Skip to comments.A Partisan Union at the IRS
Posted on 05/20/2013 7:15:28 PM PDT by neverdem
Nearly two-thirds of campaign contributions from IRS employees go to Democrats.
NTEU president Colleen Kelley
The IRS may be an independent enforcement agency with only two political appointees, in the words of White House press secretary Jay Carney, but its employees are represented by a powerful, deeply partisan union whose boss has publicly disparaged the Tea Party and criticized the Republican party for having ties to it.
The White House continues to insist that profound incompetence, not partisan malice, led the IRS to single out conservative groups applying for nonprofit status. If the testimony of acting commissioner Steven Miller is true, incompetence was certainly a factor. But given all that has come to light about the agency and its employees in recent days, it would be hard to believe that its targeting of conservative groups wasnt also politically motivated.
This individual activity is tame compared with that of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which represents 150,000 federal employees across 31 agencies, including the IRS. The union endorsed Obama in both of his presidential runs and operates a political-action committee (PAC) that has donated $1.63 million to federal candidates and committees since 2008, more than 96 percent of it to help elect Democrats. During that period, IRS employees have contributed more than $67,000 to the PAC.
This past cycle, the union spent heavily on competitive House and Senate races. (In light of the recent scandal, the National Republican Campaign Committee is calling on Democrats to return NTEU contributions.) The unions members participated in other ways as well, by educating and organizing various types of activities around the country including candidate nights and volunteering for campaigns.
Colleen Kelley, the unions president since 1999, worked as a revenue agent for the IRS for 14 years, and her political leanings are clear. She has given nearly $5,000 to the NTEU PAC since 2007, and she donated $500 to John Kerrys presidential campaign in 2004. If her public statements are any indication, Kelley thinks none too highly of the Republican party, especially its more conservative elements such as the Tea Party.
In March 2011, when Congress was in talks over a continuing resolution to prevent a government shutdown, Kelley slammed the extreme elements of the GOP for insisting on meaningful reductions in federal spending. For months, budget negotiations have stalled in Congress as House Republicans have succumbed to extreme Tea Party elements rather than coming to common sense compromises, Kelley said in a statement. You have to be from Wonderland to believe that you can make severe cuts in government spending without sending the economy into a tailspin and cutting critical services Americans depend upon.
Kelley was highly critical of Paul Ryans (R., Wis.) most recent budget proposal, which called for a reduction in the federal work force as well as reforms to benefits and pension programs for federal employees. The Ryan budget proposal would worsen our nation in so many ways, she said in March 2013.
Kelley appears to wield considerable influence in Democratic circles and the Obama administration. Under her leadership, the NTEU has spent nearly $7.5 million lobbying the federal government. Since Obama took office, she has been to the White House at least eleven times to meet with high-ranking officials such as Jeffrey Zients, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, according to visitor logs. She has also met directly with the president and the first lady.
In November 2010, President Obama nominated Kelley to serve on the Federal Salary Council, an obscure panel that nonetheless performs a vital role in recommending raises for most federal employees, as described by the Washington Post.
The Hill in a May 2012 profile observed that Kelly has had a hand in every major deficit negotiation since Republicans retook the House in 2010; she has tangled with the Tea Party and gone up against GOP standard-bearers Reps. Darrell Issa (Calif.) and Paul Ryan (Wis.).
There is no doubt that when we look at the implications of various budget proposals, we seek her input, Representative Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the leading Democratic on the House Budget Committee, said of Kelley.
As lawmakers continue to investigate the IRS scandal House and Senate committees will hold additional hearings this week Republicans will be eager to learn more about Kelleys knowledge of the IRS targeting of conservative groups and about the extent to which union members may have been involved. In a letter to IRS employees, Kelley said she believes no one intentionally did anything wrong, and promised to work to ensure that front-line employees are not treated unfairly.
She has already cast doubt on the Obama administrations claims that the IRS targeting of conservative groups was carried out by a handful of front-line employees in the agencys Cincinnati field office. No processes or procedures or anything like that would ever be done just by front-line employees without any management involvement, Kelley told the Associated Press last week. Thats just not how it operates.
Andrew Stiles is a political reporter for National Review Online.
There she blows!-there she blows! A hump like a snow-hill! It is Moby Dick!
