Why Unions are not Super PACs 


Conservative super PACs are fine because
Dems have unions -- why they're wrong 

By Alex Seitz-Wald 

Salon.com

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/12/why_unions_are_not_super_pacs/


On Monday, the Wall Street Journal reignited a battle
over money in politics when it reported that labor
unions have been spending about four times more on
political activity than was previously understood.
Using public disclosure forms unions filed with the
Labor Department, the Journal concluded that unions
have spent over $4 billion on political advocacy at all
levels of government since 2005.

"The result," the Journal explains, "is that labor
could be a stronger counterweight than commonly
realized to 'super PACs' that today raise millions from
wealthy donors, in many cases to support Republican
candidates and causes."

Republicans and proponents of secret money groups saw
the report as vindication. Jonathan Collegio, the
spokesperson for the Karl Rove-backed American
Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, two of the largest
outside groups backing conservatives, sent the article
to reporters with the subject line "MUST READ."  "Labor
unions have traditionally spent far more on political
activity than any other sector, and Super PACs like
American Crossroads will at best balance them out,"
Collegio said.

Indeed, this argument -- that conservative outside
spending groups are merely doing what labor unions have
done all along, and are thus justified in their
activities -- has been a common conservative refrain
since the Supreme Court handed down its Citizens United
decision in 2010. But is it true?

In terms of sheer money, while it's difficult to
measure accurately or comprehensively, it's probably
not even close. In terms of direct contributions to
candidates, business groups have given about $618
million to Republican candidates since 2000, on top of
another $31 million to GOPers from ideological groups,
according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive
Politics. Labor groups, meanwhile, have given under $35
million to Democrats over that same time period.
"Whatever slice you look at, business interests
dominate, with an overall advantage over organized
labor of about 15-to-1," the Center notes, though
business groups divide their giving between Republicans
and Democrats, while labor focuses almost entirely on
Democrats. In terms of lobbying, labor groups are again
hopelessly outspent. Together, they have collectively
spent about $502 million on lobbying since 1998 -- less
than 11 separate business sectors spent individually.
Each of those sectors, including defense and
healthcare,  have each spent between $1 and 5 billion.

"This parity that supposedly exists," Sen. Al Franken,
a Democrat from Minnesota, said at a press conference
this morning in response to a question from Salon,
"it's just not true. ... These Republicans that say that,
they're wrong."  (The event marked the rollout of a new
version of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill to make all
contributions over $10,000 transparent.)

When it comes to outside spending on ads, of the top
five groups so far this year, four are conservative,
one is liberal (Priorities USA), and none are labor
unions. The first union on the list, the SEIU, comes in
at 13th place. The AFL-CIO, the country's biggest
union, is even further down the list, just under
Americans for Rick Perry, a super PAC that supported
the Texas governor's ill-fated presidential bid.

But beyond spending, unions operate under a completely
different paradigm from the conservative independent
expenditure groups in a number of meaningful ways.

First, unions are subject to very strict annual
disclosure rules that require them to detail all
"political activities and lobbying," both "direct and
indirect." It's far more comprehensive than what
corporations and super PACs are required to disclose.
As the Journal itself even noted, "Comparisons with
corporate political spending aren't easy to make. Some
corporate political spending, such as donations to the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce's political wing, doesn't need
to be disclosed. What does have to be disclosed can't
be found in a single database or two, as is the case
with unions."

"The fact [is] that the disclosure required for unions
is greater than for other kinds of organizations," Bob
Biersack of the Center for Responsive Politics told
Salon.

Second, donors to secret money groups and super PACS
can have far greater influence than donors to unions'
political activity because union donations are, by
nature, far more dispersed. "Our concern is not so much
with the total dollars being spent in politics, as the
ability of a very small number of donors to exert huge
influence on the electoral process through their
willingness and ability to contribute huge amounts,"
Paul S. Ryan, the senior counsel at the Campaign Legal
Center, told Salon. "And that's where you really see a
difference between the c(4)s and c(6)s, like the
Chamber [of Commerce], and labor unions."

"Labor unions are made up of, typically, large numbers
of modest-income individuals who, even in the
aggregate, give a pretty modest amount of money or
resources to their union for political and every other
purpose," Ryan continued. "By contrast, some of the
newer c(4)s have been created precisely to avoid limits
on contributions and to facilitate the ability of
really wealthy people to give big checks." This is the
type of activity that breeds corruption.

Third, union members can opt out of contributing to
political activity, while shareholders of corporations
cannot, Jeff Hauser of the AFL-CIO pointed out to
Salon. "Union political committees are created by an
internally democratic proceeding and make endorsements
in line with union membership's preferences," the
AFL-CIO said in a statement responding to the Journal
article. And under federal law, union members can fill
out a form to opt out of having a portion of their dues
go to political activity if they disagree with the
organization's politics. Corporations, on the other
hand, do not have to disclose to their investors how
they spend money for political advocacy and lobbying,
let alone let investors have a say in which candidates
or causes the corporation should support. So investors
cannot opt out because they don't even know. "If we
give union members the right to opt out of, to refuse
to fund union political speech, we ought to give
shareholders the right to opt out of funding corporate
political speech," said Benjamin Sachs, a labor-law
expert at Harvard, told NPR last month.

Alex Seitz-Wald is Salon's political reporter. Email
him at [log in to unmask], and follow him on Twitter
@[log in to unmask]

____________________________________________

PortsideLabor aims to provide material of interest to
people on the left that will help them to interpret the
world and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

PS Labor Archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate