Dictator Arnold

[Ghoulish Delight]

So the November special election in California is happening. I won't even get into that, let's just focus on what's on this stupid ballot.

2 of the items particularly come to mind.

1) The budget prop. "Either pass my budget, or I'll declare my budget passed." Nice. So much for any bipartisan compromise. "Oh, the minority want's compromise or they won't vote for the budget? Okay, we'll just wait them out and let the dictator make it so."

2) Preventing unions from spending money for political purposes unless they get specific member approval. My dad said it best. "I'll happily vote for that. Once it includes a rule that says publically traded businesses must have the same restriction until their stockholders vote for approval." Otherwise, it's "screw the workers, but business lobbies have all the leeway they want."

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hmm, upon another look, I can't find what I'm referring to in my first point on the ballot, at least not in the form I thought it was. I'll have to look more into the budget proposal that is there before commenting.

[scaeagles]

I see a difference between the unions and stockholders. As a stockholder, I can invest where I choose and sell certain investments if I wish and if the business lobby of the particular corporation does not fit with my leanings. However, as a member of a union, union dues are compulsory, and for a wide variety of jobs - auto workers, steel workers, whatever - union membership is required. While I suppose, in the same way that someone could sell an investment, that someone could change to a non union job, that is often not possible from a standpoint of trying to survive. It may be the only job someone is qualified for and therefore their livelihood is at stake.

[Ghoulish Delight]

That's completely independent of the fact that this rule would completely knacker unions in favor of business. Unions would become a non-entity in the world of politics, completely unresponsive and unable to represent their members' needs.

Now, I'm not saying that lobbying is the best system for representing one's members, because it is indeed foul and corrupt. However, a level playing field must be maintained, and to shut the voice of the workers out of the game while allowing corporations to continue to throw as much money as they like to buy policies that suit them is just wrong. Like my dad, I'd be more than happy to vote for this, if it were to maintain a level playing field. But it doesn't, it screws union members in favor of corporations.

[scaeagles]

Actually, I don't think it would completely stop unions from political contributions. There are ways to use accounting tricks to nullify any effect.

Let's say that 80% of a union is OK with contributions to the democrat party. This particular union has a membership of 10,000 people, and each of those pays $100 annually (granted, not a realistic example), giving the union 1,000,000 in funds.

They have 250,000 budgeted for political contributions, or 25% of their take, which comes to $25 from each member. If only 80% of the union is OK with that contribution, they simply use accounting to change the political contribution of each member willing to support that cause to $31.25, still arriving at 250,000. I don't see any such legislation making any difference.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Justify it all you want, it's still imposing restrictions on workers that aren't there for businesses. I could poke holes in your example if I sat here (for instance, what if their needs for political contribution change through the year because some bill that Bank of America is suddenly lobbying heavily to push through comes up. That option isn't there because now they have to stay within these strict budgeting guidelines), but what's the point. Justify it all you want, it's still a slap in the face to workers that benefits corporations over workers. Remember, this is the governor who defines "special interest groups" as "unions".

[tikiboy]

Justify it all you want, it's still imposing restrictions on workers that aren't there for businesses.

That's a non sequitur. The special ballot is taking on what it says it is taking on, not what you think is unfair.

It's about time this kind of measure came along.

[wendybeth]

I would just like to interrupt this thread to make a brief statement:

Well, at least I didn't vote for him!

There. I feel better now. Carry on.........

[€uroMeinke]

I would just like to interrupt this thread to make a brief statement:

Well, at least I didn't vote for him!

There. I feel better now. Carry on.........


Me neither, I voted for the stripper - or was it the aging punk rocker? Who ever it was, it wasn't him.

[Ghoulish Delight]

That's a non sequitur. The special ballot is taking on what it says it is taking on, not what you think is unfair.

It's about time this kind of measure came along.Nope, sorry. I will not vote for something that puts one group at a distinct disadvantage for the benefit of another. Give me a bill that treats both equally, or nothing at all.

[Prudence]

I would just like to interrupt this thread to make a brief statement:

Well, at least I didn't vote for him!

There. I feel better now. Carry on.........


You don't vote for kings!

I personally would have voted for the silly party.

(Because no one's taken a thread there in at least a week.)

[Morrigoon]

There's a big difference between corporate shareholders and union members: the unions are "run" actively by their membership. On the other hand, corporate stockholders are what is known as "limited" partners in the business. Their contribution is limited to their investment in the company, and as we've seen with Disney, their power to control anything else (such as the board) is severely limited. For that reason, I could see wanting "active" membership to have a say in how their money is spent, whereas shareholders have already subjected themselves to a position of non-control.

Now, if you wanted shareholders owning over 5% of a company's stock to vote on something, that would be okay because they generally have more power in a company and ought to have more say in how it's run.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Argue the dynamics all you want, the end result is the same...corporations having a cripling advantage over unions in the political arena. It's just another symptom of Arnold's definition of Unions as "special interest groups" and corporations as "impartial supporters". It's disgusting how blatantly two-faced he is about that.

We might as well vote for tax reform that removes all tax shelters and deductions and implements a flat tax, but only for people who make under $150,000 a year. Sure, the general principal may be good (I stress "may", I'm not trying to argue merits of any tax reform proposal, just setting up a hypothetical), but the application to only one segment is ridiculous.