12 ms·
The fact that companies can overtly introduce laws for their own benefit and directly advertise to voters is both disgusting and an improvement on the federal s
by jvanderbot 5y ago
The fact that companies can overtly introduce laws for their own benefit and directly advertise to voters is both disgusting and an improvement on the federal system of lobbying and campaign finance.
- tdeck 5y agoIt's interesting and quite disturbing to see businesses play the two groups off of each other. For example, this happened: > California cities and counties won’t be allowed to tax soda for the next 12 years after Gov. Jerry Brown signed fast-moving legislation Thursday. > It comes after a deal was struck between legislators and business and labor interests who agreed to remove an initiative from the Nov. 6 statewide ballot that would have restricted cities and counties from raising any taxes without a supermajority vote of local citizens. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-soda-tax-ban-20180628-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-soda-tax-ban-2018... This has happened a few times. Organizations will get a measure on the ballot that threatens some other group (usually with political power), and then use it as leverage to extract concessions before withdrawing it.
- google234123 5y agoThe fact that judges can override a democratic vote of the people is disgusting.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoThe people ostensibly have a say in what judges serve in their courts, though. The only reason that Uber and Lyft were able to ram Prop 22 through is that they have a lot of money.
- chrisseaton 5y agoMoney only lets you buy an audience. You need a convincing argument to show that audience, which they presumably had, unless you think Californians are fools.
- CheezeIt 5y agoYou can think both. Californians did vote for the high speed rail.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoThat is very much not what I’m saying, and you know that.
- howinteresting 5y agoI don't think people are fools, but in general they aren't specialized in the nitty gritty of public policy.
- Sebguer 5y agoSo you think any majority opinion should be able to become law?
- missedthecue 5y agoStrictly speaking, that's better than the minority opinion becoming law is it not?
- pbourke 5y agoI’ve always thought that one of the most important functions of the judicial system is to balance the equities of majorities and minorities. There are numerous examples of courts striking down unconstitutional laws with majority support.
- tablespoon 5y ago> Strictly speaking, that's better than the minority opinion becoming law is it not? There are important exceptions, see "tyranny of the majority."
- motoxpro 5y agoThe idea is to protect ALL people, not just the majority, or the majority that have a voice at the time. See savery, child protection, etc.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wbronitsky 5y agoI find this to be a weak reading of the judicial system. Laws are not last in, first out; previous laws need to be taken into context when new laws are created, no matter how they are created. The fact that this law was created by popular vote has no bearing on its validity or standing in court.
- cool_dude85 5y agoPeople vote for unconstitutional stuff all the time. If the constitution says don't do something, and people vote for legislation to do it, then the constitution has to be the controlling document or else it doesn't mean anything.
- jkaplowitz 5y agoThere have to be some limits to that. If there's a democratic vote of the people called, and 50+1% of the people who bother to vote decide to reintroduce slavery (beyond the current loophole in the 13th Amendment regarding criminal sentences that allows e.g. mandatory prison labor), I'm glad that any judge in the country would strike that down.
- jdavis703 5y agoIn California we the people can amend the constitution. But Prop 22 didn’t do it correctly. The gig company’s are free to put a constitutional amendment in front of the people for a vote if they want. Also in CA judges are elected by the people.
- ghaff 5y agoOne of the basic points of courts is to override majority rules.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- IncRnd 5y agoA judge can overrule the "will of the people". The people can overrule a judge by by selecting a new judge or by an amendment to the constitution. Those take more work in order for them to not be subject to the vagaries of the current political winds.
- MrStonedOne 5y agoProp 8 says otherwise.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bsder 5y agoMaybe. But Uber and Lyft were effectively also blackmailing a huge chunk of the population at the time. Uber and Lyft were threatening to simply shut down if this proposition lost. A LOT of people at the time only had Uber/Lyft as their income. That was going to be catastrophic. Trump was still President so people had little prospect of unemployment benefits. We had no vaccines and no known timeline. Lockdowns were still in effect at various levels of strength. If you had this vote again, now, I'm not sure it would pass. (I could also go into how Uber and Lyft were spamming the hell out of my email and phone. That should have gotten a whopping fine from the FEC.)
- riffic 5y agochecks and balances my anonymous friend.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> The fact that judges can override a democratic vote of the people is disgusting. The rule that allows judges to determine if a measure presented to the people met the rules for such votes, and the rule for the votes that judges apply, were, themselves, adopted by a democratic vote of the people.
- paisawalla 5y agoWait until you hear about public employees unions: they literally vote in the management with whom they are negotiating for pay and benefits!
- xenocyon 5y agoUnions vote for union leadership, not management. Are you speaking of general elections? While some executive positions are elected rather than appointed, they are still elected by the public at large, not by union members. In fact, public sector management is generally not pro-union any more than private sector management.
- paisawalla 5y agoPublic unions are among the biggest spenders (directly and through donations) in general elections, the outcomes of which directly affect the negotiating postures of the organizations they staff.
- pessimizer 5y agoOf course they are, and should be. They still aren't the only people that get to vote in elections, though.
- paisawalla 5y agoAh, you must believe then either that money has no influence on politics, or that it's right for public employees to vote themselves pay raises and benefits from the tax coffers. As a taxpayer, I find this latter situation to be an obvious and massive conflict of interest.
- namdnay 5y agoSo just like employees with stock?
- paisawalla 5y ago
- Aunche 5y agoOr maybe 58% percent of people, including most Uber drivers, recognize that AB5 was a terrible bill. At best, it could only concentrate rides to a smaller pool of drivers. Money in politics just buys awareness. People aren't so suggestible that their minds will change with a 10-second ad.
- coliveira 5y ago> People aren't so suggestible that their minds will change with a 10-second ad. Your assertion goes against one century of verified practice in the field of advertisement. Several 10-second ads are exactly what can suggest people and change their minds about a particular topic.
- whymauri 5y agoYeah, absolutely baffled at that line. That's what political campaigns literally spend billions on.
- ihumanable 5y ago> People aren't so suggestible that their minds will change with a 10-second ad. It's truly a mystery then why Uber and Lyft spent $200M on advertising. What a colossal waste of money.
- renewiltord 5y agoIs it? A consistent hypothesis is raising awareness. If you think everyone would agree with you, it makes sense to tell them that this thing matters.
- cloudfifty 5y agoWhat an absurd amount of benefit of the doubt.
- Aunche 5y agoYou're not special for being able to "see through" Uber's "propaganda." That's just what happens when an ad doesn't resonate with you. Like I said, ads work by increasing awareness of something. As Bloomberg's $1 billion primary campaign proved, money doesn't buy votes.
- prostoalex 5y agoWait till you get an umpteenth proposition on outpatient kidney dialysis clinics.
- seg_lol 5y agoI think the future is in something like Redbox+Dialysis, perhaps even as an acquisition target since their markets overlap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep-f7uBd8Gc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep-f7uBd8Gc
- harles 5y agoI’ve always seen prop 22 as the counter attack to a union driven AB5. Both are bad, but I agree having legislators directly implement laws from lobbyists (as was the case for AB 5) is worse.
- CamperBob2 5y agoThe fact that companies can overtly introduce laws for their own benefit and directly advertise to voters is both disgusting and an improvement on the federal system of lobbying and campaign finance. Why exactly is it OK for unions to do the same, then? Because I'm sure the answer will involve downvotes, I'll make it clear from the outset that I'm honestly asking in good faith, and not attempting to use leading questions to push any particular agenda.
- trasz 5y agoUnions represent people (or at least should), companies represent money?
- CryptoPunk 5y agoUnions represent a subset of the labor force, at best. Often they only represent charismatic and/or mobbed up union heads. Unions destroyed the golden geese of American industry, and have since moved into the public sector, where they are bankrupting state governments while massively degrading accountability for public sector workers. New York alone has nearly 300,000 unionized public sector workers making over $100,000 a year. They are huge pushers of left-wing political ideology, because they are being enriched by it.
- sudosysgen 5y agoThere is no reason unions have to represent a subset of the labor force. They could very well be spread to almost all of it. We can legislate that it you want, many countries did so. 100 000$ in New York is not at all unreasonable for many public sector workers - senior administrators, senior teachers, higher education teachers, technicians, sysadmins, programmers, lawyers, engineers, etc... Public sector workers, especially highly educated ones, in general always lean left-wing. I'll leave it to you to figure out why someone that leans left may find it morally good to work in the public function and why highly educated people are more left wing than the average.
- 5y ago