Through the studio glass: Michael Krasny hosts KQED's daily call-in show "Forum."

Here at KQED, we take elections pretty seriously. It’s a time when our mission of educating the public comes to a head — the messages coming from the campaigns are unrelenting and taken as a whole can present a confusing picture. So helping you cast an informed vote is our aim.

That was the philosophy behind our state proposition guide. Some people, however, prefer listening to reading. For those folks we present a complete archive of Forum’s 2012 state proposition shows. Some are an hour long, some are half an hour, but all present views from both sides and include community input we received via calls, emails, Facebook and Twitter. So sit back, turn up your speakers, and take a listen…

Prop. 30: Gov. Brown’s Tax Increase for Education, Public Safety

Prop. 31: Revises the State Budget Process

Prop. 32: Campaign Finance Reform or an Attack on Unions?

Prop. 33: Changes to Auto Insurance

Prop. 34: The Death Penalty in California

Prop. 35: Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery

Prop. 36: Should Three Strikes Be Changed?

Prop. 37: The Fight Over GMO Labeling

Prop. 38: Molly Munger’s Tax Initiative for Education

Prop 39: How We Tax Multi-State Businesses

Please note: Forum did not produce a show on Proposition 40. You can find more information on that here.

Here’s an ad in favor of Prop. 37:

And here’s a commercial from the “No on 37″ campaign:

Edited transcript from Scott Shafer’s conversation with John Myers:

SCOTT SHAFER: So, John Myers, how is the pro-Proposition 37 campaign working?

JOHN MYERS: The early campaign polling was very much in favor of Prop. 37, somewhere in the magnitude of 60 + percent of those polled said they would vote for the measure. But the polling has come down some, at least in part from the massive onslaught of ads — from the opposition side, from the “No on 37″ side — they have knocked down some of that support. But again, the bottom line that Californians seem to think about is: “I want to know what a genetically modified food is when I go to the grocery store.” Of course it’s a little bit more complicated than that, which is part of the discussion.

SCOTT SHAFER: And as you mentioned, the “No” side has outraised proponents on Prop. 37 by something like seven to one. Where’s the money coming from on each side?

JOHN MYERS: On the “Yes” side, the money clearly was coming from organic food producers, natural food producers, they’re the ones who helped get it on the ballot. They’re the ones running the campaign. They don’t have a tremendous amount of money, but they have made their presence known. The “No on 37″ side, I like to call “big food,” and you can look at every large food manufacturer in the United States and you probably can see their money in the “No” campaign. You’re seeing a lot of their ads both on television and on the internet.

SCOTT SHAFER: And they have raised at least $34 million. What are the basic messages of their campaign?

JOHN MYERS: Their message is simply that Prop. 37 is more complicated than it really seems. They call it the “deceptive food labeling act.” What Prop. 37 essentially says is you’ve got to label these foods that are genetically engineered but you also have to label foods that have genetically engineered components.

SCOTT SHAFER: Let’s move to Proposition 32. It would prohibit political contributions from unions or corporations — but specifically unions which use payroll deductions from their members.

Here’s a “Yes on 32″ ad:

SCOTT SHAFER: The central provision there is it’s an even-handed measure — cuts the power of unions and corporations equally. How accurate is that?

JOHN MYERS: The language of Prop. 32 absolutely says it treats corporations and unions the same. The reality is that unions only get their money in California — for California politics, from one place — from these deductions from paychecks of their members. Corporations play politics, and they give political money many other ways.

This is a measure that would impact unions substantially more in the political arena than it would corporations. We’ve fought a similar fight here twice before in California, in 1998 and 2005. Both had ballot measures that would have limited this paycheck deduction process that unions use. In those measures, it would have said unions would have to get permission from their members. This measure, Prop. 32, says, “It doesn’t matter. You can’t do it.” Only voluntary contributions, no more of these automatic deductions from paychecks to use the money for politics. And that is a big, big fight for unions, and that’s why unions have spent so much against it.

SCOTT SHAFER: $40 million and counting. And there was some controversy this week about an $11 million contribution to the “Yes on 32″ campaign, can you sort that out for us?

JOHN MYERS: We’re still trying to sort out where that money came from. The $11 million came from an Arizona-based Political Action Committee, and why it raised red flags is that this PAC – as near as we can tell from all our research — has never played in California before — which has led the unions and the “No on 32″ people and perhaps some campaign finance watchers to conclude that perhaps there is a back door here around campaign rules.

