By that logic, you might make a stretch and make a decision to not vote on how our military decides to spend their money as it doesn't directly impact you. You've never been a member of the armed forces.

I think your reasoning is flawed.

My opinion below.
The irony: Unions == Big Business.

It would be fine for the Union to send out a mailing to all of their members encouraging them to vote for a person, or encourage their individual members to donate to a campaign, but I don't think a Union should financially contribute directly to any campaign.

Why not? Well the answer is, why?
Allowing Unions to spend money on politics is no different then allowing big business to spend money on politics. Next thing you know politicians will only have to target a few of these Unions to get all the funding they need, and the argument to prevent big business from doing the same will be washed away (slippery slope).

This proposition is setup as a trap for people who are traditionally agianst big business. Union members are used to thinking of themselves as the little guys, fighting big business. They don't realize that their own unions are big business's and that the coruption and unfairness they believe they're combatting is exactly the environment they're creating when they vote to allow their Unions to spend on politics.

I'm for an individual's right to chose, and for government, business's and lobies to influence but not to contribute directly to any campaign.

You make some excellent points, and if I do decide to cast a vote on this particular proposition I would certainly be inclined to support it because I agree that union members should have a say in how their union dues are spent.

However, going back to the military example, that is too much of a stretch for me. I fully believe that I deserve a vote in (1) whether or not our military is funded and by how much and (2) what actions our military is allowed to take (i.e. going to war). But deciding exactly how miltary funds are spent requires actual knowledge of military practices.

It would be pretty dumb if actual military generals who are asking for funding for better weapons were denied that funding because voters felt that, "we don't like our money going toward making more guns." To me it's the same with labor unions, they should be the one's deciding how their money gets spent because they have inside knowledge about what needs to be done.

I do completely agree that if we can keep unions and business's out of politics it would be in everyone's best interests. I heard somewhere that the teachers union spent roughly 100 million dollars fighting prop 74. Wow. I find it a little tough to complain about teachers wages in CA when the union is spending 100 million dollars a year on politics. Seems like that money could be better spent elsewhere.