This article decries how the Walker recall election actually was far more effected by union money coming into help Walker’s opponent than corporate money helped Walker. I like this story because not only does it support my narrative 
but it also demonstrates a question I’ve been asking, sometimes here, as to how this CU decision really isn’t to blame for much of the spending we are now seeing.
In the wake of Wisconsin’s recall election, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell and other commentators disappointed with the result are not blaming the electorate or the apparent success and popularity of Gov. Scott Walker’s reforms. Instead, they are singling out the Supreme Court’s 2010 campaign-finance decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, as the reason for Mr. Walker’s 7-1 spending advantage.
Citizens United held that associations of Americans, including corporations and labor unions, have a First Amendment right to make independent expenditures in support or opposition to candidates for public office.
In a sense, Citizens United did have an important effect on the Wisconsin election. But the effect was almost exactly the opposite of what many pundits imply.
Labor unions poured money into the state to recall Mr. Walker. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the NEA (National Education Association), the nation’s largest teachers union, spent at least $1 million. Its smaller union rival, the AFT (American Federation of Teachers), spent an additional $350,000. Two other unions, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union, which has more than one million government workers) and Afscme (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), spent another $2 million. Little or none of these independent expenditures endorsing a candidate would have been legal under federal law before Citizens United.
By contrast, the large spenders on behalf of Mr. Walker were mostly individuals. According to the Center for Public Integrity, these included Diane Hendricks, Wisconsin’s wealthiest businesswoman, who spent over half a million dollars on his behalf; Bob J. Perry, a Texas home builder, who spent almost half a million; and well-known political contributors such as casino operator Sheldon Adelson and former Amway CEO Dick DeVos, who kicked in a quarter-million dollars each. Businessman David Koch gave $1 million to the Republic Governors Association, which spent $4 million on the Wisconsin race.
These donations have nothing to do with Citizens United. Individuals have been free to make unlimited independent expenditures in support of candidates since the Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo (1976).
So where are we really seeing the effects of the CU decision? Question two is if we really get the corporate/union money out of politics, are the Democratics ready to lose the life line of money which has saved their asses all these years. I don’t think so and this is a reason why we haven’t seen anything from either party trying to close this off.
Discuss
11 Comments . Leave a comment below.According to one account more than $63 million was spent on the recall election, compared to $37 million in the 2010 election. Unless you work for a TV station raking in this money, it is an insane situation that is snowballing into the end of democracy as we know it.
surely there must be an official answer on how much money was spent by Walker… and where it came from.
Plus I could have sworn I saw a chart that indicated that 2/3 of Walker money came from outside groups compared with 1/4 for his opponent.
.
The “outside” I guess meant outside WI, but this is the chart I was thinking of. Walker had some advantage in the independent spending and definitely outraised his opponent 7-1.
Is there a definitive answer?
Citizen’s United makes it way harder to keep track of the huge influx of money — and who is actually behind it, because donors aren’t always transparent.
Here is a nice graphic from NYTimes as of June 4 on the money spent as of May 21. And here is a good article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel with some good background.
The big takeaway is that pro-Walker outside groups grossly outspent anti-Walker outside groups. And apparently, money talks.
Have you read anything more recent?
Your honours, the persecution rests.
Happy days.
Whats your point JohnD? As a progressive I should support Citizens since the ACLU and unions were on the wrong side on this issue? I would much rather the unions spend what little money they have left actually unionizing and organizing their members to become more than a paltry 6-10% of the workforce nationally. That’s how they influence politicians-by building their membership and voter base-not the organized bribery of elections we see today.
Especially because they will always be outgunned by big money and corporations-but they might be able to move larger chunks of voters than business ever can. Organized bribery needs to stop, and its time for liberals to stop conceding money=speech because it is NOT. The Koch brothers love gay marriage, to their credit, but they are giving tons of money to homophobic candidates that share their union and middle class crushing aspirations. Their beliefs matter little-they concede its a return on their investment and that’s a terrible way to view government. Our broken government will not be fixed by emulating our broken markets.
How much of this spending is directly related to the CU decision or was it completely legal before the CU decision? I think I asked it a few times but haven’t heard an answer yet.
Unions should probably spend their money of what the union votes to spend it on, not what the union bosses decide. But that’s not my question.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Mon 20 May 7:29 AM