.

County Board of Supervisors Vote to Oppose Prop. 32

The board's vote encourages voters to vote no on the measure that would prohibit unions and employers from deducting money from employee paychecks for political purposes.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 along ideological lines Tuesday to urge voters to vote no on Proposition 32 on the Nov. 6 ballot.

The measure would prohibit unions, corporations, government contractors and state and local government employers from spending money deducted from an employee's paycheck for political purposes.

Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who recommended the action, said the proposition would limit the voice of hardworking Californians.

"Proposition 32 is restrictive legislation that advantages billionaire campaign contributors and super PACs by prohibiting working Americans from collectively contributing money to their own political action committee through their unions," Ridley-Thomas said. "Corporations already outspend unions by more than 15 to 1 in politics.''

Supervisors Don Knabe and Michael Antonovich were the dissenting votes. Knabe said he understood others' concerns that prohibiting payroll deductions would lead to a drop in political fundraising by unions, but said he saw other valuable reforms in the ballot measure.

"At some point we have to deal with campaign reform,'' Knabe said.

Dozens of union members and other activists rallied before the board's vote and several spoke out on Proposition 32 and Proposition 30, also set for the November ballot.

Before the vote to oppose Proposition 32, the board voted on the same 3-2 split to support Proposition 30, the sales and income tax increase backed by Gov. Jerry Brown to increase education funding.

Margeaux Rox October 10, 2012 at 06:08 PM
Why can't the workers not pay into it and then support who they wish? They really mean YES on 32 so the cronyism stops.
Geo October 11, 2012 at 06:11 AM
Unions like to bully, rip off, and brainwash their members. YES on 32.
Racorsr October 11, 2012 at 08:14 PM
Vote yes, supervisors that voted against it are union puppets, followers and work in their favor not the constituents that elected them with union money.
Racorsr October 11, 2012 at 08:14 PM
Agree!
Gayle M. Montgomery October 11, 2012 at 10:31 PM
Ok, I'll explain it again. The Supreme Court has ruled that monetary donations to political campaigns is a form of free speech, which cannot be abridged. Further, in Citizens United, they decided that corporations are persons. This bill on its face discriminates. It precludes all corporations except those that sponsored the bill from making political contributions but afford the privilege for themselves. In addition, if a Corporation is considered to be a person, so too is a Union. This, folks, is a Stare Decisis matter. The Supreme Court has basically already adjudicated the key parts of this law. Vote yes, it will be appealed, it will lose at SCOTUS, and you're basically flushing a whole bunch of California tax dollars down the sewer. It is a colossal waste of money. Most unions have the right to not have their dollars go to the political campaigning. This is an attempt to bust unions, but also to rob the vote for everybody else.
Dan Crandell October 29, 2012 at 04:32 PM
@Gayle The language of this bill it misleading, Why should I care how union bosses are collecting dues from union members. Why should I care how those union bosses spend the money? Are union members supporting this bill ? If so why asks California Voters for protection from their chosen bosses. If union members are not supporting this bill why should I support it ? Who's being cheated here ? No victim ... No Crime ... No Problem ... No ON 38
Dave November 05, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Sorry Gayle, this is NOT a Stare Decisis matter. It's a fairness to the worker matter. While true, financial campaign reform is just not in the cards however, this proposition does one thing that will help the regular wage earner. It forces the unions ask for the money to finance their political lobbying activities. This single provision has both the unions and their political supporter’s panties in a bunch. If I were in a union, I sure as hell would want input (by my money) on what my union does or does not support politically. It says: 85151. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee’s wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes. Will it stop all special interest money? Not a chance. Will it keep contractors from contributing or lobbying a candidate? Again, not a chance. Big money interests, Super PAC’s and the like are already exempt, despite the claims on TV. Besides, the Supreme Court has already ruled that they can do pretty much whatever they like with their money so no state level proposition can change that. Frankly, I could care less who’s lobbing whom, I just think it should made public and not done with any money dragged out of my paycheck unless I say it’s OK to do so.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something