It's kind of funny really to follow your own link to: Its top "$50,000 and over" donors represent a list of the state's wealthiest corporatist Republicans.

And then scroll down a few paragraphs and see that unions have donated five times as much to defeat this measure.

Another amusement was to follow your California Watch link to those evil Republican donors and see that the donations from just the California Teachers Association alone DWARF their nearest competitor in either category. Over that ten year period organized labor gave hundreds of millions of dollars of "democracy-destroying flood of dark money into our political system".

Yay Prop 32!

As usual, my right-wing friend, WingnutSteve, offers up a straw man, easily demolished.

Of course unions are pooling their funds to fend off this deceptive, billionaire-funded attempt to destroy their ability to be active participants in a political process that permits corporations to flood the system with "dark money".

The union contributions to defeat Prop 32 are not dark money. Dark money entails the funds that are being secretly washed through pseudo 501(c)(3) organizations, as the GOP continues to oppose the Democratic-proposed Disclose Act now pending in Sacramento. The union contributions you refer to are, in fact, "disclosed" and are by definition "not" considered "dark money."

I note that while Steve is quick to point to CTA's funding on this measure, he conveniently ignored the documented fact that, during this 2012 election cycle, corporations are outspending unions 15 to 1.

Finally, I would note that this is not the first time wealthy Republicans have sought to utilize the initiative process to assault unions and their members.

As Hiltzik notes:

Like the billionaire Koch brothers he so admires, Steve is untroubled by the level of deception employed by the framers of Prop 32. The two previous initiatives told them they can't win fair and square. So they resort to deception.

Deceit is the principle means by which the one percent maintains control over the 99%.

Those $50,000 donors you whined about are not dark money either, by your own definition.

What about your link that shows the teachers union as being (by massive sums) the largest donors in the California political process? One need only look at the "Californians Against Identity Theft" lies of a few years ago to see that union dark money trail.

We need 100% public financed election, real election reform. Not the "give the world to the unions" crap that you want...

We will learn that politics is a Broadway game played by both parties who have lost touch with reality.

One is the bully and the other is the bully "worshiper".

We can not vote insanity out of our government.

And our government is going insaner and insaner:

The Virginia statute states that a mental health professional can decide to issue a temporary detention order if "it appears ... that the person (i) has a mental illness and that there exists a substantial likelihood that, as a result of mental illness, the person will, in the near future, (a) cause serious physical harm to himself or others as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening harm and other relevant information, if any, or (b) suffer serious harm due to his lack of capacity to protect himself from harm or to provide for his basic human needs, (ii) is in need of hospitalization or treatment, and (iii) is unwilling to volunteer or incapable of volunteering for hospitalization or treatment."

"I really love America, and I think that idea that you can be detained and sent somewhere without due process and a lawyer … is crazy," Raub said.

Raub told the Times-Dispatch that he served as a Marine in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2005 to 2011, was a combat engineer sergeant and does not own a gun. His mother said he returned from Afghanistan about a year ago and does not have PTSD.

(Business Insider, Military & Defense). They have just locked up a former Marine because he did not believe the official 9/11 story and posted about it on his Facebook page.

I suggest that we stop fighting amongst our sane selves.

WingnutSteve @3 wrote:

We need 100% public financed election, real election reform.

On this, you and I agree. In fact, I'd take it a step further and argue that all radio and television stations, as a consideration for their right to operate on our public airwaves, should be required to furnish competing candidates with equal time to present their positions sans paid for political advertising.

If they wish to include non-political commercials during the airing of those segments to make a buck, I have no problem with that either.

The problem is, unless and until Citizens United is overturned by a constitutional amendment that eliminates corporate personhood and ends the silly notion that money equals speech, it would be suicidal for unions to unilaterally surrender all private financing to the already predominant corporate message.

So long as corporations are permitted to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens, organized labor will represent one of the few means for expressions of the will of the vast majority of citizens.

I agree with the radio thing, would put the same requirements on TV, would outlaw any and all PACs, 527's, and any other such entity.

