The Truth about the Deceptive “Stop Special Interest Money Now Act”: It is nothing more than a corporate power grab.

“…dripping with cynicism” – Sacramento Bee

“…a phony veneer of fairness…one-sided and biased” – Long Beach Press Telegram

“…would harm their union opponents more than it would harm business interests” – OC Register

The Facts:  A ballot measure that claims to be about stopping special interest money in politics will appear on the November 2012 ballot. In reality, the initiative is yet another attempt to deceive voters into passing a law that would change the rules to benefit wealthy corporate interests at the expense of middle class workers and their unions. It is nothing more than a corporate power grab.

What the initiative claims to do: The deceptive “Stop Special Interest Money Now Act” purports to be a “simple, fair and balanced solution…limiting both corporate and union political giving.” The initiative’s proponents claim that the measure bans both corporate and union contributions to candidates, prohibits campaign contributions from government contractors, prohibits corporations and unions from collecting political funds from employees and members via voluntary payroll deduction, and makes all employee political contributions by any other means strictly voluntary, requiring annual written consent. Sounds fair and balanced, right?

Take a closer look – this measure creates a loophole that allows corporations to make unlimited campaign contributions: In fact, a giant loophole in this initiative will allow corporations to continue to make unlimited political expenditures supporting or opposing candidates, without restrictions, and unlimited contributions to ballot measures – while silencing unions.  

• The measure says it will stop corporations and unions from collecting political funds through payroll deductions -- but corporations almost never use payroll deductions to collect funds to support or oppose candidates or ballot measures…they use their corporate profits..

• Unions, on the other hand, depend almost entirely on payroll deductions to collect union dues, a portion of which may be used for political purposes. There is no other practical way for unions to collect the funding needed to compete with the better-funded corporate interests.  This measure makes it illegal to use payroll deductions to collect funding for any political contributions and expenditures, even if union members specifically authorize those deductions in writing. That means corporations will be able to take control of the initiative process in California, placing whatever self-serving measures they want to on the ballot, and spending millions to convince voters to support them, while labor organizations will be helpless to fight back.

• This measure does absolutely nothing to stop independent expenditures by corporations. These are the committees that work like the federal Super PACs that blanket the airwaves with negative ads just before an election.  These committees don’t give directly to candidates, so they can both receive and spend unlimited amounts of money to conduct “shadow” campaigns to elect their friends or defeat their enemies.  What it does do is to make it virtually impossible for labor organizations to collect the funds to fight the independent expenditure campaigns and fight for what’s important to middle class Californians.

Let’s be clear: if this measure were to pass, it would effectively silence the voice of working families while giving corporations free rein to exert even more influence over our political system. The huge loophole in the measure would allow corporations to spend without any limits using a web of shadowy front groups, big business associations and corporate Super PACs.  The initiative’s backers know all too well that this measure won't do anything to curb corporate influence on politics. What the measure would do is to make it virtually impossible for workers to speak with a collective voice to counterbalance corporate influence.

But doesn’t the initiative “allow” employees to make voluntary contributions?

Employees can already make voluntary contributions to political campaigns under existing law today.  The Constitution guarantees everyone that right.  This measure does nothing to change that…but it does add a new requirement that even voluntary contributions from employees must be accompanied by written permission to use the funds.  And payroll deductions are made illegal, even if written permission is given by the employee.

Who are the backers of the initiative?

The sponsors of this measure are lawyers who work for the firm that represents the California Republican Party. The primary financial supporters are millionaires associated with the extreme right-wing Lincoln Club of Orange County. Right-wing, anti-worker extremists including Grover Norquist have sponsored similar measures in dozens of states in the past. They also tried passing similar measures twice before in California; voters in California rejected those measures both times (1998 and 2005).

What is the true motive behind the initiative?

There is only one simple answer to that question: it’s a corporate power grab.  Unions fight for fair wages and benefits, for workplace safety, for smaller class size in our schools, for better health care for our children and senior citizens, and to keep our communities safe with adequate police and fire protection.  Most of these battles occur in city council or county supervisor chambers, in school board rooms, in the state Legislature or through initiatives on the ballot.  If unions that represent working people with middle class values are eliminated from the political arena, large corporations and business interests will have free rein to do whatever they want to grow their profits.

The Sacramento Bee sums up the true motives of the initiative’s backers in Dan Morain’s column, “‘Reform’ initiative wears a soiled white hat” (12/22/11)

The latest initiative to qualify for the 2012 ballot is thick with the earnest rhetoric of white-hat-wearing good government reformers. It's also dripping with cynicism.

This may come as a shock, but the "Stop Special Interest Money Now Act" won't do anything of the kind – at least not in any way that is balanced….

The initiative is the brainchild of Orange County Republicans, was written by a partner in the law firm that represents the California Republican Party, and is being bankrolled by wealthy Republicans.

The initiative would bar unions from using automatic withdrawals from members' paychecks to raise money for political activity. Instead, labor would need to persuade members to write checks or make transfers from their bank accounts, an obstacle that would be difficult to overcome.

The initiative would bar direct contributions to officeholders and candidates by corporations and unions, assuming labor could raise money. But money players spend far more on initiatives and independent campaigns than on direct candidate donations.

Take a look at three corporations: cigarette maker Altria, Chevron and AT&T. They spent a combined $19.4 million on California politics in 2010 and 2011, according to data compiled by the private ElectionTrack website.

Those corporations gave $2.7 million to candidates. The other $16.7 million went to ballot measures, independent expenditures and political parties.

Altria, in particular, gives modestly to politicians, partly because many officeholders view tobacco money as politically toxic.

Altria has spent no less than $51.8 million on California campaigns since 2000. Of that, $48.3 million went to ballot measures, independent campaigns and parties, with the remaining $3.5 million going to candidates and incumbents.

The same is true for labor. The California Teachers Association has spent at least $7.4 million since 2010 on campaigns, according to ElectionTrack. Of that, $6.9 million went to ballot measures and independent campaigns.

Newport Beach attorney Michael Capaldi, one of the main proponents of the measure, told me he adheres to the libertarian philosophy and opposes regulation and government interference.

To my simple mind, there is an inconsistency between that view and any effort to further regulate campaign money. It's especially odd, given recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions – hailed by conservatives – striking down limits on campaign spending.

"In a perfect world, this wouldn't be needed," Capaldi told me. "But it is so far beyond debate that special interests control Sacramento."

There are interests and then there are interests. On its website, Capaldi's law firm makes note of his clout: "As an opinion leader and chairman emeritus of the Lincoln Club of Orange County, he has had a major influence in Orange County, Sacramento, and Washington, D.C." That hardly sounds like Mr. Smith.

"Stop Special Interest Money Now Act" would stop labor money. But don't expect it to stop corporate money. Corporations wouldn't be able to give directly to candidates. But they could spend freely on independent campaigns and initiatives, soiling this white hat with oil and leaving it with cigarette burns.