Posted on 12/27/2011 9:07:47 AM PST by MichCapCon
The Michigan Legislature is poised to consider a two-bill package that would prohibit unions from using local government payroll systems to collect PAC funds. This is a step that is long overdue. House Bills 5085 and 5086 passed in the state House Thursday.
While the dollar amounts that flow through union PACs are not as huge as those that flow through unions themselves, government union PACs still pack a wallop. According to reports filed with the Secretary of State, the MEA PAC collected more than $500,000 in donations and spent $1.2 million on its political programs in 2010. In spite of the election-year spending, MEA PAC started 2011 with more than $450,000 in the bank. AFSCME’s “P.E.O.P.L.E.” PAC took in $230,000 in contributions during the same year and spent $320,000, ending the year with nearly $80,000.
This is what is known in political fundraising as “hard” money. Hard money can be spent on nearly anything, including direct contributions to political campaigns. The importance of hard money cannot be overstated. When an outfit called “Citizens Against Government Overreach” led a successful recall campaign against state Rep. Paul Scott, R-Grand Blanc, they managed to achieve their success with a warchest of around $150,000. Almost 80 percent of their funds came from the MEA PAC.
We have long argued that government employee unions themselves are essentially political institutions, even while they present themselves as workplace representatives. In reality, little more than half of union dues go to collective bargaining and grievances; in the case of the MEA that portion is as little as a third. But when dealing with union PACs, there isn’t even a pretense of being apolitical. So when union PACs are allowed to tap into local government payroll systems to collect contributions from government employees, there is no argument that the government is giving political fundraisers a hand.
The temptation for unions and local officials to use PAC contributions as a bargaining chip in negotiations is too strong. Union PACs can and should use their own resources to raise funds.
This was in 2010..and it made no difference, as their[as in Left Wing tradition] candidate lost. Mainers chose Republican Paul LePage who had very limited money of his own. He was up against money from the teachers union, SEIU, hedge fund guy Sussman, environmentalists, moveon.org advertising etc.
PACS on both sides contributed to both candidates. And no that fledgling group of Tea Partiers did not effect the voting outcome, as their leader and the media would like to pretend [regurgitated copied material even by a writer at Forbes. I think that TP leader is now disengaging himself from them, but he was only in it for himself, I believe. Mainers don't like outside groups coming in or groups telling them how to cast their vote.
Note: The Michigan Chamber of Commerce donated $225,000 and a Virginia government services group donated to the Maine election campaign 2010.
My congressman won his seat with less than half the money raised by the democrat incumbent and his union friends.
It was kind of funny to see the unions whining that the 12 million dollars raised in the district was too much so they wanted to know where the republican got his $4 mil.
Michigan cost the unions huge sums of money last year for nothing but losses. The GOP ran the table and the democrats didn’t pick up a single seat above the county level. John Dingell held his seat but he didn’t do it cheaply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.