Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Unions Seek Monopoly on Political Money

The Hill reports on a new campaign by liberal groups and labor unions, which seeks to expose companies that donate to super PACs and nonprofits in the lead-up to the presidential election:

Gathered Monday at the Washington headquarters of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the groups issued a call to arms for the 2012 campaign, vowing to aggressively challenge companies that contribute to super-PACs and 501(c) nonprofit groups. …

Representatives of the coalition, which includes Common Cause, Health Care for America Now, Public Citizen and Occupy, among others, said they’d push for legislation and regulations that would require companies to disclose all of their political spending. …

Americans United for Change, a liberal group that has received labor backing, plans to offer a $25,000 cash reward to the first whistleblower who can prove a company has donated to a nonprofit without disclosing it.

“We’re going to challenge those donations. We’re going to challenge efforts to hide donations through (c)4s and (c)6s,” de Blasio said, referring to nonprofit groups.

Note that pretty much all of these groups have labor union ties. Even the Occupy Wall Street representative at the meeting was reportedly the point-person for OWS’s big anti-Verizon march coordinated with Big Labor last October.

There’s a good reason for the union involvement. At Power Line, John Hinderaker flags a chart of the top 25 donors to political campaigns from 1989 to 2012, compiled by Open Secrets, and finds a trend:

That’s right: you have to get all the way to number nineteen to find a donor who gives primarily to Republicans. Not only that, of the top 20 donors, 12 are unions. Special interest money overwhelmingly favors the Democrats, and the unions and their left-wing allies want to keep it that way. Their desire to maintain their near-monopoly is understandable, I guess, but it is hard to understand how they can seriously object to companies’ joining them in the political money game.

Unions sink enormous resources into getting Democratic politicians elected, and they’re not thrilled to have competition from the other side. Today, SEIU President Mary Kay Henry went on MSNBC to talk about the union’s plan to spend $400 million on helping Obama’s reelection campaign. How do groups like that think they have any standing to complain about big money in politics?

Introducing Commentary Complete

6 Responses to “Unions Seek Monopoly on Political Money”

  1. Ed Alberts says:

    This is more than a mere academic technicality — folk like SEIU are *NOT* "liberals"!!! SEIU in particular are fascists in purple "t" shirts — and when you look at their tactics, this is textbook fascism. They intend to extract a punishment from nonconformists, to make an example out of those who donate to conservative causes (or fail to donate to their leftist ones) and I am reminded of what some have said about Jessie Jackson — how he essentially extorts money as the price for racial peace. And this stuff is any different? n nBetween colleges conducting anti-male trainings for front line staff (Lisa K teaching the graduate degree folks how to be sensitive?!?) to stuff like this, I am really starting to feel like a second class citizen in my own country. That is what causes revolutions. And we don't need one….

  2. Rose says:

    Unions are now merely the byword for Brown Shirt THUGS and bleeding the taxpayers SEVERAL different ways, including LITERALLY. n nFeudalists. And sloppy products. n n"Legalized" Government-owned street gangs and Mafia protectionist racketeering.

    • Ed Alberts says:

      Rose, the SEIU shirts are purple. I believe the AFSCME ones are yellow. n nBut your point is quite valid — and let us never remember what happened to the SA (Brownshirts) in the so-called "night of long knives." Those who are willing to tolerate public sector union thuggery as overly enthusiastic zeal for a good cause might best read the introduction of Hitler's Mein Kampf. Read Hitler's eulogy of his dead friends and then do just a scintilla of research into how each of those people came to be "no longer with us." n nThe term "useful idots" come from Communist theory but applies here too. As do the term "expendable" and "pawn." I have seen enough corrupt/incompetent public sector management (I have personally been a victim of it) to understand why folk turn to something like the SEIU. But don't honestly think that they care about you. n nOne other thing — with the exception of the UAW — (auto workers) — these are all PUBLIC SECTOR unions. "Never Educate Anyone (NEA)" is K-12 and public college teachers, SEIU and AFSCME are folks ranging from DMV counter clerks to garbage truck drivers, these are all public sector jobs. And UAW is essentially the same, between Government Motors and the UAW's movement to unionize graduate students — UAW Local 2322 consists of the UMass grad union (GEO) and the workers at the public mental health hospital in Holyoke – all public sector jobs.

  3. PJ104 says:

    Anti American causes like fair wages and safe working conditions.

  4. Jorind says:

    _the unions are now the bane of America. They have outlived their usefulness..

  5. Jorind says:

    Dick the unions have outlived their usefulness. They are now detrimental to America.

Leave a Reply