One of the favorite tactics of Sacramento politicians is to boast that they are speaking on behalf of "the people." Yet if the people of California saw their antics firsthand they would want to sue for misrepresentation. One of the most extreme examples of this Capitol travesty occurred at a recent "informational" hearing on Proposition 75, held in the state Capitol on Tuesday, September 27th.

Prop. 75 would require public employee unions to get the permission of their members to spend dues money on political activities. It's a common-sense and fair idea, and will not lead to cuts in education funding, as the union bosses would have Californians believe. The entrenched and out-of-touch political leadership in the public employee unions' pocket will resort to anything - even undignified grandstanding and public abuse - to stop Prop. 75.

The state constitution requires that the Legislature hold hearings on propositions appearing on the statewide ballot. The ideal purpose of these hearings is to inform people about the substantive content of the propositions and discuss their pros and cons. In the special interest-ridden pit of vipers that is the Legislature, this ideal has been transformed into a charade that looks less like an exercise in American democracy than a Soviet show trial.

The Proposition 75 hearing was chaired by state Senator Richard Alarcon and Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, both Democrats. In a fair hearing, proponents of both sides of the issue are given time to make statements which are then followed by questions from the assembled lawmakers. Alarcon and Torrico had no interest in a fair hearing. What took place at their direction caused even jaded reporters to wince. One said afterwards that it was the most vicious display that he had seen in his career covering the Legislature.

The proponents of Prop. 75 who had been invited to testify included Lew Uhler of the National Tax Limitation Committee, Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Sgt. Lon Jacobs of the San Bernadino County Sheriff's Department, and me. Before we could finish our opening statements, the Democrats on the committee interrupted with a series of questions meant to assassinate the character of the individuals and organizations testifying.

Jon Coupal was continually smeared as anti-worker because he supported Gov. Schwarzenegger's pension reform plan, a proposed program that had no bearing on the merits of Prop. 75.

Sen. Alarcon badgered Lew Uhler over whether the provisions of Prop. 75 should be made to apply to his organization. This line of inquiry ignored the fact that when people decide to support Mr. Uhler's group they voluntarily decide to "opt in," rather than in the case of union members who must ask for their dues money back, i.e. "opt out," from their union's political funding activities. Doing a fine impersonation of Joe McCarthy, Sen. Alarcon ultimately demanded of Mr. Uhler: "Are you trying to take control of the government?"

Barely 30 seconds into my prepared two-minute statement, which focused on the fundamental unfairness of forcing individual union members to have to opt out of union political activities with which they disagree, both Democratic chairs interrupted. Assemblyman Torrico claimed that opting out was an easy procedure, an assertion disputed by legions of union members. I replied that if opting out was as easy as opting in, the unions and their legislative allies would not expend so much vitriol and expense to stop Prop. 75. In a rare moment, Mr. Torrico was left speechless. Sen. Alarcon, however, found his voice by repeatedly asking for the top contributors to the Pacific Research Institute. This irrelevant questioning was designed to move the focus away from the merits of the issue at hand: ground on which he and the interests supporting him feel especially weak.

He repeatedly declared, "The people want to know." It is interesting that in view of this fascination with donors, not a word was heard about the contributors to the legislative inquisitors. According to the California secretary of state, in the 2003-04 election cycle alone, dozens of unions contributed a total of more than $73,000 to Alarcon's campaign coffers.

Perhaps more Californians would like to know that fact and its likely role in Alarcon's shamefully uncivil performance.

For all their huffing and puffing, Alarcon and Torrico could not suppress the basic issue articulated by Sgt. Jacobs: "The only thing Prop. 75 will do is give me, the union member, the right to decide where my money goes. Do I want my money to go to things I am vehemently opposed to?" Basic fairness says that Sgt. Jacobs and his fellow union members, not union bosses, should have the freedom to decide where hard-earned wages go.

What a pity that in defending their union paymasters at all costs, Democrats like Alarcon and Torrico have lost sight of their duty to defend true public servants.