Proposition 32 is designed to weaken the power of labor unions in California. I would love to see labor unions become less powerful. Labor union money undermines economic recovery and puts Democrats in office who hurt the economy.

However, I am for free speech, and I can’t support a law with a provision that reads as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, or public employee labor union shall make a contribution to any candidate, candidate controlled committee; or to any other committee, including a political party committee, if such funds will be used to make contributions to any candidate or candidate controlled committee.

I consider that provision to be unconstitutional, and I agree with the editors of National Review:

Many conservatives are excited by California’s Proposition 32, and indeed the legislation has much to recommend it. Under Proposition 32, any money that unions spent on politics would have to come from voluntary contributions, rather than automatic dues deductions from members’ paychecks. This would be especially welcome in the public sector, where unions essentially transfer taxpayer money directly into their own coffers — and then use that money to elect the officials who “negotiate” with them. The law would also prevent government contractors from donating to the politicians who award their contracts.

However, these are not the only changes Prop 32 makes. In an effort to make the measure appeal to a mostly left-leaning state, the law’s drafters made serious compromises — compromises that make Prop 32 a net negative for liberty. Specifically, the measure would ban all donations to local and state candidates from unions and corporations. This is an unacceptable limit on political participation, and we regretfully urge our Golden State readers to vote no when they head to the polls in November.

It’s too bad that we can’t find a way to attack the coercive and corrosive power of unions without stamping out free speech.

I stand for liberty.

I saw this on my walk this morning. I bet there are similar scenes in front yards all over this country.

Via Twitchy:

As campaign roars to close, Romney and Obama talk “revenge” reut.rs/X9dKIO

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) November 3, 2012

If Reuters says Romney is talking revenge because Romney is criticizing Obama for advocating revenge, then Reuters is talking revenge, because Reuters is reporting that Romney is criticizing Obama for advocating revenge.

Lost in all this, of course: the fact that Obama was the guy advocating revenge.

Honestly? I am so ready for the election to be over. Stuff like this makes you dumber just to think about it for five seconds.