Top Donors
| The Chronicle's John Wildermuth takes on the mammoth task of compiling the top donors in the $300 million special election. Here is his list. -- California Teachers Association (Oppose Props. 74, 75, 76, 77): $56.6 million -- California State Council of Service Employees (Oppose Props. 74, 75, 76, 77): $16.1 million -- Pfizer (Support Prop. 78): $9.9 million -- GlaxoSmithKline (Support Prop. 78): $9.8 million -- Johnson & Johnson (Support Prop. 78): $9.8 million -- Merck & Co (Support Prop. 78): $9.8 million -- Arnold Schwarzenegger (Support Props. 74, 75, 76, 77): $7.25 million -- Amgen (Support Prop. 78): $4.7 millio -- Abbott Laboratories (Support Prop. 78): $4.6 million -- Bristol-Myers Squibb (Support Prop. 78): $4.5 million -- Novartis Pharmaceuticals (Support Prop. 78): $4.5 million -- Aventis Pharmaceuticals (Support Prop. 78): $4.5 million -- Wyeth (Support Prop. 78): $4.5 million -- Eli Lilly (Support Prop. 78): $4.5 million -- Stephen Bing, producer (Oppose Prop. 77): $4.5 million -- SEIU Local 1000 (Oppose Props. 74, 75, 76, 77): $4.1 million -- William Robinson, former DHL owner (Support Props. 74, 75, 76, 77): $3.75 million -- California Federation of Teachers (Oppose Props. 74, 75, 76, 77): $3.6 million -- California Correctional Peace Officers Association (Oppose Props. 74, 75, 76, 77): $3.5 million -- Alex Spanos, Stockton developer (Support Props. 74, 75, 76, 77): $3.25 million -- Jerry Perenchio, Univision CEO (Support Props 74, 75, 76, 77): $3 million -- PACE of California School Employees (Oppose Props 74, 75, 76, 77): $2.1 million -- Constellation Energy Group (Oppose Prop. 80): $1.3 million -- California Professional Firefighters (Oppose Props 74, 75, 76, 77): $1.3 million -- Steve Poizner, Silicon Valley executive (Support Prop. 77): $1.25 million -- Voter Registration and Education Fund (Oppose Prop. 77): $1.1 million -- Wal-Mart Stores and family (Support Props. 74, 75, 76, 77): $1 million -- Small Business Action Committee (Support Prop. 76): $1 million -- Association of California School Administrators (Oppose Props. 74, 75, 76, 77): $1 million |
posted by Shane Goldmacher at 9:40 AM
Comments on "Top Donors"
-
Anonymous said ... (11:16 AM) :
post a commentIt never ceases to amaze me that my union which is famous for arguing that all teachers are underpaid (and certainly some of us are) can raise $56 million for an election. Perhaps we wouldn't be quite so poor if they'd quit imposing dues increases on us in order to support the status quo.
I for one, will be voting for Prop 74, 75, and 77. I am not sure about 76, but something needs to allow greater flexibility for our legislators. I do not fear more flexiblity in Prop 98 (as would occur with Prop 76). The fact is, politicians in Sacramento have refused or been reluctant to build school finances into the base budget for schools because it escalates future state spending automatically. The bottom line is if we had competitive districts legislators could either vote to fund education (a public priority) or not - and then the voters would either reelect incumbents or not. Wow - isn't that how the design was intended?
As for Prop 77, the redistricting initiative: I teach my AP Gov't students about gerrymandering and while I used to focus most of the discussion on the great Phil Burton gerrymander; I now use our most recent redistricting as an example of how self-interst can obscure basic electoral integrity.
The lesson is great for discussing federalism (Reeps support gerrymander to maintain House majority - Dems for State Leg purposes); cross-cutting cleavages (conservatives support horrible gerrymander to maintain their own seats - liberals like it so they maintain the majority). I guess if we fix the system I'll have to go back to historical examples, but at least California won't suffer under a horribly crafted gerrymander.
Prop 74 (tenure); other than the hassle of probably more "scham observations" by our administrators, this reform is good for quality teachers. More importantly it's good for potentially quality teachers because it extends the time an administrator can work with a young teacher before the decision must be made to make him or her a pemanent employee. Under the current system - a teacher gets one and a half school years to prove he or she is worth the risk. Four years will buy more time for honest development and create less passing around of "potentials."