I would take it a step further and say no person can donate. Because if you got rid of everything else, then you'd have the unions saying to their people "if you show a receipt that you donated x amount of dollars to our candidate we'll give you double that in dues paid".. or corporations giving away vacation days or whatever other such nonsense they could come up with to still pollute the process.

But the bottom line is this is a California. And in California, by your own link, the unions are the big boys in town. They shouldn't be able to just get what they want anymore than the corporations..

Let's vote the Secret Service and FBI out of office because:

John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, said the following: “For government officials to not only arrest Brandon Raub for doing nothing more than exercising his First Amendment rights but to actually force him to undergo psychological evaluations and detain him against his will goes against every constitutional principle this country was founded upon. This should be a wake-up call to Americans that the police state is here.”

(Psycho Warded In Handcuffs). Wake up call ... one ringy dingy ...

Steve @6: As an objective, I'm in full agreement with the first two paragraphs, though the process would, at a minimum, have to start with the constitutional amendment that has been proposed by Vermont.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that, "in California, by your own link, the unions are the big boys in town."

That link refers to union contributions to this initiative. When it comes to the relative contributions of funds of corporate and 1 percenters vs. unions, whether it be California or elsewhere in the nation, unions cannot begin to fairly compete on a corporate playing field. Given that 43% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of the top one percent, one could not expect otherwise.

The are, at best, a buffer against unchecked corporate tyranny.

I'm talking about your link to the California Watch website. When you link there, it offers you a link to the 50 largest individual and 50 largest group donors to political causes in California over the period of 2001 to 2011. By a staggering margin the single largest donor is the Teachers Union.

http://rainmaker.apps.cironline.org/

Nineteen of the top 50 groups are unions of some sort. Yes, gaming tribes, energy, and pharma are well represented also. But unions own this state. And none of those organizations should have a say in who we elect or what bills we pass.

Sounds and smells like the fucking 'federalist society" to me folks. Ya know, a friend of mine who worked up at scafe's place said that before his last wife leff em, she was signing checks smellin mellon. Really. Now, I do have another friend that works for the other part of the family and she says they can't stand him. Just goes to show all folks with money aren't stupid!

I found the 8 million dollar figure donated by the California Teachers Association astonishing. Do teachers really have that kind of money? Then when I clicked on California Teachers Association it took me to another link that had other astonishing figures like over a BILLION DOLLARS donated in support of prop 25 in 2010. Are these numbers accurate? There's a teachers' association that has well over a billion dollars to throw into a political campaign?

The California figure was around $111 million for the period noted. Big state David, they have that kind of money.

Have been on the road all day (and all weekend), so forgive me for jumping in, as I'm just getting caught up. But...

WingnutSteve said @ 9:

Nineteen of the top 50 groups are unions of some sort. Yes, gaming tribes, energy, and pharma are well represented also. But unions own this state. And none of those organizations should have a say in who we elect or what bills we pass.

Okay. I'll bite. Why shouldn't unions --- who are collectives of actual people (as opposed to shareholders at a corporation which has a fiduciary duty only to increase profits for shareholders) --- have a say in who we elect or what bills we pass?

The money from unions is from their membership. The money from corporations is from *unaccountable board members.

* = Corrected typo. (Had "accountable" when I meant "unaccountable")

David: I don't know where you came up with the billion dollar figure.

Here's what California Watch says:

That's $118,000 million over a dozen years, not $1 billion on a single election.

Note that despite the 2005 defeat of all four GOP measures, the billionaires are back at it again with the very same thing--elimination of union dues as a source of campaign funding.

CA is the nation's most populous state, and the size of CTA reflects that fact. The critical difference is that unions political spending represents the interests of working class Americans, and most especially teachers (and their students, e.g., class size, etc.).

Corporate spending is always for the benefit of the one percent.

I'm sure there isn't a teacher in CA whose salary over an entire year would approach what Charles or David Koch make in an hour. Indeed, I'd be so bold as to suggest that the ability of CTA and other unions to fend off these corporate assaults is a big reason why California is not Wisconsin.

Brad @13 wrote:

he money from unions is from their membership. The money from corporations is from accountable board members.

