July 6, 2025 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Styming Half A Very Good Idea:

The best two things that could happen in American politics would be cutting or removing altogether the corporate and labor union campaign contributions that are the most significant sources of corruption in both national and state government. 

U.S. Supreme Court decisions that hold donations by these wealthy special interests are protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantees dictate that anyone wanting to diminish their influence over politicians must pursue something other than an outright ban, or even a cap on the special interest spending. 

In California, that effort last year took the form of an Assembly bill that would have forced corporations to report all their political activities and spending to shareholders, who could then have nixed a proportionate amount of that spending equal to their ownership stakes. 

In short, if a shareholder owned 1 percent of all stock in the Exxon-Mobil oil company, he or she could demand the company cut its political spending by 1 percent. 

It’s an idea very similar to what outgoing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to impose on labor unions via the Proposition 75 ballot initiative in a 2005 special election. Back then, when Schwarzenegger was a political rookie still willing to take on major special interests, he tried to allow public employee union members to opt in or out of letting their dues be used for political contributions. 

“There’s a fundamental unfairness in California,” went the ballot argument for the measure, which failed. “Hundreds of thousands of public employee union members are forced to contribute their hard-earned money to political candidates or issues they may oppose.” 

There was truth to that argument, but it lacked balance. The clear-cut aim of Proposition 75 was to truncate the influence of the California Teachers Association and other unions representing prison guards, nurses, police and firefighters, which usually are leading contributors to Democratic candidates. 

Just last fall, public employee unions were among those that funded independent expenditure radio and television commercials backing Democrat Jerry Brown in his run for governor at a time when he didn’t want to touch his own campaign war chest. 

No doubt, Republicans like the signers of the pro-75 ballot argument would have loved to stymie that. 

But this column and others argued in 2005 that it would be unfair to cut union influence while leaving corporations unfettered. 

Former Democratic Assemblyman Pedro Nava of Santa Barbara, a defeated candidate for attorney general last year, picked up on that contention with the proposal to let shareholders cut corporate contributions. Given the fact that corporations provide a large part of Republican campaign funds in California, including support for numerous independent expenditure committees, the presumption was that the Democratic-controlled Legislature would pass this easily. 

But it died in the state Senate’s Banking and Finance Committee, where four Democrats voted for the measure, when five votes were needed to move it along. Committee chairman Ron Calderon of Montebello, a Democrat, was one of three no votes (along with two Republicans), while Democrats Lou Correa of Orange County and Alex Padilla of Los Angeles did not vote. 

“A corporation’s treasury shouldn’t be used to bankroll the political agendas of a few members of its board,” said Pedro Morillas, a consumer advocate for the California Public Interest Research Group, paraphrasing a bit from the ballot argument for Proposition 75. 

If Californians are really interested in cleaning up this state’s politics and ending what many believe is governmental dysfunction, measures like both Proposition 75 and Nava’s defeated measure will be needed. 

It would be virtually impossible to put both union member and shareholder vetoes of using their money for politics into a single ballot initiative because of laws that require propositions to cover only one subject area each. 

But there’s nothing to prevent legislators from writing and passing companion bills accomplishing both aims. Nothing, that is, except pressure from the labor union and corporate interests who all too often call the shots in both Sacramento and Washington, D.C. 

in Opinion
<>Related Posts

SM.a.r.t.Column: Happy Fourth of July 

July 2, 2025

July 2, 2025

SMart (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) hopes you are enjoying a great 3-day weekend as part of your...

SM.a.r.t Column: Cities That Never Shut Up – The Roaring Cost of Urban Noise

June 26, 2025

June 26, 2025

In today’s cities, silence isn’t golden—it’s extinct. From sunrise to insomnia, we’re trapped in a nonstop symphony of shrieking car...

SM.a.r.t Column: Santa Monica Needs to See the Light

June 19, 2025

June 19, 2025

How Santa Monica’s Growing Light Pollution Is Eroding Human Health, Safety, and Sanity There was a time when our coastal...

SM.a.r.t Column: California’s Transit Death Spiral: How Housing Mandates Are Backfiring

June 15, 2025

June 15, 2025

California’s ambitious housing mandates were supposed to solve the affordability crisis. Instead, they’re creating a vicious cycle that’s killing public...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A City Dying by a Thousand Cuts

June 5, 2025

June 5, 2025

Santa Monica, once celebrated for its blend of coastal charm and progressive ideals, is slowly bleeding out — not from...

SM.a.r.t Column: Oops!! What Happened? And What Are You Going to Do About It?

May 29, 2025

May 29, 2025

Our Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow (SMa.r.t) articles have, over the past 12 years, collectively presented a critical...

SM.a.r.t Column: Why Santa Monica Might Need a Desalination Plant, and Maybe Even Nuclear Power

May 22, 2025

May 22, 2025

Santa Monica is known for its ocean views, sunny skies, and strong environmental values. But there’s a challenge on the...

SM.a.r.t Column: SMO (So Many Options) Part 3: “Pie in the Sky”

May 17, 2025

May 17, 2025

SMO: Fantasy, Fact, and the Fog of Wishful ThinkingBy someone who read the fine print Every few months, a headline...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Owner Occupancy Protects Against Corporate Over-Development

May 2, 2025

May 2, 2025

This week SMa.r.t. will have as guest columnist Mark Borenstein. Mark is a long-time Santa Monica resident, a retired attorney,...

Opinion: Declaration of Economic State of Emergency in Malibu & Pacific Palisades: A Direct Result of the Devastating Impact of the Palisades Fire

April 27, 2025

April 27, 2025

Malibu and Pacific Palisades Request Emergency Financial Measures By Ramis Sadrieh, Chairperson, Malibu Pacific Palisades Chamber of Commerce    On behalf...

SM.a.r.t Column: The World’s Happiest Cities

April 27, 2025

April 27, 2025

Almost every year, we see new cities, regions, and countries that make the list(s) of our planet’s happiest and healthiest...

SM.a.r.t Column: A City for Everyone

April 20, 2025

April 20, 2025

Santa Monica dazzles with its ocean views, sunshine, and laid-back charm. But beyond the postcard image lies a more complicated...

SM.a.r.t Column: Part II: Rebuilding Resilient Communities: Policy and Planning After the Fires

April 13, 2025

April 13, 2025

The January 2025 wildfires that devastated Pacific Palisades and Altadena left an indelible mark on Los Angeles County. Beyond the...

SM.a.r.t Column: Innovative Materials for Fire-Resistant Rebuilding After the LA Fires

April 6, 2025

April 6, 2025

In the aftermath of the devastating 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, homeowners face the daunting task of rebuilding their lives and...

Opinion: Supervisor Lindsey P. Horvath Community Column Regarding a More Accountable Homeless Services System

April 3, 2025

April 3, 2025

By Lindsay Horvath, Los Angeles Board of Supervisors This week marks a significant milestone in our fight to end homelessness...