California Proposition 32, Ban on Political Contributions from Payroll Deductions Initiative (2012)

California Proposition 32
Election date November 6, 2012
Topic Union dues
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 32 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 6, 2012. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported banning unions and corporations from contributing payroll-deducted funds to state and local candidates, as well as, banning government contractors from contributing to candidates that may award government contracts.

A "no" vote opposed restricting unions, corporations, and government contractors from giving to state and local candidates, thereby maintaining the existing campaign finance laws.

Two similar California ballot measures—Proposition 75 (2005) and Proposition 226 (1998)—sought to enact the same policy, but both were defeated.

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results

California Proposition 32
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		5,400,218	43.40%
No		7,043,917	56.60%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Measure design

Proposition 29 would have prohibited unions, corporations, or government contractors from contributing payroll-deducted funds as political contributions to state or local candidates. This prohibition would not have applied to presidential or congressional candidates. Proposition 29 would have also prohibited government contractors from contributing to elected officials that award government contracts.

Support

The "Yes on Proposition 32" campaign website logo

Yes on 32, Stop Special Interest Money Now! led the campaign in support of Proposition 32.

Supporters

• Gloria Romero, the state director of Democrats for Education Reform and a former California state senator
• Gabriella Holt, the president of Citizens for California Reform
• John Kabateck, the executive director of the California chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business
• Marian Bergeson, a former California Secretary of Education
• Jon Coupal, the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• Hon. John Arguelles, a retired justice of the California Supreme Court
• Former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz
• Charles Munger, Jr.
• California Republican Party.

Arguments

• U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz said, "This initiative gets to the heart of one of the most corrosive elements in politics: campaign contributions...For too long, special interest money has dominated our politics, muting the voice of average Californians."
• Margaret A. Bengs, a former spokeswoman for state agencies, says, "It is well known that big public employee unions and other special interests have an inordinate control over California government, control that stymies badly needed reforms."

Official arguments

The official arguments in support of Proposition 32 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by Gloria Romero, state director of Democrats for Education Reform; Gabriella Holt, president of Citizens for California Reform; and John Kabateck, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business—California:

“

Yes on 32: Cut the Money Tie between Special Interests and Politicians Politicians take millions in campaign contributions from corporations and government unions and then vote the way those special interests tell them. Politicians end up working for special interests, not voters. The result: massive budget deficits and abuses like lavish pensions and bad teachers we can’t fire. Prop. 32 prohibits both corporate and union special interest contributions to politicians. NO EXEMPTIONS. NO LOOPHOLES. Individual Californians can contribute, not special interests! Voters Beware: Special interests have spent tens of millions of dollars to prevent Prop. 32 from cutting the money tie between them and politicians. They’ll say anything to protect the status quo. They’ve invented a false, bogus, red-herring argument: They claim Prop. 32 has a loophole to benefit the wealthy and corporations to fund independent PACs. The fact is both unions and corporations fund independent political committees protected by the Constitution that cannot be banned. “Prop. 32 ends corporate and union contributions to California politicians. Period. No exceptions. It goes as far as the U.S. Constitution allows to end special interest influence in state government. I urge you to vote Yes on Prop. 32.” —Retired California Supreme Court Justice John Arguelles YES ON 32: THREE SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD REFORMS Bans corporate and union contributions to politicians Stops contractors from giving to politicians who approve their contracts Makes political contributions voluntary and prohibits money for political purposes from being deducted from employees’ paychecks CUTS THE MONEY TIE BETWEEN SPECIAL INTERESTS AND POLITICIANS Politicians hold big-ticket, lavish fundraisers at country clubs, wine tastings and cigar smokers. Fat-cat lobbyists attend these fundraisers and hand over tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Most happen when hundreds of bills are up for votes, allowing politicians and special interests to trade favors: Giving multi-million dollar tax loopholes to big developers, wealthy movie producers and out-of-state corporations Exempting contributors from the state’s environmental rules Handing out sweetheart pension deals for government workers Protecting funding for wasteful programs like the high-speed train to nowhere, even as they are cutting funds for schools and law enforcement while proposing higher taxes STOPS SPECIAL INTERESTS FROM TAKING POLITICAL DEDUCTIONS FROM EMPLOYEE PAYCHECKS TO GUARANTEE EVERY DOLLAR GIVEN FOR POLITICS IS STRICTLY VOLUNTARY The Supreme Court recently said the political fundraising practices of a large California union were “indefensible”. (Knox vs. SEIU) Prop. 32 will ensure that California workers have the right to decide how to spend the money they earn. They shouldn’t be coerced to contribute to politicians or causes they disagree with. STOPS CONTRACTORS FROM CONTRIBUTING TO POLITICIANS WHO APPROVE THEIR CONTRACTS Today, it is legal for politicians to give contracts to political donors, shutting out small businesses in the process. Prop. 32 will end this special treatment and the waste it causes, like a $95 million state computer system that didn’t work. (CNET, June 12, 2002) All of this Special Interest corruption will continue without your vote. Yes on 32! www.stopspecialinterestmoney.org

