Comments on: Courage Campaign’s Koch/cokehead ad draws fire

By: JohnW

JohnW — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:25:46 +0000

I hope people who generally deal with the flood of ballot initiatives by just voting NO on everything remember to vote YES on Prop. 40. YES means to keep the new independent redistricting. NO means going back to having the legislature do it.

By: Milan Moravec

Milan Moravec — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:48:45 +0000

The choices made Nov 6 will determine the state’s course for years. Both Prop 32, 30 levy significant taxes on Californians.
The wounds that Prop 30, 32 are to heal have been self inflicted largely by elected officials in Sacramento who simply do not say no to any influential interest group (lobbyists) be they public employees, business, teachers or other unions or environmental groups.
And now the Sacramento politicians and their lobbyists are using Prop 32, 30, 38 to blackmail us.
Vote! Vote No on Prop 32, 30, 38. Save California for our children.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 02:14:13 +0000

Re: #11

Elwood, as you stated, there are no explicit exemptions of the type you mentioned. The catch is that Prop. 32 only applies to businesses that are organized as corporations under the corporation laws of California or the U.S. There are many business entities, big and small, that are organized as Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and other legal forms. For example, I believe Bain Capital is an LLC. Koch Industries, Inc., is a corporation, but it’s operating subsidary companies are organized as LLC’s. Real estate trusts and hedge funds have been specifically mentioned as entities that are “exempted,” in the sense that they do not fall within the statutory definition of “corporation.”

By: Truthclubber

Truthclubber — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 00:21:07 +0000

@12 –

Thanks, Josh.

On another note, seriously?

People are offended by silly political satire like this?

Hell, Colbert recently had a bit on Romney needing to get massive numbers of people to move to red states so that they would be more inclined to vote for him, to wit:

“Arkansas! Come for the meth!
Stay…because you sold your car for meth.”

By: Josh Richman

Josh Richman — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:38:09 +0000

@11 –
I think the opponents’ argument is rooted in the fact that Prop. 32 wouldn’t apply to business super PACs and independent expenditure committees – often funded by the companies themselves, not by employees. Unions, on the other hand, derive their political funds from member dues paid via payroll deductions, which would be banned by the measure.

By: Elwood

Elwood — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:12:47 +0000

I have read and reread the entire text of Prop 32.

Would someone please point out to me where it exempts big business, big corporations, big oil, big whatever from its provisions?

I am unable to locate any such section. Surely the opponents wouldn’t lie, now would they?

By: Truthclubber

Truthclubber — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:54:15 +0000

@9 –

I would also vote for it (Prop. 32), if in addition to those enhancements, it removed the questionable exemptions for certain types of corporations — the more we get away from “the best government that money can buy”, the better we are.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 19:43:49 +0000

I would vote for Prop. 32 if it pertained only to public (not private sector) unions, and if it allowed payroll deduction on either an opt-in or opt-out basis.

By: RR senile columnist

RR senile columnist — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:57:42 +0000

Re 6: John L Lewis lives! (With special thanks to Big Bill Haywood)

By: Tick

Tick — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:08:06 +0000

And why should dixie cups cost so much? because the Koch bros. are influencing public opinion through the profits of charging me 96% over cost for that red dixie cup so they can give 100m to campaigns that I don’t believe in.