A Wall Street Journal analysis of political spending unveiled Tuesday found that organized labor groups dropped a combined $4.4 billion on political activities between 2006 and 2011, about four times more than previously estimated.
And this is well before to the Citizen’s United decision.
Speaking of which… I heard recently that after Scott Walker kicked butt in Wisconsin at the recall election, a lot of people were talking about how he bought the election (But Obama didn’t buy the 2008 election?), that the CU decision had no impact on the out of state money that was spent on the Walker recall.
So really, what “new” money is being spent after CU that wasn’t being spent prior to it?
BTW…
Union spending goes overwhelmingly to Democratic candidates and liberal causes. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political spending, 92 percent of the $58.5 million in direct candidate donations from 1990 to 2012 went toward Democratic candidates
So I am in favor of removing outside money from supporting these candidates, as long as that outside money includes Union Money.
sabutai says
How to get corporate and union money out of politics? Get these reactionary judges to stop pretending that money=speech, and join the vast majority of the democratic world that limits the ease of buying an election.
PS: Talking about corporate and union money in politics is like talking about Lebron James and Terrel Harris on the Miami Heat. One is a monster, the other…well, isn’t.
Christopher says
…I think the only recourse is a constititional amendment. There was plenty of out of state money in Wisconsin, but disproportionately in favor of Walker (66% of money spent for him as opposed to 25% against him). The main difference of CU is that these non-campaign groups can now say “vote for x”, “don’t vote for y”, whereas before they had to be coy like, “call Governor Walker; tell him you don’t like his union busting” which would just happen (wink, nudge) to run during election season. It’s no secret that unions spend money, but never nearly as much as their rivals. I’d be OK with saying only individuals can donate to campaigns and everything whether campaigns or PACs should be disclosed, but I do think internal political education (corporations to their shareholders, unions to their members) should still be allowed.
johnd says
My head is spinning with double standards… forever pols who raised a lot of money were “beholden” to their donors but EW raises money and it’s great. Scott Walker raised a lot of money from out of staters and it’s bad but EW raises lot of out of state money and it’s good.
Get the money out of politics, all of it.
Christopher says
…because the sources are inconsistent, as are the values of the donors. Scott Walker being bankrolled by the Kochs = bad. Elizabeth Warren raising a ton of cash in small amounts = good.