Democrat Hypocrisy: Attacking Political Advocate Spending…. Unless They’re Unions

Democrats in New York once again prove that their bleating against money in politics is a lie with a new law that forces more campaign finance disclosure for everyone (read Republicans) except for union. Yes, while others are being forced to more disclosure, unions are being allowed to hide more campaign expenditures.

By exempting left-wing, Democrat-old Union donors, this is proof once again that Democrats don’t want money out of politics, they only want Republican money out of politics.

In New York, the state legislature passed a state budget that requires more disclosure of spending on issues and advocacy (outside elections) for everyone… except unions, naturally.

As Craine’s New York reported, “Spending by labor unions on campaign messages targeting their members and union retirees will remain exempt from disclosure under the state law…”

“On balance,” Crain’s wrote, “the move is likely to help labor unions. For instance, in last year’s city elections the health care workers union 1199 SEIU, which spent heavily to support Mayor Bill de Blasio, did not have to disclose much of its outlays.”

Naturally Big Labor spends billions across the country on local, state, and federal elections and millions in New York, but Democrats in Albany have made sure their patrons are exempt from transparency in campaign finance laws they want to impose on others. And since unions only spend on Democrats, what we see is Democrats exempting their own big-time financiers while forcing their opponents to more onerous regulations.

It is clear that these regulations are meant to harass donors that Democrats don’t like. The simple matter of fact is that Democrats are liars when they say they are against money in politics. The only money in politics thy are against is the money Republicans get.

(H/T Mental Recession)

Here is Why The GOP is Its and Our Worst Enemy
Common Core Worksheet Tells Kids to Chose 2 Amendments to Remove from Constitution
  • jim_m

    It has never been about money. It has only ever been about criminalizing the political speech of the opposition.

    • Paul Hooson

      It’s actually a little more complex than just that. These were some timid attempts at political reform in the country to improve the value of one man and one vote, but were imperfect like most legislation is. Read my comment here where I state some facts about the dangers of an oligarchy form of government, where some big and powerful political interests, no matter where they come from, dominant the political system. They can be either big real estate developers, corporate farmers, military contractors or even big labor unions. The danger of a oligarchy control of politics can happen at the local or national level, and is antidemocratic in nature and not in the best interests of the overall welfare of the citizens.

      • Commander_Chico

        The oligarchy is in control now. The FBI worked directly with the big banks in crushing the Occupy movement.

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

        • Paul Hooson

          The Occupy Movement was one of the worst managed and misdirected leftist movements I had ever witnessed. Besides drawing the ire of law enforcement through directless public demonstrations, some in the movement acted as squatters in homes that were on the market for sale, which was little more than breaking and entering. – Other leftists movements of the past at least had a narrow focus in favor of civil rights or opposed to a specific war. This Occupy Movement was like trying to jail Jello to a tree to figure out what they represented or what their political goals were even supposed to be.

          • Commander_Chico

            True, their lack of a coherent message and leadership doomed them. But who knows how much the FBI subverted them internally?

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            As Napoleon supposedly said – “Never stop your enemy when he’s hurting himself.”

            Or something like that.

            http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/07/06/never-interfere/

            The Occupy movement, much as it was protected by the media, seems to have been the last gasp of the ’60s hippie culture – proving that what kinda works at a very small scale probably isn’t going to scale up in any sort of workable fashion.

          • Commander_Chico

            Probably the first wave of a bigger movement that will happen after currency collapse and a real depression.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Maybe… but like I said, some things don’t scale up and they were having a hell of a time making things work on just a park-size scale.

            Running a small town? Not… impossible, I guess, if it were a very small town.

            A city? Or a state? Nope – ain’t seeing it at all.

            BTW, don’t know if you’re much into SF, but you might enjoy this.

            http://www.amazon.com/Lightning-Fall-Disaster-Bill-Quick-ebook/dp/B00J1BIHPO/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1396548226&sr=1-1&keywords=lightning+fall

          • Commander_Chico

            They don’t have to run anything, any more than the mobs in Cairo and Kiev ran anything.

            That book is worth looking at – I just don’t think it’s going to be technological – it will be old-fashioned economic collapse.

            At some point the rip-offs and oppression will be too much to take. Rebellion might come from the right or the left. Tea Party/Oath Keepers or OWS. Or both or all.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            You’ve got to have someone running things. Lights, water, and food aren’t going to deliver themselves, no matter how much you protest.

            The problem occurs when too many people figure they’ve got a right to have a say in how things are done, and aren’t content with a limited role.

            You might find this interesting – http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/04/03/no-country-for-young-men/?singlepage=true

            His argument is that we’ve stopped caring about the future. He might be right.

      • jim_m

        No, it really is that simple. When you claim to be about fetting money out of politics but you exempt unions from every piece of legislation you introduce you are really only about punishing particular points of view. Only a real dumbass is incapable of seeing that.

  • Paul Hooson

    The United States needs to be wary of not becoming an oligarchy where some big money interests, no matter where they come from, dominate the political system. This is the problem with modern Russia, it’s a big oil producing company masquerading as a country, that has quasidictatorship qualities by one party control with Putin and his cronies which only serve the financial interests of the oil billionaires of Russia. – In this country it is already too easy to buy many elections, and this decision by the Supreme Court only bolsters the prospects that some foreign nations such as China could buy large American companies and then seek to influence our political system by means of huge political donations through their American figurehead leaders.
    A couple of years ago in Oregon I witnessed an outrageous example of big money politics that completely disgusted me. Some Canadian developers were going to convert a closed dog racing track into a private casino but they were forced to drop their campaign for it after tax-free Native American run casinos ran a huge big money propaganda campaign making all sorts of false allegations that this casino would bring crime and other problems to the community, and brought in a lot of tax revenues, when in fact it would have provided many jobs, brought many world class entertainment acts and even recruited some former Democratic governors to also lie on behalf of Native American interests who were doing nothing to help the state with taxes.
    I was so disgusted with all of this that I voted against every tax increase ballot measure and levy, and when these campaigns would call me and ask me to support their tax increases, I told them no. I told them that Oregon had the opportunity to bring a lot of tax revenues into the state with the private casino idea and turned it down because they were too beholden to the big money interests that control a few Native American casinos that pay no taxes. When people would gamble at a private casino, they pay voluntary taxes. When government charges other taxes, they take it out of your pocket.
    Some little woman who gets up early in the morning to change sheets at a motel for a living has to pay taxes out of her pocket for all of the huge salaries for some public officials and agencies with overblown bureaucratic organizations. Oregon once had a Wrestling Commission established and paid for a budget to regulate one single business, a small time local wrestling event run on weekends in an old flea market building. When government has some agencies established just to regulate one business, you know that government and tax spending is out of control.
    The Supreme Court might equate free spending with free speech here. However, this seems a giant step back to the early days of the founding of this country when George Washington represented not democracy, but a group of some of the most wealthy men in the country who staged a revolt against the King to assert their own financial control over the citizens, where only White male property holders could even vote, if their was even an election held. As late as 1860, some states such as South Carolina did not hold a popular vote election for president, and local and state politicians decided amongst themselves who to cast their electoral votes for. In the 1860 election, Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected despite a widespread election fraud in which every vote for Lincoln wasn’t even counted in nine mostly Southern states, and in South Carolina were there wasn’t even voting allowed, and corrupt Southern Democrats dominated the political systems and were beholden to the big local financial interests of the wealthy slaveholders in the cotton, tobacco and other larger big farming interests.
    Big business control of the political system means new laws or bonds required by small businesses to lock out little guys trying to make a living. I should know, I own probably the largest strip club in Oregon, valued at around $2 million along with a car dealership. And laws in Oregon prevent small time guys from curbstoning cars in their driveway by requiring a $5000 a year bond to sell cars, along with a $1000 a month or more in insurance, a location with a sign, an ongoing education course and other requirement that aren’t so much in the consumer interest than they are in locking out small time dealers. When I attend the auto auctions, I’m treated like royalty with free lunch buffet, free jackets, and other perks awarded to wealthy car dealers. At these auctions I see anticurbstoning propaganda signs meant to stomp out small time unlicensed dealers who just want to sell a car or two from their driveway to pay their rent on the home. It’s big business control of government to suppress free marketplace activity. – Consumers are free to use the small claims courts if they buy a bad product from anyone, dealer or not, so the consumer is not without recourse here. – Layers of government regulation and an oligarchy of wealthy auto dealers dominating the marketplace hardly equates into 100% consumer protection or satisfaction here.
    The Supreme Court did nothing but help to further the dominance by some big money interests in politics here, only furthering the prospects that an oligarchy alliance of some big money interests would help to dominate politics here. It was back in the 1950′s that General Dwight Eisenhower, a moderate Republican president warned about the grave dangers of the military-industrial complex domination of our government as being a threat to America as great as Communism once was.

