OPPOSES
Proposition 75--Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on
Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement.
Initiative Statute

This initiative requires public employee unions to get annual, written consent from a government employee in order to charge and use that employee's dues or fees for political purposes. This requirement would apply for both members and nonmembers of a union. The measure would also require unions to keep certain records, including copies of any consent forms.

Unions for Government Employees. Groups of government employees--like employees in the private sector--can choose to have a union represent them in negotiations with their employers over salaries, benefits, and other conditions of employment. Individual government employees may choose whether or not to join the union that represents their group of employees. A union's negotiations affect all employees in the group--both members and nonmembers of the union. As a result, members of the group--whether they join a union or not--typically pay a certain level of dues and/or fees to a union for these bargaining and representation services.

Use of Union Dues or Fees for Political Purposes. A union of government employees may engage in other types of activities unrelated to bargaining and representation. For instance, public employees may decide to charge additional dues for various political purposes, including supporting and opposing political candidates and issues. Any fees collected from a nonmember of a union cannot be used for these types of political purposes if the nonmember objects. Each year, unions must publicly report what share of their expenditures was for political purposes.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
(from the League)

About 54 percent of California public employees belong to labor unions. The public employee unions include:

• teachers and instructional aides: about 25 percent of public employee union members
• janitors, nurses, paramedics, clerical workers and non-faculty community college workers: about 24 percent
• California school employees, secretaries and custodians: 13.4 percent
• University of California system employees, supervisors, foremen, technical workers and social workers: 5.1 percent
• other (includes state and local government employees, prison guards, etc.): 31.5 percent.

California public employee unions are a strong political force in the state. The Los Angeles Times says that they "have formed the core resistance to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's agenda this year."

There is not much good data available on how much unions spend as contrasted to corporations, in part because one must include contributions to ballot measures as well as to candidates. This information is from the Los Angeles Times:

It is difficult to tally the total spent by California unions on politics. The Institute on Money in State Politics, a Montana-based nonprofit group, found that California public sector unions spent $6.7 million last year on candidates, but the amount spent on ballot measures was not tracked.

The institute's records show that donations from unions, public and private, amounted to 5.7 percent of the money received by candidates last year, less than half the combined giving by business interests. Finance, insurance, real estate, construction, agriculture and general business interests made up 13.7 percent of candidate contributions.

Opponents of Proposition 75 cite figures from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics (www.crp.org) that show that large corporations outspend unions by 24 to 1.

LWVC Campaign Financing position:

Support state campaign finance practices for candidates and advocates of ballot measures which will ensure full disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures and enable candidates to compete more equitably for public office.

LWVUS Campaign Finance position:

The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that the methods of financing political campaigns should ensure the public's right to know, combat corruption and undue influence, enable candidates to compete more equitably for public office and allow maximum citizen participation in the political process.

The League has opposed measures similar to this one on both the state and national levels.

The LWVC opposed Proposition 226 in the June 1998 primary. It would have applied to all labor unions; the current measure applies only to public employee unions. In 1998 early polls showed strong support for Prop. 226; however, it failed with 55 percent of voters opposing it.

The LWVUS opposed a Congressional "paycheck protection" proposal, stating these reasons:

The Paycheck Protection Act . . . seeks to curtail a wide range of political activity by unions while allowing corporations to continue engaging in the very same activities unchecked.

While the Paycheck Protection Act would require prior written consent from union members before their dues could be used for any political activities, it imposes no similar restraints on corporations. When corporations use general revenues to make soft money contributions or run sham issue ad campaigns, they are using corporate profits. The Paycheck Protection Act would in no way provide stockholders who disagree with a corporation's political activities a means for receiving a refund of those portions of their profits used for partisan electioneering purposes.

Finally, in Communication Workers of America v. Beck, the Supreme Court already has ruled that nonunion workers who pay agency fees to unions to support their collective bargaining efforts are entitled to a full refund of that portion of their dues used for political activity.

If campaign finance reform is to pass, it must be a fair and even-handed effort to close loopholes in the law, rather than a purely partisan effort to eviscerate political opponents.

SUPPORTERS Signing ballot arguments for	OPPONENTS Signing ballot arguments against:
Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Winner	Lou Paulson, President California Professional Firefighters
Lewis Uhler, President National Taxpayer Limitation Committee	Barbara Kerr, President California Teachers Association
Allan Mansoor, Member of Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs	Sandra Marques, RN, Local President United Nurses Associations of California

The rebuttal to the supporters' argument was signed by Lieutenant Ron Cottingham, President, Peace Officer's Research Association of California; Mary Bergan, President, California Federation of Teachers; and Deborah Burger, President, California Nurses Association.

Other organizations opposing Proposition 75 include the LWVC, the Congress of California Seniors, and Sierra Club California.

RESOURCES

Chris Carson, LWVC Government Director, govt@lwvc.org

Jack Sullivan, LWVC Legislation Director, legislation@lwvc.org

Trudy Schafer, LWVC Program Director/Advocate, 801 12th Street, Suite 220, Sacramento 95814, 916-442-9210, Fax 916-442-7362,tschafer@lwvc.org

Alliance for a Better California, No on Proposition 75, 1510 J Street, Suite 210, Sacramento 95814, 916-443-7817, http://www.betterca.com/prop75

SUMMARY POINTS

Public Employee Union Dues

• Proposition 75 imposes new restrictions on public employee political contributions that don't apply to anyone else, including wealthy individuals and big corporations.
• This measure unfairly creates two sets of rules for contributors by targeting the customary fundraising methods of only one group of contributors.
• Proposition 75 requires public employees to give annual written consent before their dues or fees could be used for political purposes by their union.
• Business interests do not raise money for political campaign activities by employee payroll deductions, but can use corporate funds for that purpose without permission from individual stockholders to do so.
• Unlike business stockholders, union members are informed about what candidates and measures their unions are supporting and can question the union's activity.
• Public employees have an existing procedure for requesting that their dues not be used for political purposes. Proposition 75 is unnecessary because under current federal law and U.S. Supreme Court rulings, no public employee can be forced to join a union and contribute to political campaigns.
• Corporate interests contribute substantially more to political campaigns than unions do. Past estimates have ranged from 4:1 to 11:1. According to figures from the Center for Responsive Politics, business outspent organized labor by as much as 24 to 1 in the 2004 presidential election.

Note: Please adapt this letter to your own community and check your local paper's word limit for published letters.

Editor:

California voters should reject Proposition 75 because it would increase the power of the big business interests who are funding it at the expense of public employees.

Prop. 75 is unfair because it forces political restrictions on public employees like teachers, nurses, firefighters and police--and no one else. It would mute their voices on health care, schools, public safety, and other issues of importance to working people.

Prop. 75 would require members of public employee unions each year to authorize using part of their dues for political activities.

Unlike business stockholders, union members are informed about which candidates and measures their unions are supporting and can question union activity at membership meetings. Employees have an existing procedure for requesting that their dues or fees not be used for political purposes.

Business interests can use corporate funds for political campaign activities without permission from individual stockholders to do so.

This measure unfairly creates two sets of rules for contributors by targeting the customary fund raising methods of only one group of contributors.

Vote No on Prop. 75. It would curtail a wide range of political activity by public employee unions while allowing corporations to engage in the very same activities unchecked.

Sincerely,

(your name)

For more information on this proposition, go to Smart Voter's coverage.