Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.laobserved.com/biz/2012/11/money_used_to_oppose.php" target="_blank">http://www.laobserved.com/biz/...pose.php</a> From the link: Turns out that the Arizona group contributing $11 million to defeat Prop 30, the measure that would increase taxes, and support Prop 32, the measure that would ban union payroll deductions for political contributions, comes from two nonprofits with ties to conservative causes. One is the Center to Protect Patient Rights, which is run by a former operative of David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who have fiercely gone after President Obama. The other group is Americans for Job Security, which is described as a nonprofit "business league." We know this because the California courts required the Arizona group to turn over donor information to the state's Fair Political Practices Commission. The commission accused the Arizona group, Americans for Responsible Leadership, of money laundering. From the Sacramento Bee: The Fair Political Practices Commission said in a release this morning that Americans for Responsible Leadership "sent a letter declaring itself to be the intermediary and not the true source of the contribution." "Under California law, the failure to disclose this initially was campaign money laundering," FPPC wrote. "At $11 million, this is the largest contribution ever disclosed as campaign money laundering in California history."
Originally Posted By TomSawyer For a party that works so hard to deny gay people equal rights, they sure do love their Kochs.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf So why is this considered money laundering? Where's the money generated from a crime that is being laundered? I don't get it.... And I find it more outrageous that the California Teachers Association has contributed $11.4 Million, and the SEIU has contributed $10.7 Million, to support Prop 30. The figure is $21 Million from CTA and $14.5 Million from SEIU to defeat Prop 32. Public unions -- they take money from taxpayers and turn it around in the form of union dues to fight for....drum roll please....more taxpayer money. California is doomed.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda Eighth Dwarf. While I don't support the amount of money the Union's are spending, they kind of have to in order to get what they want. Just like the (yuck) Koch brothers spend their money to get what they want. If everyone (in these issues) just put their money in to support the actual thing (ie: education) instead of promoting THEIR adjenda, maybe there wouldn't be something to argue over?
Originally Posted By andyll <<Public unions -- they take money from taxpayers>> How do unions take money from taxpayers?
Originally Posted By velo I think he means the union members' dues....my husband, a union member, gladly pays his dues to a union that provides him with an excellent wage, benefits, etc. And since we usually agree with the political stance of the union, we don't mind that part of it either.
Originally Posted By oc_dean HA-HA!! Caught! <a href="http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/politics&id=8874417" target="_blank">http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/st...=8874417</a>
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<While I don't support the amount of money the Union's are spending, they kind of have to in order to get what they want.>> You see, that's exactly my point and exactly the problem. Our state government is essentially a non-profit organization doing lots of good stuff like educating our children, feeding the hungry, providing healthcare to the poor, etc. Are we agreed? The public unions fight for higher pay and outrageous benefits at the expense of the good things our government does. In order to prevent public outrage at services being cut (like education) they spend their money, which comes from tax dollars (because every dollar they receive for dues comes from taxes), for taxes to be raised. It's insanity. It wouldn't be as outrageous if state employees' wages and benefits were basically in line with the private sector, but they are way off. Public pensions are enormous and are dragging down the economy. Public health plans are the "cadillac" plans Obama wanted to tax the death out of but, of course, government benefits are excluded. State employee wages used to be lower than their private sector counterparts, which somewhat justified the benefits packages, but that has not been the case for many years. So those of us in the private sector not only have to work hard to keep our jobs (because we don't have unions protecting us) and pay for our own retirement and health benefits, we have to pay for everyone in the public sector as well. And what do they keep telling us? Give us more because it's not good enough! Bottom line: if you want more money for the good things government can do, we need to make public unions illegal. But they are so entrenched in our system and are so in control of the political environment as evidenced by their political contributions every election. They are a tapeworm that sucks in tax dollars, leaving the system malnourished. Ask yourself why is it that Californians pay the highest taxes in the country and yet have about the lowest education spending per pupil. Where are those tax dollars going? California is sick, very sick. Don't feed the tapeworm. Vote no on higher taxes.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Bottom line: if you want more money for the good things government can do, we need to make public unions illegal.>> So it's OK for private sector unions to have the right of collective bargaining, but not the public sector unions? In this day and age of Citizens United? No way.
