Free Markets, Free People

Unions to spend $400 million on elections


You remember the “Citizen’s United” case I’m sure.  And you probably remember the cries from the left when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the 1st Amendment saying that amendment prohibited the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations and unions.

Bad decision according to them, remember?  What was it Barack Obama said?  That the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates."

He even lectured the Supreme Court justices at that year’s State of the Union Address saying, "last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Yes, those evil corporations were sure to be bankrolling American elections to the detriment of the “little people”.

But unions?  Meh.  Not a word from Obama about unions.

Unions are getting ready to pour money into the 2012 elections. The AP’s Sam Hananel reports that AFSCME is planning to spend at least $100 million, the SEIU will spend $85 million or more, and total union efforts will reach at least $400 million. While many of its affiliate unions, such as AFSCME, will spend heavily on advertising and candidates, the AFL-CIO will continue to focus on developing the infrastructure for year-round, grassroots mobilization.

And not a word since.  When I hear Barack Obama rail against union spending and call for it to end, then I’ll believe he’s against unlimited spending for principled reasons (not that I’d agree, but I’d given him that benefit of the doubt) and not political ones.  Until then he’s just another in a long line of political hacks trying to limit the funds of those who would spend their money in opposition to him.


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

15 Responses to Unions to spend $400 million on elections

  • “When I hear Barack Obama rail against union spending and call for it to end, then I’ll believe he’s against unlimited spending…”

    First, why would you believe anything he says? He’s explicitly denounced spending that he immediately engaged in. He ALWAYS has a least two positions on any issue (abortion being a notable exception).

    Second, it will never happen. There is “good” spending in political campaigns (his), and “bad” spending (all other). The sources can be identical (i.e., Wall St.), and the sums provided him greater. No matter. See First, above.

    Third, this is one of the most credulity-straining issues involving the press and Obama. He announced he intends to raise a BILLION dollars…ostensibly to SPEND. This should have raised a hue and cry, but you can hear the crickets. Hmmmm….

    • @Ragspierre “He ALWAYS has a least two positions on any issue (abortion being a notable exception). ”

      WHEN he has any position at all and isn’t ‘evaluating’, ‘considering’ or ‘studying’ some situation.

    • @Ragspierre The antonym for “Decisive” in the thesaurus is “Obama”.

    • @Ragspierre “They also said that artificial sweeteners were safe, WMDs were in Iraq and Anna Nicole married for love.”

      • @Neo_ All true, Neo. Artifical sweeteners ARE safe, there WERE WMD in Iraq, and Anna LOVED her some money…

  • I have this recollection in my youth of when I first heard about the notion of a labor union being a negotiating body for a group of workers. I immediately assumed that companies (i.e. management) was then able to negotiate the best deal by going from union to union until they found the best match. Of course, we know something as simple as that could never be allowed.

  • When you control the Ministry of Truth these matters are easily disposed of with a sniffle.

  • Union members in the modern day are among the very stupidest, most ignorant people ever. I have had the dubious pleasure to speaking at some length to members of various unions and they are totally ignorant of economics. They are horribly ill informed of history, They believe in all sorts of stupid populist nostrums. And they do not want to hear anything that is contrary to what their union leaders tell them, , ,

    At one time I think they did some good, but that was a long time ago. They are pretty much just an impediment to human happiness, prosperity, and progress now.

  • Well I’m hoping unions spend $800MM and lose every race.