There are some wiggle areas in California campaign finance laws that allow donors to remain hidden as long as they only play one time in these big donations. There’s a belief that it comes from conservative groups. There are a lot of conservative groups that want to see 32 passed because they think it would negate the power of unions in California.

Here’s a “No on 32″ commercial:

SCOTT SHAFER: It is funded, as they suggest in that ad, by big corporations and Super PACs. Is that right?

JOHN MYERS: The “Yes on 32″ campaign, it’s hard to see any big corporation money in it right now. The vast majority of the money has come from these Political Action Committees from outside California that we’ve had trouble tracking the donors. It definitely affects one side of the playing field more. I think it is suspect, though, for the “No on 32″ Campaign to say it’s going to impact the middle class. There’s another ad that says it will give corporations power to raise your taxes and things like that. Let’s get back to reality. In California, the only way to raise taxes in the state legislature is a two-thirds super-majority vote that requires Republicans and Republicans have never wanted to vote for tax increases. But it would shift the political power in the state.

One other thing – Prop 32 includes this language that says corporations and unions can no longer give contributions to candidate committees. And what that effectively would do, if you had money for unions, would push all that money to these outside expenditure groups, these are like Super PACs on the national level, that we’ve had in California for awhile where they can spend money in unlimited amounts. It would re-route the money and that is a fair point that the “No on 32″ campaign has been making.

Learn More:

Prop. 32 Ban on Political Donations Heavily Weighted Against Labor

Prop. 37: Are GMO Labels a Scarlet Letter? 

The Arizona group that dumped $11 million into California’s ballot measure melee this week is led by a Republican activist who calls labor unions “the parasite that is killing our jobs.”

Americans for Responsible Leadership was formed last year by three Arizona businessmen, including Graham. The other directors are Eric Wnuck, who ran an unsuccessful campaign in the Republican primary in a 2010 congressional race, and Steve Nickolas, a bottled water entrepreneur. 

“These are not household names even to politicos like me,” said longtime Arizona political analyst Michael O’Neil. “This is not the political A-team.”

O’Neil added: “It sounds like they are a front organization, and the real question is where do they get their money from.”

The group is organized as a nonprofit organization that doesn’t have to disclose its donors. The group’s directors did not respond to requests for comment.

Beth Miller, spokeswoman for the Small Business Action Committee, which received the $11 million donation, said the committee does not know who funds the group.

“You’ll have to ask them as to where their funding is coming from,” she said.

Americans for Responsible Leadership has also injected money into two of Arizona’s ballot measures this year. It gave $500,000 to oppose a 1-cent sales tax for education funding. And it spent $75,000 to oppose a measure that would create an open primary system where voters could vote for candidates of any party and the top two vote-getters would advance to the general election. California has a similar top-two system that voters approved in 2010.

“Outside special interest groups are trying to take away our freedoms,” Graham said in a video opposing the top-two initiative. “Do you want California politics in Arizona? … I don’t want Arizona to have to deal with the same mess California is in.”

Graham, who has a wealth management company in Scottsdale, is running to lead his state’s Republican Party with a pledge to “respect the grassroots conservatives and Tea Party members who have infused our Party with energy and recommitment to conservative ideals.”

Graham also ran an unsuccessful campaign in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary, as a relative unknown. He has a company called Freak Show Racing. And he is the author of “Job Killers,” a book about “How Labor Unions are Destroying American Jobs and the Economy.”

“Striking labor unions out of the business model is imperative to the economic success of today’s ever-changing marketplace,” he said in a video promoting the book. “Then, and only then, will we truly be able to free ourselves of the parasite that is killing our jobs.”

Labor unions in California are pouring tens of millions of dollars into the same state ballot measures that Americans for Responsible Leadership is targeting – but on the opposite side.

The California Teachers Association and the Service Employees International Union combined gave $16.5 million to Prop. 30, the governor’s tax increase, according to campaign finance tracker MapLight.org. The two labor giants also gave $32 million to defeat Prop. 32.

Unions have much at stake. While Prop. 32 prohibits both labor and corporations from using payroll deductions for political purposes, critics say it would disproportionately hit unions, which commonly use member dues to finance robust political operations.

A new report by public policy group California Common Sense found that labor unions fund far more independent expenditures in state political races than other sectors.

Special interests can spend unlimited money on political ads if they are independent of candidate campaigns, and such expenditures have shot up over the past 12 years. Since 2000, unions spent $90 million in this way, compared with $27.7 million by the business sector, according to the report.

Businesses, however, tend to outspend unions when it comes to direct candidate contributions, said report co-author Mike Polyakov.

“I think the influence that money generally and independent expenditures specifically have on our political system is something that should cause concern to the public,” Polyakov said.

Will Evans is an investigative journalist for California Watch.

Ed Kinchley with San Francisco SEIU Chapter 1021 is working the phone bank to encourage members to vote no on Prop. 32. (Photo: Rachel Dornhelm)

I’m looking squarely at the Capitol building in Sacramento. The grass is manicured and green — the building sparkling white. But to Jake Suski, special interest money in politics keeps the Capitol anything but clean.

“Lawmakers — particularly during legislative seasons — host just a number of fundraisers. I think one day during this August they had 17 different fundraisers in one day,” he tells me.

Suski is the spokesman for Proposition 32. The measure’s backers say they simply want to get rid of special interest money in the Capitol. “Corporate lobbyists ask for their little pet projects to be passed and tell them which bills they don’t like,” Suski says, “and union lobbyists do the same thing on their little pet projects.”

Suski says Prop. 32 would accomplish its goal it in three steps.

1.  Banning unions and corporations from giving directly to politicians
2.  Prohibiting government contractors from political giving
3.  Making it illegal to deduct money from paychecks to use in political campaigns

It’s that last provision that has some people crying foul, in particular labor leaders across the state.

Baker says banning paycheck withholding — called “dues check-off” — for political spending will skew the playing field in favor of business.

“That doesn’t apply to corporations,” Baker says, “because corporations don’t get their political money from dues check-off of their employees. They get it from their profits.”

There are a few instances of companies using funds from paycheck withholding to donate to political action committees, or PACs. Still, the majority of corporate money used in politics comes from executives and company treasuries. Baker, who works for the city of San Francisco, says if Prop. 32 passes, he wouldn’t be surprised to see a proposition next year to eliminate collective bargaining like the one Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker famously pushed through. (That law is now being heard by a federal appeals court after a lower court struck it down earlier this month.)

“So this year they take away our political power,” he says, “next year they really put the bullet through our heads and kill the unions.”

Because it threatens to cut off labor’s primary political fundraising source, unions are pulling out all the stops. They’ve put up over $40 million to fight Prop. 32 — that’s almost five times as much as proponents have donated.

In fact, corporations don’t seem too concerned about Prop. 32’s provision banning corporate giving;  most businesses aren’t donating to fight it and the state Chamber of Commerce has come out as neutral. Why? The elephant in the room — or, to be fair, the elephant and the donkey in the room — is indirect political spending.

Prop. 32 doesn’t prevent independent expenditures to political campaigns, by what are increasingly known as Super PACs. Super PACs became a big factor in elections beginning two years ago, after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. That ruling allows unlimited political spending by groups provided they are independent of campaigns. So anyone who has the money can pay for political advertising on their own, with no limits.

The largest single expenditure for Prop. 32 — $4 million — is by a Super PAC out of Iowa with ties to the conservative billionaire Koch brothers. Yes on 32 spokesman Suski says he knew nothing about that support ahead of time, but that it’s welcome in the face of so much special-interest cash — meaning donations from labor.

“At the end of the day the Supreme Court has decided to protect ballot spending and issue advocacy,” Suski points out. “They also protect independent expenditures, whether from corporations or unions. So there is always going to be that unlimited spending on issue advocacy until the Supreme Court or the federal government changes that.”

But Eric McGhee with the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California says Prop. 32 doesn’t affect parties equally. For instance, wealthy individuals aren’t touched by the law.

“Corporations may be hampered some,” McGhee says. “But by and large, their status quo doesn’t change a lot. But I think it does change the status quo for unions quite a bit, because the deductions from paychecks is a very important way unions raise money.”

Those supporting the proposition include the state Republican Party, a group called Democrats for Education Reform and the state chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business.

On the opposing side are the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and the state Democratic Party. Many newspapers around the state have also run editorials calling Prop 32 deceptive. They’re not necessarily endorsing spending by organized labor, but they do say Prop. 32 would create an uneven political playing field.

