http://pleasantonweekly.com/square/print/2012/11/02/ca-teachers-union-spends-20961399-on-its-no-on-32-campaign


Town Square

CA Teachers' Union spends $20,961,399 on its "No on 32" campaign

Original post made by Joe, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Nov 2, 2012

The CA Teachers' Union has spent $20,961,399 of its members' union dues on its "No on 32" campaign as of Oct. 27. CA teachers must pay union dues, and there is no easy way for teachers to opt out of this practice. This is an ENORMOUS amount of money, all paid in the form of union dues.

You've got to ask yourself what the union sees as the return on its $21M investment. How many Sacramento politicians are getting greased by this union, and by other unions in the state? Imagine what would happen if union members had a free choice on spending their hard-earned money on political spending like this. One study showed that two-thirds of Teachers' Union members would opt out. Influence is bought and paid for with cash, less cash equates to less influence, and less influence means that politicians might not continue to pass as much pro-union legislation as they do. No wonder it's worth $21M to the union to try to prevent this!

Vote YES on 32!

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by A Neighbor
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2012 at 8:15 pm

Joe, Where did you get your dollar figures?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2012 at 8:25 pm

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jay
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2012 at 10:02 pm

The unions are spending all of the money they have received from their members to influence this initiative which allows them to keep spending union dues on political issues; without the opt-in from the members.

The link above shows $21M being spent by the California Teachers Association (union) and another $13M being spent by SEIU, the major union for public employee workers. That is two great reasons to vote Yes on 32. the public employee unions have way too much control over the political process in California. While 32 does not solve all of the issues, it gets the changes started. Let the union members donate to a cause if they want to. Don't take their dues money without their permission and use it to fight people like you and I.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2012 at 6:51 am

I have received so many "No on 32" ads, including one from Clinton and Obama.

Well, I plan to vote YES on 32. That is one of the only propositions I am supporting.

YES on 32. NO on 30. NO on 38. Enough is enough!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Get the facts
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2012 at 8:57 am

So, the CTA has spent 20 million, but represents approximately 300,000 teachers (I'm not sure the exact number, but there are over 300,000 teachers in CA). But Charles Munger has spent over 35 million alone in support of 32. That should be even more concerning! I would think you would be more concerned about the actions and agenda of one man, Munger, than the actions of the CTA. But obviously, your minds were already made up, you are anti-teacher and anti-union, and this excuse helps you to sleep at night. Munger is clearly an anti-union guy as well, though he has (had, actually) good wages for employees at his Costco stores. But I am wary of his agenda.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by i'm no Joe
a resident of Amador Estates
on Nov 3, 2012 at 10:52 am

The problem with people like Joe is that they are always one-sided. How about the Arizona group, Americans for Responsible Leadership, that have made an $11 million donation to defeat Prop 30.

Being one-sided minimizes your creditability, Joe.

Web Link

Charles Munger could have been a bigger benefit to society if he would have used him millions to fund social programs rather than feed his ego.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 3, 2012 at 11:58 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Web Link

Munger has contributed that amount, but to more than one measure. What do you think it costs to fight the unions?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel Bradford
a resident of Foothill High School
on Nov 3, 2012 at 1:54 pm

My union dues are being used for political purposes? My AFT 2121 rep told me all the money was being used to build a giant death ray machine that would evaporate the GOP headquarters (wherever it is).

Don't be so frickin' naive. This is California. We play hardball politics here, and that takes big money, especially when you have a few billionaires like the Mungers and the Kochs trying to subvert democracy by buying the results of elections (not to mention more than a few politicians).

Ruegsegger, shouldn't you be working on your campaign to repeal California's mandatory seat belt laws so the good folks of California won't be held down (this time literally) by a totalitarian government?

And why did you abandon your "Stacey" persona? Just curious. It was always amusing to see you log off as yourself and then log in as "Stacey" so you could agree with yourself. I kept waiting to see if the two of you would fight....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 3, 2012 at 2:47 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Daniel, Hard ball it is then. As if unions don't buy Democrats.

I don't mind seat belts. As you know, Stacey is another person. We do not agree on everything--like for the potential mayor.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jay
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2012 at 3:42 pm

The public employee unions have way too much power in California. Voting Yes on Proposition 32 helps a bit on that.

Would I also like to get rid of the other special interest money? Of Course. I hope that 32 passes and then another initiative to do something about other special interest money (if it can be done).

People are using the argument that the unions need this influence against the "big corporations". I am neither in a union or a big corporation. I am just a voter that right now has no influence. We first nibble away at the union special interests with passing 32 and then work on more reforms. Neither the Unions or the Mungers and Kochs stand for me. I will vote to get rid of the influence I can now.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Highland Oaks
on Nov 3, 2012 at 3:44 pm

Let those who ride decide.

Individual union members should decide where their hard-earned wages go.

Da 32!

Mike


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Get the facts
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2012 at 6:44 pm

Kathleen, are you still an employee of the Palo Alto Unified School District? If so, are you a member of the classified union? Were you a member of the union when you were employed in Pleasanton?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 3, 2012 at 11:08 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Get the facts, retired. I have never been a member of a union. My position and a few others fall under management or non-represented employees, depending on the district. The former for PUSD, and the latter for PAUSD. Rest of my career was in the private sector (also non-union). My father was a union man for over 30 years though.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by yeson32
a resident of Danbury Park
on Nov 4, 2012 at 8:58 am

vote yes on 32 the unions have too much power and will spend ungodly amounts of money to keep it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ripoff
a resident of Downtown
on Nov 4, 2012 at 12:48 pm

Charles Munger is free to spend his own money as he chooses. Do you have any complaints about his sister who spends her time and money on liberal issues?

Why shouldn't union members have the right to choose if they want their dues used for political purposes? That's all this proposition does is make it mandatory to received permission before taking money from someone and using for a cause they might not believe in.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arroyo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2012 at 8:04 am

Unfortunately, even if Prop.32 passes, the unions will launch a "voluntary" political campaign contribution fund through intimidation of their membership. This will insure the continued flow of their necessary capital for political purposes.

Unions breed mediocrity in work performance by defending the inept within their membership, while demoralizing those who display a better work ethic. They always have, and they always will.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by None of the Above
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2012 at 11:13 am

From Ballotpedia:

As of November 3, 2012, the "yes" campaign has raised about $60.5 million.

... "What the backers won't say publicly is that they've written a giant loophole to allow for unlimited corporate spending on campaigns while furthering their real agenda of silencing the voices of middle-class workers and their unions."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 5, 2012 at 12:31 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

From your General Election pamphlet:

Attorney General Summary:
"Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors.
"Permits voluntary employee contributions to employer-sponsored committee or union if authorized yearly, in writing.
"Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate-controlled committees."


Analysis by the Legislative Analyst:
"Bans Use of Payroll Deductions to Finance Spending for Political Purposes: . . . This measure would not affect unions' existing authority to use payroll deductions to pay for toher activities, including collective bargaining and political spending in federal campaigns.
"Prohibits Political Contributions by Corporations and Unions: The measure prohibits corporations and unions from making political contributions to candidates. That is, they could not make contributions (1) directly to candidates or (2) to committees that then make contributions to candidates. This prohibition, however, does not affect a corporation or union's ability to spend money on independent expenditures."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arnold - Yes on 32
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm

Please vote YES on 32! California needs to loosen the ligature unions have on our states politicians. It won't stop the hundreds of millions unions spend during presidential election cycles, or any election cycle, but it will eliminate the unions ability to collect/skim union dues from union employees that do NOT share the same vision of California as their small group of union Boss's/political power brokers.

The unions literally run this state which is why California government is in the current sorry mess that is, and why we are literally leaving mountains of debt to future generations.

No on 30!
Yes on 32!
Yes on 32!
Yes on 32!

No on B-1! We should not support any tax without a sunset clause, that will be spent in support of ABAG which promotes high-density housing as a core philosophy, and allows the three agencies that oversee the funds to sell a billion dollars worth of bonds which require interest payments that produce anything other than money to bond buyers (just another way to spend beyond our means). Bonds should only be allowed to be sold with voter approval and not at the discretion of these agencies which won't even be required to report on any plan changes until 2042. B1 is a taxpayer cram down.

Yes vote for Thorne, Pentin, Brown.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mittens
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2012 at 8:23 pm

Weak effort at deception there, one of the above. Ballotpedia? Lol.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Propositions
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2012 at 10:42 pm

IF I had a million dollars, I'd spend it on 32 Yes, to save CA, and help return it to it's greatness. All the sxxx crap, started happening in the last 30 years, after CA PUBLIC employees were unionized. Munger's just a CAlifornian who cares, and wants to rescue CA from the greedy, who are ruining Ca. Obviously, greedy unions intend to continue buying the candidates who will continue to 'feed the beast'. 32 is worker's paycheck protection.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Propositions
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2012 at 10:52 pm

Prop 3O, Brown's TAX prop, if passed, will make already high-tax CA the highest income and sales taxed state in the US ! ! !
THERE is no shortage of tax dollars floating around CA in secret, hidden, and lost money pots. The CA problem is the legislature and PUBLIC employee unions....neither knows no end to stupid spending....while important fixes are ignored. We have special funds for roads but $$ go down other various ratholes, and roads don't get fixed. 30 is for the general fund, meaning 'whatever' !!!
a REALLY big NO ON 30.
Tell gov brown to GET SERIOUS, and stop the threats.He need to DO HIS JOG....MAKE THE FIXES.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by None of the Above
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2012 at 12:30 pm

@Mittens: "Weak effort at deception there, one of the above. Ballotpedia? Lol."

That's where Joe the initial poster got his info...