unions now biggest spender of 2010 elections

#1
D

droski

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
21,914
Likes
3
#1
i thought Ed told us unions had no power anymore?

Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com

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.
 
#4
#4
Love the part about the WH trying to parse why they have been foaming at the mouth about election spending.
 
#5
#5
the real question is if we don't layoff the govt union members or cut back the pensions and salaries how are they going to prevent hundreds of cities and counties from declaring bankruptcy? it has to come from somewhere.
 
#6
#6
droski said:
the real question is if we don't layoff the govt union members or cut back the pensions and salaries how are they going to prevent hundreds of cities and counties from declaring bankruptcy? it has to come from somewhere.
Click to expand...

Rich people.
 
#9
#9
I thought it was the corporations that were going to steal the election away from the American people??
 
#12
#12
Well, this isn't the least bit disingenuous. Of course a union with 1.6 million members will spend more than any one single corporation. What's the grand total spent by businesses on lobbying VS. unions. BTW I love the disclaimer at the end of that article saying their parent company has spent over 2 million on Republican causes.
 
#13
#13
Ed12111 said:
Well, this isn't the least bit disingenuous. Of course a union with 1.6 million members will spend more than any one single corporation. What's the grand total spent by businesses on lobbying VS. unions. BTW I love the disclaimer at the end of that article saying their parent company has spent over 2 million on Republican causes.
Click to expand...

why is a labor union using the dues paid into it by it's members for political lobbying in the first place? Shouldn't that money be used toward keeping the members' retirement program flush with cash or other ways that actually benefit the members and not the fatcat union bosses?
 
#14
#14
Ed12111 said:
Well, this isn't the least bit disingenuous. Of course a union with 1.6 million members will spend more than any one single corporation. What's the grand total spent by businesses on lobbying VS. unions. BTW I love the disclaimer at the end of that article saying their parent company has spent over 2 million on Republican causes.
Click to expand...

No more disingenuous than the union head saying that union members are happy about the contributions because after all, it's their (members) money.
 
Last edited:
#17
#17
VolBurgers said:
:crazy: Are you serious?

Also Ed is right, $28 per person/year.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you get this #. If you look at total spending/total members then the number is $54.70 per employee. This works out to about 15% of dues being directed to getting Democrats elected.

In contrast, the giving of News Corp that was mentioned is $44.12 per employed person. However, a significant difference is that the union members have no choice that in that the monies are taken directly from them. In contrast, News Corp took money from the corporate profits. Employees were not forced to support any political agenda as they are in the case of the union.
 
#19
#19
volinbham said:
Not sure where you get this #. If you look at total spending/total members then the number is $54.70 per employee. This works out to about 15% of dues being directed to getting Democrats elected.

In contrast, the giving of News Corp that was mentioned is $44.12 per employed person. However, a significant difference is that the union members have no choice that in that the monies are taken directly from them. In contrast, News Corp took money from the corporate profits. Employees were not forced to support any political agenda as they are in the case of the union.
Click to expand...

Let's not get too sidetracked with Newscorp, but it's still disingenuous to break it down on a per/employee ratio. When I think we'll all admit they're not spending it in the best interests of 99% of their employees.
 
#20
#20
Ed12111 said:
Let's not get too sidetracked with Newscorp, but it's still disingenuous to break it down on a per/employee ratio. When I think we'll all admit they're not spending it in the best interests of 99% of their employees.
Click to expand...

Why would you conclude that?

What are their best interests and why is the public employee union political spending in the "best interests" of union members?
 
#21
#21
Between the labor unions, the early voting, and bussing dead people to the polls, if the repubs pull the necessary seats it will be a very clear reflection of the nation's attitude toward this hard left turn this administration has taken.
 
#22
#22
volinbham said:
Why would you conclude that?

What are their best interests and why is the public employee union political spending in the "best interests" of union members?
Click to expand...

Oh come on. Let's take Walmart as an example if they spend money on lobbying do you think they'll be lobbying for higher pay for 99% of their employees. The rights to overtime pay? Enforcement of safe working conditions? The right of their employees to unionize? Or do you think they'll more likely be fighting these things?
 
#23
#23
Ed12111 said:
Oh come on. Let's take Walmart as an example if they spend money on lobbying do you think they'll be lobbying for higher pay for 99% of their employees. The rights to overtime pay? Enforcement of safe working conditions? The right of their employees to unionize? Or do you think they'll more likely be fighting these things?
Click to expand...

it's up to WalMart to determine it's own wages.

Overtime pay is a federal regulation, if WalMart isn't paying overtime for any hours worked over 40, then they should be held accountable.

What about working in a WalMart isn't safe?

Screw unions. Wal Mart should resist unionization.
 
#24
#24
Ed12111 said:
Oh come on. Let's take Walmart as an example if they spend money on lobbying do you think they'll be lobbying for higher pay for 99% of their employees. The rights to overtime pay? Enforcement of safe working conditions? The right of their employees to unionize? Or do you think they'll more likely be fighting these things?
Click to expand...

You are assuming you understand the "best interests" of 1.6 million individuals. I beg to differ.

A personal example: I am a pseudo-public employee. My retirement program is part of the state retirement program. If the pension fund is short, the state (tax payers) make up the shortfall.

Under a simple view of my "best interests", I should support candidates that would push for my benefits to be maintained, and for annual CoLAs regardless of the fiscal state of the pension fund.

However, I support candidates that would be willing to alter the pension to my economic detriment (axe CoLAs, reduce benefits, change retirement age) if necessary.

Why am I voting against my best interests? Because I don't define my interests as personal gain at the expense of some other tax payer. I'd rather lose benefits than force tax payers to make up for times when the pension fund is in deficit due to mismanagement, market fluctuations, etc. I would bet there are plenty of folks in that 1.6 million who feel as I do - the union in such cases is working against their best interests.

In short, you have no idea what my best interests are and defining them simply in economic terms is a limited and cynical view. I don't want gain at other's expense - that is what I consider looking out for my best interests.

Forgive me if I get worried when someone else tries to tell me what is in my best interests.

Finally, Wal-mart isn't spending money it took directly from employees to support some political cause.
 
#25
#25
What is a union boss pulling in these days? How about others in the upper echelon of union management?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top