For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Unions Give More Campaign $$ To Dems Than Corporations To GOP
Written By : Warner Todd Huston

The left’s meme about campaign contributions since the Supreme Court beat down some of the McCain/Feingold Act has been that the Republicans are awash in illicit political donations from those eeevil corporations — and unfair donations at that — and this puts the poor Democrats at a disadvantage. Why all those evil rich corporate raiders are burying the Democrats, dontcha know?

The truth is a far different animal, however, as Democrats haven’t lost a step in fund raising due to the millions upon millions that their favorite special interest have given them. The fact is unions have donated far, far more to Democrat politicians than corporations have mustered for Republicans.

The Wall Street Journal has a great piece following the union money trail and it finds that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is the single biggest outside donor in all of American politics. And while they donate to some Republican in local elections, AFSME donates almost exclusively to Democrats for federal elections.

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.

There is a quote in here that I love, too. I’ve been saying this for years as proof of why public employee unions like AFSME should be made illegal.

Some critics say public-sector unions are funded by what is essentially taxpayer cash, since member salaries, and therefore union dues, come directly from state budgets.

“Public-sector unions have a guaranteed source of revenue—you and me as taxpayers,” said Glenn Spencer, executive director of the Workforce Freedom Initiative at the Chamber of Commerce.

That’s right, unions give politicians money to make favorable laws for unions. Politicians then make favorable laws for unions so that unions will give them even more campaign cash and unions oblige so that politicians can then give them even more favorable laws and regulations. It’s a vicious circle from which the voters are wholly cut out. It is an incestuous relationship that enriches the unions and the politicians at the expense of the taxpayers who don’t have any influence at all on the sweetheart deals gong on.

This country needs to again make public employee unions illegal like they were previous to 1958.

0
  • Anonymous

    The system benefits unions and politicians at the expense of taxpayers. So two out of three win! That’s democracy right there.

  • Proud Infidel

    Unions, aren’t they a speeecial iinterest type of group, something that the left says OWNS the GOP? Unions own the DNC like the Dem party owns the MSM! The money games the unions play are even more sickening. First, the Dem Cong votes for union bailouts and then said unions give big donations to Dems’ campaign coffers. Does that sound like money laundering to anyone?? I made the mistake of joining the union where I work, and I plan to exit it. I’m allowed to, I live in a right-to-work state. What makes me sick about these unions is the fatcats at the top that enjoy six digit salaries and fat expense accounts at the expense of the workers’ dues and claim to represent and help the working man.

  • http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

    Warner, you know me, always the labour relations wonk. Well I’ve been noodling on changes we could implement with respect to the legal framework of labour organisations which preserve the broad principle of freedom of self-organisation but which would address the particular issue of conflict of interest with public-sector unions. It’s a difficult compromise, to be sure.

    So far, the only idea I’ve been able to come up with is that of a “limited labour organisation” which only has legal rights to represent workers within the context of their jobs. In creating such a construct, it would have to be further stipulated that workers at public-sector organisations may only avail themselves of limited labour organisations for their representation, should they chose to be represented at all.

    I think that in the long run, such limited labour organisations might actually have broader appeal to a wider potential audience than their politically-focused brethren do.

  • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

    Democrats politicians overall are spending more than Republicans as well, even including independent contributions to candidates.

Advertisement
Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info

Users Online