Unions Use Dues For Campaigns

[cpwill]

Paging Randel, who has many, many, many times sworn up and down that this isn't true and anyone who suggests it ever could be is ill-informed and has no idea how unions run.....

came across this little gem while researching for another thread. turns out, not only could some of those li'l old political racketeering activities be paid for by dues in the past - the much lambasted Citizens United Case has completely opened the coffers.

So, apparently, unions CAN and DO utilize member dues to pay for political activism.


The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 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.

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

Newly elected conservatives will also likely push to clip the political power of public-sector unions. For years, conservatives have argued such unions have an outsize influence in picking the elected officials who are, in effect, their bosses, putting them in a strong position to push for more jobs, and thus more political clout.

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.

Gregory King, a spokesman for AFSCME, said conservatives make too much of the issue, especially the link to taxpayers. Based on their logic, "the government is funding the movie industry every time AFSCME members go out to the movies," he said....

Previously, most labor-sponsored campaign ads had to be funded by volunteer donations. Now, however, AFSCME can pay for ads using annual dues from members, which amount to about $390 per person. AFSCME said it will tap membership dues to pay for $17 million of ads backing Democrats this election...

 

[Mr. Invisible]

HOLY CRAP Unions use dues for campaigns?????

Wow! That's like saying that corporations use portions of their profits for campaigns!!!!!

 

[Patrickt]

My god, that's hard to believe. Next, we'll learn that unions do endorse violence.

 

[cpwill]

HOLY CRAP Unions use dues for campaigns?????

Wow! That's like saying that corporations use portions of their profits for campaigns!!!!!

I wouldn't have posted it if people weren't claiming otherwise.

 

[Boo Radley]

Allow me to highlight a couple of things:

Previously, most labor-sponsored campaign ads had to be funded by volunteer donations. Now, however, AFSCME can pay for ads using annual dues from members, which amount to about $390 per person. AFSCME said it will tap membership dues to pay for $17 million of ads backing Democrats this election.

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."

So, are you as outraged by business specail interests as you are by worker's special interest?

 

[cpwill]

Allow me to highlight a couple of things:

allow me to highlight some in response

Previously, most labor-sponsored campaign ads had to be funded by volunteer donations. Now, however, AFSCME can pay for ads using annual dues from members, which amount to about $390 per person. AFSCME said it will tap membership dues to pay for $17 million of ads backing Democrats this election.

this seems to dispel the claim propagated by some on here that Unions can't and don't use dues for political activities.

So, are you as outraged by business specail interests as you are by worker's special interest?

I'm not outraged by either unions or businesses taking part - the solution to free speech is free speech. I'm simply pissed off that we have public employee unions which are in effect able to tap taxpayer funds for their political campaigns. I shouldn't be forced to fund the Teachers Unions hacking to death candidates who try to reform our educational system.

so the only change i would propose would be that private sector unions can use dues if they want - but public sector unions should use donations.

 

[Boo Radley]

this seems to dispel the claim propagated by some on here that Unions can't and don't use dues for political activities.

It actually doesn't. Many were speaking of their union, and you don't dispute them with this (I'm thinking Randel here). And your second part is after the change. So, factually, you don't do either.

I'm not outraged by either unions or businesses taking part - the solution to free speech is free speech. I'm simply pissed off that we have public employee unions which are in effect able to tap taxpayer funds for their political campaigns. I shouldn't be forced to fund the Teachers Unions hacking to death candidates who try to reform our educational system.

so the only change i would propose would be that private sector unions can use dues if they want - but public sector unions should use donations.

From the article you link, kind of like how when union members go to the movies industry taps government funds. You're anger is selective, and as such less credible. The problem was the SC ruling, to which we need to make a better argument aginst. Hating public workers is nonsensical. And not wanting them able to negotiate wages and benefits is bad for all workers.

 

[cpwill]

It actually doesn't. Many were speaking of their union

no, they weren't. they were saying that unions can't use dues, and using their own as examples.

and you don't dispute them with this (I'm thinking Randel here). And your second part is after the change. So, factually, you don't do either.

the "most" indicates that it is not "all" which means that "some" still came from those dues prior to the ruling.

From the article you link, kind of like how when union members go to the movies industry taps government funds.

no, because that's their discretionary spending - just like their donations are. the dues aren't. that's the real issue behind the Wisconsin fight - the bill gave workers the freedom to opt out of the union instead of forcing them to remain dues-paying members.

You're anger is elective, and as such less credible.

i'm against taxpayer money going to fund political activities. I am also against corporations that recieve government money using that money to lobby; ditto for any interest group. i even posted a poll on the issue. the votes are open, so you're free to see how I voted.

so what's selective here isn't my stance on the use of public money, but rather your information.

Hating public workers is nonsensical.

no one hates public employees. hell, I'm a public employee. we just think that public unions are destructive and dangerous.

 

[Boo Radley]

no, they weren't. they were saying that unions can't use dues, and using their own as examples.

No, they were much more specific than you.

the "most" indicates that it is not "all" which means that "some" still came from those dues prior to the ruling.

Most don't speak in absolutes. This means somoen could have been breaking the law, or the rules, but that in general, most were not. You make a leap, yet again.

no, because that's their discretionary spending - just like their donations are. the dues aren't. that's the real issue behind the Wisconsin fight - the bill gave workers the freedom to opt out of the union instead of forcing them to remain dues-paying members.

Doesn't matter. Not a single bit. And no, that was not the real issue in Wisconin. You read too much silliness CP.

i'm against taxpayer money going to fund political activities. I am also against corporations that recieve government money using that money to lobby; ditto for any interest group. i even posted a poll on the issue. the votes are open, so you're free to see how I voted.

so what's selective here isn't my stance on the use of public money, but rather your information.

What selective is you are always against the working folk while making excuses for the corporate elite. That's selective. Corporations also take tax dollars. They also pay to support candidates. For both, the money goes into one pot, and all they activities are apid for.

no one hates public employees. hell, I'm a public employee. we just think that public unions are destructive and dangerous.

The effort to demonize public employees has been fierce. From talking about those evil teachers who make an excessive $70,000 or so a year, with good benefits, while pleading for those poor, poor rich folk who can't be expected to live on a taxed $250,000 plus a year, the attack on the working person has been constant and real. And you're on that side CP.

 

[cpwill]

No, they were much more specific than you.

not in the context of what we are talking about. specifically the topics of discussion were different unions than the ones they belonged to - and they extended their claims to cover all unions.

Most don't speak in absolutes.

those who argued that unions don't use dues for political activities are indeed applying an absolute.

This means somoen could have been breaking the law, or the rules, but that in general, most were not. You make a leap, yet again.

not really. we argued that dues were being used for political activities, it turns out that they were. we never argued that they were the only or even the main source of those political funds - the only absolute was those who were arguing that they were no part of them.

Doesn't matter. Not a single bit.

it mattered quite alot to the union leadership. when Mitch Daniels extended the same right to Indiana public workers, 90% of them stopped paying dues (which i suppose indicates how much they really valued the union they were previously forced into). You better believe that Wisconsin public union leadership goes to bed at night thinking about that.

You read too much silliness CP.

this is true, but it's a necessary evil when one is an active participant in a debate forum. and you're good for developing my patience.

What selective is you are always against the working folk while making excuses for the corporate elite.

no i'm not; what an idiotic thing to say. i view the good of those two groups as intertwined because i don't accept the false class-warfare model.

Corporations also take tax dollars.

and they shouldn't be allowed to lobby with them. did you go to the poll i cited?

The effort to demonize public employees has been fierce.

i haven't seen anyone demonize public employees. i've seen plenty of folks arguing that public employee unions are bad.

From talking about those evil teachers who make an excessive $70,000 or so a year, with good benefits

and nobody said they were evil for that. what we said was that paying teachers an average of over 100K a year was unaffordable, and the unions make reform difficult if not impossible.

while pleading for those poor, poor rich folk who can't be expected to live on a taxed $250,000 plus a year, the attack on the working person has been constant and real. And you're on that side CP.

:roll:

 

[Boo Radley]

CP, there were only a couple of points there. Do you feel cornered and seek to skew things so much no one can tell what your point is? is that why you break things up so excessively?

 

[shintao]

Paging Randel, who has many, many, many times sworn up and down that this isn't true and anyone who suggests it ever could be is ill-informed and has no idea how unions run.....

came across this little gem while researching for another thread. turns out, not only could some of those li'l old political racketeering activities be paid for by dues in the past - the much lambasted Citizens United Case has completely opened the coffers.

So, apparently, unions CAN and DO utilize member dues to pay for political activism.


The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 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.

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

Newly elected conservatives will also likely push to clip the political power of public-sector unions. For years, conservatives have argued such unions have an outsize influence in picking the elected officials who are, in effect, their bosses, putting them in a strong position to push for more jobs, and thus more political clout.

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.

Gregory King, a spokesman for AFSCME, said conservatives make too much of the issue, especially the link to taxpayers. Based on their logic, "the government is funding the movie industry every time AFSCME members go out to the movies," he said....

Previously, most labor-sponsored campaign ads had to be funded by volunteer donations. Now, however, AFSCME can pay for ads using annual dues from members, which amount to about $390 per person. AFSCME said it will tap membership dues to pay for $17 million of ads backing Democrats this election...

Having worker friendly politicians in your pocket makes for more union projects, thus a more secure future for members & their families. Perhaps unorganized rugged individuals could get together and give politicians a great big donation to politicans willing to cut workers wages & benefits, and starve them.

 

[Boo Radley]

not in the context of what we are talking about. specifically the topics of discussion were different unions than the ones they belonged to - and they extended their claims to cover all unions.



those who argued that unions don't use dues for political activities are indeed applying an absolute.



not really. we argued that dues were being used for political activities, it turns out that they were. we never argued that they were the only or even the main source of those political funds - the only absolute was those who were arguing that they were no part of them.

No, in context, randel was specific. Your third mindles sbreak doesn't address what I said. You skip the point and leap to something else. We were discussing what the article said. The use of the word most and what it means.

it mattered quite alot to the union leadership. when Mitch Daniels extended the same right to Indiana public workers, 90% of them stopped paying dues (which i suppose indicates how much they really valued the union they were previously forced into). You better believe that Wisconsin public union leadership goes to bed at night thinking about that.

Which ahs nothing to do with Wisconsin. Please focus.

no i'm not; what an idiotic thing to say. i view the good of those two groups as intertwined because i don't accept the false class-warfare model.

You're record is there for all to read. You start so many threads about business taking advantage of the system. :lamo

and they shouldn't be allowed to lobby with them. did you go to the poll i cited?

I can believe you think that poll is serious. First it's an opinion poll. Opinion doesn't equal right or wrong. Second, it's a 3-4 split, with you and Jamesrage on the same side. Now that's funny.

i haven't seen anyone demonize public employees. i've seen plenty of folks arguing that public employee unions are bad.

That you don't see it proves my point. I can give you a number of clips of Fox if you require it.

and nobody said they were evil for that. what we said was that paying teachers an average of over 100K a year was unaffordable, and the unions make reform difficult if not impossible.

You should listen more:


JON STEWART: Teachers Don't Work As Hard As Wall Street...At Ruining The World Economy


Read more: Jon Stewart: Teachers Compared To Wall Street Employees

YouTube - Government Employees Make Too Much Money?

 

[shintao]

so the only change i would propose would be that private sector unions can use dues if they want - but public sector unions should use donations.

I disagree with this point, and I am sure at some point it was a negotiated part of a contract. But hey, if corporations can be individuals (using up worker profits instead of paying living wages & benefits), well,..... anything goes.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

no, they weren't. they were saying that unions can't use dues, and using their own as examples.



the "most" indicates that it is not "all" which means that "some" still came from those dues prior to the ruling.



no, because that's their discretionary spending - just like their donations are. the dues aren't. that's the real issue behind the Wisconsin fight - the bill gave workers the freedom to opt out of the union instead of forcing them to remain dues-paying members.



i'm against taxpayer money going to fund political activities. I am also against corporations that recieve government money using that money to lobby; ditto for any interest group. i even posted a poll on the issue. the votes are open, so you're free to see how I voted.

Good thing tax payer money is not being used to fund such activities.

It is the workers money not the taxpayers, it is the worker who gets to decide on how to spend it (in this case on union dues being spent on political campaigns)

Unless you want taxpayers to have a say in how you spend your money Cpwill

 

[Boo Radley]

Good thing tax payer money is not being used to fund such activities.

It is the workers money not the taxpayers, it is the worker who gets to decide on how to spend it (in this case on union dues being spent on political campaigns)

Unless you want taxpayers to have a say in how you spend your money Cpwill

No, they can only use it to support business, corporate activities. :coffeepap

 

[cpwill]

No, in context, randel was specific.

i would love to see you quoting randel admiting that other unions use dues for political activities, and it's just that his doesn't.

