The Democratic Party in California is quite cozy and takes a lot of money from the people who wrote it, so I find this claim of opposition unconvincing.

They wrote and passed the law that Proposition 22 modified.

And did nothing meaningful to oppose it being modified, beside saying they opposed it.

This has been Democrats tactics with this stuff for decades, “we tried to do something good, but then something happened that we couldn’t do anything about it. Sorry.” It’s intentional fecklessness, while posturing at progress, so they can keep getting checks from the tech industry.

They were outspent by almost $200 million. What exactly were you hoping they would do? Why did they go out of their way to write a law when the courts had already reclassified workers? Your conspiracy theory does not make any sense.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...

Uber and several other gig companies have been operating in violation of California law for about a decade. The state could have shut them down at any time for any myriad number of reasons, but instead got friendly with them and took piles upon piles of their money. This isn't about spending money on any given proposition, but about systemic corruption in the Democratic party, where they'll sell out working people for campaign donations and c-suite positions when they leave office.

> Uber and several other gig companies have been operating in violation of California law for about a decade.

No, they were operating in violation of California law for less than a year.

> instead got friendly with them and took piles upon piles of their money.

If that's the case, why didn't they get a carve out in AB5?

> systemic corruption in the Democratic party,

Which overwhelmingly voted for AB5 and was in opposition to Proposition 22. You are alleging corruption without any evidence.

Perhaps then they ought to be alleged for incompetence; that we could all agree with.

How? I keep asking what they should have done, and I keep getting no answer.

Not take money from companies that were in violation of California law from their outset (running illegal taxi services), not take jobs with the companies when they left office (several former, high-level Obama people work at Uber, Kamala Harris’ brother-in-law is behind Prop 22’s legal team), pursued anti-monopoly action against Uber for engaging in market dumping. The list goes on and on.

I fail to understand why you see this whole situation as what happened with one law and one proposition and not the culmination of a bunch of corrupt people who have been in bed with each other for some time.

> Not take money from companies that were in violation of California law from their outset (running illegal taxi services)

What state law were they violating? None. What difference would not taking money from them have done? None.

> not take jobs with the companies when they left office (several former, high-level Obama people work at Uber, Kamala Harris’ brother-in-law is behind Prop 22’s legal team),

What does that have to do with the state legislators, who created AB5?

> pursued anti-monopoly action against Uber for engaging in market dumping.

Uber was not a monopoly and still isn't a monopoly, as a court already confirmed. https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/court-rules-that-uber-must-f...

> The list goes on and on.

No item in that list makes any sense. Why did they go through all the trouble to pass AB5 to begin with?