California Proposition 32 - Essay Example

California Proposition 32 Introduction The state of California recently introduced an initiative that was decided in the November 8, 2012 elections. This initiative is known as proposition 32 and it had the intention banning payroll deductions from union or corporate members being used for political purposes. This proposition was initiated by lawmakers who wanted to protect the interests of large companies and producers in the state of California. Other had argued that the initiative was meant to protect the earnings of workers across California from being misused. Proposition 32 was defeated in the recent ballot with over 56.1% of the voters rejecting the proposition (Keen 2012). Overview The proportions had different sides supporting the idea while others were vehemently opposed to the passage of the proposition due to various reasons. The arguments that were provided by both sides are outlined below: Backers: Most of the proponents of the bill argue that by implementing the proposition 32 cited the use of special interest money in electing political office bearers. As a result, these politicians end up working for these interests and not the voters in California. Another argument is that funding political parties through the use of public money leads to enactment of poor policies by these politicians (CA Secretary of State Website 2012). Since, they are controlled by lobby groups working for government employees or unions out to gain personally from worker’s funds (Resmovits 2012). Above all, the proponents of this law argue that employees should have the right to decide what to do with the money earn. For instance, one of the backers of this proportion says that politicians award private companies contracts as return of favours (Laffer 96). This leads to wastage as shown by the $95 million lost in the state computer system that did not work. Against: From the votes cast on the 8th of November 2012, we understand that a lot of people were opposed to the enactment of the proposition 32. Some of those against the proposition include league of Women voters in California, rights groups and politicians. They argue that proposition 32 will lead to the exemption of big businesses based in Wall Street and therefore this will not contribute to equal political reforms (Castro 2012). Some argue that it tends to shield PACs have no restrictions in raising funds for their political motives and therefore it would be unfair to prevent unions and other interest groups from raising funds. Beneficiaries: In case proposition 32 had passed, the major beneficiaries would have been business people who would have relied on the law for the purposes of controlling their employees. Since, the power of unions would have been diminished in the process of influencing political decisions (Laffer 109). It is not only the unions that would have been disadvantaged but also interest groups who represent a bulk of workers and voters. This is because rich people who have power of influencing politics through use of super PACs and other means (Resmovits 2012). Since the proposition failed, it is these business people and other interest groups that will feel the impact since they will still have to contend with unions and special interest groups in politics. Gains: The unions and special interest groups will the groups that were the winners of the defeat of proposition 32. This is because they still showed all other groups that they are in control of the politics in California. Workers will benefit from the defeat of the proposition since employers will not have control over minimum wages and other issues. The main gainers will be the workers, unions, special interest groups and some politicians such as Democrats who have the support of the unions (Castro 2012). As at 3rd some $ 60.5 million had been pumped into the support for proposition 32 while another $ 73.3 million had been used to oppose the proposition. Loopholes: There arguments that this proposition intends to silence unions and special interest groups while giving leeway to businesses and corporate to spend unlimited funds in politics. Another loophole is that implementation of the proposition will lead to increased costs accruing to over $ 1 million in a year. While, big businesses and companies are exempt from proposition 32 which leads to inequality in terms of legal implementation. Proposition 32 has a connection to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which backed the proposition 32 since it saw the importance of the proposition in the state of California. The ALEC has sponsored several races in different states and California it sponsored the proposition 32. There was no connection to initiatives as those placed in the Wisconsin ballot. The state of Wisconsin conducts it elections the same way as the state of California where referendum can be conducted through public vote (Gerston 97). From the decided vote we witness that special interest groups and unions have a big say in the politics of California. Voters in the California trust special interest groups and unions and this were proved by the vote against proposition 32 in California. For good and binding decisions the electorate should be made to undertake important steps of selecting the best decisions that are protect the interest of everyone. This was witnessed by the vote against the proposition 32 and it is the voice of the voters that is important in coming up with good laws (Patterson 191). The law making process should not be left to elected officials alone to make laws and important decisions for the electorate. Conclusion The PayCheck Protection was a proposition that was meant to protect the deductions that were being made on workers in the state of California. The proposition attracted a lot of support and criticism from a lot of quarters due to the high stakes involved. Most of the supporters were businesspeople had the intention of reducing the influence of unions and special interest groups. While, the opponents of the proposition argue that the businesspeople did not have good interests in crafting the proposition. However, the proposition did not go through since it would have adverse effects on the power and influence of the unions and the special interest groups. The voting for and against the proposition showed that the electorate have the ultimate power in making decisions. Works Cited CA Secretary of State Website. “Prop 32: Political contributions by payroll deduction, Contributions to candidates, Initiative statute.” N.p., 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. Accessed from: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/32/arguments-rebuttals.htm Castro, Tony. “SKELTON: Prop. 32's real goal is to cripple unions politically.” Santa Rosa Press Democrat. Pub., Oct 21, 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012 Gerston, Larry and Christensen, Terry. California Politics and Government: A Practical Approach. Chicago, IL: Cengage Learning, 2011. Keen, Jeffrey. “PROPOSITION 32: Initiative on unions defeated.” Press-Enterprise. Pub., Nov 7, 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. Laffer, Arthur, Moore, Stephen and Williams, Jonathan. Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index, 4th Ed. Los Angeles, CA: ALEC. Patterson, Thomas. We The People. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Incorporated, 2010. Resmovits, Joy. “Proposition 32 Divides California's Education Reformers.” Huffington Post. N.p., Oct 15, 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. Read More