Listen to Rachel Dornhelm’s story from The California Report:

This past Friday, KQED’s This Week in Northern California examined the measure. Watch the clip:

Here’s an edited transcript of their conversation:

Proposition 30 is backed by Governor Jerry Brown and would raise taxes to fund education. (Image: California Secretary of State)

SCOTT SHAFER: Let’s talk about the November election. Gov. Brown has a lot riding on the outcome, especially with Proposition 30, which would raise income taxes on the wealthy and sales taxes on all of us. The Governor got mixed news from two polls this week. Tell us what they said.

ANTHONY YORK: They said that just about half of voters are still in favor of the Governor’s plan, Proposition 30, and that there are increasing numbers of voters that are unsure. There’s still a lot of uncertainty in these last six to seven weeks of the campaign.

SHAFER: And at the same time, there’s Proposition 38, which would raise income taxes on everyone — mostly millionares — but everyone would take a little bit of a hit. Opinion polls show there is more of a split, a little bit less support, under 50 percent, for Proposition 38. But does that (Proposition 38) add to confusion for voters?

YORK: It does, and it’s also adding to the concern for the governor. Right now, I think the proponents of Proposition 30 view the Proposition 38 campaign as the major threat. That initiative is financed by Pasadena attorney Molly Munger, who has put about $25 million into the campaign so far. Their concern is that a strongly comparative campaign, comparing Proposition 30 to Proposition 38, could help sink Proposition 30, even if Proposition 38 fails as well.

If Prop 30 goes down, regardless of what happens to Prop 38, there will be about $5.5 billion in cuts, most to K-12 schools.

SHAFER: Just give us a quick sense of what happens if both Propositions 30 and 38 are defeated, and the extra revenue for education isn’t there.

YORK: The state budget that was signed by Brown back in June is contingent upon Proposition 30 passing. If Proposition 30 goes down, regardless of what happens to Proposition 38, there will be about $5.5 billion in cuts. Most of that will be to K-12 schools, about $5 billion. Another half a billion dollars — 250 million each from the UC and CSU systems, and a couple of other small cuts.

SHAFER: Another ballot measure, Proposition 32, would severely limit unions’ ability to use dues for campaign contributions. There’s a new Field Poll out Friday morning that shows it losing, with 44 percent opposed, 38 percent yes, and the rest undecided. What’s at stake for unions here?

YORK: Pretty much everything. This is very similar to proposals that California voters have rejected twice before, which would limit unions’ ability to automatically deduct dues from workers’ paychecks and use that money for political purposes. Unless they can be clever and find some sort of workaround, that has the potential to cripple unions, which give hundreds of millions of dollars to state initiatives and campaigns every cycle.

SHAFER: Overwhelmingly, of course, that money goes to Democrats and causes friendly to Democrats, so there’s a lot riding on that for the party as well. Before I let you go, there was a new law that took effect this week. It’s going to allow online voter registration. Tell us how it works and how it could affect the election or just generally politics in the state.

YORK: The popular opinion seems to be that more voters tends to mean more Democrats. Whether or not that bears out remains to be seen. Republicans have said that making this type of online voter registration could potentially lead to voter fraud. Democrats say it’s really just about trying to expand participation. We’ll see if the necessary protections are in place, and if it does have any impact. I think the bottom line is: will this have any impact in actually expanding voter participation?

Listen to Scott Shafer’s interview with Anthony York:

Proposition 37 would require food labels to indicate genetically modified ingredients. (Judy Baxter: Flickr)

New campaign finance data shows millions of dollars pouring in to fund November ballot battles. In two closely watched issues this election season, the California Teachers Association dumped another $7 million against Proposition 32. It would block unions from using payroll deducted funds for political purposes, among other things.

Food giants ponied up another $3 million to take down Proposition 37, the ballot measure that asks voters to decide if foods with genetically modified ingredients should be labelled. If Prop 37 passes, California would be the first state to require such labels.

In the “no” camp on Prop 37 are people and companies who do not want to label genetically modified foods. They’re spending big — outspending the “yes” camp 10 to one.

Over the last few days companies such as Ocean Spray, Sara Lee, Kraft and Godiva Chocolates have spent big to stop GMO labels from appearing on packages. The “No on 37″ campaign is spreaheaded by biotech giant Monsanto and has raised $28 million so far. “Yes on 37″ which backs labeling is supported by organic food makers among others, it’s raised less than $3 million to date.

For a visual on all campaign spending, visit MapLight. While its numbers are a bit behind the Secretary of State, MapLight has easy-to-read charts.

Finally, KQED’s Amy Standen has a great explainer about Proposition 37 – who’s for it, who’s against it and why.