This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_1A4E57C9.EE8FE00D Forwarded mail received from: CENTER1:City:City.smtp:"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Cross-posted from PUBLABOR, the public sector labor discussion list. --=_1A4E57C9.EE8FE00D Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 07:56:12 -0700 From: David Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Labor unions flex muscles, defeat initiative Published Wednesday, June 3, 1998, in the San Jose Mercury News PROPOSITION 226 Labor unions flex muscles, defeat initiative BY HALLYE JORDAN Mercury News Sacramento Bureau In a stunning display of the political muscle they were defending, California labor unions on Tuesday beat back a controversial measure that could have cut in half the amount of money they raise for political campaigns and candidates. With nearly two-thirds of the votes counted, the union-backed opposition came from behind to take a comfortable lead over supporters of Proposition 226, the initiative sponsored by Gov. Pete Wilson and other Republicans that would have required unions to obtain written permission from each member before using a portion of their dues for political purposes. Labor leaders claimed victory just before midnight. ``We're feeling great,'' said Judith Barish, representative for the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. ``I think the working families of California made it clear today that they didn't want their political voices to be silenced.'' In Newport Beach, backers of the initiative did not plan to concede, even as the gap widened. ``We're still hopeful,'' said Kristy Khachigian. ``We're waiting (until the morning) to see (the results).'' Mark Bucher, one of three Orange County business people who wrote the initiative, tried to remain upbeat. ``We've been ahead all night,'' he had said shortly after the polls closed, ``and the fact that we are still ahead, or neck-and-neck, is evidence that people believe in this initiative.'' Gale Kaufman, director of the campaign against Proposition 226, credited her campaign workers with tightening the race after polls had shown strong support for the measure earlier this year. ``I think we were successful in convincing people that working men and women didn't put this on the ballot and they weren't behind it,'' Kaufman said. ``This was really about a very small group of out-of-state conservatives who were trying to pull a fast one on the voters by using simple, clever ballot language that, quite frankly, sounded good until you read who was behind it and what their real motive was.'' Grover Norquist, the founder of the conservative Washington, D.C.-based Americans for Tax Reform, was one of the ``out-of-staters'' to whom Kaufman was referring. Norquist, who gave $441,000 to the initiative, was instrumental in ensuring it qualified for the ballot. Norquist said ATR is supporting similar legislation in 26 states, and Oregon, Nevada and Colorado are preparing similar measures for upcoming ballots. If Proposition 226 had won in California, Norquist predicted, the momentum would have propelled 10 states to pass similar laws. But now that it has been defeated, he said perhaps only five would follow suit. The measure had one of the highest approval ratings when first introduced, but its popularity plummeted as national and state labor unions poured $20 million into television ads and political mailers. A Field Poll in November showed 72 percent of voters supported it and 22 percent opposed it; by last week, the numbers had see-sawed to 45 percent in support and 47 percent opposed. Labor groups also credited the drop in support to a massive turnout by up to 10,000 rank-and-file union members who walked neighborhoods and participated in phone banks, convincing voters the intent of the measure was to cripple the political voice of working men and women. Proposition 226 supporters insisted the measure was written to protect the individual rights -- and pocketbooks -- of working union members. They touted it as ``paycheck protection'' to stop ``union bosses'' from using dues to fund political causes and candidates their members might oppose. But the initiative's critics assailed the measure as an attempt to aid big business and threaten union gains, such as health care benefits and pensions. They noted that corporations politically outspend labor groups 10-to-1, yet the initiative did not impose similar restrictions on corporations by requiring them to receive permission from shareholders before making political contributions. As the campaign heated up, the opponents found it easy to simply point to the measure's sponsors to cast suspicion on the initiative's true motive: to weaken labor's clout. As chair of the Proposition 226 campaign, Wilson made an easy target. The outgoing governor has wrestled with unions over everything from salary increases and minimum-wage hikes to worker safety issues. Wilson was a hefty financial supporter as well, lending the initiative $500,000 two weeks ago. In the past few days, he funneled thousands more dollars in late contributions received after he wrote a last-minute plea to 50,000 people who make up his most trusted donor base, Wilson aides said. But the governor was unable to attract business-friendly organizations into the financing fray. Groups such as the state Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturing Association honored an agreement they reached with unions: Stay neutral on Proposition 226 and, in exchange, unions would drop plans for putting a counter, anti-business initiative on the November ballot. David Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --=_1A4E57C9.EE8FE00D--
