This is a cross-post from the California Labor Federation’s blog, Labor’s Edge, by Communications Director Steve Smith.

As the election results came in late Tuesday night, it became abundantly clear that the handful of billionaires and CEOs who sought to silence our voice were in for a rude awakening. Their deceptive measure, Prop. 32, didn’t just fail, it tanked -- by a 12-point margin.

Here’s a look at a number of other key working-family races and ballot issues from yesterday’s elections.

In several U.S. Senate races where Republican, corporate and super PAC cash looked like it would make the difference, union members’ get-out-the-vote activism and votes helped push working-family candidates to victory. Democrats now have 55 senate seats. Elizabeth Warren defeated Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Tim Kaine beat George Allen in Virginia. Rep. Tammy Baldwin overcame Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, Sen. Jon Tester defeated challenger Rep. Denny Rehberg in Montana and Sen. Sherrod Brown won over Josh Mandel in Ohio. Other Senate wins include Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.). 

For the third time in the past 14 years, California voters rejected an attempt—fueled by millions of out-of-state dollars—to shut working people out of the political process when they soundly defeated Proposition 32. California Labor Federation Executive Secretary-Treasurer Art Pulaski said working families:

Rejected a blatant power play by corporate special interests to silence the voice of working people. Despite weeks of misleading advertisements backing Prop. 32 paid for by billionaires and out-of-state super PACs, the margin of defeat was decisive. Prop. 32 backers spent more than $50 million in an effort to fool voters.

Do your part in getting friends and family out to vote for pro-working family candidates this Tuesday. Sign up for the Workers' Voice Friends and Neighbors (FAN) online social phone bank tool that is available in key battleground states. 

Start phone banking here: http://go.aflcio.org/Phone-Bank.

This is a cross-post from the California Labor Federation’s blog, Labor’s Edge, by Communications Director Steve Smith.

AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka wasn’t about to let a little airplane mechanical trouble stop him from getting out the vote in California. Despite being delayed in Chicago for several hours, Trumka arrived in Sacramento fired up and ready to hit the doors with union volunteers.

Maybe this election year will finally put a stake through the heart of efforts by corporations and extremist right-wing millionaires to silence the voice of California's working families in the political arena.

This year, it’s called Prop. 32 and it’s a near-clone of 2005’s Prop. 75 and 1998’s Prop. 226, which voters defeated by a 53% margin. Both times huge mobilizations by working families turned back the millions of dollars from Republican PACs and corporate and anti-worker extremists. These are the same groups that are behind Prop. 32.          

Billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch could be the poster boys for the big money special interests that are dumping hundreds of millions of dollars in this year’s elections on the national and state levels. Last week, it was reported that the American Future Fund (AFF), a front group for corporate special interests that’s linked to the Kochs, dropped $4 million into the effort to pass California’s Prop. 32.

This is an excerpt from The Hill, by John Logan, professor and director of labor and employment studies at San Francisco State University.

Conservative activists in California are promoting a deceptive ballot proposition that would increase the ability of business groups and billionaires to dominate state elections. The measure, Proposition 32, claims to be an even-handed effort at campaign finance reform—but nothing could be further from the truth. Prop. 32 (or “Stop Special Interest Money Now,” as its big money supporters prefer to call it) would cripple the ability of unions to participate in politics but have little or no impact on unlimited spending by corporate executives and other wealthy individuals.