Wisconsin

[delldude]

Funny, I saw SEIU and several other unions dump some rather huge amounts on Obama in '08. Hows that?

Excuse me, its pension funds they use I think.

Isn't this why they want their pension funds bailed out?

 

[tech2101]

Ok...I got you. Now unions are on the same playing field with corporations. I don't know if it was right before the ruling. It was favorable to the unions prior.

Oh, I see. Unions had more money and power than corporations prior to the ruling... 🙄

Funny, I saw SEIU and several other unions dump some rather huge amounts on Obama in '08. Hows that?

You are not paying attention. Unions cannot (by law) use dues money for political contributions.

 

[delldude]

Oh, I see. Unions had more money and power than corporations prior to the ruling... 🙄



You are not paying attention. Unions cannot (by law) use dues money for political contributions.

You got by me on the euphemism before....

Tech, then how do they contribute such vast sums of money to the Dems then?

Unions contributed huge sums before the ruling, corporations had to twinkle toe it before the ruling.

And why was Obama so wigged out at SCOTUS for the ruling?

I think it leveled the playing field.

 

[700UW]

Unions cant donate dues money to parties or candidates, they use the MNPL, or they are allowed to use it for political education to the members, but not directly to a party or candidate.

Soft money is allowed to be used to organize get out to vote and educate members on the issues, but not to tell them who to vote for nor given to the candidate.

 

[delldude]

Unions cant donate dues money to parties or candidates, they use the MNPL, or they are allowed to use it for political education to the members, but not directly to a party or candidate.

Soft money is allowed to be used to organize get out to vote and educate members on the issues, but not to tell them who to vote for nor given to the candidate.

Why was Obama so wigged at the ruling?
I think it had to do with an advantage unions held prior.
Like I said, unions dumped all kinds of cash into the '08 campaign.....how did they do it and why do they want their pension funds bailed out?
Maybe they can funnel pension fund monies at the state and local level?
I'm asking.

 

[tech2101]

You got by me on the euphemism before....

Tech, then how do they contribute such vast sums of money to the Dems then?

Unions contributed huge sums before the ruling, corporations had to twinkle toe it before the ruling.

And why was Obama so wigged out at SCOTUS for the ruling?

I think it leveled the playing field.

They get money through voluntary contributions from members through their PAC's. I never did contribute to those PAC's.

I have always donated to the candidate directly...

Corp's can now use their vast resources to plant any candidate in any position. (see Walker, Gov/WI)

 

[delldude]

They get money through voluntary contributions from members through their PAC's. I never did contribute to those PAC's.

I have always donated to the candidate directly...

Corp's can now use their vast resources to plant any candidate in any position. (see Walker, Gov/WI)

And the unions never could.

(See Obama/Prez/US '08)

 

[southwind]

Exactly.

I have very little control over who holds my mortgage, yet the company that holds it donates a portion of my hard earned mortgage payment to people/causes that I do not like or want. Thanks to the Citizens United SCOTUS case, I can do nothing to stop them from doing just that.

Sell your house so you can stick it to The Man !..............problem solved............unless there's a law that forces you to buy a house, we don't know about! :blink:

Of course, when you go to work in a union environment, you pay dues or you don't work or worse.............period !

 

[tech2101]

And the unions never could.

(See Obama/Prez/US '08)

At least the people who donated actually wanted to donate.

Not so with people who work for todays corporations.

 

[delldude]

At least the people who donated actually wanted to donate.

Not so with people who work for todays corporations.

Explain how the vast amounts unions funneled to the Obama campaign were done then.

And how can you be so sure those people who work for those corporations and rely on wages from said corporations do not support the corporations aspirations?

Unionism is not required under the Constitution unless you work for the government.

 

[700UW]

Why dont you show us since its against the law and you want to know!

 

[delldude]

Why dont you show us since its against the law and you want to know!

When someone asks because they do not know, one would think someone, especially a recognized trade unionist would step up to the plate and help a Brother out.

LOL..............like I said......if its against the law....how do unions funnel money into campaign so successfully?

 

[700UW]

They are allowed to use soft money. They cant donate to the candidate nor the party. But soft money is allowed to be used for education purposes and get out to vote.

That is why the IAM had the MNPL, its not dues money.

 

[delldude]

They are allowed to use soft money. They cant donate to the candidate nor the party. But soft money is allowed to be used for education purposes and get out to vote.

That is why the IAM had the MNPL, its not dues money.

As for the info on MNPL, I was aware of that.

But on the International level.................

Next question: How do the unions funnel money which exceeds PAL contributions into national campaigns also including state and local runs?

I'm not looking for a debate, I know you are more aware of these issues than I, but large amounts of union funds have been funneled into major election campaigns in the local, state and nationals levels. Without using union funds, I see no way the level of funding can match the contributions.

You tell me......

 

[700UW]

GOTV and Education