California Is Latest Stage for Election Battle Over Unions
Published: October 1, 2012 - New York Times
LOS ANGELES — The battle to curb labor’s political
clout has moved from Wisconsin to California, where wealthy conservatives are
championing a ballot measure that would bar unions from donating to candidates.
Labor leaders describe it as the starkest threat they have faced in a year of
nationwide challenges to diminish their once-formidable power.
The measure, Proposition
32 on the November ballot, would prohibit both unions and corporations from
making contributions, but the corporate provision is far less stringent than the
one aimed at unions, analysts said. If passed, it would also bar unions from
using automatic payroll deductions to raise money for political campaigns, a
major source of labor’s political funding.
“This would be a big deal for unions if it passes
since it would largely cut off their participation in state and local California
politics,” said Daniel J. B. Mitchell, a professor emeritus at the U.C.L.A.
Anderson School of Management.
The prospect that Proposition 32 could become law in
an overwhelmingly Democratic state that has a rich history of union activism has
alarmed labor leaders. A victory here, they argued, would pave the way for
similar efforts across the nation.
“This is intended not to hobble us, this is intended
to eviscerate us,” said Art Pulaski, the head of the California Labor Federation. “If
they can do it in California, they can do it everywhere and anywhere.”
Supporters of the proposition described it as an
evenhanded attempt to curb special interests, pointing to language addressing
both unions and corporate donations. The payroll deduction applies to unions as
well as corporations, though sponsors of Proposition 32 said the corporate use
of payroll deductions in California was rare.
“We wanted to do something that hit hard at the unions
and the corporations that are responsible for creating deep discord in
California,” said Michael D. Capaldi, a former chairman of the Lincoln Club of
Orange County, a conservative organization, who helped write the initiative. “So
we drafted an initiative that deals with both unions and corporations. We don’t
say it affects them both equally, but it does affect both significantly.”
Unions have raised more than $37 million to defeat the
proposition, with most of the money coming from the California Teachers
Association. Proposition 32, which was drafted by the Lincoln Club, whose
members have included Richard M. Nixon and John Wayne, has raised about $9
million. Most of the proposition’s financial support comes from the America
Future Fund, an organization with ties to the donor network spearheaded by
Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who have contributed
heavily to defeating President Obama and were big backers of Scott Walker, the
Republican governor of Wisconsin who championed measures to severely curb the
power of public employee unions there.
The second major backer is Charles T. Munger Jr., a
wealthy physicist who was the largest contributor to a 2010 initiative creating
a nonpartisan commission to draw Congressional and legislative district lines.
Opponents say that if Proposition 32 wins, they would
almost certainly challenge it in court.
Polls show the contest as tight, with opponents having
an edge. In a U.S.C. Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll released
last week, 44 percent of respondents said they would oppose Proposition 32,
compared with 36 percent who said they supported it. But 19 percent said they
remained undecided.
By design or not — and some union officials said they
believed it was by design — the fight has forced unions to divert money from
what had been their top priority: winning approval of an
initiative by Gov. Jerry Brown to pass temporary tax increases to head off
nearly $6 billion in new cuts in state spending.
“Labor has to stop everything it is doing to defend
against this,” said Peter Dreier, the director of the Urban and Environmental
Policy Department at Occidental College. “It’s pretty effective in forcing the
unions to spend a lot of their resources to stop this from passing.”
Proposition 32 has drawn opposition from the League of
Women Voters and major editorial boards, because of its unequal treatment of
labor and corporations. The ban on contributions would not apply, for example,
to limited corporations and real estate trusts, two major sources of business
contributions here.
“If Proposition 32 did what supporters claim — limit
all special interest money from corrupting the political system — we would
heartily endorse it,” The San Jose Mercury News said in an
editorial. “It doesn’t. It is a deceptive sham that would magnify the
influence of wealthy interests while shutting out many middle-class voters.”
Chris Carson, the program director of the League of
Women Voters in California, said the proposal “sounds good.”
“But the fact is,” she said, “it really isn’t going to
matter to corporations. It has to be fair and balanced.”
The fight comes a time when labor has already lost high-profile battles to prevent Wisconsin, and then Ohio, from severely restricting bargaining rights for public unions, though the Ohio law was repealed in a labor-backed referendum last November. Mr. Dreier said the battles in Wisconsin and Ohio were “all part of an attempt to destroy the labor movement as a political voice for working people. But this goes much further.”
Mr. Munger, who gave $12 million to the redistricting initiative, has donated $1 million to the Yes on Proposition 32 campaign, as well as an additional $4 million to a committee that is supporting this initiative and opposing Mr. Brown’s tax initiative. Mr. Munger, the son of a wealthy industrialist — his sister, Molly, is backing another California initiative to raise income taxes by $10 billion for education — declined to say how much he was prepared to give.
“I believe the ‘yes’ side will have enough to make sure that people hear the ‘yes’ side of the argument,” Mr. Munger said. “It’s a stronger argument. It’s a simple proposition. The citizens of California have a perception that most of what influences Sacramento these days has little to do with the individual and a lot to do with people who have money.”
Mr. Capaldi said that the initiative “will take millions of dollars out of politicians’ pockets. It will weaken both corporations and unions.”
The proposal to eliminate union payroll deductions has been, in various forms, on the ballot here twice in the past 14 years, and failed both times. The prospects for this version are viewed as stronger because it includes corporations, and because of a decline in the image of labor.
“If you poll people, it sounds fair: it takes a careful eye to understand it’s a sham,” Mr. Pulaski said.
Nelson N. Lichtenstein, a professor of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said the initiative would fundamentally shift the balance of power in California at the expense of unions. One immediate effect, analysts said, could be to limit labor’s power at a time when state lawmakers have been under pressure to curb pension benefits for public employees.
“It would have a dramatic impact,” he said. “It would wrack havoc with California politics.”