”

Opposition

The "No on Proposition 32" campaign website logo

No on 32 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 32.

Opponents

• Jennifer A. Waggoner, the president of the League of Women Voters of California
• Derek Cressman, the regional director of California Common Cause
• Dan Stanford, a former chairperson of the California Fair Political Practices Commission
• Jo Seidita, the chair of the California Clean Money Campaign
• John Burton, the chairperson of the California Democratic Party
• Robbie Hunter, the executive secretary of the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council
• The California Labor Federation
• Dave Low, the executive director of the California School Employees Association
• California Common Cause
• California League of Women Voters
• The California Democratic Party

Arguments

• Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, said, "It's not enough for them to have taken our houses and it's not enough for them to make millions off the TARP funding and federal government support for the banks, now they want even more. They want us to not even have a voice in politics whatsoever."
• Columnist Thomas Elias said, the "initiative's ban on contributions to candidate-controlled committees is meaningless, merely a cover for another blatant attempt to reduce funds for liberal candidates while letting contributions to conservatives continue unfettered."
• Ron Lind, the president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5, said, "The measure is a wolf in sheep's clothing designed to fool voters into approving a corporate power grab that will lead to even more corporate influence over our political system. What the backers won't say publicly is that they've written a giant loophole to allow for unlimited corporate spending on campaigns while furthering their real agenda of silencing the voices of middle-class workers and their unions."
• State representative Linda Sanchez (D) said, "This paycheck deception is the No. 1 target to silence the voices of hard-working families, and it's a crime."
• State Representative Judy Chu (D) said, "This is the most dangerous proposition of all time. It will silence the union members and their voices."
• Trudy Schafer of the California League of Women Voters said, "It promises political reform but it's really designed by its special interest backers to help themselves and harm their opponents."

Official arguments

The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 32 presented in the state's official voter guide were submitted by Jennifer A. Waggoner, president of the League of Women Voters of California; Derek Cressman, regional director of California Common Cause; and Dan Stanford, former chairperson of the California Fair Political Practices Commission:

“

The League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause and the California Clean Money Campaign all oppose Proposition 32. That’s because Proposition 32 is not what it seems. Prop. 32 promises 'political reform' but is really designed by special interests to help themselves and harm their opponents. That’s why we urge a No vote. WILL NOT TAKE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS Business Super PACs and independent expenditure committees are EXEMPT from Prop. 32’s controls. These organizations work to elect or defeat candidates and ballot measures but aren’t subject to the same contribution restrictions and transparency requirements for campaigns themselves. A recent Supreme Court decision allows these groups to spend unlimited amounts of money. Prop. 32 does nothing to deal with that. If Prop. 32 passes, Super PACs, including committees backed by corporate special interests, will become the major way campaigns are funded. These groups have already spent more than $95,000,000 in California elections since 2004. Our televisions will be flooded with even more negative advertisements. NOT REAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM Real campaign reform treats everyone equally, with no special exemptions for anyone. Proposition 32 was intentionally written to exempt thousands of big businesses like Wall Street investment firms, hedge funds, developers, and insurance companies. Over 1000 of the companies exempted by this measure are listed as Major Donors by the California Secretary of State. They have contributed more than $10,000,000 to political campaigns, just since 2009. UNBALANCED AND UNFAIR This measure says it prohibits unions from using payrolldeducted funds for political purposes. It says it also applies to corporations, so it sounds balanced. But 99% of California corporations don’t use payroll deductions for political giving; they would still be allowed to use their profits to influence elections. That’s not fair or balanced. Just take a look at the official summary. You can see the imbalance from this line: 'Other political expenditures remain unrestricted, including corporate expenditures from available resources not limited by payroll deduction prohibition.' LOOK WHO’S BEHIND IT Many top contributors to Proposition 32 are former insurance company executives, Wall Street executives, developers, and big money donors to causes which benefit from Prop. 32’s special exemptions. Sacramento has too much partisan bickering and gridlock. The money spent on political campaigns has caused all of us to mistrust the political campaign system. The sponsors of Proposition 32 are trying to use our anger and mistrust to change the rules for their own benefit. PROPOSITION 32 WILL MAKE THINGS WORSE Some say 'this is unbalanced but it’s a step forward.' Here’s the problem with that. Restricting unions and their workers while not stopping corporate special interests will result in a political system that favors corporate special interests over everyone else. If you don’t want special interests in control of air and water safety and consumer protections, vote NO on Prop. 32. Go to http://www.VoteNoOn32.com and see for yourself why Proposition 32 is not what it seems and will hurt average Californians. Vote NO on Proposition 32.

”

Media editorials

2012 propositions
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

Support

• The Appeal-Democrat: "Proposition 32 on the Nov. 6 ballot would reduce the unions' indirectly tax-fueled influence by prohibiting union contributions to state and local candidates."
• The Bakersfield Californian: "Prop. 32 won't fix everything in Sacramento. But the measure does ensure that unions, one of the most powerful groups in the Capitol, are deriving their funds in a fair way from informed members."
• The Los Angeles Daily News: "Unions will still have the power of numbers. Their members will continue to be able to mobilize in support of candidates and political stands, and to donate money on their own, but it would be their decision."
• The North County Times: "Proposition 32 corrects that imbalance while doing nothing to stifle unions' political voices -- despite claims to the contrary. Prop. 32 simply institutes an opt-in system for each employee's political donations."
• The Orange County Register: "Anyone familiar with California politics knows that the most powerful forces, by far, in the state Capitol are the public-employee unions. Their clout was demonstrated this year when the California Teachers Association, the most powerful of them all, killed Senate Bill 1530, which would have made it easier to fire bad teachers for actions 'that involve certain sex offenses, controlled-substance offenses or child abuse offenses.' SB1530 was not concocted by a conservative Republican, but by state Sen. Alex Padilla of Los Angeles, a liberal Democrat. The bill advanced after several cases of teacher abuse against children came to light, especially a disgusting scenario allegedly involving Los Angeles Unified School District teacher Mark Berndt. The bill passed overwhelmingly in the state Senate, 33-4. Then the CTA killed it in the Assembly Education Committee."
• The Press-Enterprise: "The meat of Prop. 32 is a ban on the use of payroll deductions to finance political spending. That provision targets one of the largest special interests in California politics: public employee unions. Automatic deductions from paychecks are the primary way unions fund political campaigns — and ending that financing mechanism would ease unions’ stranglehold on political decisions."
• The Redding Record Searchlight: "Nothing in Proposition 32 would stop unions from holding fundraisers, from asking members to write a check to support a good cause or candidate — from raising money just like any other political advocate. It would, however, slow the river of money that has drowned independent thinkers in Sacramento."
• The San Bernardino Sun: "The complaint that Proposition 32 is unfair because it will affect unions more than corporations falls flat. It's less common than one might think that unions and corporations act as counterweights on political issues. It's more like they are the upper and lower jaws of the monster that ate good government."
• The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Of all the measures on the California ballot this fall, the most important is Proposition 32. It has the potential to change the balance of power in state and local governments in a hugely constructive way. How? By limiting the power of California’s unions, the 21st-century version of the railroad companies that were so perniciously powerful a century ago that Gov. Hiram Johnson established direct democracy so voters could overrule a state Capitol in thrall to one interest group."
• The San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "To understand the need for Proposition 32, all a voter has to do is look at the vast sums of cash pouring into the campaign against it. A total of more than $50 million has been donated to the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. Of that, the vast majority has gone to fund advertising for the 'no' side. And of that, most has come from unions representing California teachers and other public employees."

Opposition

• The Bay Area Reporter: "This is an anti-labor measure concocted by southern California conservatives under the guise of campaign finance reform."
• The Contra Costa Times: "If Proposition 32 did what supporters claim -- limit all special-interest money from corrupting the political system -- we would race to endorse it. It doesn't. It actually tilts the political playing field in favor of the wealthy and corporations."
• The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California): "This initiative is a power play to limit campaign influence of labor unions without commensurate checks on political contributions by corporations."
• The Fresno Bee: "Our recommendation to reject Prop. 32 is not a vote of confidence for public employee unions. We have regularly criticized their heavy-handed tactics. They have overreached too often and have too much clout with too many Democrats. Lawmakers should take action to make it easier for employees who disagree with union politics to opt out of making campaign donations."
• The Lompoc Record: "In that sense, Prop. 32 is little more than another layer of regulation, riddled with loopholes, and would end up costing taxpayers a significant sum that the state would have to spend to enforce the new election provisions."
• The Los Angeles Times: "Proposition 32 is a deceptive measure that would disproportionately weaken some special interests while leaving others essentially unaffected. Those who have seen its list of backers will not be surprised to learn that it would have a devastating effect on labor unions' political fundraising efforts and only a trivial impact on corporate spending."
• The Marin Independent Journal: "While unions rely on payroll deductions to build their campaign war chests, corporations don't. Proposition 32 tilts the playing field for corporations, who have proven they have little trouble raising and spending money on politics."
• The Merced Sun-Star: "Proposition 32 would ban unions and corporations from using automatic paycheck deductions to raise money for political purposes. That might sound reasonable, except that it's loaded. Unions rely on payroll deductions, corporations do not."
• The Sacramento Bee: "Our recommendation to reject Proposition 32 is not a vote of confidence for public employee unions. They have overreached too often and have too much clout with too many Democrats. Lawmakers should take action to make it easier for employees who disagree with union politics to opt out of making campaign donations. But Proposition 32 would tilt the system in favor of corporations and business trade groups."
• The San Francisco Bay Guardian: "This is by far the most dangerous and deceptive measure on the ballot, one that threatens to cripple the ability of labor unions to engage meaningfully in the political process."
• The San Francisco Chronicle: "Proposition 32 purports to be an even-handed attempt to reduce the influence of special interests in California. It is anything but balanced ... Organized labor has made defeat of Prop. 32 its highest priority in California because of what is unquestionably its most consequential element: A prohibition on the use of payroll deductions for political purposes."
• The San Jose Mercury News: "It actually tilts the political playing field in favor of the wealthy and corporations."
• The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "And while we've editorialized against the influence of unions on lawmakers in this state, and for how their bankrolling liberal Democrats has kept meaningful pension, education, government efficiency and budget reforms stalled, in this case, we reluctantly agree this measure has too many flaws, and urge voters to reject Prop. 32."
• The Ventura County Star: "This measure claims to be aimed at cleaning up politics by clamping new restrictions on contributions. In reality, it amounts to a cynical ploy because it ignores some of the biggest problems of money in politics while putting handcuffs only on the political opponents of some of the measure's biggest backers."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

A Field Poll on Proposition 32 was conducted between September 6 and September 18.

The Public Policy Institute of California polled Proposition 32 for the first time in mid-September.

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
September 9-16, 2012	PPIC	42%	49%	9%	2,003
September 6-18, 2012	Field Poll	38%	44%	18%	1,183
September 17-23, 2012	USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times	36%	44%	20%	1,504
October 7-10, 2012	California Business Roundtable	51.4%	38.3%	10.3%	830
October 11-15, 2012	Reason-Rupe	45%	48%	7%	696
October 14-21, 2012	PPIC	39%	53%	7%	2,006
October 21-28, 2012	California Business Roundtable	44.7%	44.8%	10.5%	2,115
October 17-30, 2012	Field Poll	34%	50%	16%	1,912

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

• A letter requesting a title and summary for the proposed initiative was signed by Ashlee N. Titus, and was received by the Attorney General of California's office on April 1, 2011.
• To earn a spot on the state's 2012 ballot, sponsors of the initiative were required to collect 504,760 signatures by October 24, 2011.
• They submitted approximately 900,000 signatures to county election officials on October 7.
• On December 6, 2011, the California Secretary of State announced that the proposition was certified for the ballot.