Nearly two-thirds of campaign contributions from IRS employees go to Democrats.
***Wouldn’t it be interesting to propose and enforce a law that requires that ~50% of contributions from IRS personnel be to each party evenly? A “proactive reverse discrimination” such as the Bakke case in California.
Is Kelly their bundler?
Can we find out who is?
Interesting, but blatantly unconstitutional.
The party of gubmint is always going to root for more gubmint.
Name a gubmint union that donates to politicians who want to cut the size of gubmint.
Public Sector Unions: Top Contributors to Federal Candidates, Parties, and Outside Groups
Keep in mind, none of what leftists state as fact about private unions is true of government unions as was also once stated by FDR in his 1937 to Mr. Steward declining an invitation to the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees (he stated why collective bargaining for government was an extraordinarily bad idea.)
Even union icons such as George Meany, the legendary former president of the AFL-CIO, dismissed the workability of public sector unions as impossible. In Wisconsin, even the socialist mayor of Milwaukee in the 1950s, Frank Zeidler, opposed public sector unions.
If it’s unconstitutional one way, then why isn’t it unconstitutional the other? What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Government unions should be illegal and political proselytizing should be grounds for immediate dismissal on the first offense.
No, we just pay them to abuse their power.
There should not be allowed any labor union in any Federal agency, or in any Federal government office. This is totally abhorrent to all of the principles on which this country is based. Do we have to repeat 1776 to fix all this?
WHAT DOES IT MATTER. Colleen is a Beauty and a roll model in Obumber’s aMeriKa.
What do you mean, “why isn’t it unconstitutional the other?”
“I know once you get a gubmint job your feet are in concrete.”
Seems this makes it easy to fix...just dump ‘em in the deepest ocean trench...one between Florida and Bimini seems appropriate.
Guess Reagan didn’t go far enough.
FDR didn’t even want federal employee unions.
Kevmo: Wouldnt it be interesting to propose and enforce a law that requires that ~50% of contributions from IRS personnel be to each party evenly? A proactive reverse discrimination such as the Bakke case in California.
COAC: Interesting, but blatantly unconstitutional.... What do you mean, why isnt it unconstitutional the other?
***You claim that my proposal is unconstitutional. And yet, currently the IRS operates openly in antagonism to conservative groups, in an unconstitutional fashion. Why isn’t that unconstitutional?
The first thing the communists do after seizing power is to disarm the populace.
We need a ban on communists in the Federal Government.
The degenerate communist union bosses are pissed that some of their membership have been freed from compulsory withholding of union dues , thats what this is about and nothing else.
That son of a bitch Warren in US Vs. Brown threw out the provision in Taft Hartley that required union leadership to sign affidavits that they were not communists.
As a result, union leadership is comprised of nothing but.
We are getting ready to hit the CPUSA and the American communist movement so hard that they wont have time to crawl back under the rocks they came out from.
No worker in the US should be held hostage to unions period, compulsory union dues are unconstitutional under the first and 14th amendments.
Federal employee unions must be outlawed (Thanks JFK) and state and local unions need to be stripped of their ability to steal money from workers paychecks on a national level.
If the workers love unions so much they will be happy to voluntarily send them dues.
Theres nothing patently illegal about the next GOP POTUS issuing an executive order immediately ending withholding of union dues nationwide, and ordering the National Labor Relations Board to get a Federal Court Order enforcing the Presidents decision
Its stupid to allow the Communists to use the same mechanism (witholding) the Federal apparatus uses to fund itself.
U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) 381 U.S. 437
UNITED STATES v. BROWN. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 399. Argued March 29, 1965. Decided June 7, 1965.
Respondent was convicted under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for one who belongs to the Communist Party or who has been a member thereof during the preceding five years wilfully to serve as a member of the executive board of a labor organization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding 504 violative of the First and Fifth Amendments. Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional. Pp. 441-462.
(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 441-446.
(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 . Pp. 447-449.
(c) In designating Communist Party members as those persons who cannot hold union office, Congress has exceeded its Commerce Clause power to enact generally applicable legislation disqualifying from positions affecting interstate commerce persons who may use such positions to cause political strikes. Pp. 449-452.
(d) Section 504 is distinguishable from such conflict-of-interest statutes as 32 of the Banking Act, where Congress was legislating with respect to general characteristics rather than with respect to the members of a specific group. Pp. 453-455.
