Yesterday, I wrote a lengthy post about how Democrats are really not hurting for cash the way they claim to be. Matt Stinson has gone the extra mile and made up a fancy graph of their Big Money Donations:
When it comes to the big donors, Democrats remain king of the hill — just as they have been for the past 12 years. To illustrate this point, I put together the following chart based on OpenSecrets.org’s database of top donors:
Admittedly, some of this data is bound to change in the 2004 cycle thanks to McCain-Feingold — a fact that has Democrats whining about Bush’s small donor advantage — but that only means that Democrats will become increasingly reliant on in-kind donations from liberal special interest groups, like the $75 million “defeat Bush fund” announced yesterday.
This is not a party as desperate for cash as they want you to think.
Ricky
Hey, they lead the league in donations from funds confiscated from union members’ dues, instead of actual donations.
I’m shocked, I tell ya, shocked.
Nathan Zachary
I have to pay union dues. But why should that &^%%# union give my money to the Dems? that should be against the law. period.
we’ve been trying to boot the union out for years. They are in bed with management.
tom scott
Nathan there is a law to protect union workers from using dues for political purposes. It was a Supreme Court ruling in 1988 Communications Workers of America vs Beck. It’s commonly the the Beck ruling. I have used it here in Alaska to demand a refund of a portion of my dues. I imagine each state and union is different but up here we had a certain time frame in which we could challenge. I recommend that union workers everywhere that are opposed to the confiscation of their wages to promote political parties that espouse programs that are antithetical to their beliefs should consider seeking a refund. For, as Thomas Jefferson said, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Here are a couple of links to discussions of Beck.
One is the Cato Intstitute and the other is (I believe the best) state think tank. The Mackinac Center of Michigan.
Cato Institute
The Mackinac Center
Jay Caruso
Unfortunately, the Beck decision isn’t heavily enforced and many union members don’t what to have to go through the hassle of making the unions pony up the money they use for political purposes.
Why do you think they are so opposed to paycheck protection legislation? They know that if they had to tell their members BEFOREHAND that their dues would be used for politics, they’d lose a lot of that cash.
Kimmitt
If union members can receive refunds for the political donations unions give, can shareholders receive refunds for the political donations corporations give? Because I suspect that there are a lot of mutual funds with Phillip Morris stock which would much prefer the extra few pennies per share.
John Cole
Who wants to respond to this softball:
If union members can receive refunds for the political donations unions give, can shareholders receive refunds for the political donations corporations give? Because I suspect that there are a lot of mutual funds with Phillip Morris stock which would much prefer the extra few pennies per share.
Batter Up!
tom scott
Before I could take a swing I had to watch the first pitch-low and outside.
Kimmitt-the primary purpose that I see is force or coercion. If you don’t pay the dues you’re out of the union and then out of a job.
If you have mutual funds you have a choice of what you put you money into. If they are investing in something that you abhor (Philip Morris) you can move your money to another fund more in line with your ??sensibilities??
Kimmitt
When you take a job at a union shop, you’ve made a decision to take that job. Part and parcel of that contract is paying union dues. You don’t like paying union dues, don’t take a job at a union shop. Where’s the difference?
tom scott
Kimmy-There is a Supreme Court ruling (Beck) that says if a dues payer does not want to participate in the political actions of unions that he gets a portion of his dues refunded.
I put question marks around the word sensibilities so that it would not be seen as derivative of sensible. Your response has warranted my caution.
David Perron
Hmmm…well, if you have particular skills that are mainly used in union jobs, you’re pretty much shit out of luck when it comes to finding a non-union job. On the other hand, there’s gobs of other investment choices available on the stock market.
Unions are about restricting choice in the first place. There’s no other explanation for guys sweeping floors who make $45k a year. I guess I can wait for Kimmitt to make a case for that they’re really, really, really efficient floor-sweepers, though.
Ryan Waxx
Back on topic, does anyone actually think that all that cash listed on the chart isn’t going to be funneled to Dems through ‘other channels’?
That it’ll just dissappear, or those doners will decide to save the whales with the cash instead?
Chris Brown
Don’t forget George Soros and his ten million dollar pledge to defeat Bush! And, what percentage of over $100,00o donations go to Democrats?
Kimmitt
Kimmy-There is a Supreme Court ruling (Beck) that says if a dues payer does not want to participate in the political actions of unions that he gets a portion of his dues refunded.
Friend, I understand that the conservative mind is essentially incapable of civil discussion, but I’ll thank you to use my full last name in discussions.
That said, the question I was asking is, “What’s the difference?” “If you have particular skills that are used mainly in union jobs . . .” you chose to develop that set of skills at the expense of others. Conservatives are always talking about how we all have choices and how liberals’ complaint regarding restriction of choice based on economics or culture is crap. Except, of course, when it suits their purposes — as soon as it’s useful to decry some economically induced restriction of choice, the entire paradigm goes out the window.
I’ll say it again — union members who chose to work in a particular industry, then chose to work a particular job within that industry, can now receive refunds for their dues spent on political causes with which they do not agree. Logically, this would seem to imply that shareholders in a corporation should also receive refunds for their profits spent on political causes with which they do not agree. That money does not belong to the management of the corporation; it belongs to the shareholder. What is the difference?
Ryan Waxx
Well, the first and most obvious difference is that the Supreme Court has ruled on one, and not the other.
I know you leftists have mental difficulties with following laws that don’t funnel money to you, but too bad.
The second is that the stockholders own the corportation, whereas the entire principle behind collective bargaining is that the Union represents the worker.
So, in each case, the people who OWN the organization make the descisions as to how the money is spent. Radical idea, I know.
David Perron
What’s the difference, you ask? I thought I made it clear. Well, that just goes to show you that the liberal mind is inherently incapable of any reading comprehension whatever.
No, I really didn’t mean that. But that sword cuts both ways, Kimmitt.
Kimmitt
The second is that the stockholders own the corportation, whereas the entire principle behind collective bargaining is that the Union represents the worker.
Right, and that’s my point — that the shareholders who own the corporation deserve to have that corporation act in their interests, rather than in the interests of those managing the corporation — and therefore those shareholders who do not wish to support a given political cause with their profits should not be forced to do so.
But, whatever. If your real answer is, “we can get away with it because the Supreme Court hasn’t told us not to yet,” then we’ve answered the question, suggested a course of action for a leftist shareholder to pursue, and validated my worldview.
Jon H
Tom Scott writes:” If you have mutual funds you have a choice of what you put you money into. If they are investing in something that you abhor (Philip Morris) you can move your money to another fund more in line with your ??sensibilities??”
Lots of mutual fund investments are in 401k plans where you don’t have much choice. There may not be a fund available that doesn’t include the company in question.
Or, the alternatives might be funds with a different investment strategy which doesn’t appeal. If the fund in question is a growth fund, and the alternative is a bond fund, well, it’s not going to be a good trade.
Ryan Waxx
Um, Kimwit, you don’t know one damn thing about how corps work, do you?
Who hires the CEO, and who does the CEO report to? And who fires the CEO if they don’t like the way he parts his hair, much less what donations he has the company make?
Don’t take TOO long figuring it out.
And Jon, most REAL-WORLD 401k plans have plenty of choice as to what you put in them. Its mainly the democrats who want to change that, with forced diversification and other changes.
For our own good, of course!
The ideal here is voluntary association. When you can get the 401k that you want, that lets you invest how you like, then your objection dissappears.
Kimmitt
The decision to take or leave a particular paid position is no less voluntary than the decision to take or leave a particular investment.
Oh, and thanks for supporting my point regarding the conservative incapacity for civilized discourse.
Ryan Waxx
Horsecrap. Leave your job right now. Also change your investments.
See which one causes you to lose more.
Again, unless you are working for Mickey-D’s, the answer is obvious.
Ryan Waxx
Am I the only one who finds it revealing that Kimmit is more comfortable with the idea of telling people to quit their jobs than he is with the idea of choosing, or even revealing, how much mandatory union dues go towards lobbying?
David Perron
I suppose that if Kimmitt found that part of his school tuition was being used as a donation to the RNC, he’d be just fine with that. Or that his ownership association fees were being skimmed for RNC donations. Hey, you can always quit going to school there and go somewhere else. Or move to another condo. It is all just a matter of choice, isn’t it?
Kimmitt
I wasn’t arguing that union members shouldn’t have the right to opt out of political contributions with which they disagree. I was arguing that shareholders should. I don’t think anyone should contribute to political causes with anyone else’s (unapproved) money. One should always be able to opt out.
Now, those of you talking about how big a deal changing one’s job vs. changing one’s investment is should keep that idea in your minds when the Left starts talking about the human costs of free trade and a race to the bottom of environmental and labor standards — or how a manufacturing base is the lifeblood of movement from the lower to the middle classes.
Ryan Waxx
I D I O T.
I explain to you exactly how the CEO-Shareholder relationship works And you simply can not comprehend it
Shareholders ALREADY control how the money is spent, when they hire a CEO.
And stuff your drivel about ‘race(ing) to the bottom of envoirnmental and labor standards’. When the left starts inflating labor costs by tax, regulation and fiat, switching jobs becomes HARDER, not eaiser.
Race to the bottom, my ass. Yeah, America’s been racing to the envornmental bottom for decades now, that’s why our rivers are purple, right? Asshat.
And take a GOOD look at France. That’s what happens when leftists get control of labor. Why don’t you ask a Frenchman just how easy it is to swap jobs… or even get one in the first place?
Your ‘ideas’ have been tried, failed and bargain-binned in K-mart’s armpit along with the Stalin action figures and the rubber dogshit. The only place they work is in the fantasies of ivory-tower university professors.
The U.S. stock market works pretty well, thank you. We don’t need your failed ilk screwing it over for political points.
Emma
Okay that graph surely is the tell all. Matt managed to pick all the donors that are traditionally democratic supporters. If you are going to make a comparison, why not put some Republican supporters. Come on, the majority of those are union groups – and we all know that Republicans are not big fans of Unions – especially Bush.Try adding what more companies like Philip Morris contributed to each party – Try all the big time corporations – auto industry (the corporation and not the union employees). You graph as it stands right now dipicts a very incorrect picture. Try the FEC website for your data – its less bias. http://www.fec.gov/press/051501partyfund/051501partyfund.html For the last presidential election: Republicans led with total receipts of $715.7 million in both hard and soft dollars, while the Democrats had total receipts of $520.4 million for the cycle.
Ryan Waxx
Hello paranoid asshat.
The reason Phillip Morris isn’t on the graph, is because they didn’t donate as much as the ones presented. That’s a TOP DONORS list, not a “equal numbers of donks and elepahnts so the donks don’t feel bad” list.
God, you idiots have such pathetic mental problems with stats that don’t happen to support your position.
Kimmitt
Shareholders ALREADY control how the money is spent, when they hire a CEO.
And union members control how their money is spent when they elect their leaders. What’s the difference?
Oh, and do please continue supporting my contention that conservatives are incapable of civil debate. Eventually, the relatively decent fellow who runs this board will have to deal with who his fellow travellers are.
Ryan Waxx
Oh, and do please continue supporting my contention that conservatives are incapable of civil debate.
As long as you continue demonstrating that sneering and pop-psycologing instead of debating is your fellow travellers’ pattern, sweetums.
Well, the first and most obvious difference is that the Supreme Court has ruled on one, and not the other.
I know you leftists have mental difficulties with following laws that don’t funnel money to you, but too bad.
The second is that the stockholders own the corportation, whereas the entire principle behind collective bargaining is that the Union represents the worker.
So, in each case, the people who OWN the organization make the descisions as to how the money is spent. Radical idea, I know.
Wake me up when I actually have to post something new to address your concerns, eh Kimwit?
Ryan Waxx
OH, and again, its much easier to change stocks than jobs.
I know you don’t LIKE this point, since it torpedoes your position, but it remains true.
Reality sucks, don’t it?