Big Labor’s Compulsory Politics = $1.1 Billion in 2010 Election Cycle
by Don LoosThe chart below represents dollars flowing to politicians from the “Top-100” special interest donors over the last 20 years.
The blue skyscraper on the left of the chart is the money spent by Big Labor – it exceeds all other special interests combined.
Further investigation reveals that the money represented on this chart is only the tip of the iceberg. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Big Labor spent $2.2 Billion on political activities during the 2008 & 2010 election cycles alone — eclipsing by four times the 20-year $1/2 Billion from the chart.
But, then no one should be shocked by this. You see Big Labor has special powers above all other special interests..
Big Labor has the power to force workers to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment. Without the power to compel the unwilling, Big Labor and the Democrat party would be forced to fight on the battlefield of ideas rather than choking the airwaves with its propaganda.
While Duquesne University Professor Anthony Davies’ series of charts about reported political donations provide marvelous visual comparisons (h/t NRO’s Veronique de Rugy), they still fail to take in the full magnitude of forced-dues financed politics and the absolute control Big Labor has over the Democrat party and the political system.
Occasionally a Big Labor PAC might give a Republican $5,000 or even a bit more; meanwhile, its union bosses will use ithe union’s treasury and human capital to spend a hundred-fold in an effort against that very Republican candidate.
In one year alone, just 3,000 of the more than 20,857 of DOL electronic union reports spent more on political activities from their compulsory-fees filled coffers than Big Labor reported in their 20 years of political campaign disclosure reports. And, these DOL reports do not include unions that exclusively represent government employees or AFL-CIO central bodies.
Big Labor is quite simply a political organization that has been allowed to spend billions collected by force on political activities. It is time to end the Big Labor forced-dues political machine.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
97 Comments
This can't possibly be accurate. Everyone KNOWS that Republicans are the party of special interests. Why, the media told me so!
/sarc
We're watching the attempted take-over of America by Socialist Democrats and we need to reverse trend fast.
It's funny. If the unions had kept all that money, maybe their pension funds wouldn't be in such abysmal shape.
Gee, it looks like corruption, sounds like corruption, smells like corruption…
Don't vote, your vote doesn't mean anything. If you think it does, you are incredibly ignorant.
Companies have all kinds of restrictions while the Unions can do anything. Don't forget the huge phone banks that spread lies and rumors and even scare tactics to seniors.
Unions are the "chosen class" by Obama that get special deals on everything. Sen. Obama: "I Owe These Unions." Gee what happens to the Union gold plated health plans when the big tax kicks in for Cadillac health plans. Will there be another "special deal" to exempt the unions? Will there be a "special class" of everything for union people? These days who knows.
Unions have made a mess of Europe, can that become America under Obama?
Imagine how much of that money is used to line the pockets of the union bosses and their cronies.
US taxpayers have, via govt money already bailed out unions and even their retirement funds, think GM and and I think Chrylser. Taxpayers did BAIL OUT retirement plans for AC Delco union workers but NOT managers who got screwed.
Yeah……
now someone want to tell me all about evil corporate campaign funds again?
But it's…..
for the children.
Then it's unquestionably,…… Union.
I'd have liked this article much more if it had replaced the word "donations" with what it really is "bribery".
Ssssshhhh.
Union at work.
Stop bringing up common sense.
…and not one dollar to hungry children…union children left homeless by Inion bosses greed and anti-JOB ruinations.
Is there an idiot among us who doesn't believe labor is getting 10 times their contributions (bribes) or more back?
The democrat party, the party of the super rich and over privileged is hoping to buy the 2012 election, this will no doubt pay for allot of rent-a-thugs, dead voters and "same day" voter registrations….
Let's better hope that the phrase, "Money isn't everything" has some relevance here……
So why don't the union members who disagree with the unions funding campaigns get together and sue. It's their benefit money being hijacked.
If China or Brazil decides that they like one of the Republican presidential contenders this year, and they would prefer that person to Barack Obama, what’s to stop China or Brazil from giving a million bucks to FreedomWorks to go get out the vote, to go do organizational work for that candidate? What’s to stop them from giving a $1 million donation? Or a $10 million donation? Or a $10 billion donation? Literally, what is to stop China from writing a $10 billion check to elect some favored Republican candidate in the next election, to elect some favored Republican candidate the next president of the United States? What’s to stop that now?
Thanks Citizen united!!
We found out in 2008 that money can buy the Presidency of the United States of America.
Ever since we have been in salvage mode. Whether we few on the RIGHT who understand how this
happened, can prevent it from being done again, and on a wider scale than before is a total crap-shoot.
Never say DIE!!!
FIGHT on PATRIOTS!!!
.
Big Union is not a corporation so they don't count. That's why it's okay for Big Union to contribute other people's money to the Socialist Democrats but it's NOT okay for corporations to contribute money to campaigns, especially if it's going to a Conservative Republican. See? Now doesn't that make sense to you?
If you try to get your dues back that was spent on politics, they tell you very little goes to politics. Then where the hell is all this money coming from? AFSCME head Geral McEntee is an Fing liar, as is Trumka. I hope they join Jimmy Hoffa Sr. one of these days.
Sounds like the 2008 NObama campaign…
Like here from that right wing paper WAPO…. RFLOL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...
So, instead of addressing the issue at hand, you address a strawman? Not a way to win the debate.
It's the Obama (Chicago) way
Hey, they were only taking their cues from the federal mismanagement of things like the Social Security trust. Why bother leaving all that tempting money sitting their to be used for its intended purpose when it could be spent now?
It just amazes me how some simpletons don't think twice about paying union dues, but God forbid they have to pay a minimal amount into a pension to secure their future or for healthcare. Then when the union and it's bullies force the company to close it's doors due to expensive benefits, the same simpletons blame everyone but the unions.
In the public sector it is way beyond comprehension what has been going on. All you have to do is look at what is taking place in Wisconsin, the state I fled from over 20 plus years ago just for this reason along with the socialism path they were beginning to follow.
Sorry about that terrible fall you had. Did you need stitches in your head? The regressive vote won't count and that is certain. They will be overwhelmed at the polls regardless of that bag of tricks they use. Watch, listen, and learn.
Heh, heh, they will empty the bag of tricks this time. We will be watching and making them eat it.
"It is time to end the Big Labor forced-dues political machine".
Mean while here in Maryland our legislators pass "Fair Share" in which state employees who are not union members or pay union dues must pay their "fair Share". 1% of their monthly salary.
The recently passed Fair Share legislation will make "the" system fairer by putting Fair Share to a vote to all state employees who are covered by collective bargaining agreement. If a majority of state employees say yes, then all employees will pitch in toward the cost of union representation whether they like it or not.
And whats you gonna do about it bud?
Goodness gracious! I wondered what happened to the strike funds! It was wasted buying politicians.
Do you expect mind numbed robots to think for themselves or care about anybody but themselves?!
Rush Limbaugh calls it "money laundering".
Please note that teachers unions are separate from labor unions and are the seventh largest contributor to politicians – Democrat politicians, that is.
If all union members were mind numbed. it wouldn't be NECESSARY to FORCE them into a union in order to work.
Forced members are the weak link in the union's power base, these are the members I'm talking about.
That chart appears to look like,…..
a "corporate jet" taking off.
This is an excellent chart. I miss good charts like Reagan use to create in order to explain his position. It worked. This is what needs to be splashed across the political landscape this election season. Americans are a visual people, we don't understand abstract lies, especially from a teleprompter.
And NOBODY is surprised by the complete lock on the government by Marxists after reading that chart?
Labor Unions are the money laundering operation of the Democratic party.
Why no word about the "BIG LABOUR" parasitic drain on America's cities and municipalities finally surpassing in some cases 50% OF TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES for merely retirement benefits?!? Any wonder BIG LABOUR is oh so willing to put up billions when the return from such through the Democrats is one hundred fold?
Hate to admit such but were the talking heads in the GOP actually thinking of victory in 2012 instead of paying back their own special interests, the first thing on the table for the debt ceiling talks would have been unions losing their tax shelters which eclipse any "corporate jet" obfuscation Obama has come out with and which would also have clearly spotlighted Obama's own special interest investors.
Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed...
"The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government." George Washington
Not exactly. While unionism was a necessary medicine for the individual worker at one time, it has been abused to the point of turning the worker into a junkie who can't stop him/her self from wanting more-more-MORE and its "bosses" nothing more than users who became pushers themselves cashing in on that addiction.
you mean like Clinton did, with both Chinese AND Indonesian money?
