three years to finance political campaigns. This amounts to $60 annually per member. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) voted to raise its dues to finance political spending – despite opposition from 43 percent of its membership. A March 20 Sacramento Bee article reported that, according to the secretary of state’s office, 119 political committees for 59 unions spent over $50 million on political activity in California last year. A June 2005 Field Poll found that almost half of households with union members supported Prop 75. When Washington state passed a paycheck-protection measure in 1992, political contributions to the Washington Education Association dropped to one quarter of what it was before. Union members should have the right to determine how, when, and if their money should be used to support political issues and candidates. The initiative will not stop unions from using dues for political purposes; it will, however, ensure that such spending is voluntary – not mandatory. A June Field Poll found that 46 percent of union households surveyed would support the Paycheck Protection measure.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.calchamber.com/news/index.cfm?id=156&action=detail&navid=270" target="_blank">http://www.calchamber.com/news /index.cfm?id=156&action=detail&navid=270</a> >>California Chamber of Commerce President Allan Zaremberg today released the following statement regarding the Chamber's support of Proposition 75 on the November special election ballot: “Proposition 75 is an important protection for employees’ paychecks – ensuring that they cannot have political contributions deducted from their paychecks without their permission. Giving workers a measure of control over how their money is spent, this measure does not prevent unions from collecting political contributions – it simply makes those contributions voluntary, not mandatory.â€<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley ^^^ Except, of course...if this passes, there will be NO MORE paychecks to "protect." That's the part they don't tell you about.
