California Proposition 32
In a state where campaign finance laws can be considered “loose” and piles of money are handed out by unions and corporations amounting to the millions, a California proposal aims to take away that powerful influence that unions and corporations have in California state and local politics. California Proposition 32, also known as the "Paycheck Protection" Initiative, was on the November 2012 ballot as an initiated state statute. Prop. 32 would prohibit unions, corporations, and government contractors from using automatic payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. It prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees, and government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees. Voters know how influential big organizations are in any form of politics. Proposition 32 is an initiative that tries to regulate and subtract big money from the equation. In this research paper, we will be discussing Proposition 32 in greater detail about its major components; talking about its development, analyzation of the bill itself, supporters and opponents of the initiative, and the voting results of this initiative.
Background
You can be the best candidate running in an election, but if you do not have the monetary power to back up your campaign, you are going to lose. When you are dealing with politics, money talks. California state politics and policies are driven to a large extent by special interests and their ability to bankroll their favorite candidate for the job. This is the type of reform that this initiative is trying to correct. Every year, the amount of money that is donated to local and state officials and candidates by corporations and unions amounts to the...
... middle of paper ...
... money for political purposes in addition to other activities, for example, collective bargaining, something that will not change. This part of the measure appears to have the greatest impact on unions, since, as the legislative analyst estimates, few corporations finance their political activities this way. Second, Prop 32 would prohibit corporations and unions from making direct contributions to state and local candidates or the committees that fund them. There is already a law against this sort of transactions on the federal level. Last but not least, the measure would make it illegal for government contractors to contribute to elected officials who have a hand in awarding them a contract, at least while that contract is under consideration or is in effect. This is just so money is not exchanged for favors like a nice government contact.
Support for Prop 32
Proposition 47, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, is an act that applies savings towards mental health and drug treatment programs. It is extremely controversial and viral, with large amounts of support and protests. This piece of rhetoric is relevant and has a critical impact on our local community and state of California. As the Californian General Election Official Voter Guide states, the goal of Prop 47 is to “…ensure that prison spending is focused on violent and serious offenses, to maximize alternatives for non-serious, nonviolent crime, and to invest the savings generated from this act into prevention and support programs in K–12 schools, victim services, and mental health and drug treatment” (Bowen 70). This explains
In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in…elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape.
In this essay I hope to analyse the 31st amendment to the Constitution by firstly, evaluating it's purpose and secondly, comparing it to previous case law and predicting it's legal impact. It is firstly helpful to note that the article being amended is relating to the welfare of children . It is arguable that the, Consitution has prevoiusly failed in it's protection for children and so this amendment is aiming to tackle this failure and offer children stronger protection. Below I will give an evaluation of the amendments and the impact these amendments may have, from a legal perspective.
to tear this law down I believe that California can not afford to do without
The current use of soft money in the US Governmental elections is phenomenal. The majority of candidates funding comes from soft money donations. Congress has attempted to close these funding loop holes; however they have had little success. Soft money violates standards set by congress by utilizing the loop hole found in the Federal Election Commission’s laws of Federal Campaigns. This practice of campaign funding should be eliminated from all governmental elections.
... outweigh this potential (but not proven) appearance of corruption. The real potential for corruption is related to direct contributions. However, the Court has imposed checks on this aspect of elections. It seems that any proposed system, even the current one, could be targeted as allowing for corruption, or for a disproportionate influence, or for a limitation on free speech. The important thing, therefore, is that the courts balance all these potential harms for the sake of protecting the democratic process and the First Amendment. The current system places checks in the areas where corruption is the most likely, and allows for the most expression in the areas where corruption is minimal at best. This gives citizens the great ability to influence elections and critically discuss candidates, while ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions.
To drink or no? Ever since the first people stumbled across alcohol (and then each other) this has been a question commonly asked. Statistics show that a majority of domestic violence, automobile accidents, and rape, all involve (many times) alcohol. Whether one thinks consumption is "right" or not has been asked by people for people from time to time. This would be the case of the 18th Amendment of 1919.
The Eighteenth Amendment, or better known as the Prohibition Amendment, was the change to the Constitution that made the, "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purpose is hereby prohibited" (209). In other words, associating one's self with anything alcoholic, with the exception of medicinally, was illegal. This seemingly un-American amendment was ratified January 16, 1919. Certain groups of people such as the anti-saloon league petitioned the government in favor of prohibition.
“California is accustomed to watching movie stars and entertainers plunge into politics – Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood, the late Sonny Bono” (Sanchez). Californians love to watch celebrities take up roles in politics. In fact, they are so sick and tired of politicians making the same promises over and over again that they prefer to have people who don’t specify their goals right out. So in this situation, Arnold is the celebrity, presenting himself as the hero, who promises to relieve California of its debts. ‘He’s something different. He’s not a politician (Sanchez),’ stated Lori Lateer of Pasadena, 49, a vice president of a manufacturing firm. Isn’t that what everyone wants to hear? He’s got the style, he’s got public appeal, and he most definitely has the money to go along with them.
In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.
The Prohibition Amendment, which took effect on January 16, 1920, outlawed the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol in the United States and its territories, until its repeal on December 5, 1933. Today, Prohibition is often referred to as the “Noble Experiment” because it was created to reduce the adverse effects that alcohol had on families and society. Excessive consumption of alcohol, primarily by men, often resulted in domestic violence, poor work performance, and wasteful spending of wages on alcohol, which were needed to support families. Although the Prohibition Amendment did decrease alcohol-related consequences, ultimately this legislation should not have been enacted because it led to more organized crime and an increase of economic problems.
Along with Obama, Vogel mentions Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as critics of large donors, who then also were leading in super PAC fundraisers. Though Vogel mentions many people and events, he never goes into great detail about any of it. Even with the immense amount of information that is left to the reader to decipher and research, one must ask themselves this question, “what are the effects of big money on modern politics.”
Do you know how the 19th Amendment was formed? The Amendment was brought to congress over women suffrage. These women fought for their rights for 70 years. Finally getting the amendment ratified on August 18, 1920. The 19th Amendment states that “the right of citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Women’s suffrage leads to the build up of the 19th Amendment.
Domhoff discusses the prevalence of labor unions in the New Deal era. In fact, by 1945, with the help of the liberal-labor alliances, union membership had increased five-fold to fifteen million in that past decade (pg. 172). However, after 1945, the liberal-labor alliances never saw a victory against corporate conservatives. Because of the corporate world’s domination of policy implementation, politicians rules time and again against labor unions because it works in corporate America’s favor. Labor unions serve as many working class Americans’ avenue into the political sphere; denying them a right to unionize is not only a fundamental violation of free speech but also morally and ethically wrong. Overall, Domhoff’s critique of wealthy politicians (primarily Republicans) is merited considering he argues empirically with statistics supporting extremely skewed voting trends against unions. Additionally, Domhoff’s argument exudes sympathy toward those less fortunate; I share Domhoff’s sentiment that is imperative we promote equality amongst classes, one way in which we should do so is through advocacy of labor
...cal elections is many times less than twenty-five percent. Americans too frequently disregard state and local governments, although these governments have much power in the way that they live their lives.