FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

GeorgeFHayek · Nov 5, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

LongTimeListener said:

In California, regulators have been trying for weeks to get the names behind a shadowy group from Arizona that just contributed $11 million to the campaign for Proposition 32, which would destroy unions' ability to contribute to political campaigns but keep intact the ability of businesses to do so.
Click to expand...

Not my fight, but I was curious about Proposition 32 so I looked it up on the Wikipedia:

If passed, Proposition 32 would do the following:

Prohibit unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes (the same restriction applying to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations and government contractors)

Permit voluntary employee contributions to an employee-sponsored committee or union with yearly written authorization.

Ban contributions to candidates and candidate-controlled committees by corporations and labor unions. Other political expenditures remain unrestricted if not limited due to being from payroll deductions.

Ban contractors who receive government contracts (including public-sector labor unions with collective bargaining agreements) from donating to office holders involved in awarding the contract or committees controlled by said officers.

Click to expand...

So neither unions nor corporations would be allowed to contribute to any political cause via payroll deduction. They (unions and corporations) could contribute to PACs (or something like a PAC), but not through payroll deduction. How is it that corporations (you said "businesses," but I assume you meant the same thing) will be able to do what unions can't? Am I missing something here?

dooley_womack1 · Nov 5, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

GeorgeFHayek said:

LongTimeListener said:

In California, regulators have been trying for weeks to get the names behind a shadowy group from Arizona that just contributed $11 million to the campaign for Proposition 32, which would destroy unions' ability to contribute to political campaigns but keep intact the ability of businesses to do so.
Click to expand...

Not my fight, but I was curious about Proposition 32 so I looked it up on the Wikipedia:

If passed, Proposition 32 would do the following:

Prohibit unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes (the same restriction applying to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations and government contractors)

Permit voluntary employee contributions to an employee-sponsored committee or union with yearly written authorization.

Ban contributions to candidates and candidate-controlled committees by corporations and labor unions. Other political expenditures remain unrestricted if not limited due to being from payroll deductions.

Ban contractors who receive government contracts (including public-sector labor unions with collective bargaining agreements) from donating to office holders involved in awarding the contract or committees controlled by said officers.

Click to expand...

So neither unions nor corporations would be allowed to contribute to any political cause via payroll deduction. They (unions and corporations) could contribute to PACs (or something like a PAC), but not through payroll deduction. How is it that corporations (you said "businesses," but I assume you meant the same thing) will be able to do what unions can't? Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

Big-ass difference. Corporations have numerous ways of generating money to use for politics and don't need to grab money back from employees for that purpose. Unions, however, stay afloat through dues, and when you join a union, you agree to have your money go toward whatever purpose. Prop 32 would be an inconvenience for a business, but homicidal to unions. Nice to see we're going back to the 1930s and using brute force to break unions; I thought businesses and governments had found more subtle ways.

LongTimeListener · Nov 5, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Corporations don't amass political funds through payroll deductions in the first place. Only unions do. Also it limits corporations and only corporations -- no such limits on sole proprietorships, LLCs, hedge funds, real estate companies or any other business structure besides a corporation. Nor does it limit Super PACs obviously.

One of the main endorsers of this is George Shultz, who says, "This initiative gets to the heart of one of the most corrosive elements in politics: campaign contributions...For too long, special interest money has dominated our politics, muting the voice of average Californians."

Think about that. Does this bill in any way limit the effect of special interests? Or does it just clear the opposition for the GOP?

nmmetsfan · Nov 5, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Azrael said:

nmmetsfan said:

LongTimeListener said:

The GOP has been waging a four-year fight to make sure black people and Mexicans don't vote.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they? Most black people and Mexicans aren't voting Republican, so why would the GOP want them voting?

And there have never been instances where Democrats paid people to vote, or had someone vote posing as someone else (including, but not limited to dead people). I'm sure that all never happens.
Click to expand...

Do you have an example of it happening lately?
Click to expand...

So you're not denying it's happened in the past and you're confident it's not happening currently? Because the pattern of behavior is so unbelievable? That's sticking your head in the sand.

LongTimeListener · Nov 5, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

The most recent studies of voter fraud show that there is something like a 0.01 percent chance that it's happening. All of the examples cited in revelations have been debunked.

If you can produce something relevant to today's world, I'd be happy to read it, but I don't think you're going to find anything.

Uncle.Ruckus · Nov 5, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

LongTimeListener said:

The most recent studies of voter fraud show that there is something like a 0.01 percent chance that it's happening. All of the examples cited in revelations have been debunked.

If you can produce something relevant to today's world, I'd be happy to read it, but I don't think you're going to find anything.
Click to expand...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/steve_schmidt_voter_fraud_mythology.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

It's a Republican canard invented to scare white people.

Armchair_QB · Nov 5, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

dooley_womack1 said:

GeorgeFHayek said:

LongTimeListener said:

In California, regulators have been trying for weeks to get the names behind a shadowy group from Arizona that just contributed $11 million to the campaign for Proposition 32, which would destroy unions' ability to contribute to political campaigns but keep intact the ability of businesses to do so.
Click to expand...

Not my fight, but I was curious about Proposition 32 so I looked it up on the Wikipedia:

If passed, Proposition 32 would do the following:

Prohibit unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes (the same restriction applying to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations and government contractors)

Permit voluntary employee contributions to an employee-sponsored committee or union with yearly written authorization.

Ban contributions to candidates and candidate-controlled committees by corporations and labor unions. Other political expenditures remain unrestricted if not limited due to being from payroll deductions.

Ban contractors who receive government contracts (including public-sector labor unions with collective bargaining agreements) from donating to office holders involved in awarding the contract or committees controlled by said officers.

Click to expand...

So neither unions nor corporations would be allowed to contribute to any political cause via payroll deduction. They (unions and corporations) could contribute to PACs (or something like a PAC), but not through payroll deduction. How is it that corporations (you said "businesses," but I assume you meant the same thing) will be able to do what unions can't? Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

Big-ass difference. Corporations have numerous ways of generating money to use for politics and don't need to grab money back from employees for that purpose. Unions, however, stay afloat through dues, and when you join a union, you agree to have your money go toward whatever purpose. Prop 32 would be an inconvenience for a business, but homicidal to unions. Nice to see we're going back to the 1930s and using brute force to break unions; I thought businesses and governments had found more subtle ways.
Click to expand...

Not really. LTL lied or isn't smart enough to understand the legislation.

LongTimeListener · Nov 5, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Read what I wrote at the top of this page, if you're able to follow. It's three whole paragraphs.

trifectarich · Nov 5, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

The only problem in Florida is that it's impossible to vote for all the referendum questions unless you've spent an hour beforehand in research. The ballot itself is an embarrassment in a country of our technological wizardry.

GeorgeFHayek · Nov 5, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

LongTimeListener said:

Corporations don't amass political funds through payroll deductions in the first place. Only unions do. Also it limits corporations and only corporations -- no such limits on sole proprietorships, LLCs, hedge funds, real estate companies or any other business structure besides a corporation. Nor does it limit Super PACs obviously.

One of the main endorsers of this is George Shultz, who says, "This initiative gets to the heart of one of the most corrosive elements in politics: campaign contributions...For too long, special interest money has dominated our politics, muting the voice of average Californians."

Think about that. Does this bill in any way limit the effect of special interests? Or does it just clear the opposition for the GOP?
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, but I think you're over-estimating just how free businesses would be to circumvent that law by not being a corporation. Further, you're assuming that the benefits of the corporate form would be overwhelmed by the benefits of being able to contribute to political endeavors. I just don't see that happening.

LongTimeListener · Nov 5, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

If I'm overestimating it, so are lawyers and experts throughout California, because that's the general opinion from all sides of how this law will apply.

3OctaveFart · Nov 5, 2012

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Your posts are like yen.

Log in or Sign up

FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

GeorgeFHayek Member

dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

nmmetsfan Active Member

LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

trifectarich Well-Known Member

GeorgeFHayek Member

LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

3OctaveFart Guest

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

GeorgeFHayek Member

dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

nmmetsfan Active Member

LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

trifectarich Well-Known Member

GeorgeFHayek Member

LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

3OctaveFart Guest

Share This Page

Useful Searches