    • jim_m

      The purpose of all campaign finance reform efforts to date has been to eliminate the average citizen from having any impact and to concentrate political influence in a handfull of organizations and the hyperwealthy.

      • Paul Hooson

        No, it was just the opposite. But, like all legislation, it was imperfect in nature. Further, a steady drip of court decisions have whittled away at any good intentions this legislation once had to improve the standing on one man, one vote.

        • jim_m

          The effect of every piece of legislation has been to make it more difficult for the average citizen to have an impact. If you choose to believe the BS propaganda behind those efforts it isn’t my fault.

          I would simply note that the people pushing campaign finance reform are the same people obstructing voter ID laws. It’s not a mistake. They know what they are doing.

          • Paul Hooson

            Common Cause and similar groups have been sincere in their political reform efforts, but the Supreme Court has spoken, and their methods of political reform are unconstitutional paths. The Supreme Court views the ability for some big interests to spend as money as freely as they want as free speech, yet won’t protect the free speech rights of controversial retailers, musicians, poets, filmmakers, writers or authors who have faced obscenity charges in local communities. The Supreme Court applies free speech opinions unevenly to say the least. They are far from champions of constitutional absolutism.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            When is the last time you read about an obscenity conviction?
            The closest a Justice ever came to being an absolutist on 1st Amendment freedoms was Hugo Black, and even he wasn’t an absolutist.

          • Commander_Chico

            The last obscenity conviction I know about was the guy who posted gruesome war photos he got from troops in Iraq and Afghanistan on his website.

          • Paul Hooson

            That was an outrageous case of government using obscenity laws to quell political speech. Under normal circumstances his material would not prosecuted as obscene.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah, it wasn’t even that hard core. It was showing the reality of war that made him a target.

          • Paul Hooson

            In 2012, controversial filmmaker, Ira Issacs,61 was put on trial in Los Angeles over and over, because juries were split on his obscenity charges over producing simulated scat films in which food was made to look like human waste. They were indeed disgusting films, but the government continued to bring the film producer to trial over and over until his money to hire good lawyers and expert witnesses ran out. In January 2013, Issacs was sentenced to 48 months in prison, fined $10,000 and faces three years probation upon his release. – In addition, the assets of his small time film business, Stolen Car Films, were seized by the government. – I can sure rest easier now at night knowing that the government spent a lot of taxpayer money and several years to put some nut job guy in prison for years for making simulated scat films. Thank God there’s one less scat film website on the worldwide web right now. Now, you have to go on a Google search of Europe for that type of crap(sorry about that pun).
            Actually, I think the case was a human rights outrage. The guy is obviously a screwball and his films are disgusting. But, prisons aren’t the place for government to round up controversial filmmakers, writers or artists.
            In other cities, those accused of producing obscenity have been put on trial over and over again until government gets the jury or verdict it wants.

