California Proposition 75, Require Consent for Political Contributions from Payroll Deductions Initiative (2005)

California Proposition 75

Election date
November 8, 2005
Topic
Labor and unions and Paycheck protection
Status
d Defeated
Type
State statute| Origin
Citizens

* * *

California Proposition 75 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 8, 2005. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported requiring obtaining written consent from employees before using union dues for political contributions.

A "no" vote opposed requiring obtaining written consent from employees before using union dues for political contributions.

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Measure design
* 2.1 Fiscal impact
* 3 Support
* 3.1 Official arguments
* 4 Opposition
* 4.1 Opponents
* 5 Path to the ballot
* 6 External links
* 7 Footnotes

## Election results[edit]

California Proposition 75

Result | Votes | Percentage
Yes | 3,644,006 | 46.51%

| 4,190,412 | 53.49%

Results are officially certified.
Source

## Measure design[edit]

Proposition 75 was an example of what is known as a paycheck protection ballot measure. It would have required written consent annually from employees to use union dues for political contributions. It would have also required labor organizations to report political contributions to the Fair Political Practices Commission. In 1998, another paycheck protection measure (Proposition 226) was on the ballot; it, too, was defeated.

Proposition 75 was one of four ballot measures on the 2005 ballot that Arnold Schwarzenegger included in his plan for the state. The other three were Proposition 74, Proposition 76 and Proposition 77. All four were defeated.

## Text of measure

### Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 75 was as follows:

“| Public Employee Union Dues. Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions. Initiative Statute.

| ”

|
|

### Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

• Prohibits the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on a specified written form.

• Restriction does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefitting the public employee.

• Requires public employee labor organizations to maintain and submit records to Fair Political Practices Commission concerning individual public employees’ and organizations’ political contributions.

• These records are not subject to public disclosure.| ”

|
|

### Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

### Fiscal impact[edit]

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 75:[1]

“  |

* Probably minor state and local government implementation costs, potentially offset in part by revenues from fines and/or fees.[2]

| ”

|
|

## Support[edit]

Website banner from the Yes on Proposition 75 (archived) website

Yes on 74 led the campaign in support of Proposition 74.

#### Official arguments[edit]

The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 75 were signed by Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Winner; Lewis Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee; and Allan Mansoor, Member of Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs:[1]

“  |

PROPOSITION 75 PROTECTS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FROM HAVING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TAKEN AND USED WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.

There’s a FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS IN CALIFORNIA:

* Hundreds of thousands of public employee union members are forced to contribute their hard earned money to political candidates or issues they may oppose.
* Powerful and politically connected union leaders—a small handful of people—can make unilateral decisions

with these 'forced contributions' to fund political campaigns without their members’ consent. The workers have no choice—money is automatically deducted from their dues.

Firefighters, police officers, teachers, and other public employees work hard for the people of California and we owe them a huge debt for the work they do on our behalf. That’s why it’s only fair that public employees give their permission before their hard earned dollars are taken and given to politicians and political campaigns. Many public employee union members don’t support the political agenda of the union bosses and it’s not right that they are forced to contribute to political candidates and campaigns they oppose:

* Campaign finance records document that several public employee unions have spent more than $2 million to qualify a ballot measure that would raise property taxes by billions of dollars—rolling back Proposition 13 protections.
* Many members of these unions may oppose this, but the union leaders just take the money and spend it even though individual union members may disagree. That’s not right and it’s not fair.

HERE’S WHAT ACTUAL UNION MEMBERS SAY: 'I’ve been a public school teacher for 20 years. I joined the union when I started teaching because of the benefits it provided and I’ve always been a proud member. However, despite the many good things the union does, it . . . contribute[s] a portion of my dues to political . . . campaigns I often disagree with. That’s simply unfair. I want to be a member of the teachers union, but I don’t want to be forced to contribute my money to the union leaders’ political agenda.' Diane Lenning, Huntington Beach

'I’m a member of the largest state employee union. I believe in the union and what it does. It supports me in many ways, but I don’t need it spending a portion of my dues for political purposes. If I want to make a political contribution to a candidate it should be voluntary, not mandatory.' Jim Prunty, Glendora

PROPOSITION 75—IT’S COMMON SENSE. Here’s what it’ll do:

* Give public employees the same choices we all have.
* Require public employee unions to obtain annual written consent from members before their dues are taken for political purposes.
* Allow government employees to decide when, how, and if their hard earned wages are spent to support political candidates or campaigns.

