By Ezra
Guess the LA Times didn't find my op-ed convincing. They came out today in favor of Prop. 75, the "paycheck protection" initiative, arguing that the state's public employee unions ought to be weakened and the proposition passed. They do this admitting that the law is poorly written (the "issue education" loophole) and its backers motivated by bad faith. And since the paper promises to support future acts to clean up our campaign financing system in more equitable ways, they sidestep the moral question of whether the governor should use the initiative process to strike back at political enemies. All in all, not very convincing stuff. The paper is assuming a position of false naiveté, pretending that the only issue at hand is the simple question of whether they would like public employee unions to have more or less power, and that Prop. 75 is not a single salvo in a much larger war between special interests, competing ideologies, political powerhouses, and disconnected strategists.
The governor could have pushed for clean elections, for ethical reforms, for the total overhaul of campaign financing so that all special interests are ejected. I would have supported him gladly. But he didn't. Prop. 75 is not about paycheck protection, it's a cynical attempt to utilize individual passivity to weaken certain unions. The social science data on opt-in versus opt-out is clear. Whatever the individuals think about the program/cause, having to opt-in will result in much lower participation rates than opting-out. Currently, all union members can opt-out, but few do. When they all must opt-in, the numbers doing so will be dramatically lessened, not for reasons of ideology, but because of laziness. It's the same principle at work behind those who want to make 401(k)'s opt-out rather than opt-in, only here it's being used to punish political enemies.
As it happens, the act is poorly written and likely to be wholly ineffective, it'll just force unions to engage in advocacy through loopholes. But that doesn't excuse the LA Times here. They're supporting a bad act based on some faux-innocent outlook as to its origins, purpose, and effects. Governors should not hijack the initiative process to punish political enemies and respected papers should not support them when they do. The LA Times is making a mistake.