          • jim_m

            Forgive me if I doubt the sincerety of actions that consistwntly produce results that are antithetical to their claimed objectives. Forgive me for thinking that these groups have never been in favor of getting money out of political campaigns when they have deliberately exempted unions from every bill they have supported.

            You can believe their words or you can believe their actions, but you cannot believe both.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Paul, you’re a businessman. How many times would you buy from a supplier who promises a product on a certain date at a certain price – only to deliver something completely different at a much higher price?

      • JWH

        No, the intent was not to disempower the average citizen. The intent was to limit the influence of money from the wealthy. The effect, however, turned out precisely the opposite.

        • jim_m

          That was exactly my point. What they claim to want and the effect of their actions are quite the opposite.

          You choose to believe their words whereas I choose to believe their actions. Their actions have consistantly resulted in driving small donors into the margins and have favored large donors and they have always exempted large left wing donors.

          If you choose to let them make you a fool by believing their claims over their actions that is your choice.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Which, in a rational world, would likely lead you to question whether their professed intent was really want they wanted.
          After a while, you tend to get suspicious of folks who say one thing and do the opposite.

  • Retired military

    http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
    2.)
    American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $60,667,379
    4.)
    National Education Assn $53,594,488
    7.) Intl Brotherhood of Electrical
    Workers $44,478,789
    8.) United Auto Workers $41,667,858
    9.) Carpenters
    & Joiners Union $39,260,371
    10.) Service Employees International Union
    $38,395,690
    11.) Laborers Union $37,494,010
    12.) American Federation of
    Teachers $36,713,325
    13.) Communications Workers of America
    $36,188,135
    14.) Teamsters Union $36,123,209
    16.) United Food &
    Commercial Workers Union $33,756,550
    20.) Machinists & Aerospace Workers
    Union $31,313,097
    23.) AFL-CIO $30,938,977
    32.) National Assn of Letter
    Carriers $26,106,359
    39.) Plumbers & Pipefitters Union
    $23,886,248
    42.) Operating Engineers Union $23,036,848
    43.)
    International Assn of Fire Fighters $22,963,260
    46.) Sheet Metal Workers
    Union $22,372,978
    59.) Koch Industries $18,083,948

    • Paul Hooson

      Big money of all types does control the political system. That’s a fact.

      • Retired military

        Yeah. All that big money is on the dumocrats side.

        Those listed above the Koch brothers are all unions. Most of the ones not listed above but are in places 1-58 lean heavily democratic.

        • Paul Hooson

          Your listed is informative, but edited, where many large real estate developers or some like Sheldon Adelson are missing. – All I can say is if you enjoy those negative political ads during your TV shows that go on for months, then the Supreme Court just opened the doors to worst TV by allowing more and more spending by these groups and persons.

          • Retired military

            I despise the political ads and don’t give a dollar to any candidate. At the same time SCOTUS kept the playing field somewhat level and more importantly followed the constitution.
            as for my list I gave the link to the source and it has the unedited list as well as how much was given to both sides. Cant get much more unedited than that.
            Not to mention the thread was about the unions and their giving to the dems along with the dems trying to vilify the Koch brothers which you can see is total BS.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    The other funny thing — and by funny I mean in the “Idiocracy” sense — is that ActBlue by itself raises and spends vastly more money than any right-wing or right-leaning PAC. And the labor unions raise and spend more in one quarter than a guy such as Sheldon Adelson will spend in an entire two-year cycle. And that doesn’t even count the off-book value of union shop stewards simply telling their charges for whom or for what items to vote. But again leftism is a mental disorder, not an ideology, so if you run down the numbers and other facts of this matter for a leftist it would be tantamount to trying to teach quantum physics or differential equations to a slow child.

    • Commander_Chico

      Yeah but you don’t have to pledge allegiance to a foreign country to get union money, like you do with Adelson.

      • Paul Hooson

        There’s stories supposedly tying Mr. A. with Chinese organized crime or with prostitution scandals overseas. Recently, he paid for an event in which some top GOP contenders gave speeches.

        • jim_m

          Sounds like you’ve been reading Winston Smith’s posts Paul. You’re not going all neonazi on us are you?

        • Commander_Chico

          Yeah they were all sucking his old balls.

          He said he regrets serving in the U.S. Army, wishes he had been in the Israeli army.

  • Commander_Chico

    Warner, haven’t you written fifteen or so pieces attacking political advocacy by unions?

    Supreme Court just ruled you can’t put limits on political spending: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26855657

    • Paul Hooson

      As much as I respect Warner’s rights to his own opinions, Chico. The one question I continue to ask myself about Warner is this one: Warner, if your car needed a repair job, would you seek out a union or nonunion mechanic to do the work?

      • Retired military

        I would go with nonunion. Cost would probably be less and the work quality would probably be the same. Does it take a union card to be able to turn a wrench or replace a spark plug?

        Are you saying you have to have union mechanics to fix a car that nonunion people put together in the first place?

        Are your strippers unionized? I mean strippers are sorta like mechanics. You need to have the right tools and know what to do with them.

        Ask the folks suing GM how they feel about the unionized labor that assembled their cars.

        Do you do the work on your own motorcycle? Do you have a union card? How many of your friends do the work on their motorcycles and aren’t members of a union?

        • warnertoddhuston

          Since most union members are lazy and more interested in what they can “get” than they are a customer or bosses needs, I would think that if I picked the mechanic with the best price, best customer relations, and good turn around, I’d NEVER be picking the union mechanic. ;)

      • warnertoddhuston

        I would not pick a mechanic based on his union affiliation. I would not pick any mechanic if he worked for a car dealer (unless my car was under warranty). I would pick a local car repair guy based on his price, his customer relations, and the speed with which he can service my car.

    • Retired military

      Actually they left the spending limits in place as far as amounts go. They simply made it so that your democrat buddies cant have free reign with their union money while the republican money was stifled which is what the democrats wanted As usual Chico your statements are flawed and lacking facts..

    • jim_m

      No he hasn’t. He has written multiple pieces on the ugly hypocrisy of the left for trying to stifle the spending of conservatives while ignoring the vast sums thay come from the left, primarily from unions.

      It is unsurprising that you fail to see this hypocrisy since you are amongst the chief offenders.

      • Commander_Chico

        Warner has called for the elimination of unions.

        • jim_m

          Which is a good policy regardless

          • Commander_Chico

            Too bad it’s unconstitutional, huh?

          • jim_m

            It isn’t illegal to advocate against unions or to work to have them stand for decertification votes. People have the right of freedom of association which includes the right to not associate with people they don’t want to.

            I never said to make unions illegal, just to get rid of them.

          • Commander_Chico

            Warner said “eliminate.”

          • jim_m

            You can eliminate without making illegal.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Wouldn’t call for their elimination, but I think what Walker did was a good idea regarding the elimination of mandatory membership and dues deductions.

          • Commander_Chico

            As long as the non-payers were not included in the protections and benefits of a union contract, sure.

          • jim_m

            It is not illegal for employers to offer equal benefits to non union employees.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Apparently things were at a point where there was no significant difference between union and non-union contracts – and a lot of people just said ‘Well, we know where to find you if we need you” to the union folk.

        • warnertoddhuston

          No, I’ve called for the elimination of unions in government. Not the private sector.

          • jim_m

            LOL. Since private sector unions are going the way of the dinosaur calling for the elimination of government unions may end up being tantamount to eliminating them altogether. But that would still be OK.

          • Commander_Chico

            No “government” qualification here:

            http://wizbangblog.com/2014/03/29/breaking-the-law-pay-higher-for-government-contractors-than-other-workers/

            Just another reason why unions need to be eliminated.

            You’re no different than anyone else who wants only the other side’s money out of politics. Pot, kettle, etc.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE