PROP. 75: POLITICAL TITANS' WAR GOP DONORS, PUBLIC-UNION BOSSES BATTLING.

Byline: Harrison Sheppard Sacramento Bureau

With this fall's special election less than two months away, a pitched battle has begun over what supporters call a ``paycheck protection'' measure that stands to shift the balance of political power in California.

Proponents and financial backers of Proposition 75 - mainly Republican groups and large corporate interests - last week launched an aggressive advertising strategy portraying the measure as an effort to stand up for ordinary workers against overly political union bosses.

The measure - which would bar public-employee unions from spending members' dues for political purposes unless workers give written permission annually - could strip hundreds of millions of dollars a year from California labor unions' political war chests.

Such a move could dampen the political clout of unions, particularly those representing public workers, which have been among the most powerful Democratic and special-interest voices in the state Capitol - for their ability both to raise funds and to mobilize thousands of workers throughout the state.

``It is the Armageddon battle for unions,'' said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media at California State University, Sacramento.

``Mainly because, while I think they would still ultimately be able to get permission from members, it's much more cumbersome. The amounts would be decreased because the scrutiny would be more, and it would take longer. Part of their flexibility is to be able to say 'I'm giving you a check for $22 million right now.'''

So far, opponents of the measure have raised at least $25 million, much of it from the Alliance for a Better California and the California Teachers Association, which alone has given at least $11 million to the anti-75 effort.

Official proponent committees have raised less than $2 million, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has wrapped the effort into his overall campaign, which has raised about $25 million this year.

Last week, Schwarzenegger launched television ads pushing the proposition on a slate with three other reform measures.

In the first blitz of radio ads last week, the pro-Proposition 75 campaign pushed teachers, firefighters and other average union members and state workers front and center.

In one ad, a woman says, ``I'm a health-care worker, and I want my dues money to go for more organizing, not more political donations. It's my money and my union. It should be my choice.''

At the end, the radio ads state they were ``Paid for by Teachers, Firefighters and Law Enforcement for Paycheck Protection, Yes on 75, A Coalition of Taxpayer Associations with funding by Robin P. Arkley II and Frank E. Baxter.''

Not mentioned is that Baxter, former chairman of Jefferies & Co. Inc., a New York-based financial-services firm, is a donor to Republican causes and a Schwarzenegger appointee to the governor's California Commission for Jobs and Economic Growth.

Arkley, owner of SN Servicing Corp., a company that specializes in acquiring distressed mortgages, is also a prominent donor to Republicans.

Opponents say it is disingenuous to cloak Proposition 75 in claims of protecting workers. Instead, they say, it is an attempt by the governor's supporters to undercut the political influence of unions in California.

Sarah Leonard, a spokeswoman for the No on 75 campaign, said that if the measure was aimed at workers' rights, it would include private unions as well, as did an earlier version that failed in 1998.

``If this was truly a workers' rights issue, why did they single out only those who oppose the governor's agenda?'' Leonard said. ``The truth is that Prop. 75 won't give workers a single right that they don't already have.''

But union workers involved in the pro-75 campaign argue that it is about standing up for their rights against union bosses who keep a tight control on their organizations.

Jim Prunty, a state employee and union member in the Department of Food and Agriculture's Van Nuys office, said he supports the measure because he would rather see his union focus more on collective bargaining and workers' issues, rather than spending his dues on political causes.

``I'm pretty confident expressing my own First Amendment rights,'' Prunty, a member of the California State Employees Association, said in an interview arranged by the pro-75 campaign.

``I don't need the union to do that for me. It's kind of a goofy presumption that they should be taking my money and speaking out on political and social issues that have little or nothing to do with negotiating the contract.''

Harrison Sheppard, [phone]

harrison.sheppard(at)dailynews.com