Political Finance Fight Looms Over Bid to Curb Labor

If politics is war, then three conservative Orange County activists have tossed a hand grenade into the clubby parlors of the state capital.

To the dismay of union bosses up and down the state, the Orange County trio--Jim Righeimer, Mark Bucher and Frank Ury--is pressing ahead with a statewide initiative for next June’s ballot that could strip organized labor, a traditional Democratic ally, of millions of dollars in campaign money.

In retaliation, union supporters have spawned several payback ballot measures that might end up harming a third party caught in the middle--big business. One would ban corporations from giving to political causes and candidates, most of them Republicans. Two others go after the $10 billion a year in tax breaks now enjoyed by California companies.

The result of such tit for tat? Political jihad, California style.

“One side is going to lose an arm and the other side will lose a leg,” said Don Novey, president of the state prison guards union. “Somehow, politics will hobble along.”

Though still in the formative stages, the looming initiative battle of 1998 appears a done deal.

Righeimer, Bucher and Ury--best known as founders of a group that backs conservative school board candidates in Orange County--claim they have 700,000 signatures to put their measure on the ballot. It needs 433,269 to qualify.

The budding ballot measure, which would require unions to get written permission each year before spending a member’s dues on political causes, has of late earned the backing of such political luminaries as House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Gov. Pete Wilson, who has signed on as an honorary co-chairman.

“This measure is about fairness,” Righeimer said. “It is morally wrong to take money out of someone’s paycheck if they have no say in the matter.”

But union chiefs say the initiative is more about political exclusion.

Conservatives, they say, want to remove unions from the political equation, making life easier for Republican candidates and opening the door for causes such as school vouchers, which were defeated in 1993 after the powerful California Teachers Assn. spent more than $9 million.

“We consider this a large-scale attack on labor that’s unprecedented,” said Judith Barish, a California Labor Federation spokeswoman. “This is a harsh effort to silence the voices of working people in California.”

Barish and others predict that unions ultimately could win permission from the vast majority of members to use their dues for politics. It is the short-term effect they are worried about most.

If approved, the measure would require the state Fair Political Practices Commission to craft an authorization form for union members to sign before their dues could be used. Union officials are concerned that the commission, which is controlled by Wilson appointees, might dawdle for months before producing the authorization form.

Such delays would effectively eliminate unions as players in the November 1998 election, which includes key contests for governor, U.S. Senate and much of the Legislature.

With so much at stake, the unions and their supporters are fighting back with the retaliatory proposals. Only one is being pushed for the June ballot--the measure that would ban corporate political contributions and prohibit deducting lobbying expenses. The two others are targeted for November, when they could help keep corporate campaign dollars tied up.

Early on, labor leaders conceded that the main goal of their initiatives was to push business interests, including the Chamber of Commerce and manufacturers groups, to convince Wilson and other GOP leaders to twist arms and keep the anti-union measure off the ballot.

*

Wilson’s support of the anti-labor measure also has strained relations with the prison guards union, a longtime supporter of the Republican governor.

But a spokesman for Wilson said the governor is not about to back down. In fact, he recently dashed off a letter to 1 million Californians seeking support for the measure.

Other Republicans, such as state Senate GOP Leader Rob Hurtt (R-Garden Grove), also are ready to wage war. Hurtt, a wealthy manufacturer who has given lavishly to conservative causes, said he probably will contribute to this one as well.

And he does not see anything stopping the measure or its three Orange County authors.

“The thing I like about Bucher and the rest is they’re purists,” Hurtt said. “They’re not going to be pressured out of this.”

Novey of the prison guards union, for one, tried to get Bucher and company to soften the measure. They said no. “It was disturbing to me,” Novey said. “They were encouraging this nuclear war to continue.”

The anti-union measure also has been helped by several wealthy and influential conservatives, including J. Patrick Rooney, the Indiana insurance magnate widely known as the father of school vouchers. The 69-year-old Rooney said he gave the initiative drive a boost in early summer when it was struggling for signatures and GOP support.

“I met with the governor several times,” said Rooney, who contributed $49,000 to the cause. “I don’t want to be bragging, but other reasonable people would say I helped sell him on the idea.”

The idea of a California ballot measure originated last winter during a political give-and-take between Righeimer, his brother-in-law Bucher--they married sisters from Denmark--and former Saddleback Valley Unified School District board member Ury.

During the school board battles waged by their group, the Education Alliance, which backs pro-voucher candidates, the Orange County trio grew weary of being outspent by the teachers union. They also were frustrated after the California Teachers Assn. pulled out all stops to defeat Proposition 174, the school voucher initiative.

“I went through the 174 experience and woke up to the reality of money in politics,” said Righeimer, a real estate agent who doubles as campaign chairman to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach). “I think this measure levels the playing field.”

The measure mimics part of a broader Washington state campaign reform initiative approved in 1992. Among other things, that Republican-sponsored law established a contribution cap for corporations and individuals, but it also sharply curtailed the power of unions by requiring workers to annually approve the use of their dues for politics.

It hit labor hard. For instance, the number of members in the Washington state teachers union giving to political activities is down 74%.

Barish said business already outspends labor on politics 17 to 1 nationwide. “With this initiative in California,” she said, “it would be 17 to 0.”

For the California Teachers Assn., it could be especially brutal. If its purse strings are tied next fall, the group would be hard pressed to once again fight school vouchers.

“We assume what’s been cooked up is a one-two punch,” said John Heim, the teachers union’s government relations director. “This in June, vouchers or something similar in November.”

Rooney denied that claim, saying the “timing is wrong” for a voucher initiative in 1998. Hurtt, meanwhile, said vouchers will not be back until 2000.

California corporations, meanwhile, are worried about fallout from the three anti-business measures. At the very least, businesses would spend big to fight the retaliatory initiatives. At worse, they could lose big tax breaks.

“Those initiatives are a problem,” said Hurtt, who owns a Garden Grove can manufacturing company. “They could do some real damage.”