Posted on 01/04/2006 12:35:14 PM PST by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO - In a sign that unions and business interests have arrived at a post-special-election detente, labor has quietly dropped a ballot measure that would have required corporations to get shareholder approval before giving political contributions.
Unions let a Dec. 30 deadline pass without submitting signatures to the Secretary of State's office. That means the measure will not qualify for the June ballot.
Unions had threatened to place the measure on the ballot as a reprisal for Proposition 75, the November special election ballot measure that would have required unions to get their members' permission before using dues for political purposes.
Unions defeated the measure, although it was supported by business groups and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. And, shortly before Christmas, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Business Roundtable put out a statement saying they would not support a copycat measure awaiting approval by the Attorney General, because "It would be counter productive to solving the state's problems."
Neither Gale Kaufman, the unions' political consultant, nor Allan Zaremberg, the Chamber of Commerce president, responded to requests for comment.
Ray McNally, a GOP consultant who worked with the unions in their campaign against the special election, said, "I don't know if a final decision has been made," regarding the shareholder initiative.
However, at this point, the unions must wait until November to get the measure on the ballot if they decide to pursue it.
"I think both business and labor would rather spend their money funding candidates," said Dan Schnur, a GOP consultant, "than fighting about campaign finance reform."
Here's what mystifies me. Did Ms Kurtzman have way too much time on her hands on a slow news day or she is jabbing her shop steward at the CCT in the ribs?
ROFL. Yep, very lonely.
I don't know the motivation for the article, but I was glad to see it. Now if this 'movement' would die a long slow death, I'd be happy. After the special election, I read that there was a very strong contingent that supported this idea and that it was the main argument that derailed Prop 75. The stupidity of the electorate never ceases to amaze me.
I have a different perspective.
Schwarzenegger aligned himself with a very popular notion. Many union members agreed with him and grumbled at the payroll withholdings.
Schwarzenegger's most successful profession made him a good spokesman for his cause but his Teutonic heritage and his prior profession left him insensitive to the subtleties of a campaign involving a potential third rail issue.
The key to the Prop 75 campaign was to appear to remain sensitive to the plight of its victims, members who had political contributions involuntarily withdrawn from their paychecks, while dehumanizing the union system. Schwarzenegger did the opposite.
If, a year ago, Schwarzenegger had said that Barbara Kerr disliked him because she led a corrupt organization and he could always kick her butt, he would have survived the small breach of etiquette made in the heat of a political battle and gone on to demonize her organization during his apology. Instead he chose to single out an occupational membership, not their management. Never once did he mention a union president. Never once did he dehumanize that system.
Kerr took his gift, thanked her lucky stars for his ineptitude and ran with it. Very successfully. The failure was Schwarzenegger's. Personally.
I agree with your analysis. I thought the campaign approach was combative and succeeded in insulting or demonizing way too many average folks. It gave the proper ammunition to the enemy, and as you say, Barbara Kerr and her cronies capitalized on it.
The item I mentioned was from the PPIC poll that was performed just after the election. (I will post excerpts in a separate post). While not the driving factor, it was one piece of dis-information that allowed the unions to claim the unfairness of this measure and that they were being singled out (while those big evil corporations didn't have to get approval of sharehoders). It may have been a minor factor, but one that did come into play.
Page 8
Use of union dues (Proposition 75) – The main reasons for voting no were that unions should not be the only organizations with restrictions on campaign contributions, that unions give some people a voice that would be silenced, that union members can already opt out of having their dues used for political purposes, and that the voter has a personal connection with union members. While nonunion household voters were evenly divided (50% yes, 50% no), voters in union households were strongly opposed to this measure (38% yes, 62% no).Page19
Proposition 75: Public Employee Union Dues and Political ContributionsPage 33-34Also endorsed by Governor Schwarzenegger, Proposition 75 would have required unions to get members’ written permission before using dues to support political candidates and causes. It lost by a 8-point margin (46% yes, 54% no).
The top reasons given for voting “no” are that unions should not be the only organizations with restrictions on their campaign contributions, that unions give some people a political voice that would be silenced by Proposition 75, that union members can already opt out of having their dues used for political purposes, and that the voter has a personal connection with union members. The two main reasons for voting “yes” are that union members should have a say over where their dues go and that unions currently have too much political power.
Support for Proposition 75 varies sharply along partisan lines: 78 percent of Republicans say they voted for it, 83 percent of Democrats say they opposed it, and independents are split (52% no, 48% yes).
Support for the initiative also correlates with ratings of the governor: 87 percent of those who approve of his performance say they voted for Proposition 75; 88 percent of those who disapprove say they voted no.
Voters in union households strongly opposed Proposition 75, while non-union household voters were evenly divided. Proposition 75 is more strongly opposed by Latinos than by whites (68%, 49%), by younger than older residents, by less-affluent than more-affluent voters, by renters than homeowners, and by women than men.
Half of the voters (49%) say the defeat of Proposition 75 is of no consequence to campaign finance in California (38% of “yes” voters, 57 % of “no” voters). Still, 59 percent of all voters think campaign finance in California needs major changes, including majorities of “yes” and “no” voters on Proposition 75. The need for such changes has majority support across political groups and major regions of the state; among education, gender, homeownership, income, and racial/ethnic groups; and in union and non-union households.
24. Proposition 75 was called the “Public Employee Union Dues, Restrictions on Political Contributions Initiative.”
Did you vote yes or no on this measure?46% voted yes[question 25a asked of respondents who say they voted yes]
54% voted no25a. And why did you vote yes?
51% union members should control their dues, say where their money goes[question 25b asked of respondents who say they voted no]
20% unions have too much political power
6% I am/family member is in a union
3% eliminate special interest groups from elections
3% governor endorsed it
12% some other reason (specify)
5% don't know25b. And why did you vote no?
14% unions should not be the only ones with restrictions, double standard[questions 25c and 25d asked of a random split sample of respondents]
11% unions give people a political voice, 75 would quiet voice
11% members can opt out already
8% I am/family member is in a union
7% governor endorsed it, don't trust governor
5% governor trying to break up unions
4% too hard for union members to agree on contributions
31% some other reason (specify)
9% don’t know25c. As you may know, Proposition 75 did not pass. Do you think this will have a positive effect or negative effect on campaign finance, or will it make no difference?
21% positive effect25d. As you may know, Proposition 75 did not pass. Do you think the way campaigns are financed in California is in need of major changes, minor changes, or is it fine the way it is?
20% negative effect
49% no difference
10% don't know59% major changes
22% minor changes
11% fine the way it is
8% don't know
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.