Apr 1, 1998

PROP 226
Just the Facts
A proposition on the June 2 ballot in California — Prop 226 — is aimed at taking working families out of the political and legislative process.

Deceptively packaged as a “campaign reform” measure, Prop 226 reforms absolutely nothing. Instead, it’s intended to stymie the efforts of working people to participate collectively in politics, leaving the field wide open to the big money forces of corporations and wealthy donors with an anti-worker agenda. Here are the facts about Prop 226:

An Unnecessary Measure, Bogus “Reform”
Prop 226 would restrict the political activities of union members — and no one else — by tying up voluntary political contributions and union political education expenditures in a bureaucratic maze controlled by a state board and union members’ employers.

The measure requires that unions receive annual written permission for use of voluntary CWA-COPE contributions or any portion of union dues for political activity. This is broadly enough written so as to include information on issues and candidates in union newsletters and member mailings.

It also involves employers in the process, requiring them to track which members do and which do not support their union’s political involvement.

Here’s why Prop 226 is completely unnecessary:

• Union members who contribute by payroll checkoff to CWA-COPE already have given written permission and are free to stop their contributions at any time. Only these voluntary PAC dollars can, by law, be contributed to candidates for federal offices. No one is required to contribute to CWA-COPE.
  
• In fact, no one is required to join the union at all. Those employees who don’t agree with CWA’s positions and activities have the right to opt out. Agency fee payers can limit their fees only to bargaining related activities.
  
• The use of dues money in politics is minimal, averaging less than $10 per member each year in CWA, and is directed by members and elected representatives who are accountable to members to defend and advance the interests of working families.
  

Prop 226 would add more bureaucracy and red tape, requiring a state commission to develop forms and reporting requirements and requiring employers to set up systems to monitor their employees’ political activities.

Big Business/Radical Right Alliance
So if this measure isn’t needed — and clearly it’s not — who’s behind it? Backers of Prop 226 have worked to introduce similar measures in other states. They’ve put together a nationwide campaign, engineered by big insurance interests who want to restrict Medicare so companies can profit; by the Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable, which would like to get rid of unions altogether; and by right-wing foundations and organizations who want to improve the odds for their own candidates.

Prop 226 doesn’t restrict political contributions by big business — which outspends unions in politics by 11 to 1 (combining both political contributions and so-called “soft” money contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics), or from lobbying groups like the Chamber of Commerce, the Christian Coalition, National Rifle Association and other organizations.

Hypocritical ‘Reformers’
Supporters of Prop 226 want people to think this measure will bring campaign finance reform. But nothing is further from the truth. The biggest supporters of initiatives like Prop 226 — like House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott — actually blocked congressional colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, from voting on campaign finance reform. Gingrich was afraid that the strong bi-partisan support for real reform — which would have banned all soft money, a position CWA strongly supports — would have prevailed. In the Senate, Lott refused to even allow the McCain-Feingold bill, another bi-partisan bill that would have ended soft money contributions, to come up for a vote.

But Gingrich’s position isn’t really too surprising, in light of the enormous “soft” money contributions by corporations. In the last election cycle (1996), corporations outspent labor by a 23-to-1 margin. (Source: Center for Responsive Politics.)

Prop 226 supporters also are claiming that the measure would ban foreign contributions to political candidates (even though foreign nationals already are banned from making such contributions). But in the fine print, there’s a pretty big loophole, one that would allow foreign contributions on ballot initiatives.

So when Prop 226 supporters say they want to limit campaign funding, it seems that they only want to limit the funds and the political voice of those who disagree with them. (See separate story on who’s really behind Prop 226.)

CWA members want their union to defend their interests in Sacramento and in Washington. CWA’s own scientific polling has found that more than 80 percent of members support CWA’s political programs and activities. Other polling by the AFL-CIO and labor organizations has shown that three-quarters of union members — regardless of party affiliation — approve of their union investing time and money in politics and legislation, to make certain that the voice of working Americans is heard. (Source: Peter Hart Associates.)

The political program that working people support — protecting pensions from corporate raids, preserving Medicare, protecting job safety and health and overtime pay — certainly doesn’t top the wish list of corporate America. Prop 226 would take unions and working people completely out of the process of setting public policy. Corporations and wealthy interests wouldn’t be outspending unions by 11 to 1 or 23 to 1; working people would be knocked out of the game completely.

Prop 226: ‘Probably Unconstitutional’
That’s one reason why William B. Gould, chairman of the National Labor Relations Board and a Stanford University law professor, has called Prop 226 “mischievous, bad policy and, in all probability, unconstitutional.” But if Prop 226 passes, unions will be tied up in the courts for three years or more, to prove the inititiative’s unconstitutionality. And during those three years, business and wealthy interests will have free rein to pursue their agenda, without the checks and balances our system provides.

Taking Workers Out of '98 Elections
If approved, Prop 226 would take effect July 1, 1998, and require months to work out the enforcement procedures. That means working people and their unions could have no voice at all in the November elections, including the governor’s race and any ballot initiatives that are pending. All funds collected by voluntary checkoff for CWA-COPE — and remember, these were already authorized by union members — would be frozen. Contributions to federal candidates for Congress or Senate could not be made, while union members wait out a maze of red tape and bureaucratic procedures.

Working people have the right to pursue employment and economic interests. We also have the responsibility to safeguard the gains and rights we’ve won at the bargaining table by participating in the political process. The Supreme Court has affirmed this right, with Justice Powell declaring that, “Congress knew well enough that labor’s cause often is advanced on fronts other than collective bargaining and grievance settlement within the immediate employment context.” (Eastex Inc. v. NLRB, 1978)