Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012

[DCal430]

Bullshit. In California, you simply fill out a form that tells the union that you don't want any of your dues money used for political purposes. You may or may not have to do this annually, (been several years since I dealt with it) but it's the law in California and applies to state workers and their unions just like it does to "private employees" and the unions who represent them.
I represented California BU 12 several years ago, so I was pretty well trained in this at the time.

If you don't want to pay union dues...you have the option to pay "agency fees" instead. Those simply recoup the costs of bargaining on your behalf by the unions...without the pesky hassle of actual union membership. Of course, should something happen in the workplace, don't expect to be represented by the union steward or business agent...

My union requires an annual letter that must be hand delivered in the month of June, only in the month of June, or with in 30 days of being hired. New employees are not told about this and most don't even know. I was never informed of this for years.

 

[BoomerD]

My union requires an annual letter that must be hand delivered in the month of June, only in the month of June, or with in 30 days of being hired. New employees are not told about this and most don't even know. I was never informed of this for years.

There ya go...no political contributions from your dues. It's up to every employee to know his/her rights and responsibilities...to the company and to the union who represents him/her.
That tidbit is probably found in your union agreement or by-laws...somewhere...if you take time to read it.

 

[Ninjahedge]

A working man who is a tax payer and votes for a Democrat is like a chicken who votes for a wolf to guard the hen house...:biggrin:

I appreciate good anaolgies.....



This was not one. There are many inconsistencies with this. The wolf would eat the chickens, not take a few more eggs for "needed omlette projects" and "meringue for the poor".

You have to really nail your analogy to the actual actions of the party, not to what a southern delegation would find most comfortable.

 

[cybrsage]

Neither Unions or Corproations should be allowed to spend 1 red cent on Political Campaigns.

Red cents are valuable, you should save them. Spend the copper clad cents instead.

 

[Moonbeam]

Republicans are a union of solidarity on strike against the government. To get what they want they are willing to break the company. They hate unions because they hate themselves for being exactly the same.

 

[her209]

Hmm... I'm fine with my thread title getting changed but this was OK?

 

[zinfamous]

A good illustration of why the common whining about citizens united and corporate money in politics by dimlibs is BS. Unions are just big dimlib money fleecing machines.

if only "dimlibs" are "whining" about Citizens United, then only "dimlibs" are true Americans.

Do you think that is true?

 

[zinfamous]

Unions that vote for democrats are idiots since the democrats support illegal immigration which helps to cut there wages and eliminate there jobs

at least illegal immigrants have far superior work ethic than many union workers I have ever worked with.

Hi-Yo!

 

[bfdd]

Neither Unions or Corproations should be allowed to spend 1 red cent on Political Campaigns.

Agreed

 

[dmcowen674]

Corporations spend billions to elect Republicans

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Just Officially change the name of the country to:

United Republican Corporations of America

and get it over with.

 

[her209]

Neither Unions or Corproations should be allowed to spend 1 red cent on Political Campaigns.

Except if you do that then only the well off will have enough money to fund their own campaign run for office.

 

[Jhhnn]

Unions vs corporate money? It's all in the way it's tallied. When unions pay, it shows as lump sums. When bundlers put together a big one, it shows as individual contributions.

None of it counts "outside spending" from PAC's & so forth that sprout up like stinkhorns every cycle & disappear just as quickly, financed by "Charitable organizations" & so forth where the source of funding is totally obscured. Now that corporations are people & outside funding campaigns are basically unrestricted, following the money will become nearly impossible.

It'll be interesting to see how many politicians actually lose control of their campaigns, end up stuck in certain issue positions by their "friends" who control the outside groups who spend the money...

 

[davmat787]

Obama's donations: 53% under $200, 19% $2500.
Romney's donations: 13% under $200, 57% $2500.

This is how Romney won the primaries too, by the way.

Source.

So which is it, amounts received per donation as you suggest above, or totals as you explicitly state below? BTW, according to your link Obama has a much larger warchest than any republican, even stating that Obama has ten times the money Romney has. (see quote at bottom of this post from your link above)

Only if you're innumerate. It doesn't matter who the top donors are, it matters what the totals are.

Mr. Obama ended March with 10 times the cash on hand as Mr. Romney.

 

[davmat787]

Except if you do that then only the well off will have enough money to fund their own campaign run for office.

Or, we could work out some scheme to publicly finance campaigns. In that really long OWS thread, there was quite a few who ended up agreeing on getting corporate and union money out of presidential campaigns, and using public money, once a certain threshold was met, to finance campaigns. Doing so could also allow third parties to have more of a voice too. IIRC, it was mostly conservative posters that started on this, with some liberals agreeing to it as well.

Seems like something along this line could be a start to fixing some of the problems related to campaign funding. I am sure there are some holes in it that can be identified, some fixable and some not, but are any of them bigger than the problems our current system of financing campaigns has? I doubt it, but would like to hear of any you guys can identify.

 

[Sonikku]

Unions are just plain wrong people. I even saw it in a movie where a bunch of guys calling themselves the union basically started shooting people and breaking peoples fingers for not paying their dues on time.

 

[zinfamous]

So which is it, amounts received per donation as you suggest above, or totals as you explicitly state below? BTW, according to your link Obama has a much larger warchest than any republican, even stating that Obama has ten times the money Romney has. (see quote at bottom of this post from your link above)

I believe Romney has well-surpassed Obama over the last month, though.

Remember, Citizen's United is only partly about allowing further, direct corporate financing to individuals.

The more insidious aspect, however is the ability to funnel limitless cash into dummy organizations ("Americans for a better and more prosperous anti-secular Government," etc), with no discernible trail as to who is truly behind this organization, to plaster advertising and "documentaries" that are little more than direct propaganda.

Prior to CU, such advertising had to meet certain standards of "approved by Mitt Romney/Barack Obama." Now, because these are "private, non-profit" institutions in name-only, no such approval is needed. Any candidate or party can effectively wash their hands of the deeds committed by those who remain safely, and now legally, unaffiliated.

Best estimate, right now, is that the advertising war chest for Romney (which his campaign now gets to axe from their own budget--as would Obama), is approaching 2x what is available for Obama.

It is a despicable time for American politics

 

[Jhhnn]

People don't voluntarily hand over money to the union for political purposes, most of it is from mandatory political contributions from your paycheck.

When you work in many you don't have a choice but to join the union in most places, and political contributions to the union mandatory. I had thousands of dollars taken from me and given to the union for political purposes, it wasn't willingly it was taken against my will.

I live in California. The only way to stop the deduction is to be a fair-share employee and hand deliver a letter to the union office each June to be a Non-Germane employee. The letter must be hand delivered in June, not before and not after, failure to hand deliver the letter means the Union will take $500 to $1000 of your paycheck next year ($45 to $100 each month). It must be redelivered each and every year. I didn't even know about this for the first few years I worked there, and many new employees are unaware of this. Voting union members can NOT opt out of the Mandatory political contributions. Another annoying this I will have to take time off work in order to hand deliver my letter.

The vast majority of states have laws that ALLOW this. This is how most unions work now.

Heh. So the first quote isn't true- the money your union used for politics was taken not by force, but as result of your own ignorance, as stated in the second quote...

Fee objectors, as they're known here in Colorado, are denialists & free loaders, because the very existence of unions is a political matter, as is what they're allowed & not allowed to do. Witness Wisconsin. Witness the situation prior to the Wagner Act of 1935.

And it's always convenient to claim that one has made it all on their own, that unions have nothing to do with the money they make, because they're obviously better & smarter than everybody else which is why the boss likes 'em, tells 'em what they want to hear... just like Repub politicians... Just like Rush & Hannity...

Maybe there's some pattern here, some sort of shared beliefs, something like religion...

 

[lotus503]

Agreed

Agreed also.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you don't want to pay union dues...you have the option to pay "agency fees" instead. Those simply recoup the costs of bargaining on your behalf by the unions...without the pesky hassle of actual union membership. Of course, should something happen in the workplace, don't expect to be represented by the union steward or business agent...

That's not really true at all. Unions bend over backwards to honestly represent fee objectors because of the liabilities associated with not doing so. Fee objectors pay for representation in disciplinary matters just like the rest, and are the first to claim victimhood by the union if they screw up & get fired.

It fits perfectly with the feigned victimhood of Righties in general.

 

[DCal430]

Heh. So the first quote isn't true- the money your union used for politics was taken not by force, but as result of your own ignorance, as stated in the second quote...

Fee objectors, as they're known here in Colorado, are denialists & free loaders, because the very existence of unions is a political matter, as is what they're allowed & not allowed to do. Witness Wisconsin. Witness the situation prior to the Wagner Act of 1935.

And it's always convenient to claim that one has made it all on their own, that unions have nothing to do with the money they make, because they're obviously better & smarter than everybody else which is why the boss likes 'em, tells 'em what they want to hear... just like Repub politicians... Just like Rush & Hannity...

Maybe there's some pattern here, some sort of shared beliefs, something like religion...

First of all how fuck is it due to my own ignorance. NO WHERE is this rule stated in any union contract, any state law, or any where a reasonable person would look. The only place it is exsist is in supreme court ruling. Should I go around looking at every court ruling to see if I find anything.

The only fucking way you would know is if another employee tells you. The employor is forbidden to tell you and the union wont tell you either.

 

[DCal430]

FYI my union was just busted by the supreme court for taking tens of millions from people in 2005 who signed objection letters for political donations. The unions basically decided for almost 2 years it would ignore these letter and take tens of millions from people against their will. The dumb thing is since the money has been spent, they dont have to pay it back.

 

[nehalem256]

FYI my union was just busted by the supreme court for taking tens of millions from people in 2005 who signed objection letters for political donations. The unions basically decided for almost 2 years it would ignore these letter and take tens of millions from people against their will. The dumb thing is since the money has been spent, they dont have to pay it back.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

I thought the dumb part was they give 90% of their contributions to Democrats... and then complain why the Republicans try to crush them :hmm:

 

[dmcowen674]

I believe Romney has well-surpassed Obama over the last month, though.

Remember, Citizen's United is only partly about allowing further, direct corporate financing to individuals.

The more insidious aspect, however is the ability to funnel limitless cash into dummy organizations ("Americans for a better and more prosperous anti-secular Government," etc), with no discernible trail as to who is truly behind this organization, to plaster advertising and "documentaries" that are little more than direct propaganda.

Prior to CU, such advertising had to meet certain standards of "approved by Mitt Romney/Barack Obama." Now, because these are "private, non-profit" institutions in name-only, no such approval is needed. Any candidate or party can effectively wash their hands of the deeds committed by those who remain safely, and now legally, unaffiliated.

Best estimate, right now, is that the advertising war chest for Romney (which his campaign now gets to axe from their own budget--as would Obama), is approaching 2x what is available for Obama.

It is a despicable time for American politics

This thread has been reported for containing a needlessly inflammatory and/or misleading thread title.

As reported, the thread title was: "Corporations spend billions to elect Republicans"

The article title cited by the link in your OP is: "Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012"

Per the data published in the link, $1,384,781,159 (~$1.4B) was spent on democrats while $929,721,054 (~$0.93B) was spent on republicans.

In other words not billions (plural), not even 1 billion, and misleading regarding the relative distribution between democrats and republicans.

I have changed your thread-title to reflect that which the article's author and editor felt most appropriately captured the materially significant aspects of the article you linked.

===================================================
Well management believes individuals are contributing more than Corporations.

I don't believe that for a second.

What the article fails in that data is in time frame.

Corporations were not given full control until the Supreme Court decision around 2009 so why do they use data going back to 1989?

To hide the truth, that is why.

Despite being covered up in forums and the media, history will always show the truth.

 

[Matt1970]

A working man who votes for a Republican is like a chicken who votes for Colonel Sanders...:biggrin:

BULLCRAP, cause Republicans understand you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Democrats don't seem to comprehend that the end result of a war waged against Corporations is NOT everything being peaches and cream and everyone making more money but in fact either that corporation shuts down or moves overseas.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by BoomerD
A working man who votes for a Republican is like a chicken who votes for Colonel Sanders...:biggrin:

BULLCRAP, cause Republicans understand you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Democrats don't seem to comprehend that the end result of a war waged against Corporations is NOT everything being peaches and cream and everyone making more money but in fact either that corporation shuts down or moves overseas.

What? Now that's some grade A bullshit right there.

Republicans moved as much overseas as they can for pure profit no matter what. They are the ultimate in biting the hand that feeds them.

Oh and the moving overseas, good riddance.

Look how quickly many are finding out that wasn't the greatest idea and now moving a lot back here.

They are figuring out that catering to the 1% can only go so far.