Posted on 09/26/2006 6:34:47 PM PDT by FairOpinion
A November initiative could dramatically transform California politics, raising taxes to pay for publicly financed campaigns, strictly limiting private giving and taking particular aim at ballot measure spending.
If voters approve Proposition 89 and it withstands court challenges, California will become the first state to restrict spending on ballot measures, though the limits would not apply to two of the biggest players in state politics: trial lawyers and Indian tribes that own casinos.
At least two other major sources of campaign cash — attorneys who represent plaintiffs and wealthy Indian tribes — could continue spending unlimited amounts for and against propositions.
"It amounts to unilateral disarmament," said John Sullivan of the corporate-funded group Californians for Civil Justice Reform, which seeks to limit litigation against business and is a rival of the trial attorneys lobby.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I bet it has a labor union exception, too. Our CFR in colorado limits everyone except labor unions and trial lawyers. It's an abomination and CO will be a commie state after this election.
This is a Democrat election then protection act. It's absurd.
Well, that seems fair.
Feh!
FMCDH(BITS)
That sort of measure is clearly unconsitutional under the equal rights section of the XIVth Amendment. I think that it should be fought by every means possible, including civil disobedience.
I would set up non-partisan commissions to publicize just which propositions are funded by the trial lawyers, and publicize this without restraint. I would pin the label of "lawyers' prostitute" on every politician who supports this measure.
No holds barred on this one!
The proponents of Proposition 89 include the usual suspects, inckluding the California Council of Churches. (See if you church belongs!)
On the website of Prop 89 they have a list opponents, whom they call "Corruption Supporters." Is this their idea of clean campaigning?
Among the reforms we really do need in this country is firmer enforcement of libel laws. Aparently in politics, as soon as you get involved, you have no protection against libel. It wasn't always that way, and it is not that way in some other countries.
If I ever found myself listed on a website like that as a "corruption suporter" because I opposed a corrupt measure, I would consider a lawsuit. Either that or a duel.
Props 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 84, 86, 87, 88 and 89.
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.