32 Is A Lie!!

For the last few days letters have been hard to find as emphasis on Prop 32 in the newspapers has shifted to editorial. But here’s a letter from yesterday’s San Bernardino Sun, by somebody with some real skin in the game:

Voice of the People:  Silencing teachers

I entered the teaching profession for one main purpose, to help children learn. It has been a great career.

I started in the late 1970s, teaching classes with 33 to 40 students. Then, thankfully, class size reduction started in 1995. I am now able to sit in a reading group of five students; I can pull struggling students into a group to work on math problems; and I am able to speak one-on-one with an angry or sad student to assess the situation. This is invaluable and students thrive on the extra attention they are receiving.

So, when some politicians, who have never spent even an hour in a classroom, decide that class size doesn’t matter, I have only one thing to say to them: Spend one day in a class of 33-plus kindergarteners!

Proposition 32 will silence the voices of teachers in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. If Proposition 32 passes, teachers will no longer be able to use our collective voices to advocate for what is right for our students. Proposition 32 will not stop corporations from spending their profits for political gain, it will only silence teacher’s collective voices. Bottom line: This is unfair.

On Nov. 6, do not let large corporations or a few wealthy individuals buy this election. We are in this together. Please vote no on Prop. 32 and support heroes like teachers, firefighters and police officers.

Nancy Glenn, Redlands

This letter makes two vitally important points. First, if Prop 32 passes, education will suffer – our children will suffer, and not just for a year or an election cycle, but for their whole lives. Second, “large corporations or a few wealthy individuals” think they can buy this election because they think everything is for sale. In their world it may be, in the real world it isn’t. We have to prevent California politics from being sold to the highest bidder. And I mean WE have to do it, nobody else can.

Most of the articles in the papers against Prop 32 have mentioned teachers and public safety workers, but it’s important for us in the Valley to remember that farmworkers also have fought for job protection and representation — and that they have more than most to lose if their political voice is silenced.  I haven’t seen much No on 32 outreach to agricultural workers and I hope we see more.

If you talk to someone about Prop 32 and why it’s not a good thing, they’re pretty much bound to say “But don’t be unions make a lot of political contributions?” Yes they do, and no one’s saying they don’t. Prop 32 would basically prevent unions from making any more political contributions. If Prop 32 passes, California’s billionaires will be able to contribute as much as they do now or more. They’re saying “Hey! Right now we’re contributing $1 billion and the unions are contributing $300 million. How about we contribute $1 billion and the unions contribute nothing?” And in today’s Chronicle, John Logan nails how this is going to work:

Unions…are very active in California politics, spending $284 million in the past decade. Under Prop. 32, virtually all of that money would disappear overnight. But unlike corporations, unions do not lobby for special tax breaks or for weaker labor or environmental regulations. Instead, Prop. 32 drastically would limit the ability of unions to advocate for issues affecting their members and all Californians, such as clean air and water, education funding, homeowner rights and banking regulations, emergency response times and unfair corporate tax giveaways.

Finally, Prop. 32 places no restrictions on political spending by wealthy individuals. Over the past decade, the top 50 wealthy political contributors spent more than $231 million on California elections. Two of the top three billionaire spenders in California are major contributors to the Prop. 32 campaign.

Prop. 32 won’t get the corrosive effects of money out of politics. Its special exemptions would only enhance the ability of billionaires and big businesses to dominate our elections. That hurts Californians.

You get that “no restrictions on political spending by wealthy individuals?” Another way to say that is “wealthy individuals get to buy California’s politics.” Sound fair? I don’t think so either. You should go ahead and read Logan’s whole article:  http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Prop-32-Bad-for-Calif-and-democracy-3839909.php#ixzz25c7L6ngy

The San Jose Mercury News isn’t always the most progressive paper in California, but they stand by their beliefs and rarely get anything really wrong. This afternoon they came out with an editorial strongly against Prop 32, and I want to quote a piece of it:

…Top labor unions spent $284 million on initiatives, candidates and parties from 2001 to 2011.

But all together, the top contributors among the wealthy and business interests spent $931 million, swamping labor. Eliminating union spending would worsen this disparity, making it nearly impossible for millions of middle-class voters to make their voices heard. Indeed, some of the largest contributors to the 32 campaign are the same wealthy men who have spent millions to influence politics over the past decade. Some may have the public interest at heart. Others simply want to silence opposition.

California needs real campaign finance reform. Proposition 32 would make a bad system worse. Vote no.

So you see, Prop 32 isn’t just about outspending the unions. Corporations already do that 3 to 1 and Prop 32 wouldn’t stop them. It’s about eliminating the political influence of the unions entirely. And when the unions were swept away, working people would be swept away right along with them.

If you want to read the whole Mercury News editorial it’s here:  http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_21444739/mercury-news-editorial-deceptive-prop-32-would-worsen

This is a good letter because it reminds us why Prop 32 has to be defeated:

Working families in California are facing the biggest and most devastating attack on our rights this election in November. Proposition 32, set to appear on the ballot, is a deceptive and destructive measure that threatens the jobs, wages and retirement of workers like us — while at the same time giving corporate special interests even more power and influence over our politics and government. The proponents of the so-called “Stop Special Interest Money Now Act” claim the measure would actually lessen the big money influence in Sacramento — but the truth is, the ex-CEOs and ultra-wealthy anti-worker activists behind this measure secretly wrote in a whole heap of exemptions for themselves and their Wall Street cronies. We cannot afford to sit back while corporate CEOs and billionaires trample our rights in order to push their own self-serving agenda.

Chris Knerr, Santa Rosa

Prop 32 was written very carefully to deceive the voters. If it did what it claims to do, it would be a good proposition to vote for – getting the special interest money out of politics would benefit everybody. But the way Prop 32 is written, it’s riddled with loopholes that make contributions by corporations and wealthy individuals even easier than they are now. Prop 32 doesn’t “level the playing field,” it tilts it even further. This is a good point to remember when you’re writing your own letters. And you are writing your own letters, aren’t you?

The Ventura County Star, a paper I’ve always respected, published a hard-hitting editorial today against Proposition 32. I shouldn’t repost, but I can link, and you should read:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/aug/30/editorial-prop-32-a-sham-deserves-to-lose-in-nov/

More and more papers are coming to the conclusion that Prop 32 is nothing but a way to sell California’s politics to the highest bidder. As they say, it’s failed twice before and it should fail this time too!

When you want to make your points in politics, with hard facts and good numbers, it’s always worth it to look at the Bay Area. And the East Bay Express, which is one of the Bay Area’s most important alternative papers, has a really useful take on Prop 32 and why it would be a disaster. I shouldn’t post the whole article but I can link to it:

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/prop-32-is-citizens-united-on-steroids/Content?oid=3317947

And here’s just one part that’s so important that I want to quote it:  “Data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Investigative Reporting demonstrates that the business interests and billionaires who would benefit most from Prop 32 already vastly outspend labor unions in the state and spend overwhelmingly on measures promoting their own self-interests.

Between 2001 and 2011, business interests spent more than $700 million on initiatives, candidates, and parties, while labor unions contributed well under half that amount — just over $284 million. Wealthy individuals, including many billionaires, bankrolled another $231 million. Under Prop 32, neither the spending by business interests nor wealthy individuals would face any meaningful limitations — indeed, they would likely explode — while that of unions would be all but eliminated.“

In the letters that push Prop 32, the writers keep saying that “Unions spend a lot of money trying to influence California politics.” Maybe that’s true, but corporations and individuals spend a whole lot more. If Prop 32 passes, rich people – remember, corporations are people now – will be able to save themselves a ton of money by shutting unions and working people out of the political process. And that’s not fair. There’s no way it can be fair.