Proposition 75 will NOT prevent unions from collecting political contributions, but those contributions will be CLEARLY VOLUNTARY. Vote YES on Proposition 75. Give California workers the freedom and choice we all deserve and help restore union members’ political rights.

Learn more, visit www.caforpaycheckprotection.com.[2]

| ”

|
|

## Opposition[edit]

A cartoon from a "No on 75" flyer, archived at UCLA's digital library of campaign materials

No on 75 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 75.

### Opponents[edit]

The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 75 were signed by Lou Paulson, president, California Professional Firefighters; Barbara Kerr, president, California Teachers Association; and Sandra Marques, RN, local president, United Nurses Associations of California:[1]

“  |

Prop. 75 is unnecessary and unfair. Its hidden agenda is to weaken public employees and strengthen the political influence of big corporations. Prop. 75 does not protect the rights of teachers, nurses, police, and firefighters. Instead it’s designed to reduce their ability to respond when politicians would harm education, health care, and public safety. In 1998, voters rejected a similar proposition and union members voted NO overwhelmingly.

TARGETS TEACHERS, NURSES, FIREFIGHTERS, AND POLICE Why does 75 target people who take care of all of us? Recently, teachers fought to restore funding the state borrowed from our public schools, but never repaid. Nurses battled against reductions in hospital staffing to protect patients. Police and firefighters fought against elimination of survivor’s benefits for families of those who die in the line of duty. Prop. 75 is an unfair attempt to diminish the voice of teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police at a time when we need to hear them most. Prop. 75 only restricts public employees. It does not restrict corporations—even though corporations spend shareholders’ money on politics. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics says corporations already outspend unions in politics nationally by 24 to 1. Prop. 75 will make this imbalance even worse.

CURRENT LAW ALREADY PROTECTS WORKERS No public employee in California can be forced to become a member of a union. Non-members pay fees to the union for collective bargaining services, but the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that unions cannot use these fees for political purposes. The union must send financial statements to the worker to ensure that no unauthorized fees are used for politics. Today, 25% of state employees contribute no money to their union’s political activities. Union members already have the right to democratically vote their leaders into and out of office and to establish their own internal rules concerning political contributions. Prop. 75 takes away union members’ right to make their own decisions and substitutes a government-imposed bureaucratic process.

VIOLATES EMPLOYEES’ PRIVACY Prop. 75 requires members who want to participate to sign a government-imposed personal disclosure form that could be circulated in the workplace. This form, with information about individual employees and their political contributions, could be accessed by a state agency—an invasion of individual privacy which could raise the possibility of intimidation and retaliation against employees on the job.

WHO’S BEHIND PROP. 75? Its lead sponsor is Lewis Uhler, a former John Birch Society activist, who campaigned for Bush’s Social Security privatization plan. It’s funded by the deceptively named Small Business Action Committee, which is financed by large corporations. Backers of 75 say they want to protect workers’ rights, but that’s not true. They’re against the minimum wage, against protecting employee health care, against the 8-hour day. Backers of 75 aren’t for working people, they want to silence working people who stand against them.

VOTE NO ON 75 Please help stop this unfair attempt to apply restrictions to unions of public employees, such as teachers, nurses, firefighters, police, and sheriffs that would apply to no one else.[2]

| ”

|
|

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: California signature requirements

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2005, at least 373,816 valid signatures were required.

The petition drive for Proposition 75 was conducted jointly with the petition drives for Proposition 74, Proposition 76 and Proposition 77 by three different petition drive management companies.

The petition drive management companies involved were:

* National Petition Management. They were paid $4,610,441.40.
* Arno Political Consultants. They were paid $1,094,000.00
* Forde and Mollrich. They were paid $2,172,031.00.

Altogether, the three companies were paid $7,876,472.40. Dividing this across the four propositions involved means that approximately $1,969,118.10 was spent collecting signatures on the individual propositions in the Schwarzenegger package.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

## See also

2005 Measures

* 2005 Measures
* Labor and unions on the ballot
* Paycheck protection on the ballot
* 2005 legislative sessions

California

* California ballot measures
* California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

* Ballot measure lawsuits
* Ballot measure readability
* Ballot measure polls

## External links[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* Official California Voter Guide
* Full text of Proposition 75
* Proposition 75 on the Smart Voter Guide
* Guide to Proposition 75 from the California Voter Foundation
* Summary of donors to and against 75 from Cal-Access
* Donors for and against Proposition 75 from Follow The Money
* The official results from the Secretary of State

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 University of California, "Voter Guide," accessed March 30, 2021
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy