Town Square

"No on 32" equates to "I Like What Happened to Detroit"

Original post made by Joe, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2012

Vote Yes on 32

This story contains 169 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.


Like this comment
Posted by Ptown native
a resident of Stoneridge
on Nov 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm

I's some scary stuff that people
are so unaware of (even recent) history.

Like this comment
Posted by Yes 32 , pay protection
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2012 at 9:20 am

Absolutely yes, worker should have control over own paychecks.
Hands off, without worker's permission !

Like this comment
Posted by Billie
a resident of Mohr Park
on Nov 6, 2012 at 11:55 am

I'm voting "NO" on Prop 32.

I've read the proposition as wel as the pro and con arguments. What convinced me to vote "NO" was a couple of sentences in the State Attorney General's summary in the Voter Information Guide.

While Prop 32 "Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate-controlled committees.", it also allows "Other political expenditures [to] remain unrestricted, including corporate expenditures from available resources not limited by payroll deduction prohibition."

So what does that mean to me, the voter who likes to know who is funding what politician and/or other campaign? It means that corporations who are not under any payroll restriction can continue to pay for the candidate or proposition of their choice. It means that even more money in our broken political funding system from cororations and individuals will be channelled to PACS/SuperPacs who are under no obligation to disclose donor lists in time for voters to make an informed decision.

Don't believe me? $11 million dollars was just contributed by two Arizona groups to defeat Prop 30 and pass Prop 32. And we, the voters, don't know who the big money contributers are.

Web Link

"An Arizona group can continue to withhold documents related to an $11 million contribution to a California political action committee while it appeals a lower court ruling, California's 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled Friday. The decision makes it increasingly unlikely that voters will know the source of the money before Election Day."

Web Link

I urge a "NO" vote on Prop 32. We need *real* campaign reform, not more rules that allow big money millionairs and corporations to further skew our elections.

Like this comment
Posted by Tennessee Jed
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Nov 6, 2012 at 1:47 pm

I wouldn't listen to anything Kamala Harris [State Attorney General] had to say or recommend! Sorry you felt her arguments were enough to sway your vote. Perhaps a closer look at her and her record would have made a difference in your vote. BTW, thank you for your considered effort to vote responsibly...Jed

Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2012 at 2:44 pm

But Jed, are you saying that what Harris said was factually incorrect? I too voted against prop 32 for the same reasons as "Billie". Facts are facts, regardless of who says them, right?

Like this comment
Posted by Tennessee Jed
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Nov 6, 2012 at 3:45 pm

The "Baker Act" [been around a while], allows anyone in a union to "opt out" of the portion of their dues that go to political causes. My beef is the opt-out requirement. It is a difficult process that needs to be done each year. Unions are usually reticent to make those $ adjustments and/or reimbursement. Additionally, and from my own experience as a long time union member [3 separate unions in my working carrier] I have found this to be the case. Pressure was ALWAYS brought to bare to not submit those forms yearly. A yes on 32 would at least require the opt-in format, which would allow any member to exercise their 1st amendment rights to contribute. I understand the argument of the "Big Corporations" gaining an upper hand. But would you not agree if your cause is just, then the support should follow with "voluntary contributions". Just as with coerced charitable contributions [Years of experience with United Way at the workplace]. Just let everyone make their own decisions for contributions, that is why I voted yes on 32.