jordan magill 
Member since Aug 8, 2012


Stats

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Koch Brothers Prove That Prop 32 Is Good for Corporations

Since when do the Koch brother's represent all "large corporations?" If teacher's unions support something, they're against it (and vice-versa I suspect). That said, the big moneyed corporate special interests that control Sacramento along with big moneyed labor -- PG&E, Insurance, Casino, Oil -- haven't put a dime in to support this proposal. The fact remains that NEITHER corporations OR unions should be allowed to give to politicians. That is what this proposition does. As the sacbee wrote: ""The measure [Prop 32] would change campaign finance rules by banning corporations and unions from contributing to candidates."

2 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by jordan magill on 09/18/2012 at 7:05 PM

Re: “If You Liked Citizens United, You'll Love Prop 32

Mr. Gammon:

Look, if your main attack on Prop 32 is that it doesn't repeal Citizens United, then you are of course correct. The state can't over rule the supreme court and will have to wait for either new justices or a cleverer Congress.

As far as the fact that money will still effect politics, again, you are correct. Money will always find its way into politics. There were super PACs and independent expenditures before Citizens United and nothings going to change that. However, your post betrays a certain naivete about life at the Capitol.

Lobbyists sit down with their clients and a member of the legislature. At the end of lunch, they hand them a wad of checks. When PG&E kills a bunch of folks with a faulty pipe, they turn around give a huge check to the head of the investigative committee. When the legislature tries to make it easier to fire teachers who are sexual predators, the CTA shows with their check book and members vote present. Independent expenditures, being at arms length from the politicians, can't have the same effect.

Your claims about disclosure and super-pacs are simply mistaken. The CFPPC requires full disclosure of all spending independent advocacy advertising. Nothing in 32 will change that. The public will still know who is responsible for all messages. As for the unions, a quick check of the record will demonstrate that unions are some of the most effective actors using independent expenditures. The notion that unions don't do independent expenditures is pure fiction.

Lastly, there is the issue of unions having to get their members sign off on political expenditures. You claim that this is a "cumbersome hurdle." I'd love to see some evidence to prove this beyond the claims of the union leadership. It seems to me, there is nothing wrong and everything right about unions having to get their memberships agreement before they spend money on politics. I only wish that shareholders were likewise empowered.

5 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by jordan magill on 08/09/2012 at 4:28 PM

Re: “If You Liked Citizens United, You'll Love Prop 32

Jane you seem to be arguing that -- shockingly -- Prop 32 isn't perfect. Fair enough. Given the current USSC, even with pure public financing various private monies would still over-top any legal dikes. That said, ending pay to play and disrupting the way the special interests and their lobbyists continue to call the tune in Sacramento is well worth enduring any deficiencies.

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by jordan magill on 08/09/2012 at 2:04 PM

Re: “If You Liked Citizens United, You'll Love Prop 32

John you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. Yes, Citizens United should be struck down as a badly reasoned decision. That said, CU only impacted CORPORATE/UNION money. Wealthy individuals could create and give unlimited funds to super pacs before CU and did in previous cycles.

Likewise, you are incorrect about unions not making independent expenditures. Unions across the country -- and in CA -- use independent campaign expenditures all the time to punish politicians they dislike. I'd suggest you read any of the Sacramento political reporters; each of them can sight you a dozen examples of the CTA, for example, using independent campaigns during a primary to end the career of various politicians who strayed from the CTA's orthodoxy.

Like I said, Prop 32 isn't perfect. But it will end Corp contributions to politicians and lobbyists handing out checks over lunch in Sacramento. And it will end pay to play. Both are reforms we need.

3 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by jordan magill on 08/09/2012 at 10:25 AM

Re: “If You Liked Citizens United, You'll Love Prop 32

An awful lot of hyperbole in this article. Now take a moment and look at what Prop 32 actually does. Corporations would be prohibited from making political donations. Think that big corps and their lobbyists like that? Of course not! Second, Prop 32 would end pay to play. That's right, folks who win contracts from the politicians can't pay them off.

Prop 32 isn't a perfect vehicle, but at least look at what it actually does and judge for yourself. For me, anything which reduces corporate payoffs to polls gets my vote.

7 likes, 15 dislikes
Posted by jordan magill on 08/08/2012 at 4:05 PM

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories


© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation