They don't need to spend that much  

and I don't get any of it anyway (Updated)

One of my neighbors opined that there’s no reason to bring so much union money into Costa Mesa. His union charges “reasonable” dues (to him), and he sees no reason for massive bank accounts for “just political stuff. . .The union gets us good benefits and pretty good wages – not like the city employees, but good enough . . .without all the TV ads and mailers and everything.”

Let’s interrupt our looks into Costa Mesa Campaign Propaganda for a look into labor’s need for money in this situation. No, it’s not just for “training in the Bahamas” or “organizing classes in Las Vegas.” 

How it works, private vs. public

Private sector unions get wage increases and benefit improvements through collective bargaining with management. Sometimes they threaten work stoppage (aka strikes) or slowdown. In theory, public safety unions can’t use those tactics, although the “blue flu” and over-extended time for every police call were described by the CMPD’s union’s law firm (now fired) in their detailed tactics manual exposed earlier this year.

Build the benefits another way -- or two or three

However, public sector unions can increase benefits other ways. These techniques aren't easily available to private sector unions such as the Teamster’s unions that represent local truckers.

First of all, although the public sector unions use collective bargaining, they wield a lot of influence, perhaps even more, through electioneering and lobbying. These are very, very expensive – the cost of the scare brochures sent to Costa Mesa voters alone is staggering. And, Costa Mesa represents a very small part of the state’s population, union membership, and budget.

Private sector unions can do this, but usually confine their efforts to the national level because of the expense. They can, and do, drop in on local unions to influence voting for union officers, and might finance some local ads during a heated campaign.

In contrast, the Sacramento-headquartered unions for public employees spend a great deal of money trying to affect citizen elections, as opposed to union elections, and pay both directly and indirectly for lobbyists. But they spend more on lobbying in Sacramento to get laws favorable to unions enacted.

Can't afford the fight so we go around it to stay solvent

Costa Mesa couldn't afford to mount an effective campaign to oppose the “prevailing wage” law in Sacramento, for instance. Her entire operating budget wouldn't be a fraction of what Big Labor would bring into the battle. But, Costa Mesa can choose to be a Charter City and make some decisions about how Costa Mesa money—and only Costa Mesa money--is spent. This includes paying local wages on local jobs. (Prevailing wage works out to paying the wages specified by the State labor organizations regardless of what the local workers are normally paid for the job.)

Initiatives can cost money

Then there is an even more expensive way to increase benefits; the initiative process. Public employee unions sponsor initiatives, and oppose them, statewide. Articles in the Wall Street Journal, among many national publications, point out that Big Labor is spending “buckets of money” (that’s a columnist’s term) to defeat the initiative on the California ballot that stops both corporations and unions from assessing “donations” for political activities through payroll deduction.

Sue 'em till they quit

Finally, the unions use the courts to tie up city governments. Examples include suing to prevent a properly-processed initiative, with the approval of the required city residents, from appearing on the ballot in San Diego (union officers had not been consulted and the initiative affected union activities). That is, they're using the courts to overrule the citizens.

In Costa Mesa the unions are suing the City about a procedural error in processing the so-called “layoff notices.” (Actually these are the notifications required by the union-negotiated contract to be sent when jobs are going to be analyzed for possible outsourcing.)

Are you ever frustrated when you read about a criminal whose lawyer gets him released, not because he’s innocent, but because the prosecutor filed a motion on the wrong form? This lawsuit is like that, and these lawsuits cost money. Lawsuits are another way to affect wages and benefits that is very expensive, and not really available to private sector unions.

Paying for the monster under the bed

So that’s why Big Labor is spending so much money trying to scare Costa Mesa voters into voting against the charter and against their own best interests: it stops automatic payroll assessments and allows the city to pay local wages. If they can't just assess “donations” from the members (and non-members who must also pay union dues – by state law) they'll have to convince each member and nonmember to write a check for the political “donation.”

Big Labor needs that money to pay for scary mailers, TV time, and local citizens to be candidates for them. It’s much more expensive than collective bargaining. So, it’s not just about plush training and organizing junkets for union officers. It’s about power, and power is expensive for Big Labor.

Hang on, it'll get worse

There’s a great deal of opposition to the public employee’s egregious benefits and Big Labor’s power right now, and it’s growing daily. So, we think that power is going to become more and more expensive for Big Labor. Expect your union dues and “political donations” to increase significantly.

Update.

As I glanced through this entry I realized that while I was dealing with unions spending money to influence voters, it sounded like the unions were the initiative demons in the process. 

Not true. The unions use the initiative to influence voters, and laws, and budgets. So do other entities that can afford it, such as Tom Steyer, a fund-manager who reportedly is spending tens of millions of his dollars on Prop 39. This proposition raises taxes on out-of-state companies selling their goods in California.

Of course, if their cost of doing business in California increases, their prices will, too. Think car manufacturers, and Wal-Mart. Those that cannot raise prices enough to cover the tax will reduce costs by cutting jobs and closing stores. So this becomes a tax on middle and lower class citizens in California.

Tom Steyer authored the Proposition and is backing it with his fortune. He manages Hedge Funds that invest in "green" companies. It's expected that revenue from Prop 39 will fund about $5 billion over the next five years in "green" projects.

Used by both the rich and the unions

The unions are certainly not the only groups that use the initiative process to benefit themselves, but we look at them because they're the ones pouring money into the City to convince Costa Mesans to vote against a Charter that will hamper their fund raising.

Is it "grassroots" or $ 

What does “grassroots” actually mean? The dictionary lists four reasonably common definitions:

noun ( used with a singular or plural verb ) 

1. The common or ordinary people, especially as contrasted with the leadership or elite of a political party, social organization, etc.; the rank and file.

2. The agricultural and rural areas of a country.

3. The people inhabiting these (rural) areas, especially as a political, social, or economic group.

4. The origin or basis of something; the basic or primary concept, rule, part, or the like.

Don't meet the definition

A local union-supporting organization called Costa Mesans for Responsible Government (CM4RG) insists upon being identified as a “grassroots” organization. However, it is endorsing the three union-sponsored candidates, and, like the candidates, uses funds provided by Sacramento-based union officers. That is, they’re not contrasted with the elite and leadership, they're supporting, and supported by, the union elite and leadership.

Sacramento-based unions print 'em and mail 'em 

How can you tell?  Well, look at the slick, shiny, four-color mailers filling your mailbox. Notice that “Vote No” scare mailers (with the almost-like Costa Mesa city pictured) come from the Sacramento office of a labor organization, and are routed through a local PAC. The bright, shiny, four-color flyer about cleaning up Costa Mesa (by opposing the Charter and supporting the three labor-union candidates) is supposed to be from CM4RG.

However, both were bulk-mailed from Huntington Beach on the same bulk mail permit -- #438. No point in paying for separate mailing permits when the money is coming from the same place, is there?

Designing, printing, and mailing these heavy, colorful flyers is very expensive – but it doesn't cost CM4RG or the union-sponsored candidates a penny. It’s paid for with money from union members throughout the State – extracted by payroll deduction at the demand of their unions, for distribution as the union officials see fit.

Why is a Sacramento group buying Costa Mesa elections

Why are funds gathered statewide and consolidated   in Sacramento, being spent to frighten Costa Mesa voters to oppose the Charter?

Because the charter removes the right of the unions to extract the political funds they want from the union members’ paychecks. Under the Charter, they actually have to convince each member to donate their money to support the union’s political agenda. That drops them to just slightly more powerful as fundraisers than the candidates themselves. They'll be on the same playing field with any other business that needs to solicit funds.

Are they paying much

People who believe in the 3M’s, Mensinger, Monahan, and McCarthy, have donated just over 33% of the money committed to this election so far. Those who support the Anti-3M’s and/or oppose the Charter have provided a little over 16% of the total. And Big Labor, headquartered in Sacramento, has donated over 50% of the funds for this election! They're using funds they've pulled from paychecks throughout the State to try to hold on to their ability to extract money from paychecks, anywhere and anytime they want!

So, Big Labor is using buckets of money to try to scare Costa Mesa citizens into voting against the Charter – and electing labor-endorsed candidates in the bargain. Big Labor is investing much more than the citizens of the City, and that money is going into scare propaganda.

All that money to buy fear in Costa Mesa

Remember Adolph Hitler’s advice about propaganda (See the 8 Sep blog)? He insisted that,”The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” Even if they are lies . . .

It looks like Sacramento union officers are repeating scary slogans over and over as advised.  The unions and their candidates hope that it’s enough to frighten some Costa Mesa voters to vote against their own best interests.

$ is not grassroots

A “Grassroots” definition for CM4RG needs a fifth selection. That's, “supported by and giving support to, the interests of Big Labor headquartered in another city.” That doesn't sound like the rest of the “grassroots” definitions in the dictionary, any more than the union warnings sound like advice intended to help Costa Mesa, or any more than the city pictured on their mailers is Costa Mesa.

We already have a word for it

Maybe grassroots doesn't need to be re-defined. We already have a word that means, “Whatever is good for me and my supporters.” It’s “selfish.” Substitute that word in their group's self-description like this “… is a selfish, non-partisan organization . . . to promote . . . “ Then no new definition is needed.

Whose fight is this?  

The current figures from the Candidates’ Form 460’s show an interesting pattern, and tell you just who’s supporting what in Costa Mesa. (Form 460’s are reports of fund raising and expenditures—they’re required and are public information.)

From citizens

The Three M’s have raised $131,381 from citizens who support them and their beliefs. The Anti-3M’s have raised $62,741 from their supporters. But, before you feel sorry for the three “unwanted” candidates, consider this: Big Labor money!

From outsiders

The total reported by Big Labor PACs is $205,722.  So, of $399,844 raised for this election by everybody, about 33% came from folks supporting Mensinger, McCarthy, and Monahan and favoring the Charter. About 16% came from folks supporting Genis, Weitzberg, and Stephens, and, presumably, against the Charter. That leaves about 51% of the money committed so far coming from Big Labor Political Action Committees!

So, apparently the AFL-CIO and the other labor groups headquartered in Sacramento think Costa Mesa matters are so important that they are putting in more money than all of the interested supporters of all six viable candidates combined!.

Why do they send money here

Why are the Costa Mesa contests so important to Sacramento’s Big Labor headquarters?

It’s unlikely that a Sacramento union official would be very concerned about the health and safety of Costa Mesa’s citizens, or worry about her finances. But it’s very likely they would want to insure their union’s “personal ATM” stays in business -- that’s the political-support donations that they can assess and have automatically withheld from members’ wages. But, if the local union officials had to convince each member to donate in order to get money for their political agendas, well, the income would go down, way down.

I'm paying for what?!

You see, not all of the union members completely support the State union’s political agendas, regardless of how much they might support their local union. And Costa Mesa’s Charter would remove the automatic payroll deduction of “political donations” that the Sacramento Big Labor leaders want – and maybe even need. (Training in the Bahamas is expensive, and so is dominating any city that dares try to face them down.)

 Even more dangers raise their heads: what if other cities were encouraged by Costa Mesa’s Charter success and tried their own brand of independence from Big Labor’s power? Wow, what a disaster.

It's a necessary expense to buy Costa Mesa's election

So it’s worth buckets of money to support the Anti-3m candidates with free delivery, free brochures, free. . . It doesn't matter who the candidates might be, how they think, or what they plan to do, as long as they support Big Labor -- by opposing the Charter.

Spend the dollars in Costa Mesa, maybe

We know what the unions want, and how much they're spending in our election. But doesn't some of that union money at least get back into Costa Mesa businesses? Well, not so much. But more about that in a later blog.

Just to whet your appetite, though, ask the former-mayor, “gray-man” candidate where she’s getting all of that beautiful, and expensive, material printed. Hint: it isn’t in Costa Mesa.

They're not us but they're spending on our election

Whose fight is this? You’d think the answer would be the fight is Costa Mesa’s, and may the majority of the citizens prevail. But, Sacramento’s Big Labor organizations have a different idea who should win this fight – them!

Follow the Money 

Let’s explore the Costa Mesa campaigns by following the money – that’s usually a good way to see how power flows. Unfortunately, the detailed expenditure lists aren't published yet, and Political Action Committees have exemptions and loopholes to hide a lot of shenanigans.

But, sometimes we can deduce where the money is flowing by looking at similar situations where the funding information is more complete, and comparing what we see to local situations.

How about Statewide

Let’s start with an article in the Wall Street Journal by Allysia Finley on 3 Oct. She says (and the WSJ has far more resources than I, so her research is more believable than my guesses):

The best shot that California taxpayers have to take back their state from Big Labor is slipping away—and fast. Three new polls show that support is sinking for Proposition 32, the so-called paycheck protection ballot initiative that would bar unions (and corporations) from withholding money from workers' paychecks to finance their political spending. The reason? Unions have smothered the initiative with globs of cash that they've drawn from workers' paychecks.

Organized labor is “smothering the initiative” with globs of cash?

And here

If so, what would we expect to happen in Costa Mesa where a charter proposes the same restrictions on unions’ free access to their workers’ paychecks? Why the cash would be likely to flow here, too, wouldn't it? Just like it is gushing into several other cities that are trying to build this protection into law.

Get union help if you oppose the Charter

Opposing our Charter will get candidates lots of union support – in newsletters, sponsored meetings, manpower to walk the precincts, and such. Will it get them “globs of cash, too?” Probably not – but it may result in the local branch of the AFL-CIO printing and mailing candidate brochures and flyers – at no cost to the candidate. They've done it before – and it worked – the candidate is still on the Council.

Advice from an expert

Kevin Dayton (a CEO, and a charter city expert from Sacramento) said that voters need to seriously consider approving the charter city proposals. “If you support lower taxes, reasonable regulation, fiscal responsibility, limited government, local control and more freedom from corrupt urban legislators, vote yes on the charters.” Then, tongue in cheek, he added, “If you believe citizens are not yet giving enough of their money to the government, vote no on the charter.”

Dayton doesn't have access to Big Labors’ “globs of money” to support Costa Mesa’s Charter, he can just offer experience and logic to help us decide. We’ll see how that competes with the money – and the screaming and protesting by the three Labor-endorsed candidates -- as the election gets closer.

What if my friends do it

How about money flow when a candidate maintains opposite stances on the same question? Candidates Genis, Weitzberg, and Stephens have repeated louder and louder that “NO BID CONTRACTS ARE WRONG! That’s a key point in their opposition to the Charter – the union-opposed Charter.

But, they support, and receive support in return, from incumbent candidates for the Sanitary Board who have vigorously blocked any bidding on their trash contract, which they've had, and renewed and renewed, since 1944. How can this be?

Maybe it's different globs

The globs that support the incumbent candidates may just be coming from different sources. 

Following the money can be confusing when there are multiple sources supporting differing positions on a philosophical question. The money isn't used to influence philosophy, though; it’s used to protect particular jobs.

Good or bad

So, which is it? No bid contracts are bad – or good? Apparently they’re good when your side uses them and a terrible danger that the Charter presents to Costa Mesa -- at the same time.

Except. . .

Except that “No Bid” isn't defined in the Charter; it’s a term used as a Straw Man argument. It’s used to “prove” that "No Bid is bad," so the Charter must be bad. Never mind that it’s undefined in the Charter.

And except that the term is used in purchasing departments to divide contracts into formal and informal processing systems. And except that the Council members are forbidden by law from influencing the processing of contracts, anyway – both now and under the Charter.

The term makes for an easy straw man argument, though.

Two defend their stance

Two of the candidates, Weitzberg and Stephens, excuse their stance, (because) “this particular (no bid contract) is a special case.” That’s an excuse made famous in Chicago’s most-corrupt days. Is there money involved? Who knows?

But look at your mailers and TV ads and then Google the sponsors. I’ll bet you’ll be surprised whose money is paying for opposition to the Charter. Or maybe not.

And one doesn't attract any attention

The third “vote no” candidate, Genis, hasn't explained her support of opposing ethical considerations as far as I know right now. It looks like she’s the “gray man” in this election. A “gray man” tries to slip into office by not taking a stance, just collecting enough votes by not being opposed or confronted but having a vaguely familiar name.

Globs to raise fear, little spatters to support rational voting

There probably are globs of cash flowing into Costa Mesa to raise fears about the charter, similar to what Finley described statewide. Read the bottom of the mailers in your mailbox: and Google the PAC’s that are providing the funds.

Follow the money.

We’ll work some more on what the Charter actually says in another blog.

Propaganda in opinion pieces

In previous blogs we’ve studied examples of propaganda. Today let’s expand our search from news and blogs to opinion pieces. We’ll consider a column and a letter to the editor, both in September issues of the Daily Pilot.

Defense criticized for what's missing

Candidate Monahan wrote, in a Pilot commentary defending the Charter:

…I can think of plenty of laws Sacramento politicians have approved that imposed costly mandates on our city, dictated how we spend our residents' tax dollars and told us how we must conduct business in our own city.

…Costa Mesa has had to listen to Sacramento politicians who are out of touch with our needs, controlled by special interests and are only looking out for themselves.

That’s generalization by Monahan. A column by Jeffrey Harlan criticized Monahan’s defense of the Charter for leaving out facts. He may have missed or obscured a few facts himself. He says,

Let's start with Monahan's central argument: Costa Mesa is somehow under the merciless thumb of Sacramento, and we need to "break free" to recapture local control.

Is that what Monahan’s piece says? Harlan’s techniques here are “exaggeration” and “out of context.”