(e) The designation of Communist Party membership cannot be justified as an alternative, shorthand expression for the characteristics which render men likely to incite political strikes. Pp. 455-456.
(f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 , where the Court upheld 9 (h) of the National [381 U.S. 437, 438] Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of 504, the Court erroneously assumed that only a law visiting retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 ,which it sought to distinguish from 9 (h), as being in that category. Pp. 456-460.
(g) The legislative specification of those to whom the enacted sanction is to apply invalidates a provision as a bill of attainder whether the individuals are designated by name as in Lovett or by description as here. Pp. 461-462.
334 F.2d 488, affirmed.
Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Nathan Lewin, Kevin T. Maroney and George B. Searls.
Richard Gladstein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Norman Leonard.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California et al., and by Victor Rabinowitz and Leonard B. Boudin for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we review for the first time a conviction under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or (except in clerical or custodial positions) as an employee of a labor union. 1 Section 504, the purpose of which is to protect [381 U.S. 437, 439] the national economy by minimizing the danger of political strikes, 2 was enacted to replace 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which conditioned a unions access to the National Labor Relations Board upon the filing of affidavits by all of the unions officers attesting that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist Party. 3 [381 U.S. 437, 440]
Respondent has been a working longshoreman on the San Francisco docks, and an open and avowed Communist, for more than a quarter of a century. He was elected to the Executive Board of Local 10 of the International Longshoremens and Warehousemens Union for consecutive one-year terms in 1959, 1960, and 1961. On May 24, 1961, respondent was charged in a one-count indictment returned in the Northern District of California with knowingly and wilfully serv[ing] as a member of an executive board of a labor organization . . . while a member of the Communist Party, in wilful violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 504. It was neither charged nor proven that respondent at any time advocated or suggested illegal activity by the union, or proposed a political strike. 4 The jury found respondent guilty, and he was sentenced to six months imprisonment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded with instructions to set aside the conviction and dismiss the indictment, holding that 504 violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. 334 F.2d 488. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 899 .
Respondent urges - in addition to the grounds relied on by the court below - that the statute under which he was convicted is a bill of attainder, and therefore violates Art. I, 9, of the Constitution. 5 We agree that 504 is void as a bill of attainder and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on that basis. We therefore find it unnecessary to consider the First and Fifth Amendment arguments. [381 U.S. 437, 441]
JFK did a lot of damage in the 2 years he was in the WH. This was his payback to the Federal Apparatchiks, commies and the Mafia:
Executive Order 10988
January 17, 1962
Office of the Federal Register
Office of the Federal Register
EMPLOYEE-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE
WHEREAS participation of employees in the formulation and implementation of personnel policies affecting them contributes to effective conduct of public business; and
WHEREAS the efficient administration of the Government and the well-being of employees require that orderly and constructive relationships be maintained between employee organizations and management officials; and
WHEREAS subject to law and the paramount requirements of the public service, employee-management relations within the Federal service should be improved by providing employees an opportunity for greater participation in the formulation and implementation of policies and procedures affecting the conditions of their employment; and
WHEREAS effective employee-management cooperation in the public service requires a clear statement of the respective rights and obligations of employee organizations and agency management:
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution of the IUnited States, by section 1753 of the Revised Statutes (5 U.S.C. 631), and as President of the United States, I hereby direct that the following policies shall govern officers and agencies of the executive branch of the Government in all dealings with Federal employees and organizations representing such employees.
SECTION 1. (a) Employees of the Federal Government shall have, and shall be protected in the exercise of, the right, freely and without feel of penalty or reprisal, to form, join and assist any employee organization or to refrain from any such activity. Except as hereinafter expressly provided, the freedom of such employees to assist any employee organization shall be recognized as extending to participation in the management of the organization and acting for the organization in the capacity of an organization representative, including presentation of its views to officials of the executive branch, the Congress or other appropriate authority. The head of each executive department and agency (hereinafter referred to as “agency”) shall take such action, consistent with law, as may be required in order to assist that employees in the agency are apprised of the rights described in this section, and that no interference, restraint, coercion or discrimination is practiced within such agency to encourage or discourage membership in any employee organization.
You’re posting 50 year old stuff? What is your point?