Did you mean to say, "unaccountable board members," because they're rarely accountable to shareholders.

Hey Brad, my brother works for a corporation. Got profit sharing and the whole nine yards. Guess what? You got it, he's an actual people. Guess who he works with? Right again, actual people. My 401k has stock in it, yep I'm an actual people.

No group, not the NRA, or the trial lawyers association, or the teachers union, or big oil yadayada should be able to buy an election. You're hard wired to think unions only should be allowed. We'll have to agree to disagree on that

Yes, Steve. Real people work for corporations. That doesn't mean that "corporations are people too, my friend."

Unions aren't people either Ernie. In fact, by your link above, the original thought behind prop 32 was to have it on the June ballot and it was a measure to disallow unions to spend peoples dues on political issues without the union members knowledge. An honorable thing I must say since as Brad states the union donations to political causes comes from actual member donations. But Jerry Brown, by yourlink, did not allow it to go on the june ballot because he suspected he would lose. Why do you think union members shouldn't be allowed to know what political issue their dues goes to support? Brad or Ernie??

I'll say it for the last time. I don't think any group should be able to buy an election. Shame on both of you for disagreeing.

WingnutSteve @ 1 said:

It's kind of funny really to follow your own link to: Its top "$50,000 and over" donors represent a list of the state's wealthiest corporatist Republicans.

And then scroll down a few paragraphs and see that unions have donated five times as much to defeat this measure.

That is funny!

So, how many people, respectively, are represented by those on the list of the state's wealthiest corporatist Republicans versus those represented by the unions? Do the unions represent "five times" as many people with their giving (in this case)? Or hundreds of thousands of more people?

I suspect there is a reason the unions are forced to invest what is, essentially, a drop in the bucket for the corporatists in order to oppose this deceptive initiative.

As to "dark money", it seems you may not understand how that particular scam works.

Hey Ernie,

My fault getting the numbers wrong, with a little help from a somewhat misleading website.

I clicked on your "top "$50,000 and over" donors" link and got to Ballot Pedia. I scrolled down and clicked on California Teachers Association looking for more info. Got another Ballot Pedia link. Scrolled down and found CTA donations over the last several election cycles with 2010 at the top of the list.

There were five propositions the CTA donated to that year. For some reason, on one of them(Prop 25), cents were included in the donation figure causing it to appear much larger than it was. I didn't look carefully enough to see that the reason the Prop 25 donation figure printed out so much further to the left than the others right above and below it was because the end of the number was ".00" and not ",ooo".

I don't know, my carelessness, but it also seems a weird and misleading way to list donation figures.

Nice Brad. Can't defend the fact that you think unions should be able to buy an election. So as per your modus operandi you just change the subject.

And the true colors come shinin' through!

Shame on you! You actually had me fooled with that "Free and Fair Elections" stuff you always go on about....

Why, Steve, do you continue to deny the reality that unions have, for more than a century, served as the principle collective means by which ordinary citizens can shield themselves from the tyranny of corporate wealth and power?

I think you, Brad and I would agree that the ideal solution would be the removal of corrupting private political campaign expenditures and an across-the-board, publicly owned media which strives to fulfill the Fourth Estate function of insuring a fully informed electorate --- one where all sides to political controversies are given an equal opportunity to be heard.

So long as we are operating in a system where money predominates the scope and content of political discourse, however, union political spending will remain the principle means for insuring that the corporate message is not the only message the public sees and hears.

Finally, I don't see where Brad said unions should be permitted to "buy an election." What he wrote was that unions should "have a say in who we elect or what bills we pass." Stated another way, Brad simply contends that union political campaign expenditures insure that voices of "collectives of actual people" can be heard against the din of 24/7 corporate propaganda that so dominates our national media.

WingnutSteve @ 18 said:

Unions aren't people either Ernie. ... Why do you think union members shouldn't be allowed to know what political issue their dues goes to support? Brad or Ernie??

What are you talking about? Union members know exactly what their dues goes to support. Union support for/against political campaigns (representing the full union membership) unlike corporate money to astroturf non-profits, is fully declared.

I'll say it for the last time. I don't think any group should be able to buy an election. Shame on both of you for disagreeing.

Shame on you for creating a strawman, and then knocking it down. That's become all too typical from you, I'm sorry to say. Whoever said anyone should be able to "buy an election"? Lame, Steve.

WingnutSteve @ 21 blathered desperately:

Nice Brad. Can't defend the fact that you think unions should be able to buy an election. So as per your modus operandi you just change the subject.

What the fuck are you talking about?

WingnutSteve continued to blather @ 22:

Shame on you! You actually had me fooled with that "Free and Fair Elections" stuff you always go on about....

No, seriously. What the fuck are you talking about?

By Ernie's own link the biggest of the big boys in California political donations is by far the unions. Getting tired of saying it and having you two ignore it or try to justify it.

You state it's okay for unions, just not for corporations. This gives an unfair advantage to unions in the election process.

My point is that unions shouldn't be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on elections (they do) anymore than corporations. Elections should be decided on their own merit, not on what entity has the most money to spend.

That's what the fuck I'm talking about. Please continue with your circular reasoning....

By Ernie's link, unions have donated approximately $326.8 million dollars to California political candidates and ballot measures in the period between 2001 and 2011.

The California Teachers Association leads the way with $118.2 million in that time frame. That's almost double the nearest energy company.

This also doesn't include money given to Independent Expenditure Groups.

WingnutSteve kept digging @ 26 with:

You state it's okay for unions, just not for corporations. This gives an unfair advantage to unions in the election process.

It's amazing that you can't seem to comprehend the difference between a transparent collective of individuals (a union), versus an unaccountable fictional entity (a corporation).

Moreover, the numbers you are comparing are actually between unions (collectives of hundreds of thousands of people) and about a dozen millionaires and billionaires. Your claim --- whether it's accurate or not, I don't have time to verify for the moment, so I'll stipulate that it is for purpose of argument --- that unions spend twice, or even five time as much in representing their hundreds of thousands of members, versus the billionaires who represent only themselves and their fictional entities is ridiculous.

You haven't heard Ernie or me arguing against, say, the AARP or the horrendous NRA (also collectives of hundreds of thousands of citizens) participating in the electoral process, have you?

If you want to compare unions to something, compare them to organizations representing individuals, not fictional entities with a single fiduciary responsibility to increase profits for the fictional entity's shareholders.

Do you similarly have a problem knowing the difference between a school of hundreds of thousands of fish and one single grey whale?

If you'd like to discuss limits on how much individuals may contribute to a campaign, I'm all for it. If you'd even like to discuss limits on how much any group of citizens may contribute, that's fine by me too. If you'd like to discuss the idea of fully publicly financed elections --- and the tricky free speech matters that go with it --- I'm all for it.

But that you'd throw yourself under the bus to argue that private unaccountable corporations are the same as transparent union organizations is absurd. But arguing the absurd seems to be becoming your trademark around here.

Yes, it's what the Republican corporatists argue as well. But they similarly argue that ACORN is committing voter fraud, and that it is the gravest threat to our democracy, and that the only way to stop it is with polling place Photo ID restrictions. Oh, and they also believe the earth is not warming and that women can keep themselves from becoming pregnant when raped.

Is that really the crew you are going to keep throwing in with? Really?

Wow, when you're sinking you just go all over the board with your rants. ACORN, ID Laws, rape? What's that got to do with Prop 32? Did you take a Biden pill today?

Unions only represent 17% of California workers.

http://www.bls.gov/ro9/unionca.htm

And even if they represented 99% of California workers, I still wouldn't believe that they should be able to buy an election with their hundreds of millions of dollars they throw at the process. We'll always disagree on that. I believe in real election reform where individuals make the decisions, not your "let the big money on the left make the decisions". If union members want to donate to a certain politician let him, don't let some politically connected 1%'er union head make the decision for him (or her).

Steve @29,

No, I'm afraid the "wow" is still on you for not only failing to understand what is being said(again) but for also(yet again)twisting it beyond recognition.

Are there any reputable website mediators available? I think this calls for an intervention.

Hey wingnut, watch Thom Hartmann today and get your head out your ass big boy. Good job Brad and Ernie!

Although wingnut, I would suggest you watch the whole show with the doctor who was sitting in, I will direct you to the Jon Stewart piece. Its not posted on the internet yet, I tried to make it easy for you, so you'll have to find a satellite tv to see the rerun. But seriously guy, your going to continue to say billionaires have the same resources as hard working people that organize? Really? You seem to be somebodie's bitch dear.

One more direction wingnut, Thom's show is on Free Speech tv.

Seriously dude, when any company holds a man, woman, or child economically hostage...you are not my friend.

I understand well what Brad is saying David. Right or wrong I disagree with it. I live in California David, the unions almost completely control this state. As the biggest political donors in the state they have a huge advantage in dollars to influence elections.

Ancient, I don't care if we're friends. As long as I'm still in your will...

To both of you, cheer lead on that's fine with me. Brad was brilliant in his end of the discussion. The part where he ignores posted links is particularly good. But the best of all was where he went the ACORN, rape, etc route to try and score a knockout punch in a discussion about Prop 32. That was pure left wing brilliance there...

Steve,
I am not convinced that you understand Brad in the slightest. You never give anywhere near an accurate or fair rendition of what he's saying. For me that's one of the main things that makes dialogue with you next to impossible. From your responses there seems only evidence that you either don't or can't hear him. And this is how I experience you when you and I are going back and forth, too.

While I can believe that somehow YOU believe you are hearing him, from my perspective you clearly are not.

Yes I do hear him David. Unions represent people, working people, therefor they have every right to be involved in attempting to sway the vote in the direction which works best for working people.

Corporations don't represent people, they represent (enter favorite afjective here) and there for should not be allowed to attempt to sway the vote in the direction which works best for them.

Both of them, corporations and unions, pollute the political process with all the money they pour into it. I don't think either should be allowed to do so. Take out ALL the money and guess wht? People will get elected based on merit.

Steve,
Thanks for trying. That wasn't half bad. Well, it wasn't a third bad. From my point of view your first paragraph was not a bad approximation of what I take Brad's point of view to be.

The other two, no, you missed on those.

I dig the effort though. Truly.

Gotta scoot.

WingnutSteve @ 29:

Unions only represent 17% of California workers.
http://www.bls.gov/ro9/unionca.htm

That's right. Almost 2.5 million citizens, by your own link. But I guess a dozen millionaires and billionaires should have more say than those 2.5 million California citizens??

WingnutSteve @ 36:

Brad was brilliant in his end of the discussion. The part where he ignores posted links is particularly good.

"End of the discussion"? My apologies for having to actually, ya know, work. Recall, we actually do the heavy lifting around here while you get to natter on at will in comments after we do so. Sorry I didn't reply quickly enough for you, amigo.

But the best of all was where he went the ACORN, rape, etc route to try and score a knockout punch in a discussion about Prop 32. That was pure left wing brilliance there...

Way to ignore the actual point. If I was making your argument, I'd probably do the same. Oh, and throw in "left wing" too. What, no "liberal commie" in there? You're off your game, champ.

WingnutSteve @ 37:

Yes I do hear him David. Unions represent people, working people, therefor they have every right to be involved in attempting to sway the vote in the direction which works best for working people.

Did I miss where I discussed "working people"? Where do you "hear" me say that? I think I referred simply to "people". You may recall I also referred to the people who make up the NRA and the AARP and their appropriate right to participate in the political process on behalf of their membership. But if you'd like to "hear" phony arguments I didn't make, and then knock them down (rather than take on the actual arguments I've offered) that continues to be up to you. But it's really really lame.

Corporations don't represent people, they represent (enter favorite afjective here) and there for should not be allowed to attempt to sway the vote in the direction which works best for them.

Actually, corporations not only don't represent people, they are not people. Now if the employees of any particular corporation wish to get together and pool support for or against someone or some thing that's a different issue. For that matter, if all of the non-union people of CA want to poll their collective funds and fight for whatever, against those horrible union people (we call them citizens, voters, ya know, stuff that corporations are not) that's also up to them.

