Arnold Calls Special Election

Push comes to shove: California's Schwarzenegger Calls Vote on Initiatives.

Dan Weintraub sums up the competition's attack strategy:

With the governor poised to call a special election Monday for Nov. 8, the California Teachers Assn. has voted to levy a surcharge on members to raise $50 million to fight his policies. And the prison guards are voting on a plan to raise $18 million from their members through 2006. It's becoming more apparent every day that The Issue in the fall election will be Arnold Schwarzenegger versus the public employee unions.

Getting our her checkbook (hopefully for the last time), CTA President Barbara Kerr says:

The governor is wasting taxpayer money to hold an election that nobody wants and to push an agenda that will hurt our public schools, kids and local communities...and the plan announced by his advisers to use the election to create a 'phenomenon of anger' against teachers, nurses, firefighters and other public employees breaks his promise to unite our state for the public good.

Further from the New York Times:

One wild card in the equation is what other measures might qualify to appear on the November ballot as well. The secretary of state's office said two measures in addition to those backed by Mr. Schwarzenegger had already qualified. One would require parental permission for girls under 17 to receive an abortion. The other would bar public employee labor unions from using dues or fees for political contributions unless members provide written consent.

At least three other measures are being reviewed by the secretary of state's office and might qualify before the June 30 deadline. Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who must approve the final wording of ballot measures, said a record-breaking 86 initiatives had been proposed in 2005. Of those, 76 are "in the pipeline" and could qualify for a future vote.

A short list of the major Initiatives: Measures Expected on Calif. Special Ballot.

Let the spending begin...

Comments

[PFinIRV]

A couple of things to put this in perspective:

1. This initiative is being brought by one group that is completely unaffiliated against another group. And it is specifically targeting one group and leaves all others untouched.

2. The proponents are raising money to run a smear campaign that “creates a phenomenom of anger” “based upon a lot of polling” for the reason that the proponents know the issue would fail if it were to stand on the merits put forth as freeing the coerced. The coerced having never had any input into the initiative.

3. The supporters have yet to reveal themselves and have stated through spokespersons that they will NOT reveal themselves until the June 30th requirement. Not a group with a strong sense of conviction.

Yes, let the spending begin. The only ones who will benefit will be the media and political consultant industry. Who have now come to expect at least one election per year.

None of the Governor’s initiatives have any support that it couldn’t have waited until the June 2006 primary. Think of how many school books, health care, or any number of items that could be bought with the $50M+ that will be spent on this election.

It is a waste, and will provide the opposition with all the fodder they will need for a voter backlash against this type of wasteful political posturing and histrionics.

[Lurk]

Davis and the union greedbags gave the opposition enough fodder for the LAST election to get your boy a nice early retirement on our dough.

Paycheck Protection and Redistricting will win easily. The CTA just dug themselves in deeper over the weekend when they hit up their membership AGAIN for money that an apparent majority of them already don't want stolen from them and spent against their wishes.

Education in California is aleady overfunded considering the quality of the results. If you're so concerned about $50M, then write Kerr and tell her not to campaign against a foregone conclusion and instead use that money she's extracting from the membersheep to offset the pencils and chalk they claim to be buying.

[PFinIRV]

>>Paycheck Protection and Redistricting will win easily.<<

Please point us to the crystal ball.

>> that an apparent majority of them already don't want stolen from them and spent against their wishes.<<

Where is the poll or info that substantiates this? I would like to see it as would others.

>>If you're so concerned about $50M, then write Kerr and tell her not to campaign against a foregone conclusion and instead use that money she's extracting from the membersheep to offset the pencils and chalk they claim to be buying.<<

The same could be said for the monies being raised by the proponents who (like you) claim education is overfunded.

Please tell me how cutting pay and benefits for teachers is going to improve education.

[Intensified!]

This special election is not unlike the one called by Pete Wilson in 1993. A statewide special election in early November coincides with hundreds of regular local elections held on the same day during odd years.

Since county registrars will be active on that day anyway, the cost argument is a red herring.

The cost of freestanding special elections doesn't seem to deter the California Teachers Association, though, when they launch recalls against conservative school board members, like in Orange Unified. When a special election for a recall is qualified, it really does take money out of the classroom. Barbara Kerr should bite her tongue.

[PFinIRV]

Could be because the school board's actions were rejecting funds for reasons that had nothing to do with education.

[Jason]

1. This initiative is being brought by one group that is completely unaffiliated against another group. And it is specifically targeting one group and leaves all others untouched.