Ludicrous or probably true?

Harlan also waxes sarcastic about Monahan’s listing of a minor benefit found in the Charter:

In what has to be the most ludicrous statement in his commentary, (Monahan) asserts that the charter provision prohibiting the city from collecting political contributions through payroll deductions …protect the workers themselves.

This is Monahan’s “ludicrous statement:”

In addition, the charter would prohibit the city from collecting political contributions through payroll deductions from city employees. This protects our city workers from having to financially contribute to political causes they might not support themselves.

Since the provision allows union members to write a smaller, or no, check, it does seem to protect (especially) the lower income union member as Monahan asserts. It’s another “tempest in a teapot.”

Prevailing wage exemption drowns aquatic center

Harlan goes on to criticize the Charter’s exemption from paying prevailing wages on contracts. He says,

Just ask the residents of Oceanside how their charter's prevailing wage exemption delivered a half-constructed harbor aquatics center by a contractor who was financially unable to perform the work and meet its contractual obligations. Ultimately, the delayed project was taken over by a surety company, and the city was forced to reduce the project's scope by $1.4 million.

I don’t understand how paying workers the prevailing-- and higher--wage would have made the contractor more solvent or the Oceanside officials more effective in their “due diligence.” Would Mr. Harlan have offered the City Council officials union wages so they’d do their job better? This is Red Herring and Straw Man techniques working to influence opinions in spite of fact or logic.

Better charter . . .better columnist, take your pick

Ironically, Harlan’s column uses “selective presentation of facts” to criticize Monahan’s selection of facts. 

Mr. Harlan also says that “We deserve a genuine charter that is thoughtfully crafted. . .” Perhaps the Pilot deserves a genuine columnist . . . who crafts thoughtfully.

Mr. Harlan isn’t alone in using opinions as facts, though.

Criticism from a Newport resident

A Newport Beach resident, “shared” in a letter that,

…I heard on a National Public Radio program Sept. 13… discussing the Costa Mesa City Council and … the question of Costa Mesa's transparency regarding outsourcing costs, restructuring plans, various contracts awards, open bidding, etc. They referred to some "exceptions" when it included the council members. Information regarding much of the expenditures by council members as well as monies and favors received by lobbyists, interest groups, etc. are exempt. I guess when it comes to the council's transparency, (sic) it's opaque, not transparent.

Unfortunately, they weren't there at the time

Ms. Fitz-Gibbon, and the NPR commentators, apparently didn’t attend the same Council meetings I did. The issue was whether a Leese proposal, which had been rejected previously, be re-addressed instead of the COIN proposal. Righeimer pointed out that, 1) the COIN ordinance was part of personnel law so it couldn't duplicate the Leese proposal about all contacts, regardless of subject.

Then Righeimer said 2) he had voted against Leese’s proposal because it demanded excessive time and effort by council members and would have been onerous to use. (He and Leese were charged to develop together a practical proposal for the Council.) At that meeting Mensinger noted that about 75% of Costa Mesa’s expenses go toward personnel costs, so that is the first category to bring into the open.

Missed the boat by missing the obvious

Also, Ms. Fitz-Gibbon missed the obvious – Costa Mesa’s kudos for transparency: number one city statewide and highly rated nationally. If she were a Costa Mesa resident she could just check her City’s web site for almost any information about City personnel, contracts, or operations.

And she ignored the obvious in that Council Members are bound by the same campaign disclosure laws in Costa Mesa as in Newport Beach. What she states that NPR intimated was happening in Costa Mesa would be a crime – if the intimations were supported by facts instead of opinions.

She has an opinion just like everybody else

And she winds up with:

…I'm mournful and concerned about the "good old boys club" that has taken over the city. I can only hope that come November, the city will elect some new people. . .

Perhaps NPR or someone she knows in Costa Mesa thinks that the transparency is opaque, back room deals are done, and so forth. That’s their opinion. And, as a Newport Beach resident she learned about Costa Mesa’s “good old boys club” from . . . whom? Somebody’s opinion? All of which influenced her to assert her own opinion:

I can only hope that come November, the city will elect some new people. I want my neighbors to be represented by intelligent caring people who aren't an embarrassment throughout the country.

Maybe NPR has a program that discusses the difference between facts and opinions -- and opinions about opinions. I can only hope that come November Ms. Fitz-Gibbon understands that difference.

More to come

There are a lot more examples of selective reporting and of using opinions as facts in this campaign. It’s fun to look for them, and we’ll be back with more examples soon.