Arnold Schwarzenegger,  Bear Flag League,  California,  Election 2006,  Politics,  Proposition 75,  Special Election 2005

Arnold Schwarzenegger Watch: Endorses SON of Paycheck Protection

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks during a meeting with Mexican Undersecretary for North American Affairs, Geronimo Gutierrez in his office in Sacramento, Calif., Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2005. Later in the day the Governor held private interviews with various news organizations. In that interview Schwarzenegger discussed a wide range of matters pertaining to the special election and his own decision to pursue a second term next year.

Anthony York at the Capitol Weekly has Schwarzenegger signs off on shareholder protection.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in an interview Tuesday that he would support a ban on corporations using shareholder money for political purposes without the expressed written consent of company shareholders.

The ban on such use of corporate dollars is similar to the governor’s call to stop the use of public employee union dues without written permission from union members. That measure, Proposition 75, was endorsed by the governor at the Republican state party convention this weekend, and will be on the special election ballot in November.

“It’s not right to force people to do that,” he said when asked about the use of corporate money for political purposes without consent. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander … I support anything [that prohibits political spending] where people are not asked. People must be asked.”

This makes sense to Flap.

However, corporate contributions are already prohibited and illegal in federal elections.

Supporters of the idea have already submitted a measure that would place those restrictions on corporate political activity to the attorney general’s office. The measure prohibits corporations from “making political contributions or expenditures for political activities except with shareholders’ prior informed consent by means of majority vote and reports to shareholders.”The measure needs 373,000 signatures by the end of the year to qualify for the June 2006 ballot.

If Proposition 75 fails this November, Flap handicaps a combination measure including Paycheck Protection and the Son of Paycheck Protection will appear in November 2006. Schwarzenegger can run on this……but what about Angelides? or Westly?

Is this a Paycheck Protection box that the Governator has put the Deomocrats?

But the governor said he was not endorsing a specific proposal “It’s all hypothetical, but I’m all for it across the board,” he said.

Backers of the idea were skeptical at best. “If you believe that, then I’ve got a bridge,” said Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman who is leading the campaign against some of the governor’s initiatives on the November ballot. “This is what he does. He promises one thing and turns his back on his promises.”

Stay Tuned……..

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Cross-posted to the Bear Flag League Special Election Page

2 Comments

  • SactoDan

    Move a little to the left, move a little to the right, it’s getting hard to figure out where the Governor will be from day to day.

    Employees of Government agencies have few options such as quitting their jobs when the union uses their money for political activities they may disagree with. Reuqsting their permisssion shouldn’t be a big deal, unless perhaps they think the members would not approve. If that is true (and it probably is) then they don’t represent their members anyway.

    For corporations it is different. They have two constituencies to answer to. Customers have the option not to patronize if they disagree, which would include a boycott. Secondly the shareholders, the primary contituents have the right to sell.

    I believe the corporate initiative wouldn’t survive a court challenge.

  • Ted Lawrence

    The corporate ban has just as much chance of passing given the new Supreme Court regulations on campaign finance. The point is not just that shareholders are seeing their money spent against their will, but that corporations receive tax advantages from government. If unions should be limited in what they contribute, then all contributions should have to come from individuals or Pacs formed through voluntary associations. But then Republicans never did want to stop someone from stealing money, if they did they would start opposing government subsidies like redevelopment payments. They just don’t want organizations that fight for the working man to be able to compete.