DATA found.
Balance of Power: Walker's union proposal could be major setback for state's Democratic Party
There's some good charts at that link too.
Whether you agree or disagree with Walker, you cannot dispute that the Democrats get a lot of money from labor unions, and Republicans do not.
Nor did I dispute that. Do you think you're somehow refuting me? That was my second sentence: "Certainly, unions as organizations tend to support Democratic campaigns since Democrats tend to be more supportive of the working class."
I challenged the rest of Werepossum's comments which I believe to be fallacious. I asked for DATA to support them. For example, you repeated some of those same fallacies:
It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out the logical link between Democrats voting to give more taxpayer money to unions and union members, and unions and union members giving more money to Democrats.
Proof? We've already seen a study linked in this thread refuting the propaganda that Wisconsin public employees are paid outrageously high compensation. That alone suggests this "sky is falling" crying about "Democrats voting to give more taxpayer money to unions" is more propaganda than reality. What is your factual basis for claiming otherwise, rather than your emotional feeling it must be true?
I also pointed out that unlike normal trade and manufacturing unions, government
employees tend to be more white collar and more politically diverse. I'd like to see DATA showing that these
employees give disproportionately to Democrats, and that this is materially affected by their compensation changes under Democratic management compared to Republican management.
Finally, I already stipulated that
unions (as opposed to
employees) tend to contribute more to Democrats than Republicans. Given the pugnacious stance Republican governors like Walker have traditionally taken against their workers, this shouldn't surprise anyone. You and Werepossum both seem to insinuate that increased employee compensation translates into increased campaign contributions to Democrats. Do you have any DATA demonstrating there is a material correlation between the two, e.g., something greater than that seen from the populace as a whole?
My guess is this is just more of the same emotionally-charged propaganda the right likes to spread when they don't have substantive attacks. It keeps their faithful obediently outraged and drowns out any attempts at the intelligent and productive discussions that likely won't go their way. Of course I may be wrong, and I welcome good DATA that supports your allegations.