Political Spending by Unions Far Exceeds Direct Donations

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Political Spending by Unions Far Exceeds Direct Donations

Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, a finding that shines a light on an aspect of labor's political activity that has often been overlooked.

Previous estimates have focused on labor unions' filings with federal election officials, which chronicle contributions made directly to federal candidates and union spending in support of candidates for Congress and the White House.

But unions spend far more money on a wider range of political activities, including supporting state and local candidates and deploying what has long been seen as the unions' most potent political weapon: persuading members to vote as unions want them to.

The new figures come from a little-known set of annual reports to the Labor Department in which local unions, their national parents and labor federations have been required to detail their spending on politics and lobbying since 2005.

This kind of spending, which is on the rise, has enabled the largest unions to maintain and in some cases increase their clout in Washington and state capitals, even though unionized workers make up a declining share of the workforce. The result is that labor could be a stronger counterweight than commonly realized to "super PACs" that today raise millions from wealthy donors, in many cases to support Republican candidates and causes.

The hours spent by union employees working on political matters were equivalent in 2010 to a shadow army much larger than President Barack Obama's current re-election staff, data analyzed by the Journal show.

The usual measure of unions' clout encompasses chiefly what they spend supporting federal candidates through their political-action committees, which are funded with voluntary contributions, and lobbying Washington, which is a cost borne by the unions' own coffers. These kinds of spending, which unions report to the Federal Election Commission and to Congress, totaled $1.1 billion from 2005 through 2011, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The unions' reports to the Labor Department capture an additional $3.3 billion that unions spent over the same period on political activity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026.html

Edited July 10, 2012 by ☼

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Unions are no different than corporations at the end of the day.

[X Factor 1,110]

Unions are no different than corporations at the end of the day.

Aha - but aren't corporations people?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Aha - but aren't corporations people?

Absolutely. They are a collective group of people just like unions. From employees, to managers, to board members, to share holders. Yup, sounds like Corporations are people to me.

[X Factor 1,110]

Absolutely. They are a collective group of people just like unions. From employees, to managers, to board members, to share holders. Yup, sounds like Corporations are people to me.

[X Factor 1,110]

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Unions are no different than corporations at the end of the day.

Except that public employee unions clout is wholly funded by taxpayers, and by taking larger and larger portions of public employee salaries, they are diverting that money to lobbyists that urge government to spend even more money to grow the government payroll. Corporations do not.

[Dan J 277]

Except that public employee unions clout is wholly funded by taxpayers, and by taking larger and larger portions of public employee salaries, they are diverting that money to lobbyists that urge government to spend even more money to grow the government payroll. Corporations do not.

Government contractors do the same thing, but few people complain about that. A good portion of the contract the company gets ends up going back to lobbying for more spending.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Government contractors do the same thing, but few people complain about that. A good portion of the contract the company gets ends up going back to lobbying for more spending.

True. If you are spending government money, you are working for the government. That is one reason why Congress can't seem to help themselves from spending money on weapons systems the armed services didn't request, or have any use for, and why bases that have nothing on them in use but a convenience store, a gas station, a super market, and a trailer park can't be closed. One of those places in our district is a former Coast Guard training center, that after 9/11, had to spend millions of dollars, to install an automatic barrier system, built a new security office with a private security contractor, and reroute incoming traffic. Yet, the place is not in use for any purpose other than housing a few dependents and the occasional retired service member. You can thank Lynn Woolsey for using her influence along with the rest of the SF Bay area liberals to keep that base open, and GWB, for not making an issue of it, although every single BRAC commission has recommended the place be closed and sold off.