Proposition 226 | Argument in Favor | Proposition 226 | Argument Against |
Political Contributions by Employees, Union
Members, Foreign Entities. Initiative Statute.
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 226

Too often, what proposition sponsors DON'T tell you is more important than what they DO tell you.

Sponsors of 226 combined two unrelated issues into one measure. They DON'T tell you they were combined to get voters who oppose "foreign contributions" to support a measure that is really designed to attack unions and employee organizations.

226 DOES increase government bureaucracy and DOES NOT reduce foreign contributions to candidates. Existing law already does that.

226 was funded by out-of-state interests to protect big business, not California's working people.

In fact, William Gould, chairman of the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, stated, "This proposal is mischievous, bad policy, and in all probability, unconstitutional." Attempts like this to deceive voters are regularly overturned in court and cost taxpayers millions.

The State Controller estimates 226 will cost millions of dollars to enforce.

226 tips the balance against ordinary people even further, imposing new bureaucratic standards against employee organizations while corporations go unchecked. Two sets of rules are unfair.

The facts are:

Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader says: "I have studied Proposition 226. A careful reading reveals it is a trick and a trap. Handcuffing working Californians increases the power of the few over the many. That always spells injustice."

The only people this initiative is designed to help are those who wrote it.

DON BROWN
President, California Organization of Police and Sheriffs
LOIS WELLINGTON
President, Congress of California Seniors
KIT COSTELLO, RN
President, California Nurses Association
Proposition 226 | Argument in Favor | Proposition 226 | Argument Against |