Proposition 89: Corporate contribution limits called ploy, fair

Sacramento Bee ^ | 10/29/6 | Jim Sanders

[SmithL]

Dollar limits on free speech?

Perhaps.

A fiercely contested measure on the Nov. 7 ballot would make California the first state to restrict corporate spending on ballot measures, a practice that has been treated as free political speech for decades.

Proposition 89 would ban corporations from spending more than $10,000 to support or oppose California ballot measures.

A key legal question is whether corporate profits are fair game for such curbs because they stem from consumers who paid for a product or service, not a political cause.

Opponents call Proposition 89 a blatant ploy by its sponsor, the California Nurses Association, to stack the political deck in hopes of overhauling the health care system in coming years.

"Proposition 89 is a power grab by a single special interest to dominate elections under the guise of campaign reform,"

[SmithL]

Unions are once again showing their opposition to free speech.

[CAWats]

SUPPORTERS SAY

* Prop 89 provides public financing to candidates who stick to strict spending limits and reject private contributions from corporations, other organizations, and individuals.
* It provides funds for public financing by a modest increase in the corporate income tax, raising it from 8.84 percent to 9.04 percent.
* It limits to $10,000 the amount corporations can spend directly on ballot measure campaigns.

OPPONENTS SAY

* Prop 89 increases taxes to give politicians public money to produce negative TV ads and junk mail.
* It limits the ability of many small businesses to back candidates or have a say about ballot measures.
* It allows unions to make unlimited contributions to ballot measure campaigns while shutting out small businesses.

[traditional1]

"Proposition 89 would ban corporations from spending more than $10,000 to support or oppose California ballot measures"

Selective disqualification; unless INDIVIDUAL contributions and those of UNIONS are limited, also.

[Carry_Okie]

Aren't unions corporations?

[Who dat?]

A key legal question is whether corporate profits are fair game for such curbs because they stem from consumers who paid for a product or service, not a political cause.

I’m not sure what they’re talking about – strict “corporate contributions,” I guess.

I bring it up because I’ve worked for two companies that have their own Political Action Committees.

So the XYZ Company and the ABC Company would each have their XYZ PAC and ABC PAC. Employees – primarily management – were encouraged to donate so the company could support certain politicians or beneficial legislation, etc.

Unlike union dues or corporate profits, that’s an example of EMPLOYEES pulling out their checkbook and scratching out a check specifically to that PAC for them to use for political purposes.

I’m guessing that’s different…

[Publius6961]

Aren't unions corporations?

Unions are a lot worse than corporations. Over the years they have maneuvered themselves as a branch of the legislature, with as much restraint in spending... for "progressive" (socialist) purposes, of course. Making laws and exempting themselves from laws that they write for others.

[Carry_Okie]

Unions are a lot worse than corporations...

Oh I know that; I was speaking of a legal problem. It's as it they are trying to ban corporate contributions when they are themselves corporations.