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

PROPOSITION 226 IS NOT WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE

Are you tired of being asked to vote on another ballot measure that talks about two very different subjects? Are you tired of being asked to vote for ballot measures that say one thing but mean something else?

If you are, please look closely at 226.

226 WILL NOT REDUCE FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

The authors claim 226 bans foreign contributions. But existing law already prohibits foreign contributions to federal, state, and local candidates.

But the fine print of 226 does something else.

You will see that Section 3 contains language clearly stating that foreign nationals should be allowed to contribute to the qualification or passage of California ballot measures. See for yourself by reading the initiative's language in this handbook.

Foreign interests should not be allowed to influence the outcome of our California ballot initiatives or bond measures.

Section 3 also allows subsidiaries of foreign corporations to contribute to candidates.

PROPOSITION 226 WAS PUT ON THE BALLOT BY OUT-OF-STATE INTERESTS

Proposition 226 was not written by people who care about California's working families.

Official campaign disclosure reports filed with the Secretary of State dated November 7, 1997 show that more than 60% of the funds used to place 226 on the ballot came from individuals who do not live in California.

THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OPPOSES PROPOSITION 226 BECAUSE IT WILL UNFAIRLY CREATE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES

According to the League of Women Voters, "Everyone should play by the same rules, especially when it comes to elections that determine the future direction of our state and nation. This measure sets up two sets of rules which is why we oppose 226."

Read the language of 226 carefully. Section 85990 talks about deductions from employee wages. But you will not find a single word that protects the individual rights of shareholders when the corporations they own make campaign contributions.

Section 85991 regulates union dues. But there is not one word that restricts how corporate interests and their political allies use their members' dues on politics.

By placing costly new bureaucratic regulations on unions, but not on corporate interests, the backers of 226 are trying to silence unions and give an unfair advantage to corporate interests, starting with the election for Governor this November.

Passing a law that creates two sets of rules at election time just is not fair.

PROPOSITION 226 WILL COST TAXPAYERS MONEY

226 will cost state government millions of dollars to implement. And it will cost local governments and schools even more to implement the new bureaucratic rules required of their employees.

And 226 is so poorly written it will cost California taxpayers additional millions trying to defend it in court.

That is why the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, the Sierra Club, the Congress of California Seniors, Clean Water Action, the California Public Interest Research Group, and the League of Women Voters of California all urge you to vote NO on Proposition 226.

LOIS TINSON
President, California Teachers Association
HOWARD OWENS
Executive Director, Consumer Federation of California
DAN TERRY
President, California Professional Firefighters
Proposition 226 | Rebuttal to Argument in Favor | Proposition 226 | Rebuttal to Argument Against |