Cost of signature collection:

The cost of collecting the signatures to qualify Proposition 32 for the ballot came to $1,170,886.

Money was spent on signature-collection through two different campaign committees ("Californians Against Special Interests" and the "Citizen Power Campaign").

The signature vendor was Bader & Associates.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

Lawsuits

See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2012

Supporters and opponents of Proposition 32 filed lawsuits seeking to alter the official ballot text that appeared in the state's official voter guide. The official voter guide comes in an online version and is also mailed to every registered voter in the state every election year.

The court ruled partly in favor and partly against the lawsuit filed by Proposition 32 supporters. The court altogether denied the request of Proposition 32's opponents.

Ashlee Titus v. Debra Bowen

Ashlee Titus v. Debra Bowen was the lawsuit filed by Proposition 32 supporters. They asked the court to do two things; the court agreed with them on one request.

• First, Titus asked that the court change the state's official summary/label. The court agreed with this request.

The old ballot summary said:

"Restricts union political fundraising by prohibiting use of payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use restrictions to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees. Prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees."

The new, court-ordered summary/label, with deleted text shown in strike-out text and added language shown in italics, says:

"Restricts Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use restrictions prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Restricts Prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees. Limits Prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees.

The key change was to the consistent use of "prohibits," rather than "restricts." In their lawsuit, according to "Yes on 32" campaign spokesperson Jake Suski, the use of the word "restrict," which was the word chosen by the Attorney General of California, was misleading. Suski said, "Voters deserve to be informed that Prop. 32 doesn't just reduce direct contributions from corporations and unions to politicians, it eliminates them entirely." After the lower court's ruling came out, Kamala Harris, the Attorney General of California, went to a higher level court and filed a petition asking for immediate review of the lower court's decision. This request was denied.

"Yes on 32" supporters made an additional request of the court. This second request was denied. This was a request to have the phrase "Other political expenditures remain unrestricted, including corporate expenditures from available resources not limited by payroll deduction prohibition" removed from the state's official materials.

Lou Paulson v. Debra Bowen

Lou Paulson v. Debra Bowen was the lawsuit filed by the "No on 32" campaign. Their request to the court was denied.

The "No on 32" campaign's lawsuit challenged ballot language they believed might mislead voters about whether payroll deductions could still occur if a worker provided the state with written permission when in fact, under the provisions of Proposition 32, the state cannot engage in the practice of payroll deductions regardless of whether or not a worker gives permission.

See also

2012 Measures

• 2012 Measures
• Labor union deductions on the ballot
• 2012 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Suggest a link

• Complete November 6, 2012 official voter guide
• Ballot title, summary and LAO analysis of Proposition 32

Support:

• "Yes on 32" campaign website
• Yes on Proposition 32 (Twitter)
• Yes on Proposition 32 (Facebook)
• Campaign finance reports for "Yes on 32; Stop Special Interest Money Now
• Campaign finance reports for "Californians Against Special Interests
• Campaign finance reports for the "Citizen Power Campaign"

Opposition:

• No on Proposition 32 website
• No on Proposition 32 (Twitter)
• No on Proposition 32 (Facebook)
• Campaign finance reports for "No on 32; Sponsored by Educators, Firefighters (Etc.)
• Campaign finance reports for the "International Association of Firefighters/No on 32"
• Campaign finance reports for "Los Angeles Police Protective League/No on 32"
• Campaign finance reports for "Californians for Good Jobs; Yes on 30/No on 32"
• Campaign finance reports for "Students and Families of California; Yes on 30/No on 32"
• Campaign finance reports for "Asian Pacific Environmental Network; Yes on 30/No on 32"

Additional reading:

• Proposition 32 Represents Game-Changer for California Politics