Ironies abounded in the Sunday New York Times’ front-page feature about union efforts to force the recall of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. The newspaper is right about the fact that the recall may turn out to be a warm up for the presidential election this fall, but it speaks volumes about both the bias of the piece that nowhere in it does the Times mention the fact that all the recent polls of the contest show him ahead and gaining ground. Flawed though the piece was, it also served to skewer one of the main political narratives that the Times has worked so hard to promote in the last year: that the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision was undermining democracy.
As the article illustrates, far from the court’s defense of freedom of speech harming the political process, what it has done is to allow the free flow of ideas — and the cash that helps bring those ideas into the public square — to flourish as the public is presented with a clear choice between Walker’s attempt to reform public expenditures and the union movement’s effort to defend the status quo.
The Times makes clear that the unions, just like their conservative opponents, have been allowed by the law to put forward their positions unfettered by the attempt of liberal campaign finance laws to restrict expenditures. And while the paper does its best to bolster the contrived story line that this is a battle between working people and the billionaire Koch brothers, the political showdown in Wisconsin is one in which the voters will be allowed to decide whether state employees will be entitled to force the state into bankruptcy. The result is a political free-for-all in which both sides are having their say. Had the Times and other supporters of campaign finance laws had their way, the unions and the conservatives opposing them would have been largely silenced.
The Times does deserve credit for puncturing part of the left’s propaganda campaign against Charles and David Koch, the industrialists who have been falsely smeared as the plutocrats funding a vast right-wing plot to destroy democracy. It turns out liberals attempting to promote boycotts against companies owned by the brothers, including Georgia Pacific, have been criticized by the unions that represent the firm’s workers because the brothers’ companies treat their employees well and have negotiated fair contracts with them.
The attempt to demonize the brothers because of their support for conservative think tanks has flopped. So, too, may the recall, in large measure because Wisconsin voters, who elected Walker and a Republican legislature in 2010 when they campaigned on the measures that they have since passed, understand what is at stake in the election. The recall is nothing less than an all-out power play by unions who realize that their grip on power and the public purse is slipping. Reformers like Walker are determined to put in place a process that will prevent Wisconsin from being pushed to insolvency by public worker contracts that are negotiated with a figurative gun to the state’s head in the form of strikes.
That the Times can write more than 1,200 words about this without mentioning the fact that Walker is leading in the polls says something interesting about the paper’s bias. But it is even more interesting that the thrust of the piece proves that the editorial position of the paper about Citizens United trashing democracy is utterly without basis.
I completely disagree with you, based on facts. nWalker campaigned on creating 250,000 jobs. Now, rather than 250,000 jobs, Walker will need to create roughly 273,900 to fulfill his promise. According to the BLS, Wisconsin shed 23,900 jobs between March 2011 and 2012. It was the only state with a statistically significant percentage change in employment to report a net loss, the report said. n nWalker has given bonuses to his staff, while cutting salaries of public workers (teachers get a pay cut up to 30%). $765,000 worth. That includes nearly $300,000 in raises and bonuses to staff at the Department of Justice, which had previously tried to cut its Sexual Assault Victim Services program's grants by 42.5 percent for budgetary reasons. Assistant Attorney General Maria Lazar and Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John got raises of $3,000 and $5,000. n nThen there's the emergency manager laws that take the elected official out of control of his or her own district and sell off that districts' assets. These are mostly populated with African Americans. Small 'd' democracy has been taken over by dictators. n n Then there's the fact that Walker plans to take money out of the hands of the people struggling. Money won in a court case against the banks, having to do with foreclosures. n nThese are just off the top of my head, researched to make sure I wasn't lying (unlike some people.) n nThis vote hasn't happened yet. Don't count your chickens.
here are a couple of facts for you: n nNo politician can "create" jobs, other than public positions funded by the taxpayers. n nAs for unemployment, Wisconsin's unemployment rate has decreased from 8.8% to 6.8% between April 2010 and April 2012.
It has always been interesting to me how any law that attempts to limit the role of money in politics just ends up making it more important (and harder to get)
Like the NPR, NYT is using its pulpit to try to reverse the trends! This says it all.
LET’S TALK ABOUT THE INFLUENCE OF CORPORATIONS: n nThe best way to circumvent campaign law is to organize as a media outlet. Employees of media corporations are exempt from campaign laws. I would appreciate if broadcast talking heads and print journalists would explain why their audiences should not enjoy the same exemption? n nFrom 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms applied only to flesh and blood citizens. n nFrom 1886 to 1973 citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms of speech and the press. n nFrom 1974 to present only commercial media enjoy unrestricted freedoms. Congress amended FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. n n2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate; n nBut what is the difference between slanted news stories or editorial opinions and political ads? n