I assume you mean the debt that has to be repaid…
i believe it was PJ O'Rourke who said, "When legislation is up for sale, the first things bought & sold are legislators."
Eliminating payroll deduction for union dues was a vital part of Walker's reform. If you don't see it, you don't know that its gone.
I notice on the chart that the Teachers Union gave absolutely nothing to the Republicans. The teachers are all socialists and teaching socialism to the children. What about the children. I think that home schooling is better for the children until the schools decide that they want to teach the truth instead of a bunch of lies.
Only if I am wearing a Che T-shirt, sitting in my mother's basement eating mass quantities of Cheetos and haven't bathed in a month.
Aerospace Workers Union gives money to Obama. Union endorses Obama. Union members are told to and comply with the union official’s endorsement and vote for Obama. Obama gives manned flight to campaign donors. Union members loose jobs. Union bosses cry's crocodile tears. Union gives more money to Obama. Union bosses once again will endorse Obama. Union sheep will once again vote for Obama.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The stupidity of the IAM members and the dishonesty of its leadership are as boundless as outer space itself.
p.s. I'm one of those laid-off Kennedy Space Center workers who has tried to educate my idiot coworker about Obama and his plans to give our jobs to donors like Elon Musk.
Sadly, while the Right and conservatives are the MAJORITY in the USA, it's only a few who are followoing the politics and working to be informed. The RINOs have a song and dance about just leaving the master-minding of Washington to them.
They expect the base WILL simply go down this path of least resistance as they yawn and feel OK. The Tea Party and A. Breitbart are waking people up.We can fight on.
I was young then, but I remember the charts. Ryan uses charts and people took notice.
OBAMA PASSED A NEW STIMULUS PACKAGE
http://thewashingtonfancy.com/2011/07/president-o...
During a break in service during the latter Clinton years, I worked at Veterans Stadium as a beverage manager. I was forced into a union. That union took dues right out of my check and I had no input in where thoose funds were used. The union did zip, zero, nada for me. What they did do was keep managers like myself from firing people when caught red handed stealing from the tills, or any of a hundred other scams that were ongoing in that facitity. I eventually got sick of it, when my dues were used to support canidates and anti gun measures I opposed and quit and rejoined the Army. Unions can kiss my rear end!
I call it robbery
Just like the income tax deduction. Imagine if folks had to write a check at the end of the year…there would be riots and pitch forks in Washington
The most important point is missing: "these DOL reports do not include unions that exclusively represent government employees". That means that the cash kickbacks from the Teachers, AFSCME, AFGE etc. that have a huge interest are not even represented in these figures. You can guess that these Unions at least matched the DOL reporting unions, so double the "blue skyscraper" again.
Your homework assignment is to actually read the Citizens United decision rather than regurgitate what others have said about it.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/558/08-205/index.htm...
"Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion."
Read the decision and read it again until you understand it.
While you're at it, go read Communications Workers v. Beck. It explains why every dollar of union dues money that was used for political contributions was illegal and has been since 1988.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/487/735/case.html
Just think of the moral outrage and righteous indignation the left would front had the Koch brothers donated 1.1 billion dollars to republican causes.
Labor unions are an enemy to our nation and our constitution. There was a time when communists were banned from joining labor unions. Now, they are running the show.
As I look at this chart, a lot of things click. What do Democrats attack? The Pharmaceutical, Oil, and Tobacco Industries. What do these three have in common? They all contribute much more to Republican's than Democrats. Meanwhile, the Labor Unions, Teachers Unions, and Lawyers are almost solely contributing to Democrats! Which is why they get special protected status. It explains alot why there never will be tort reform, and these Unions will continue their stranglehold on US taxpayers.
I believe payroll deduction was introduced in WWII as a way to garner cash to finance the war effort. If I'm not mistaken, Milton Friedman was one of the whiz kids who came up with the system. I do agree with you, however. Riots and pitchforks.
" Unions can kiss my rear end!"
Sorry, they screw everyone but only kiss the rear ends of politicians.
The union scam is nothing more than the attempted overthrow of the Republic by marxists from within. fortunately, we have them surrounded and the 2.2 billion didn't do them as much as they wanted in the mid-term elections. Keep up the good work, they will be beaten!
good for you and thank you for your service! We can lead by example.
Thanks for a good article making it clear to simpletons like me. and better yet you have where you got the info in case anybody wants to back check you. superb Mr. Loos.
and isn't it about time a troll showed up saying somehting nasty or nonsensical thinking their opinion is the answer?
It's the Democrat-Big Labor money laundering scheme.
Donate to the Republicans.
Do it for the children!
Crackpot conspiracy fantasies are bad for your brain, Knoxs.
oh my everybody- narcissist johnny has spoken- we must listen- because his opinion is right (only according to him) I suppose you blurted out last fall- don't vote…. and gee the mindnumbed trolls listened and the patriots laugh!
yeah johnnyknox.
what a great bumper sticker
It is comical watching the Unions squirm here in Illinois. As they spend and spend on politics, the union members are being shafted out of contractual agreements their union bosses made in "deals" with politicians they supported.
As the Freemen of this country continue to stand up to government, union membership is starting to realize that they have basically created another government, called union bosses, that is shafting them out of billions.
I submit that the lording of union bosses is coming to an end because union membership is finally starting to figure out that union bosses are using them like pawns and milking them out of every dime they can possibly soak from that thing called DUES. They are starting to realize that their DUES are being snaked away to line political pockets instead of pensions and other benefits.
It is about time.
OCP, we can look even further back. We found that out with JFK and Clinton. It is debatable aobutt he purchase of JFK's seat. The fraud in Illinois clinched his win. I understand the fraud was purchased by Papa Joe, so I'm calling that bought.
We shall see if stopping fraud can grow legs/ If the citizens of this country can overcome the race-baiters an collectivist carpetbaggers to enact a voter ID requirement, we could end a lot of the corruption.
I am not sure how we disagree, I think the process should be 100% transparent, I would prefer that NO corporate or special interest money be allowed to influence election outcomes, I believe that the process should be 100% public, it is the only way of ensuring that politicians have our interest as their ONLY interest, agree?
Well then let us address the issue at hand, I don't believe that special interest money or corporate money should be used to influence elections, do you?
Yes, yes, yes, that is exactly what I mean, but unfortunately as a result of an INSANE ruling by the supreme court, money can now flow easily from a Chinese controlled US based company to a group such as Freedom Works with the expressed purpose of influencing a campaign, I don't know about you, but I think that is just plain CRAZY!!!
Do you believe that a corporation is a person?
Do you believe that money should have a voice?
Of course we can look further back, but why would we bother. Never before has this nation been
taken on a ride down toward the cesspool of tyranny as we currently are. In JFK's wildest dreams
he could not/would not have envisioned such a deranged approach at ''governing'' the USA. This
is the rabid,, insane LEFT repeatedly celebrating their 08 victory, laughing at our desperation as
they openly destroy our REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. They are diabolical IMO.
Voter ID will only be as good as the election workers who enforce it… More people need to volun-
teer to work as election judges and observers, where the rubber meets the road. Some Houston
folks have been brave ground-breakers in that area. Their example must spread nationwide. Their
task is not for the faint of heart.
.
So you are ok with corporations spending millions of dollars on political speech, but you have a problem with a group of people who formed a democracy within their work place to have a voice, do I have that right?
Why should a corporation be allow to pour millions into negative advertising in order to help a corporate friendly candidate?
What if that candidate is willing to allow that corporation to pour sludge into water ways or spew toxic chemicals into the air, are you ok with the favours that are returned to the corporations by candidates ?
Are you ok if that corporation is head-quartered in China or elsewhere?
I would like elections to be 100% public, I believe that would be the only way "the people" will ever be able to take back government, make government answerable to the people the way it should be, STOP making election wins based on the amount of bribes you are able to take in!!
So, you're naturally against Big Labor contributions?
Couldn't agree with you more, OCP. My husband is an election judge here in our town. The next election will not only be a barn burner because of the Presidential election, but, he'll probably have to deal with all the new scheming of redistricting that has been done in our state. (Although, state Republicans are taking that to court.) Not certain yet whether that will mean we will have to go somewhere else to vote than our "normal" voting place or not. If we do, what a mess that will be when people show up at the wrong voting place and have to be directed somewhere else. As though, Illinois elections aren't botched up and crooked enough already.
The Left IS celebrating their '08 victory, but, it actually started in '06 when they took over Congress – funny how few remember that and credit Bush with some of the mess Pelosi and Reid made. That's when they began feeling and abusing their power… and they've intensified their "deranged approach" since.
Yes, you are beginning to understand my position, I am against ALL special interest and corporate influence, I strongly believe elections should be 100% public!!
Why would you be against union contributions, but for corporate contributions?
A study was done that suggested it would take approx 20 dollars person a year to finance Federal elections, each candidate would have an equal amount to spend, NO additional money could be spent, any corporate or special interest money would be considered as bribes.
I believe this would give the government back too the people where it belongs, agree?
Also lobbying would be considered bribery, and why not, what else should it be called?
Had to split this into two parts.
First of all, I see you didn't bother to read either decision. The Beck decision was about unions using a member's compulsory union dues to support candidates that this member didn't like. He sued to get a refund of that portion of his dues. The union said "No!" The Supreme Court said "give him back his money".
Second, your arguments about foreign contributions is a red herring. These are illegal, been so for a long time, and nothing in the Citizen's United decision changes that.
Next, the First Amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Notice that it does not say "unless you're a corporation with the exception of the media who are also corporations but they can say what they want and it's okay".
Here is something that you might not understand but I'll say it and explain: Money is speech. Why? Because in order for your speech to be heard, that costs money. Unless you're content with standing on a street corner shouting at passersby, it cost money to get your views known. If you take out an ad in a newspaper to express your views, it costs money. If you want TV time to state your opinions, that costs money. And, like Citizens United, if you finance a film to highlight the shortcomings of a particular candidate before an election, that costs money too.
Your problem is that you assume anytime money spent about politics, it's always for a corrupt purpose. That may be true some of the time but not all the time. My two word answer to that: Eugene McCarthy.
McCarthy ran for President in 1968 on an anti-Vietnam War platform and his winning the New Hampshire primary was enough to convince Lyndon Johnson to not run for re-election. Why was this relevant? Because his campaign was bankrolled by Stewart Mott (the GM heir) and Jack Dreyfus (mutual fund king). Why did they bankroll him? Maybe they just thought he'd make a good President. If McCarthy had to raise money according to the current rules, nobody would've ever heard of him.
Ever since the first campaign finance laws got passed in the 1970's, can you honestly say things have gotten better? Or have the gotten more opaque, more obscure, more corrupt, more skewed to help incumbents and less friendly to insurgent candidates how could change things for the better?
The laws don't work so the solution is more laws? I think the First Amendment got it right in the beginning.
I think the stakes have never been higher. I also know that for as long as there has been the vote, there has been the purchase of that vote. This whole idea that whatever you do is okay as long as you get your way is repellent and these cockroaches need to be exterminated. (for the mentally challenged in the audience-that is not a literal statement)
At least if voter ID is in place, there is some kind of a standard. Yes, we need honest people working the polls. I hear the New Black Panthers work cheap.
SEIU STEALING MEDICAID PAYMENTS FOR UNION DUES TO PAY FOR DEMOCRATZI 'LOON' ELECTIONS!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4g9ILNUr_8&fe...
Conservative activist justices of the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a century of U.S. law in Citizens United, to permit corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money without ANY disclosure in U.S. elections on the specious theory that corporations are "persons" entitled to First Amendment political speech — more speech than you and I (we are limited in how much we can contribute to a canddiate or a cause, and we must disclose those contributions).
Global corporations, many of them foreign-owned companies operating in the U.S., contributing unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns to subvert U.S. elections in contravention of U.S. law prohibiting foreign contributions in U.S. elections. This is the Citizens United loophole that Congress should have closed with the DISCLOSE Act, but that Republicans filibustered.
You believe that the ones with the most money are the ones who should have the loudest voices?
You believe that corporations are persons?
Give me your explanation as to why a corporation has the same rights as you and I.
Sorry, but everything is a "Special Interest"
No they didn't. Please don't get your talking points from Obama. He even lied about his mothers "problems" with insurance when she was dying. The only claim her insurance declined was when she tried to claim for living expenses.
I'm wasting my time trying to explain it to you. You're too dense to be reasoned with.
My explanation? The first five words of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law…
The fact remains, the Citizen United decision was based on a FALSE premise, and that premise is "corporations" are "persons", you have yet to provide me with an explanation as to how this could be even remotely possible, don't get upset, or continue your name calling tirade, just answer the question!
BTW, maybe you can explain to me, how a US company with shareholders in China are going to be bared from using funds to influence campaigns?
I get it, you agree with a right wing activist court and its misguided interpretation of the constitution, that by NO means makes it right!!
Let me present a hypothetical, let's say that a large energy company spends millions in campaign advertising favouring a certain candidate, at the same time they spend millions more on attack adds against a unfavourable opponent, let's say that there is an agreement between the energy company and the favourable candidate to enter into a NO BID purchase of the public utilities once the candidate is elected, let's say that the candidate NEVER mentions this in any of his campaign promises, and finally let's say that the citizens of the state as a result of the deceitful dishonest bribery will now be subject to higher energy cost.
Do you believe this to be fair?
Is this what you believe makes America great?
Is this practise what you are defending?
Why are you against publicly financed elections?
Publicly financed elections would serve the interest of the people, isn't that what we are aiming for?
The public DOES pay for the elections. But the public must not pay for the campaigns.
Why must the public not pay for campaigns?
What bad could happen if we eliminate corporate and special interest money?
What part of taking MY money is theft are you to stupid to understand? Money has always been a part of campaigns. Printing in Ben Franklins time was far more expensive than today. You had to be wealthy just to have access to printing, now just borrow a compute with a free copy of Open Office and you can create your own 500 page book in PDF format. 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, it cast 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars just to create a TV ad, today with your 35 dollar cell phone and youtube you can start a revolution.
If we must pay for the campaign, what special interest decides who gets funded and who doesn't?
Get The F Out Of My Pocket. IT IS THEFT!
No, allowing special interest and corporations to finance campaigns is THEFT!!
Public funding of campaigns is not an attempt to patch up the current system, but instead is designed as an alternative to it. By ending politicians' reliance on special interest money and offering in its place a limited but competitive amount of money from a public fund, public funding of campaigns provides an alternative way for candidates to finance their campaigns. Under the current system, wealthy private donors and corporations pay for the elections, so, after the election, their concerns always get heard. But if the public pays for the elections, it frees politicians to be more attentive to the concerns of their regular constituents. For elected officials, this reform allows them more time with constituents during campaign season by removing the endless, year-round pressure to fundraising.
Yes. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, public financing of election campaigns is constitutional!!
Versions of it have already passed in four states, Maine, Arizona, Vermont, and Connecticut.
So you see in the end you will save money, your politician will have more time to govern and your voice will be heard, I am still not sure why you would object? I think I have answered all your concerns.
There is no group that is NOT a special interest. Additionally there are no news group that covers politics without a special view.
Businesses make money by providing a product or service that people are willing to buy at an agreed on price. People give them their money for that product or service, unlike the government that can and will throw you in jail for not giving them your money. (Snipes anyone?)
You want theft of what is mine to support your beliefs. If that is fair, please provide your home address and leave your doors unlocked. We will arrange for the poor to remove your stuff so that the poor will be better off. If you are not willing to do that, you are a fraud and a hypocrite.
The most important special interest group is "we the people" and that should be the ONLY interest group that matters!!!
What does news coverage have to do with public financing of campaigns?
Why are you bringing up the exchange of products in the market place? what does it have to do with public financing of campaigns?
How am I supporting theft of your money? taxes are NOT against the law and YES they could be used as a mechanism for FAIR elections campaigns, why do think 4 states have already approved such measures, and why has the Supreme court deemed them constitutional?
Why are you against all eligible candidates having a fair chance.
Why do you believe that the candidate who raises the most money should have the best chance at being elected?
Wasn't this article against special interest money {unions} and were you not against such influence?
Have you changed your mind about the unions contributions, or do you only support interest that is in your interest?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA
I was really hoping you were going to explain how a legal document becomes a "person"? I was also hoping you were going to explain the safeguards in place to prevent corporations with MAJOR shareholders in China or elsewhere from influencing elections? and finally I was hoping you were going to explain how my hypothetical is fair?
Please no name calling, it only shows a lack of response.
You must be logged in to post a comment.