“A Harmful Proposition: 32”

California has 11 propositions on the ballot this year!

As in every election, one of the most difficult tasks for voters is wading through the cumbersome initiatives that various organizations place on the ballot.

This year in California there are a few that have become controversial, adversarial, and heavily financed. Californians are inundated by fliers, brochures, and television ads costing millions of dollars funded by Special Interest Groups.

It becomes increasingly difficult to wade through the minutiae to formulate an informed opinion.

So what’s the answer?

The answer might be in a simple statement “who do you trust?” And even that gets extremely murky when the disclosure requirements are far from transparent.

Two of the most embattled propositions on California’s extensive ballot are Proposition’s 30 and 32. It is extremely difficult to get to the heart of the matter on either of these propositions because the Special Interests on one side of the issue are shadowy, secretive, and non responsive.

Proposition 32 is the worst. Not only is it written to deceive the public, it is backed by the same Special Interest groups it claims to oppose. Corporations! As a California voter you need to know that the organizations listed on the brochures, fliers, and identified in the television ads for the YES side appear to be shell organizations with patriotic and advocacy names that are meant to deceive.

The Yes on Prop 32 group is funded by Charles Munger Jr. who is the biggest donor for the sham Small Business Action Committee and has little interest in fairness in elections in California. SBAC is also funded by a shadowy group out of Phoenix, Americans for Responsible Leadership, who have contributed $11 million and refused to release its list of donors. Charles Munger Jr. has added $13 million.

If ever their was a shell organization, Americans for Responsible Leadership, may be the poster child. Money has been passed from two other shadowy organizations, Americans for Job Security, and Center to Protect Patient Rights. Arizona has failed the American public by allowing organizations like this to exist. These organizations are subversive and are undermining our democracy.

The lies generated by these shell organizations are designed to deceive voters by allowing big money to hide their ‘real’ intentions behind their non-profit 501(c)4 charters.

Using an evocative name, Citizens for California Reform, run by Gabriella Holt, appears to be a shell organization with no apparent funding or accountability. Likewise, The Small Business Action Committee has no directors and is , seemingly, run by one individual, Joel Fox. And again, Democrats for Education Reform, an Organization out of Washington, DC, whose California Branch is run by another individual, Gloria Romero is an organization to push charter schools.

The Orange County Register endorsed Prop 32 implying that unions have an unfair advantage by deducting money from members’ paychecks that is used for political discourse. They cite Ms. Romero as one whose testimony swayed the Editorial Board’s endorsement. Both claim that the proposition has a semblance of fairness but there are many discrepancies in Ms Romero’s opinion piece in the Orange County Register that need addressed.

Though both Ms. Romero and the Register make some valuable points they fail to understand the ‘real’ implications of the proposition. Apparently, Ms. Romero doesn’t understand the wording of the law, its actual restrictions and omissions, nor the ruling of the Supreme Court with regard to free speech in its Citizens United ruling. She apparently only sees a need to eliminate money coming from unions and ignores the egregious funding from the few proponents who have also spent millions to get it passed. Most if it undisclosed and secretive.

Not only is it secretive, but mailed pieces and television ads from the YES on Prop 32 group exceed the NO mailings and ads by more than four to one! So who’s really spending the money?

But failure to see the alternative if Prop 32 passes could be fatalistic. This proposition does nothing to eliminate money raised and spent by PAC’s or SuperPac’s, ie. ‘independent expenditures’ and though she is fundamentally correct, using a narrow interpretation of the Court’s ruling, she completely misses the implications in her statement that “the high court has ruled that the First Amendment protects independent campaign spending and issue advocacy for all.”

It does nothing of the sort. It is not ‘for all’ nor has it ever been. The Supreme Court’s interpretation only applies if one believes that a corporation is a person for which Justice Stevens strongly argued against in his dissent, as a misapplication of the law.

On the surface Proposition 32 sounds like a good thing, claiming to ‘get the money out of politics.’ But don’t be deceived by the deceptive wording. It’s smoke and mirrors. It only takes union money out of politics and allows corporations and the rich free reign on the political discourse.

Proposition 32 is NOT the answer.

The only true answer to fairness in elections is to ‘get the money out of politics’. But to strip unions of their ability to fight unfair legislation without eliminating the power of corporations and wealthy individuals is sheer lunacy.

A lot of things need to be fixed in this country, but we can’t fix them by making them worse. Proposition 32 would do that.

The only conceivable action is a NO vote on Prop 32 protecting your voice from being squashed by Big Money.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.