Unions Try To Combat Lopsided Election Spending

[one...two...tree 2,762]

by Peter Overby

The president of the biggest labor organization in America says this is "a defining Labor Day for working people."

It's the turn into the home stretch of a congressional campaign that looks truly grim for labor's traditional ally — the Democratic Party. So unions are trying to stir up their members and money, but they're not having an easy time of it.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka laid out the stakes for union workers.

"This election is about economic patriots, and it's also about corporate traitors," Trumka said. That harsh language was aimed at companies that send jobs overseas.

Labor says it's mobilizing in 26 states — more than 400 contests for seats in Congress and state offices.

One example is a radio spot about raising the minimum wage, for the Senate race in Missouri between Democrat Robin Carnahan and Republican Roy Blunt:

"Congressman Blunt didn't think they deserved a pay raise. Just himself. Congressman Roy Blunt. After 14 years in Washington, he's really out of touch. Paid for by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees."

But business is revved up, too.

Thomas Bell, board chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, tells members in a blog post to go up this week that no business person can afford to sit this one out.

The Chamber sent strategist Bill Miller out to Missouri.

"I'm here today to announce our formal endorsement of Roy Blunt," Miller said.

Naturally, the endorsement came with TV ads: "While 71 percent of us voted no, Carnahan sided with lobbyists, big unions and Washington insiders to force Obamacare on us."

Labor and business each has its own strengths. For labor, it's people and organization. For business, the strength is money.

Every election cycle, business outspends labor. And those numbers could become even more lopsided.

Political scientist David Magleby of Brigham Young University has tracked outside groups in campaigns for more than a decade.

"The landscape of American campaign finance was changed fundamentally by the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United," Magleby said, referring to the January ruling that lets corporations and unions spend unlimited amounts in campaigns.

Just suppose, says Magleby, that a big corporation decides to play in a hot Senate race. "Drop $12 [million] to $15 million. Well that's a small fraction of their general treasury money or their profits. But it would dwarf what unions or others would likely spend in a race, even if it was a high-priority race."

It's not clear how much corporate and union money is going into politics this fall. Unknown millions go through channels that skirt the disclosure laws.

But organized labor is expected to spend $100 million or more — a number that's likely to be matched by just two pro-business groups, Club for Growth and the U.S. Chamber, before counting any other business groups or individual corporations.

http://www.npr.org/t...967&ft=1&f=1014

[Atencio 43]

Views don't matter much anymore. It's all about the money if you want to win office.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Atencio

[Danno 1,228]

Speaking of Unions..... and the words they speak.

This jewel popped up this week, where this Union leader flat out claimed Blacks are like sheep and easily swayed but whites....

They are ‘So F-ing Rabidly Racist’.

Listen for yourself and see.

http://www.breitbart.tv/labor-day-special-seiu-official-says-white-workers-so-f-ing-rabidly-racist/

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/03/teachers-union-tops-list-of-state-political-spenders.html

Teachers union tops list of state political spenders

Fifteen special interest groups including casino operators, drug firms and unions for teachers and public employees spent more than $1 billion during the last decade trying to influence California public officials and voters, the state’s watchdog agency reported today.

The money went for lobbying, campaign contributions to state politicians and ballot measure campaigns to get voters to advance the groups’ agendas, according to the report by the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

``This tsunami of special interest spending drowns out the voices of average voters, and intimidates political opponents and elected officials alike,’’ said Commission Chairman Ross Johnson, a former state senator.

Five special interests were responsible for more than half of the billion dollars spent since 2000, including:

--The California Teachers Assoc., which spent $211.8 million.

--The California State Council of Service Employees, $107.4 million.

--The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, $104.9 million.

-The Morongo Band of Mission Indians, which operates a casino under a state-approved compact, $83.6 million.

--The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, which also operates a casino, $69.2 million.

PG&E, Chevron, AT&T, Philip Morris USA and Southern California Edison are also among the top 15 spenders.

Kind of destroys the argument that business buys legislators。

http://usactionnews.com/2010/05/unions-to-spend-100-million-on-saving-democrats-will-want-even-more-payback/

Unions to spend $100 MILLION+ on saving Democrats -will want even more payback

Even though unions have already gotten taxpayer bailouts of benefits ($20 BILLION in GM fiasco alone), preferential treatment in federally funded work, the overturning of 76 year rules on unionization, ownership in Chrysler and GM to the detriment of shareholders, creditors and taxpayers, and the lions share of stimulus money directed to public work projects which will have to be union, they will be expecting more like taxpayer funding of a trillion dollars of under funded union pension liabilities.

By Kevin Bogardus and Sean J. Miller at The Hill

At least two influential unions will spend close to $100 million on the 2010 election, with most of those funds going to protect incumbents.

Union officials told The Hill they plan to help endangered members — particularly freshmen — who made politically difficult votes in a year during which an anti-incumbent mood has filled the country.

And the number will be even higher since the AFL-CIO declined to give its figures.

While the labor movement has displayed an aggressive tack in Democratic primaries, including supporting some challengers over incumbents, it remains concerned about the party retaining its congressional majorities.

As a result, it plans an enormous spending spree to help ensure Democratic control of Congress.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) plans to spend in excess of $50 million during the 2010 campaign, part of which will fund “a massive incumbent protection program,” according to Gerry McEntee, president of the union.

AFSCME spent roughly $67 million on its political activities in 2008. But the $50 million slated for the 2010 elections is the largest expenditure the union will make in a midterm election, according to union officials. The money will go to help defend the union’s top tier of eight Senate seats and 34 House members.

“We have got to protect the incumbency in the House. We have got to protect the incumbency in the Senate,” McEntee said. “It is going to be hard. Those tea-baggers are out there. There is an anti-incumbency mood out there.”

After the top tier, there will be a second tier of House candidates AFSCME will be monitoring and will step in to help defend if they become endangered by GOP challengers.

“We are not out there looking for new seats. We have our hands full the way it is,” said McEntee, who has been a key voice in pushing labor to play in Democratic primaries.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) plans to spend $44 million in total on its 2010 election program. The union spent $85 million on its 2008 campaign, according to union officials.

SEIU has a list of 15 top-priority House districts across the country that it plans to campaign in to protect members who voted for the healthcare reform bill. Among those who will see support from the national union are Reps. John Boccieri (D-Ohio), Bill Foster (D-Ill.), Betsy Markey (D-Colo.), Tom Perriello (D-Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Dina Titus (D-Nev.).

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/03/teachers-union-tops-list-of-state-political-spenders.html

Teachers union tops list of state political spenders

Fifteen special interest groups including casino operators, drug firms and unions for teachers and public employees spent more than $1 billion during the last decade trying to influence California public officials and voters, the state’s watchdog agency reported today.

The money went for lobbying, campaign contributions to state politicians and ballot measure campaigns to get voters to advance the groups’ agendas, according to the report by the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

``This tsunami of special interest spending drowns out the voices of average voters, and intimidates political opponents and elected officials alike,’’ said Commission Chairman Ross Johnson, a former state senator.

Five special interests were responsible for more than half of the billion dollars spent since 2000, including:

--The California Teachers Assoc., which spent $211.8 million.

--The California State Council of Service Employees, $107.4 million.

--The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, $104.9 million.

-The Morongo Band of Mission Indians, which operates a casino under a state-approved compact, $83.6 million.

--The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, which also operates a casino, $69.2 million.

PG&E, Chevron, AT&T, Philip Morris USA and Southern California Edison are also among the top 15 spenders.

Kind of destroys the argument that business buys legislators。

http://usactionnews.com/2010/05/unions-to-spend-100-million-on-saving-democrats-will-want-even-more-payback/

Unions to spend $100 MILLION+ on saving Democrats -will want even more payback

Even though unions have already gotten taxpayer bailouts of benefits ($20 BILLION in GM fiasco alone), preferential treatment in federally funded work, the overturning of 76 year rules on unionization, ownership in Chrysler and GM to the detriment of shareholders, creditors and taxpayers, and the lions share of stimulus money directed to public work projects which will have to be union, they will be expecting more like taxpayer funding of a trillion dollars of under funded union pension liabilities.

By Kevin Bogardus and Sean J. Miller at The Hill

At least two influential unions will spend close to $100 million on the 2010 election, with most of those funds going to protect incumbents.

Union officials told The Hill they plan to help endangered members — particularly freshmen — who made politically difficult votes in a year during which an anti-incumbent mood has filled the country.

And the number will be even higher since the AFL-CIO declined to give its figures.

While the labor movement has displayed an aggressive tack in Democratic primaries, including supporting some challengers over incumbents, it remains concerned about the party retaining its congressional majorities.

As a result, it plans an enormous spending spree to help ensure Democratic control of Congress.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) plans to spend in excess of $50 million during the 2010 campaign, part of which will fund “a massive incumbent protection program,” according to Gerry McEntee, president of the union.

AFSCME spent roughly $67 million on its political activities in 2008. But the $50 million slated for the 2010 elections is the largest expenditure the union will make in a midterm election, according to union officials. The money will go to help defend the union’s top tier of eight Senate seats and 34 House members.

“We have got to protect the incumbency in the House. We have got to protect the incumbency in the Senate,” McEntee said. “It is going to be hard. Those tea-baggers are out there. There is an anti-incumbency mood out there.”

After the top tier, there will be a second tier of House candidates AFSCME will be monitoring and will step in to help defend if they become endangered by GOP challengers.

“We are not out there looking for new seats. We have our hands full the way it is,” said McEntee, who has been a key voice in pushing labor to play in Democratic primaries.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) plans to spend $44 million in total on its 2010 election program. The union spent $85 million on its 2008 campaign, according to union officials.

SEIU has a list of 15 top-priority House districts across the country that it plans to campaign in to protect members who voted for the healthcare reform bill. Among those who will see support from the national union are Reps. John Boccieri (D-Ohio), Bill Foster (D-Ill.), Betsy Markey (D-Colo.), Tom Perriello (D-Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Dina Titus (D-Nev.).

Yep. The Democrats already have more money to spend this year than the Republicans across the board, and that does not include independent expenditures by the unions themselves.

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

And, check this out for Independent Expenditures:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indexp/summ.php?type=M&cycle=2010

[lostinblue 1,989]

Obama administration hands down rule limiting contract bidding to union shops

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/15/obama-administration-hands-down-rule-limiting-contract-bidding-to-union-shops/#ixzz0ynT1f7iN

It’s official — federal agencies can now require that contractors be unionized to bid on large federal construction projects. A ruling sent down by the White House on Tuesday finalized an Executive Order President Obama signed last year, which promotes the use of Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on federal contracts. PLAs are pre-hire, collective-bargaining agreements with unions that establish terms of a large contract.

Supporters say PLAs ensure stability on large-scale projects by preventing strikes and delays. Economist Jared Bernstein blogged on the White House Middle Class Task Force Web site, “PLAs also help ensure compliance with laws and regulations governing workplace safety and health, equal employment opportunity and labor and employment standards.”

Critics argue they needlessly raise costs and are a handout to unions.

“Essentially the administration is picking winners and losers, and we have 25 percent unemployment in the construction industry,” said Ben Brubeck, director of labor and federal procurement at Associated Builders and Contractors, a construction trade organization.

More than 85 percent of the construction industry is not unionized. While the ruling is not a mandate, it encourages agencies to require union labor on any projects with more than $25 million in federal funding.

PLAs require that all contractors who want to bid pay union wages and benefits. They effectively prevent non-union shops from bidding.

“As a public works company we’re already required to pay a prevailing wage,” said Mark Compton, director of government affairs at American Infrastructure, a heavy construction company in Worcester, Pa. “It’s not an issue of us paying people less, the idea that you get away with paying employees less than federal wages is just inaccurate.”

Prevailing wage laws are set at the local level for employees in various industries. Employers have to provide certified payrolls for projects that have prevailing wage requirements.

“We work alongside unions a lot, they often subcontract to us — it’s not a matter of who is capable or not. We have a lot of respect for them and many contractors in the area choose to be union. Because our employees did not opt for union representation we are at a disadvantage,” Compton said.

American Infrastructure employs 1,500 people and says 80 percent of its contracts involved some level of state or federal funds.

Compton said PLAs stifle competition: “If it’s your home, would you rather have five bidding or two? I’m not here to tell you the unions aren’t qualified to do this work, we compete against them every day and sometimes they beat us and sometimes we beat them, but eliminating competition is discrimination.”

“PLAs raise costs — you’re looking at four schools for the price of five, or four bridges for the price of five,” he said.

“We have to go back to our employees, who are taxpayers, and tell them that they aren’t good enough to work on a project that is funded by their tax money,” said Compton. “Some of them have 10, 20, 30 years as a taxpaying employee of our company, and I have to tell them we can’t bid on these jobs now

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/15/obama-administration-hands-down-rule-limiting-contract-bidding-to-union-shops/#ixzz0ynSuTJSm

[lostinblue 1,989]

Public Sector Unions and their Political Donations

Ed Lasky via American Thinker

Governments across the nation, including the one headquartered in Washington, D.C., are approaching their fiscal death throes. Most of the states that are on life-support got transfusions from the stimulus bill that showered money on areas painted blue on the political map. Liberal, Democrat-voting states are the ones spilling the most red ink because they follow policies that are inimical to their fiscal health dictated by special interest groups.