Your third mindles sbreak doesn't address what I said. You skip the point and leap to something else. We were discussing what the article said. The use of the word most and what it means.

yes. it means "most" which is to say "more than half" but "not all". however, randel and haymarket have claimed that the truth is "all", which is why I started this therad. you will note they have thus far avoided it, though usually they are among the first to leap on any thread with the word "union" in the title.

Which has nothing to do with Wisconsin.

on the contrary, it has plenty to do with Wisconsin. please stop attempting to pretend you can wave away realities by declaring them inconvenient or unimportant.

You're record is there for all to read. You start so many threads about business taking advantage of the system.

actually i've started a number of threads lately singing the praises of the Bowles-Simpson and Ryan plans which do remove the ability of corporations to take advantage of the system. so your claim here is no better than your earlier disproved claim that i was somehow in favor of corporations using public money to lobby but not unions. but given that you claim my record is there for all to see, surely you can easily provide some kind of evidence that I hate and / or seek to attack the middle class?

and you can't because i don't buy into the bull**** that claims that Americans can be divided against and set on each other like rabid dogs for anyones benefit.

I can believe you think that poll is serious. First it's an opinion poll. Opinion doesn't equal right or wrong.

:sigh: you had misrepresented my opinion. I demonstrated to you where what you claimed I had never argued I had, in fact, started a thread devoted to.

That you don't see it proves my point.

ah yes. the good ole circular logic. and evidence that Obama was born in the US is just proof of the conspiracy, right? :roll:

I can give you a number of clips of Fox if you require it.

you'll find plenty of critiques of public unions on FOX. you'll find them here. You'll fiind me and Maggie D right there in the thicket of them. but what you won't find is me or any organized campaign hating firefighters, police, and workers.

because we don't. the claim that we do is merely a figment of the liberal imagination; dreamed up to try to grant yourselves some kind of moral superiority in arguing for fiscal ruin.

You should listen more:

JON STEWART: Teachers Don't Work As Hard As Wall Street...At Ruining The World Economy

really. i can't get enough of how you can't see an NRO link without frothing at the mouth, but continually cite Jon Stewart as an authoritative source.

YouTube - Government Employees Make Too Much Money?

and.... you cited this link to prove my point that conservatives aren't attacking public workers, but rather pointing out that their compensation packages are too expensive?

 

[cpwill]

It is the workers money not the taxpayers, it is the worker who gets to decide on how to spend it (in this case on union dues being spent on political campaigns)

actually in many cases the worker doesn't have a choice, because union membership has been made mandatory.

if you want to alter the rule so that public unions can use dues so long as employees have the right to opt out of paying them, then I would be fine with that as well. because that would be the worker choosing to allocate that money rather than the government.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

actually in many cases the worker doesn't have a choice, because union membership has been made mandatory.

if you want to alter the rule so that public unions can use dues so long as employees have the right to opt out of paying them, then I would be fine with that as well. because that would be the worker choosing to allocate that money rather than the government.

The worker has the same choice as an investor in a company

If you dont like the conditions of employement or investing you do not have to work for or invest in that company or employer

If I dont like the immorality of Playboy, I dont have to work for that company or invest in that company. If I dont want to be in a union I dont have to work for a company that has as a condition of employement being part of a union


If I invest in a company that I do not likes it policies or go to work for an employer that made a condition of employment being part of a union, I made the choice I am allowed to make. I can as an investor or as a member of the union seek to make changes within the company (provided I bought normal shares and not prefered (nonvoting) shares, or seek to decertify the union.

The choice is in deciding to work for that employer, you choose to work for their, you choose to accept paying union dues.


As a side note

Do you call your income from your job taxpayer money.

Do you feel that Randel should have a say in how that money (after all it is taxpayer money) is spent

Or is it your money earned for the labour you sold to the governmennt

And that Randel should have no say in how you spend your money (other then along with you setting various tax rates through voting)

 

[randel]

allow me to highlight some in response



this seems to dispel the claim propagated by some on here that Unions can't and don't use dues for political activities.



I'm not outraged by either unions or businesses taking part - the solution to free speech is free speech. I'm simply pissed off that we have public employee unions which are in effect able to tap taxpayer funds for their political campaigns. I shouldn't be forced to fund the Teachers Unions hacking to death candidates who try to reform our educational system.

so the only change i would propose would be that private sector unions can use dues if they want - but public sector unions should use donations.

WFSE/AFSCME

read the page...there are procedures in place to protect those who don't want dues spent on political activities...on another note...already had this discussion with conservative, and you, as well as he was , are dead wrong...taxpayer money isnt being used for political purposes by public union employees/unions.....the money these folks receive are called WAGES, which they are entitled to spend anyway they see fit...this money has been EARNED, and to claim anthing other is being very, very dishonest.

 

[randel]

actually in many cases the worker doesn't have a choice, because union membership has been made mandatory.

if you want to alter the rule so that public unions can use dues so long as employees have the right to opt out of paying them, then I would be fine with that as well. because that would be the worker choosing to allocate that money rather than the government.

wrong, as has been explained before, you have a choice before you accept the job...you are made aware prior to the job being offered to you, that it is a union shop, and if you have a problem, you can decline the job then and there. by accepting the job, you accept that it is a union shop, and that you will become a member of said union.

 

[cpwill]

dishonest?

I asked a question based upon logic and common sense. It has been reported that 40% of the union members vote Republican so that leaves 60% to support PAC's. Are you contending that dues aren't going to the PAC's?

i've explained this several times, provided several links, as where money for political activity comes from, you choose to ignore it in order to keep perpetuating your LIE....the law has been explained to you, links have been provided...where are yours ?

again union dues are not spent on elections....the money spent on politics is gathered by voluntary contributions .

the uaw calls it voluntary political contribution program v-cap...voluntary community action program....the seiu calls theirs COPE--Committee on political education...this is where these two union raise the money for political activities...NOT from union dues.

By law, union dues can’t be used to support any federal candidate

and so on and so forth. man, you're a good dude, and I trust you, and if you tell me you just plain didn't know the rules had changed I will completely believe you; but this looks disengenious. as a side note, if the money is the workers' to spend as they see fit, why is union leadership so dead set on making sure he's not able to see fit not to spend it on union dues?

and... and this is probably off-topic, but i ran into it and wondered what you thought of it

unions lobby on behalf of the working person, to push for better health and safety workplace rules, and better working conditions in general.

unless, of course, you're a working family in South Carolina, in which case **** You?

 

[haymarket]

from cpwill

however, randel and haymarket have claimed that the truth is "all", which is why I started this therad. you will note they have thus far avoided it, though usually they are among the first to leap on any thread with the word "union" in the title.

I read the OP.

I make it a policy to not argue about sexual technique with a celibate monk.

 

[randel]

dishonest?










and so on and so forth. man, you're a good dude, and I trust you, and if you tell me you just plain didn't know the rules had changed I will completely believe you; but this looks disengenious. as a side note, if the money is the workers' to spend as they see fit, why is union leadership so dead set on making sure he's not able to see fit not to spend it on union dues?

and... and this is probably off-topic, but i ran into it and wondered what you thought of it

unless, of course, you're a working family in South Carolina, in which case **** You?

dishonest? nope, the examples i showed proved my point...is it possible that i could have been wrong about another union? sure..but, that union has in place procedures for those not wanting their dues spent on activities of a political nature to get a refund of that portion of dues...no harm, no foul...and there are indeed federal laws in place against the spending of union dues on federal candidates for office, no dishonesty there either...as for union dues in general, again, you are made aware before employment is offered, of the terms and conditions of the union, it is explained to you that 30 days after you are hired, you will become a member of the union, and in my union's case, it is explained to you that your dues will be 2 hours of straight time per month, usually taken the third pay period of the month...do i believe that you should have the ability to opt out of your union dues?? hell no i don't, as with anything, unions cost money to operate...no, you should not be able to enjoy the benefits of a union and not help pay for them...that is just stupid.

as for South Carolina, perhaps you should enlighten me, as i'm not seeing a connection, not following you at all.

 

[cpwill]

from cpwill


I read the OP.

I make it a policy to not argue about sexual technique with a celibate monk.

and randel deserves full credit for coming here and answering the post. reading back i'm worried it sounds a bit snarky - like i'm calling him out - but i truly wanted his response. he's a decent standup guy who just happens (I think) to be wrong on this issue.

you apparently have no desire to face up to it, and so i guess not so much.