1. I agree - it's targeting the only source of PAC money that is used without the consent of those from whom it is taken by force, namely the taxpayers and union rank-and-file. Every single other source of PAC money has some element of choice in it (e.g., voluntary contributions, non-mandatory union membership, non-compulsory dues, voluntary ownership of shares, etc.) - this initiative will start leveling the playing field.

2. The proponents are raising money to run a smear campaign that “creates a phenomenom of anger” “based upon a lot of polling” for the reason that the proponents know the issue would fail if it were to stand on the merits put forth as freeing the coerced. The coerced having never had any input into the initiative.

2. I'm completely unsurprised by the fact that the coerced haven't made any moves to join the effort. I might not do anything either if my position would be in jeopardy. If anyone thinks there isn't any intimidation on the part of union bosses against rank-and-file union members speaking their minds when it goes against the union leadership, email me 'cause I've got a bridge to sell you. And I speak from the experience of personally dealing with UAW stewards and seeing first-hand interactions between union workers and union leaders. I'd especially like to see some new polls and media coverage on how rank-and-file teachers feel about the new vote for $50 million more - assuming you can get any of them to speak candidly about it.

3. The supporters have yet to reveal themselves and have stated through spokespersons that they will NOT reveal themselves until the June 30th requirement. Not a group with a strong sense of conviction.

3. And yet again, in all this, no principled opposition argument is offered against the merits of the actual ballot measure on the books, just emotional appeals to what it doesn't do, unsupported opinions that it wouldn't stand on its merits, and personal attacks on the initiative's supporters. Its supporters have stated who they believe would be helped and explained why. If you can, please explain who this measure, by itself and as it's written, would hurt if passed and why it would be a bad thing.

[PFinIRV]

>>If you can, please explain who this measure, by itself and as it's written, would hurt if passed and why it would be a bad thing.<<

Because it puts extraordinary requirements upon one specific group of people.

And thereby makes it more difficult for that specific group to engage in the political process because it now has yet another hoop to jump through that others don't. I would have no problem with this requirement if applied to all PACs. Public unions, private unions, corporate etc.

Yet somehow we're supposed to believe that people not in the public employee unions know what is best for the members of those unions.

It is paradoxical considering the conservative mantra of freedom of choice and personal responsibility. Who then turn around and inflict a requirement upon one group.

[Jeff Flint]

First, since I am the spokesperson who said that Small Business Action Committee (which, by the the way, has supported a half dozen or more initiatives in the last year or so, not just paycheck protection), will file its campaign reports on the date the law says we should, let me try to explain in simple terms. Maybe even PFinIRV will get it.

If your mortgage is due on July 31, and you wait until July 31 to pay the bill, you are not being un-American, you are not trying to hide anything, and you are not engaging in any cover ups. You are paying on the date the bank has said you must pay.

If the law said SBAC should report on every blue moon, we would. If it said we had to report every day by 12:17 PM, we would.

The facts of the matter is that, for all the hyperbole about "don't silence us" and "don't make it harder for us to participate in the political process," the reason that union bosses want the names of donors to SBAC to report early is that they want to threaten, bully, demonstrate against, and otherwise try to get some other donors to shy away from participating in the political process.

And while we are on the topic, since PF likes to demand facts in debates, point me please to the teachers who had their pay or benefits cut.

Finally, "extraorinary burden?!?" Are you serious? It only shows that the union bosses know how many of their rank and file will deny permission for political use of the dues if they are required to get permission. If the unions knew, as they always claim, that the rank and file support spending 99% of their funds on ultra-liberal Democrat causes, then they would have nothing to fear from paycheck protection.

For two presidential election campaigns in a row, the NRA has run an extraordinarily effective campaign in key battle ground states going after union gun owners and getting them to vote GOP in the Presidential race. Another demonstration that the union leadership is out of touch on their candidate preferences with their membership.

The union bosses have support of 99% of their membership the same way that Stalin got 99% of the vote in the Soviet Union.

[redperegrine]

"The union bosses have support of 99% of their membership the same way that Stalin got 99% of the vote in the Soviet Union."

Ouch.

[Jason]

Because it puts extraordinary requirements upon one specific group of people.

And thereby makes it more difficult for that specific group to engage in the political process because it now has yet another hoop to jump through that others don't.

Just so everyone's clear, which group are you talking about that would have the new "extraordinary requirement" foisted upon it - the union rank-and-file or the union leadership? I would agree that it places new restrictions on the leadership but would argue that it lifts existing restrictions on the rank-and-file. The leadership would have to actually gain the approval of their members to use their forcibly-taken dues to use for political action - this is a new restriction but one that I think is justified given the non-voluntary source of the funds (something no other group has access to). However, for the members of the rank-and-file who happen to disagree with the leadership to participate in the political process, currently must devote a certain portion of their own time, energy, and after-dues income to causes in opposition to the leadership, just to reach a neutral level of total participation (X amount forcibly surrendered to the leadership to do with as they wish, and a matching Y amount on their own to negate those actions). Removing the ability of the leadership to spend their compulsory dues on political action would remove the (IMO) extraordinary requirement currently on those in disagreement with leadership policies to spend time, energy, and after-dues income to reach a zero-sum situation. So, which group would it hurt again?

I would have no problem with this requirement if applied to all PACs. Public unions, private unions, corporate etc.

But it already is applied to all PACs - if you truly understand the requirement - and this initiative is just leveling the playing field. The requirement is to obtain voluntary consent from the source of funding to use those funds for political purposes. Corporations already have that because shareholders can exercise authority to change policy or sell their shares, refusing the PACs access to their funds. Even private unions have an element of choice in there (minimal though it is), as the customers of those private companies can elect not to support said company with their purchases, depriving that company of funds (as can shareholders of those companies) and pressuring the company to make changes in the union contract (non-mandatory membership or non-compulsory dues). In any case, the funds taken from the union members' salaries come from private transactions in a free market setting. Public employee unions and the government agencies they work for couldn't be in a more dissimilar situation: the source of those salaries (customers, who are taxpayers) have no choice not to purchase the services they provide, therefore they cannot withhold support in a free market setting; neither are those agencies owned by voluntary shareholders who can elect to divest themselves of ownership, thereby withholding support. Public employee unions are the only source of PAC funds that have no element of choice - this initiative corrects that.

It is paradoxical considering the conservative mantra of freedom of choice and personal responsibility. Who then turn around and inflict a requirement upon one group.

If you understand the requirement that's being added as I explained it above, I think you'll find that it's completely in keeping with freedom of choice and personal responsibility. Like it or not, the inclusion of only public employee unions is likewise an embrace of the free market. Those who agree with and support this initiative would likely love to abolish unions (public and private), or force them all to follow non-mandatory membership rules and non-compulsory dues collection, but it's obviously an anti-free market position to use the force of government (the ballot measure process) to coerce the actions of private organizations (private unions and corporations alike are completely privately-funded, dependent on revenue from free-market sales and/or shareholder equity/support). We as voters and taxpayers are the "owners" (for lack of a better analogy) of the agencies employing the union members, so this is our way of acting like "shareholders" and "running the business" that we "own".

[Jason]

By the way, I loved the quote on the KTLA morning news today from a teacher who was at Schwarzenegger's commencement speech in Santa Monica yesterday - she was completely behind his reform proposals and was a supporter of merit pay for teachers. I was surprised and proud of her that she was willing to say that on TV, with her name displayed and everything. I'll bet she'd love the choice to check the box preventing her mandatory, compulsory union dues from being used against policies she supports - too bad she doesn't have that choice today, but maybe she will in the near future.

[Gabriel Chapman]

The special election will cost something like $1.25 per voter. If you want to talk trash about wasting state funds, point your finger at a legislature that just jacked up its salaries, and has forced the state to waste billions in taxpayer funds over the last 5 years.

[Gabriel Chapman]

Amazingly CTA union dues just got bumped an extra 60 bucks. Probably to cover all of their new advertising. Good to know that they are supposedly "non-partisian"

[PFinIRV]

>>The union bosses have support of 99% of their membership the same way that Stalin got 99% of the vote in the Soviet Union.<<

Now that Mr. Flint has compared union officials to one of the greatest mass murderers in history it only confirms the belief that the supporters of this issue can't stand on its merits and will resort to pejoratives and demogaguery.

No further comment needed.

[Jason]

Now that Mr. Flint has compared union officials to one of the greatest mass murderers in history it only confirms the belief that the supporters of this issue can't stand on its merits and will resort to pejoratives and demogaguery.

No further comment needed.

Hello? *TAP* *TAP* *TAP* Is this thing on?

Mr. Flint's not the only one here, y'know. Feel free to address my comments if you like.

Jason:

Let me interpret PFinIRV for you...

"Jason and Jeff made some great points that I don't have a good reply to, so I'm going the claim that the other side stuck a low blow that I won't dignify with a response."

Jeff

[Aristotle]

www.CelebrityPrankCalling.com may be relevant to your interests.