Yes on Proposition 32

Dear Editor:

A recent Readers’ Comment entitled “Silence the opposition” in the October 3 COURIER urges a “no” vote on Proposition 32.

The author claims that billionaires and corporations would corrupt the political system through “big money” donations and thus drown out “employment organizations” (aka: “Union”).

I have a different opinion. According to the analysis by the Legislative Analyst in my voting guide, a “yes” vote would 1) Prohibit unions, corporations and government contractors from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes.

2) Permits voluntary employee contributions to employer-sponsored committees or union controlled committees if authorized annually by the employee in writing.

3) Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate controlled committees.

4) Prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or officer-controlled committees from the time their contract is being considered until the date their contract expires.

As a government profession services contractor, I have lost several projects to unscrupulous competitors who I believe have “paid to paly” through backroom deals whereby elected officials have received significant campaign donations and then magically these competitors have received government contracts.

Proposition 32 would end such a practice and allow the best contractor with the best value to the public entity to get the project, not the one who agrees to financially donate to a politician. Many politicians are shameless in their insistence of “paying to play” and current law makes it very difficult to prohibit this practice; thus the public becomes the end loser.

I also believe that each voter must have the right to choose whether or not they want to donate to a campaign and also if they choose to donate; they should be able to donate to the campaign of their choice. We need to reign in corruption at all levels within our government.

We cannot allow any organization (public or private) to “pay to play” and contribute to a political campaign whereby that organization receives a windfall of public tax dollars.  Public tax dollars need to be spent frugally and in the best interest of the public good.  I urge a “yes” vote on Proposition 32 to limit the control that special interest organizations have in the expenditures of our tax dollars. 

Politicians need to make decisions based upon what is best for the public good, not what is good for their campaign finances.

Kris M. Meyer

Claremont

Yes on Proposition 34

Dear Editor:

What is wrong with us, anyway??  The LA Times (September 30) reports that Proposition 34, the bid to replace the state’s death penalty with life without parole, is trailing 38 percent to 51 percent.  

What in the world are we thinking?

If passed, Proposition 34 would save our financially-strapped state government $1 billion in 5 years, directing $100 million to law enforcement to solve more rapes and murders.

It would guarantee that convicted killers would spend life in prison with absolutely no chance of parole.

It would require convicted killers to work and pay restitution to the victim’s compensation fund.

And, extremely importantly, it would guarantee we will never execute another innocent person.

Proposition 34 provides a win-win situation. Even Don Heller who wrote the law, Ron Biggs, who was the chief campaigner for the law in 1978, and his father, a former State Senator, all now say the law was a huge mistake.

Does it give closure to the victims’ families?  There is no proof that it does.  Rather, it traps survivors in decades of mandatory appeals, forcing them to relive the trauma over and over. The death penalty gives a false promise to victims.

Let’s all work to see that Proposition 34 is passed into law!

Stanley Moore

Claremont