Each budget should come stamped with a warning “passing of this budget will harm the pocketbooks and future of our state’s citizens.” The result? Taxes soar; credit ratings plummet (causing states to have to pay higher interest rates on the debt they float) and the death spiral begins, as businesses and productive workers vote with their feet and move to more congenial climates.

Why do politicians kill states? Perhaps because they cater to and are in hock to the public sector unions who line their pockets with campaign funds and provide the cheap (to politicians anyway — because “we the people” ending up paying their salaries and benefits) labor needed to operate the phone banks and canvass the neighborhoods.

How do politicians pay them off? By showering public sector unions and their members with high salaries, gold-plated retirement and health benefits (that government workers all too often do not even have to contribute toward), by allowing retirements to start early (in some cases at 50), and by abuse of overtime pay ( a bus driver in Madison Wisconsin earns $160,000 a year, much of it due to overtime. He earns more than the mayor and he has plenty of fellow bus drivers there who qualify for the country club set.) I have written about this damaging dynamic here http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/public_servants_no_we_are_the.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/the_coming_public_pension_nigh.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/post_159.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/obama_and_the_government_emplo.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/public_workers_versus_the_publ.html .

Since John F. Kennedy signed an executive order allowing federal workers to unionize, there has been an explosion of government workers who become members of unions such as the ever-powerful American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. But this union is not alone. Teachers are government workers and their union is prettified by using euphemisms (they are teachers after all — and know how to use a thesaurus): the two major teacher unions are called the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

I was curious and decided to discover how much these public sector unions (and other unions) gave to political candidates through their political action committees

Here is a table of the top twenty PACs, provided by OpenSecrets.Org:

D R

AT&T Inc $44,225,588 44% 55%

American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $41,945,511 98% 1%

National Assn of Realtors $35,633,473 48% 51%

Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $31,544,407 97% 2%

Goldman Sachs $31,544,275 64% 35%

American Assn for Justice $31,425,529 90% 9%

National Education Assn $30,162,867 92% 6%

Laborers Union $28,993,900 92% 7%

Teamsters Union $27,992,624 92% 6%

Service Employees International Union $27,933,232 95% 3%

Carpenters & Joiners Union $27,768,183 89% 10%

Citigroup Inc $27,150,883 50% 49%

Communications Workers of America $27,047,896 99% 0%

American Medical Assn $26,307,905 39% 60%

American Federation of Teachers $26,285,941 98% 0%

United Auto Workers $25,775,002 98% 0%

Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $25,205,277 98% 0%

National Auto Dealers Assn $24,409,058 32% 67%

United Parcel Service $24,232,224 36% 63%

United Food & Commercial Workers Union $24,216,183 98% 1%

The D and R at the top of the table refer to percentages of the funds that flowed to Democrats and Republicans. The herd of blue donkeys reveals — surprise! — that the vast amount of money is focused on Democrats. Even Goldman Sachs, reviled as a company filled with fat cat bankers and plutocrats, gives to Democrats (hence Obama’s recent papal dispensation regarding their bonuses — he regally decides who is a “fat cat” worthy of scorn ).

Consider the American Association of Justice (euphemism alert!) This is the group that was formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. The plaintiff bar is a key source of support for Democrats.

Barack Obama routinely railed against special interest groups during the campaign. Obama was to bring reform to government; change was in the air-over and over. Lobbyists were to become endangered species (meanwhile they are one of the few groups who enjoyed a banner year in 2009. K Street (where many lobbyists work) is a street paved with gold.

These unions are a special interest. Many of them are beneficiaries of taxpayer funds — especially government workers. They are a major cause of the red ink that is swamping us (Obama pledged to stop the rise of oceans, not the rise of red ink-though he did pledge to exercise fiscal restraint-but that was so 2008).

They buy politicians-and, they favor Democrats.

Please keep that in mind when our politicians call for us to support bond issues and increased taxes. We should follow the money trail — because it is our money and the next generation’s future.

http://usactionnews.com/2010/03/public-sector-unions-and-their-political-donations/

The unions and their pensions will destroy this country.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Unions have always thrown their money and support to the Socialists and always will. It is in their own mentality to follow the herd so nothing wrong with that. It is also the reason that luckily there are other ways for us to combat this scourge by giving to the opposite side.