|
STATEWIDE RACES
U.S. Senate
Governor
Lieutenant
Governor
Secretary
of State
Controller
Treasurer
Attorney
General
Insurance
Commissioner
Superintendent
of Public Instruction
Board of Equalization
 
STATE BALLOT
MEASURES
Prop 219
Prop 220
Prop 221
Prop 222
Prop 223
Prop 224
Prop 225
Prop 226
Prop 227
CALIFORNIA CONGRESSIONAL
RACES
Districts
1 - 26
Districts
27 - 52
LEGISLATIVE
RACES
STATE SENATE
Districts 2 - 40
STATE ASSEMBLY
Districts
1 - 20
Districts
21 - 40
Districts
41 - 60
Districts
61 - 80
|
Background
| Proposal
| Arguments for
| Arguments against
An initiative requiring that all employees must annually give their permission to
labor unions and employers before their dues or wages can be used for political activities.
Background:
For most of the last several decades, political
contributions at the national, state, and local levels have followed a predictable,
some would say comfortable, pattern: Big business goes Republican, big labor goes
Democratic. When it contributes money, business simply allocates from its corporate
revenue. Labor gains its financial clout through its collection and use of union
dues. By and large, members don't control how their dues are spent, although California
law does allow a union member to request that their dues not be used for political
activities. In the 1990s, labor has become more sophisticated in how it has wielded
political clout. In 1995, a school voucher initiative was defeated in large part
because of an expensive opposition campaign financed by the California Teachers Association,
financing derived from a special dues assessment. The CTA also killed an initiative
backed by Governor Pete Wilson which would have given him broader control over the
state budget process, and has run issue advertising against Wilson during several
budget fights. In all cases, funding for these campaigns came from union dues. In
1996, a labor-backed independent expenditure campaign, estimated at between $30 million
and $60 million, sought to return control of the Congress to Democrats. While the
national objective failed, the California Assembly, which had been Republican, returned
to Democratic hands. Republicans denounced the "labor bosses" who organized
the campaign, claiming members' dues were against their will for these political
efforts. When a trio of Orange County Republican activists who had also been involved
in voucher campaigns, decided to run an initiative requiring a "check-off"
before union dues could be diverted to political campaigns, it quickly became the
national GOP's top priority in the area of "campaign reform." Wilson -
oft burned by labor-sponsored campaigns - became the measure's statewide chairman.
Conspicuously absent from the effort, either in planning or its execution, is the
business community. The California Chamber of Commerce and many of the state's top
corporations have remained neutral to this point, saying they don't want to engender
backlash at contract time from the unions who represent their employees. (For more
detail on the politics of the initiative, see "Wilson vs. Labor," California
Journal, February, 1998.)
Proposal:
Proposition 226 requires that employers and
labor unions receive written annual permission from employees and union members before
using any payroll deduction for political purposes. The initiative requires that
a specific form be used to obtain that permission, the form itself to be developed
by the state Fair Political Practices Commission. Although it includes employers,
the bulk of the effect of this provision will be felt by labor unions. The initiative
also enacts into state law the federal ban on acceptance of campaign contributions
from a foreign national.
Arguments For:
The measure's sponsor, the California Foundation
for Campaign Reform, is joined by Governor Pete Wilson, former Vice President Dan
Quayle, school voucher advocate J. Patrick Rooney, the California Republican Party,
and a host of GOP officeholders. They contend Proposition 226 is a "paycheck
protection" act for union members. They argue most union members have their
dues diverted to political activity without their knowledge or consent. They contend
that if given the option to choose, many union members would opt out because they
don't like what their leaders are doing. While conceding the reduction of labor's
influence in elections would be a by-product of the measure, backers insist their
intent was not to debilitate labor, and that unions would still be able to participate
politically, if their members acquiesce through the checkoff.
Arguments Against:
Opponents include virtually all of organized
labor, with the opposition being led by the California Teachers Association, the
California Professional Firefighters, and the California Labor Federation. Also opposing
is the Congress of California Seniors and the California Public Interest Research
Group (CalPIRG). These groups contend the measure's real intent is to keep workers
and their agents in organized labor from having any meaningful influence on the political
process. They contend business political contributions already outweigh labor contributions
by a 10-to-1 ratio, and it would disappear altogether under this measure. Opponents
suggest the real motivation behind this initiative comes from out of state interests,
including voucher supporters who are eyeing another run at the issue in California.
They further contend Wilson's support is political payback aimed at the teachers
unions for their activism against his budget policies.
-- Article by Steve Scott
|
PROP. 226
