Hillarysworld

VotedHillary · Platinum

Big Labor's Big Mistake in the 2010 Elections (US News & World Report, 10/22/10)

Sanders · Diamond

yeah, the unions are the worst culprits in influencing elections, and of course now we have a lot of corporations.

When I dug into the union spending in 2008, what I had discovered is that they too are some kind of legal entity (but I could not figure out exactly what entity that is)... and their campaign advertising is done -- guess this -- though NON-PROFIT corporate entities... just like that Partiot whatever one mentioned in the article. They just call them "Constituency groups" (greater diversity programs) and "Allied Groups" - all seem to be nonprofits - [Not fully sure though -- may be they are either legal entities as "Associations" or "Non-Profit" not sure which; very difficult to find out. If you know what kind of legal entity these Unions are please share. Thanks.]. These are some kind of legal entities that can hire, have for-profit subsidiaries for asset management and the like and all kind of interesting legal entity stuff.

The worst thing that is happening is the flow of government dollars via government employee unions.

I dont think ANY corporate or legal entity (non-human) that is not directly a politician's election fund should influence election. Labor unions not only advertised, they had armies sitting in rooms calling in 2008, against Hillary, epecially in Indiana. It was a royal fight of us small phonecallers for Hillary against those calling in Indiana -- I recall this vividly as Hillary campaign needed to move me from NC phonecall team to IN phonecallers to counter the heavy union action there. If you recall, Obama campaign thought they had IN in their bag; the final results were not released until after 1am or so (Even then, I suspect there was something hanky panky in some of the results - some counties we were calling we had much better stats than what the end result showed).

It is one thing for employees and individuals to use their voice.. and sure unions and corporations can even educate their employees and members on the impact of proposed legislation and proposed agenda on their constituencies... quite another for any ENTITY to use dollars to put out advertisement and misinformation TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. Any side allowed to do this will cause things to spiral down... as we are finding out. The fairest thing to do to put democracy back on the rail to functioning is to stop all ENTITY spending (I tend to think of them all as corporate.. I mean all legal entity non-human) when they are not directly the campaign organization entity of the candidates.

-- Edited by Sanders on Sunday 24th of October 2010 04:10:45 PM

Sanders · Diamond

I heard this mentioned on CNN this evening on the news and went looking for the article.

Read @ WSJ Online

POLITICS
OCTOBER 22, 2010

Campaign's Big Spender

Public-Employees Union Now Leads All Groups in Independent Election Outlays

By BRODY MULLINS And JOHN D. MCKINNON

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.

"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."

The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs. If Republicans running under the banner of limited government win in November, they aren't likely to support extending such aid to states.

[SNIP]

President Barack Obama has criticized the Supreme Court decision that opened the door to more spending by corporations and unions. When asked about AFSCME's ramped up campaign efforts following the court's decision, the White House focused on largely anonymous campaign spending by what it termed "special interests."

"The president has been crystal clear that third-party groups which spend tens of millions of dollars from anonymous sources are a threat to our democracy—regardless of which candidates they support," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. He said these groups are disproportionately backing Republican candidates.

Public-sector employees are bracing for the most severe budget crunch yet in fiscal 2012, which for many states starts in mid-2011. Federal stimulus aid will run out in a few months and Republicans oppose providing more. Tax revenues remain well below pre-recession levels and state lawmakers who raised taxes at record rates in 2010 are reluctant to go further.

Republican takeovers in Congress and statehouses could breathe life into efforts to restrict how public-sector unions collect and spend members' dues. Republican Gov. Chris Christie has proposed including public-employee unions under New Jersey's pay-to-play rules, which generally limit political contributions by affected groups and individuals. Other Republican governors are likely to pursue similar measures.

Full article @ WSJ Online

====================

Unions are also special interests, Mr.President!

Now, that's the story above is triply bad because it is the AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) spending that big hefty $87.5M.. Imagine all unions put together!

BTW, I disagree that the union dues come "directly from" state budget. It is only because the employee authorizes cut from their paycheck that the amount gets remitted; so it is actually payment by the employee. But I understand the spirit of what the author is saying. It is closely from the state budgets and that is troublesome, indeed.

I am liking what Christie is considering doing in putting the unions under " under New Jersey's pay-to-play rules, which generally limit political contributions by affected groups and individuals." What does he propose for limiting corporate non-profit spending on elections? I wonder.

-- Edited by Sanders on Sunday 24th of October 2010 11:15:47 PM

freespirit · Moderator

Thanks for posting these articles, VH and Sanders. The Dems are every bit as rotten and corrupt as the pubs. It's time they were called on it.