Joel Fox, President of Small Business Action Committee, posted a comment Friday Nov 2nd, on his website blog Fox & Hounds; titled “LA Tax Proposals and Proposition 30. His article brings home a critical point: Voters need to be aware of another proposition to increase taxes on top…in addition…piled upon …the increases of Proposition 30 & 31. That proposition by the LA City Council will be on the May ballot. Suddenly a few pennies here is; a few dollars here and here and here and here.
But WAIT the need to push back …vote no on the ballot propositions
for a tax increase has a clever distraction.
Late Sunday afternoon 3:50pm, the LA Times announces a California Supreme Court unanimous decision, and order for Americans for Responsible Leadership to turn over records to The Fair Practices Political Commission on Sunday. The FPPC investigation and court battle has centered around “unmask the donors behind an $11 million contribution to two California campaigns this year”. Further into the article SBAC is identified as receiving $11 million in their fight against Gov. Brown’s tax-hike (Proposition 30) and a measure to curb unions’ political influence (Proposition 32)
So, when did this decision occur? One might think it occurred Sunday – but in reality the article said they had to turn over the records Sunday. A quick search n the Internet reveals, by 5:08pm, in actuality the group DID NOT SUBMIT information to the FPPC by 4pm as order but instead asked the State Court to extend the deadline to 9am as it seeks a stay from the US Supreme Court.
Why would the Times article be released (or a press release provided) late Sunday. Consider this statement in the article “State authorities have been pushing for a quick audit before election day on Tuesday.” Obviously if the documents were released Sunday the completion of the “quick audit” will not meet the desired deadline to affect the election.
Furthermore, a carefully timed press release, with “drama”…”late breaking news” innuendo’s within the story, causes doubt and confusion for voters already doubtful and confused about the real content of the Propositions.
The Mercury News reported on Thursday as follows “A judge ruled late Wednesday that an Arizona group that stunned California's political world with an anonymous $11 million donation must turn over documents to the state's campaign finance watchdog so it can determine whether the group broke any laws.”
Clearly anyone who has $11 million to donate would certainly not jeopardize the other millions they have for the benefit of you and I to have lower taxes. In other words, said donor will be found to be in compliance and said donor is not really anonymous. When was the last time $11 million dollars was given to any non-profit in a lump-sump unidentified source?
Further into the Mercury News article there is clarity of what actually transpired in the Sunday deadline. (Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne) Chang ordered the group to turn over the documents to the FPPC by Thursday at 5 p.m., but attorneys for the group said they would appeal the decision.
And finally the irony is Judge Chang’s response to the groups’ argument “….that the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision protected the group from having to disclose their donors. But Chang knocked back that position in her tentative ruling.
Chang said that although Citizens United allows unlimited spending by
corporations, it does not address whether donors should be publicly disclosed.
She said "nothing in Citizens United" prohibits the state from mandating disclosure.”
So the law doesn’t require disclosure but we’re going to disrupt an election to bow to the Governor; because we know the State Assembly DID NOT pass a balanced budget they passed a budget that is dependent on the passing of Prop 30 and 31.