But a billionaire is accountable to nobody. A corporate CEO is accountable to no more than a dozen or so on his corporate board. Maybe. Unlike a union President, the corporate CEO cannot be fired by the people who make up the organization. Apparently you either still don't get that, or simply don't want to.

Take out ALL the money and guess wht? People will get elected based on merit.

Fine by me. But don't take out the union money while allowing the corporate money to continue. That is what you (and Prop 32) are advocating.

You are a liar:

"Fine by me. But don't take out the union money while allowing the corporate money to continue. That is what you (and Prop 32) are advocating."

I CLEARLY stated that ALL money should be taken out of elections, even from individual donors.

Steve at 6:

"I agree with the radio thing, would put the same requirements on TV, would outlaw any and all PACs, 527's, and any other such entity.

I would take it a step further and say no person can donate. Because if you got rid of everything else, then you'd have the unions saying to their people "if you show a receipt that you donated x amount of dollars to our candidate we'll give you double that in dues paid".. or corporations giving away vacation days or whatever other such nonsense they could come up with to still pollute the process."

And once again with your "fine by me" comment you prove that I can't even agree with you without you turning it into an onslaught of personal attacks.

Hey nutsky, like the guy in The Hunger Wars movie, you don't know when to stop. You have been soundly discredited! And by the way, I'm just a nurse who took care of both of her middle class parents, and is now paying off her daughter's parent plus loan from a very good college as well as her own student loans for three degrees. Innuendo anyone?

An oh yeah, check out this interview wingnut:

http://www.democracynow...._rove_how_karl_rove_went

A little sunshine goes a long way.

WingnutSteve @29 wrote:

Unions only represent 17% of California workers.

Way to fall for the corporate divide-and-conquer strategy, Steve.

The fact is that unions have been responsible for uplifting the benefits of all workers, and not just those who belong to unions.

As noted by the Economic Policy Institute, "unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%."

The institute adds:

Over the past century, union-sponsored legislation has included, but is not limited to, child labor laws, the 40 hour work week, overtime pay. Studies I linked to in prior articles reveal a direct correlation in the strength and size of unions and a reduction in income inequality.

Without unions, atomized workers would be powerless in the face of all powerful, dictatorially-run corporations.

So, when unions fund opposition to a corporate assault like this one they are not just protecting their own members, but the entire working class.

Here is the real reason for the one percent's relentless assault on unions.

As the graph above suggests, the relative percentages of income going to the top one percent of Americans vs. the bottom 90%, just prior to the burst of the housing bubble and collapse of the credit default swaps casino in 2008, were strikingly similar to those that occurred in 1929 when the stock market crashed.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the second of these two graphs begins in 1948. The correlation between the decline in union membership and wealth disparity appears even stronger when one considers that "American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen under 9% --- levels not seen since 1932."

The correlation between low union membership and wealth disparity is enhanced by comparing U.S. unionization to that of other countries. By 1989, U.S. union membership, at 16%, was the lowest of any developed democracy, except France. By 2010 the percentage of private sector employees who belonged to a union had plummeted to 6.9% --- the lowest level since 1900 "when Samuel Gompers' fast-growing movement first counted a million members and 6.5 percent of the workforce."

"The U.S. income gap between rich and poor is the greatest among Western industrialized nations," according to the International Business Times. Sweden, whose workforce as of 2003 was 78% unionized, ranks third amongst all nations in income equality.

Another good one Ernie! And one last thing for wingnut, even though we may not be friends...I'll extend the olive branch and give your poor little brain some food for thought:

http://www.youtube.com/w...hrBhpN4&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/w...index=8&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/w...n-ZKdDg&feature=plcp

Hey wingnut you still there? If so, I have a question for ya, do you agree with reinstating the draft? Cuz, I sure can't stand the fraud and waste of government contractors. How bout you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_7C0QGkiVo

Sigh, Ernie I have nothing against unions and I'm well aware of what unios have accomplished for workers: good pay, safe environment, proper training, child labor laws etc.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend? I don't think anyone should be able to give to any political cause. No money, none, nada, zilch. Not from you or Chevron, or the SEIU. Jesus christ its like talking to a brick wall.

WingnutSteve @ 47:

Why is it so difficult to comprehend? I don't think anyone should be able to give to any political cause. No money, none, nada, zilch. Not from you or Chevron, or the SEIU. Jesus christ its like talking to a brick wall.

Not really. If that's all you were advocating, I suspect many of us might have either joined you, or respected your opinion, rather than pushing back at what seemed fairly clearly your support for Prop 32.

You bashed unions and supported corporations, and refused to recognize the difference between the two.

If you have the truly principled position you state above (not important whether or not I agree with it), then I'd presume you'd be against Prop 32 since it cuts off the ability for some to support elections, but allows others to continue doing so.

So, here's a last, very generous chance, to find common ground and help you back to a position of principle. If you oppose all "free speech" spending on elections, by everyone, then let us know whether you support or oppose Prop 32. That should make it very clear, once and for all, if you are willing to put your (ban on all) money where mouth is.

Thanks!

Just another attempt from the 1% to rule over the 99%ers.

Corporations don’t use payroll deductions for political purpose. That’s like saying, “we’re goingto crack down on counterfeiting by collecting all the 3 dollar bills printed.” Sounds good however, counterfeiters don’t print 3 dollar bills.
It doesn’t stop any corporation from using unlimited profits to contribute to state or local campaigns. And the Supreme Court already confirmed that Corporations have the same rights as individuals and therefore, can contribute unlimited funds to any campaign.
Labor rights aren’t etched in stone. They were won through politics and collective bargaining. So if you’re the 99% that have to work for a living say, “good bye” to, vacation leave, health insurance, 8 hour work day, minimum wage, work place health and safety laws, overtime pay, unemployment, child labor laws, meal breaks, nurse patient ratios just to name a few.

WingnutSteve already answered the question posed by Brad @48.

In comment #1, Steve wrote: "Yay Prop 32!"

Steve and I appear to have common ground in the belief that ideal solution would eliminate the need for campaign contributions altogether, so that whom we elect is determined by the substance of the candidate's ideas rather than by the size of a candidate's war chest.

That solution would require:

1. The replacement of privatized control of our public airwaves by media corporations with publicly owned broadcasting. Private profits carry a built-in conflict of interest in which media corporations can expect financial gains by failing to fulfill their fourth estate function of insuring a fully informed voting populace. The corporate media substance deficit disorder contains a news void that is replaced by paid 30-second propaganda slots (political ads) which serve to misinform the public. And studies show that there is a direct correlation by the size of a candidate's war chest and the extent to which the corporate media is willing to provide "coverage" for the candidate's campaign. Those candidates who do not raise sufficient funds are dismissed as "not viable."

While corporate America has a 15 - 1 advantage over unions in the ability to purchase those deceptive ads, and while, at present, better organized unions, like the CTA, expend funds necessary to insure that the corporate message is not the only message the people receive, the current system has the additional draw back that the monies used to purchase ads flow into the pockets of media moguls, like Perenchio, further enriching the one percent at the expenses of the 99 percent.

2. The ideal solution would include a mandate that publicly owned media offer equal time to all candidates and publicly run debates in which the candidates from all political parties are given equal time and in which the candidates have no say on who the moderators will be or what questions will be asked.

Since we are nowhere near achieving that ideal solution, it is nothing short of disingenuous for Steve to proclaim he's against all forms of money = speech while, at the same time, cheering a ballot measure that would strip unions of the right to compete on the current, money-driven political playing field while leaving corporations free to spend unlimited amounts.

There can be no meaningful campaign finance reform until we've (a) rid ourselves of Citizens United and (b) engaged in wholesale media reform.

No Brad, I wouldn't vote for Prop 32. It doesn't address LLC's giving them an unfair advantage, and it also doesn't address PAC's.

Final fuckingly dude. Seriously, the water is cleaner over here.