A short, angry letter from one of the beach towns near San Diego makes the point that corporations have tried twice before to prevent working people from making political contributions. Now, both times before they were defeated. But that’s the way corporations are – if they campaign once and lose, they campaign again and again until they get what they want. We can’t let them get it this time either.

Prop. 32: Wrong for California

This year, the anti-worker, anti-union corporate elites are at it again with another attempt to silence working men and women with a brand-new “wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing,” namely, California’s Proposition 32.

Don’t let the names “Special Exemptions Act” or “Paycheck Protection Initiative” fool you. They tried this before, first, with Prop. 226 in June 1998 and again with Prop. 75 in November 2005. Fortunately, intelligent voters like you rejected these acts, both times.

Right in the first few lines of the California Attorney General’s Summary of Proposition 32 is the proof that this misnamed and misguided proposition is aimed at silencing working people and not the corporations, as they would have you believe:

“Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors.” Notice the “if any”? Corporations don’t use payroll-deducted funds, so this doesn’t apply to them.

Other political expenditures remain unrestricted, including corporate expenditures from available resources not limited by payroll deduction prohibition.

Therein lies the rub. No restrictions on corporate political contributions, only on union contributions.

Think about it and vote no on 32.

Mike Bush, Encinitas

Vote no on Proposition 32

I urge all California voters to vote no on Proposition 32 on Nov. 6. This measure bans unions and corporations from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Sponsors praise Prop. 32 as a good government measure designed to keep special interest money out of California politics that impacts corporations and unions equally.

It does not. This is because corporations do not fund their political donations using payroll-deducted funds. So Prop. 32 will not limit the huge, unlimited, corrupting political donations from corporations and Super PACs that serve their interests.

On the other hand, unions have no effective way other than payroll deductions to fund political donations to candidates and causes that support the interests of their members. If Prop. 32 were to pass, it effectively would silence the voice of working families at the ballot box while giving corporate interests and billionaire businessmen free rein to exert even more influence on our political system.

In coming weeks, corporate interests will be pouring millions of dollars into a campaign to pass the deceptively crafted Proposition 32. Don’t be fooled. Reward them by voting no on 32 and by supporting legislation that would require the Super PACs to identify donors and that would require corporations to seek shareholder approval for political donations.

Tim Fenton, Davis

This is a point worth making again and again. Payroll deductions are the ONLY WAY that unions have of contributing to political campaigns – which means the only way that working people have of fighting back against giant corporate budgets. If Prop 32 passes, corporations will own politics in California, which is why they’re pushing on it so hard.

Ed Estes got another letter published in the Sierra Star!

Dear Editor,

I still say no to Prop 32.

In response to my earlier “No on Prop 32” (Stop Special Interest Money Now) letter to the editor, Mr. Ron Arteno’s Aug. 16 letter makes his opposition to using his union dues for political purposes very clear and understandable. His union doesn’t ask for or reflect his views.

But, do corporations ask for or reflect the views of their customers, or employees or communities which accommodate them when supporting a political candidate or position? No, they don’t. They don’t even ask their fellow owners (i.e. stock holders).

What stock holder wants his dividend diluted by a political campaign contribution that he may not even agree with? Corporate donations are not private — They become private when they come from the salaries, bonuses and dividends earned by the management, board members and stock holders. And unlike Mr. Arteno, I don’t rely on current regulations to limit their political input — obviously it isn’t happening, and Prop 32 doesn’t change any of that.

The real question then becomes whether Mr. Arteno and the Tea Party believe that wealthy institutions should be able to determine the outcome of elections.

Ed Estes, Oakhurst

This is a good sign, people. Looks like if there’s active interest in a topic, a newspaper editor will publish more than one letter. Also the Star didn’t mind publishing two letters close together from one reader.

Get going on your letters and submit them to us and to the papers! It’s only two and a half months until the election.