Unions Top the $1 Billion Club in California Political Spending

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Unions Top the $1 Billion Club in California Political Spending

Written By : Warner Todd Huston

The California Teachers Association spent $211,849,298 on lobbying and political spending to get its way in California in 2009. Along with the CTA, the Calif. State Council of Service Employees and 13 other organizations spent a total of one billion dollars on political lobbying of the State House at Sacramento. All of these special interests have helped push California to the brink of insolvency.

But, according to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the two unions mentioned above far and away top the spending of the other top lobbying spenders in California. The next closest in spending was the Big Pharma clocking in at $104,912,997 on its political spending with various and sundry Indian casino groups whose spending was in the less than $85,000,000 range.

Commission Chairman Ross Johnson said in a press release, “This tsunami of special interest spending drowns out the voices of average voters and intimidates political opponents and elected officials alike.”

The FPPC fully details of the spending of these special interests and unions evoking outrage and proving why voter’s will is meaningless to politicians, not just in California, but across the country.

Here, for instance, is how the FPPC breaks down the teachers union spending:

Ballot Measures: $144,116,835
Candidates: $16,716,386
Political Parties: $6,613,834
Other Campaign Committees: $5,885,936
TOTAL SPENT INFLUENCE VOTERS: $173,332,991
TOTAL SPENT LOBBYING OFFICIALS: $38,516,307
GRAND TOTAL SPENT: $211,849,298

On one level, one might ask why such spending is so wrong? After all, even The Federalist Papers spoke of “factions,” “interests,” and associations of voters getting together to influence their representatives in Congress. Why should a real American be all upset over such spending meant to influence Congress? Shouldn’t lobbying be considered a quintessentially American political convention?

There is one reason and one reason only that this situation is detrimental to our Republic and it isn’t that lobbying exists. It is because government is too powerful and has been allowed to take on too much authority. Lobbying wouldn’t be the problem it is if government didn’t have the power it has to warp and destroy our lives, the power that these lobbying groups court.

Of course, where it specifically relates to the teachers and the service employees unions we are talking about organizations that shouldn’t even be allowed to exist at all. There should be no such thing as a public employees union as the existence of these entities is wholly against the health our Republic. Still, that aside, if government didn’t have so much power, even these illicit public employees unions wouldn’t be as destructive as they are.

Of course, California, as always, is just the worst, most obscene example of this outrage of Big Government. The truth is that every state in the union is drowning in this sort of morass to one degree or another.

The solution to all of this is to take power away from government.

Smithwick

I imagine this will work out in the same way as spending on global warming research. In that even though leftwing special interests are spending far more than anyone else only “corporate” lobbying will be mentioned as a problem. Unions are only interested in helping people (naturally) so their bribes are ok and don’t really count as you know, real lobbying.
RBC47

Lobbyists, whether for business interests, or unions, or whatever, get what they want by persuading legislators to pass bills, and thee executive branch to take actions or promulgate regulations. All of the flood of money is aimed at increasing government [powers because that is how the lobbyists get results for clients. Urging them all to reduce government power is ….useless ….. it is not in their own best interests.

Now if you really want to do something about it, overturn the recent SCOTUS decision. Justice Stevens was right – the 1st Amendment was intended to protect the free speech rights of individuals – not artificially created things like unions or corporations. If no business organization, or union, was allowed to spend money to influence public policy at any legislature or regulatory agency or executive branch department, the unceasing pressure to increase the scope and power of government would be far less – and public resistance to “Big Government” would count for more.

So for Conservatives, it’s simple. To rein in unions you must also rein in the corporations. You may not like it, but there is no other way/
Smithwick

“If no business organization, or union, was allowed to spend money to influence public policy at any legislature or regulatory agency or executive branch department, the unceasing pressure to increase the scope and power of government would be far less – and public resistance to “Big Government” would count for more.”

While I would like for corporations/unions to be unable to influence politicians I don’t see a way to accomplish it without limiting free speech. In addition, if it is illegal it will still happen, just under the table. As is there is at least some oversight and transparency (yeah not much, but outlaw it and we won’t even have that much).
RBC47

Smithwick –

You are accepting that corporations / unions have a right of free speech. That was the basic premise of the majority opinion in the recent SCOTUS decision, and I think it is wrong. In 1788 unions did not exist, nor corporations in anything like modern form. The extension of free speech rights to them is a judicial construct – 19th Century judicial activism, if you will. I’m saying that should be reversed.

And doing so will in no way limit free speech in its essential form. Individuals would still be able to speak – in places like this or though voluntary associations like political parties. The political debate will go on, as unfettered and free as it was meant to be. The difference would be the absence of the use of pools of money generated by artificial, supposedly non-political organizations to influence public policy.
Smithwick

RBC: what differentiates (from a clear legal standard) a voluntary association of people from a corporation? Should MADD, NOW, the NRA, etc not be able to represent the views of their members to the government? That’s what those groups were created to do and I suppose that is a valid function for such special interest groups. But how do you define those groups in such a way that businesses and unions do not also fit the bill?
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

I’m sure teachers feel very happy about their money being well spent.
http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

RBC, do you ever get tired of being wrong?

“So for Conservatives, it’s simple. To rein in unions you must also rein in the corporations. You may not like it, but there is no other way/ ”

Uh, obviously you didn’t ACTUALLY read the post because in it I prescribe the conservative fix and it has nothing to do with “corporations.” Have your day nurse read it to you slowly so you can grasp it.

By the way, everyone, RBC’s reply was doubly idiotic because the WORST spenders in this report were unions and Indian casinos, neither of which are “corporations,” and both of which are entities created specifically by government.

Like I said, eliminate more government and this goes away. “Corporations” have ZERO to do with any of this.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

Posted by Warner Todd Huston
2010-03-11 16:29:33

Nixon sees that you have made a new “special” friend here today.
ohioan

First of all, Warner Todd Huston, this brought a spontaneous smile to my face:

There should be no such thing as a public employees union as the existence of these entities is wholly against the health our Republic.

That is absolutely, 100% correct.

There should be no “teachers’ union,” or civil service unions. Neither should gov’t construction contracts go to union groups.

And RBC47, I don’t get where you got the idea that you’d have to “reign in” corporations from the article’s topic.
ohioan

dang it

stupid quotes.
Power_System_Oper

Our vice president for operations and maintenance came by the power system control center today . We asked him how the recruiting for a new maintenance manager was going. He said he has a few good prospects. He then added that he got a bunch of applicants from Texas who want to get up to the Pacific Northwest because it is a desirable area to live. He said he interviewed a few of the more promising ones by phone and had to reject all of them. We asked why. He said that they come from a right to work state and have no experience dealing with a contractual labor agreement. He said they used to being dictatorial and being able to fire someone for no cause. He said they did not understand how to function in a collaborative work environment in which employees have a contractual right to file grievances and have their cases heard before an impartial third party. He said he did not have the time to teach them the ropes.
Smithwick

“He said that they come from a right to work state and have no experience dealing with a contractual labor agreement. He said they used to being dictatorial and being able to fire someone for no cause. He said they did not understand how to function in a collaborative work environment in which employees have a contractual right to file grievances and have their cases heard before an impartial third party. He said he did not have the time to teach them the ropes.”

Yeah I’m sure all that is true. Us poor rubes in the those “right to work states”, we’re really suffering. That’s why all the jobs are leaving Texas, the midwest, and south and heading to the North east and CA. What with their strong unions and all, we simply can’t compete.
Power_System_Oper

Smithwick, “we simply can’t compete.”

As in Northrop dropping out of the competition to build the new Air Force Tanker at a fixed price in “Right to Work State” Alabama because the company beleived that the risks were too high that it would lose money? What would create such a risk? Only one thing. The company had to be worried that the work force in right to work state Alabama might not be up to the task of building the tanker in a productive manner.

On the other hand, Boeing remains fully confident in submitting a bid to build the tanker at fixed cost in the closed shop state of Washington with its highly unionized work force.
whats_up

Of course, where it specifically relates to the teachers and the service employees unions we are talking about organizations that shouldn’t even be allowed to exist at all. There should be no such thing as a public employees union as the existence of these entities is wholly against the health our Republic.

I love this quote, for someone who claims to follow the Constitution you only seem to play lip service to it Mr. Huston. Why shouldnt these groups be allowed to exist? I thought that Americans had the right to assemble?
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

On the other hand, Boeing remains fully confident in submitting a bid to build the tanker at fixed cost in the closed shop state of Washington with its highly unionized work force.
Posted by Power_System_Oper
2010-03-12 09:30:17

Yup and they are also fully confident that if the cost runs over the bid, they will still get paid. And Northrup dropped out because their operations the Airforce wants a SMALLER tanker that Northrop feels it won’t do the job, and which they refuse to re-tool their operations for since they have other international bidders for THEIR design.

It has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with labor costs, you laying sack of shit. I mean just because Alabama is a right to work for MORE, state had no impact on their descision, you know since the govt changed it’s requirements after favoring the Northrup design, FIVE TIMES.

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=186116

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

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

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN