Salmo...the problem with union dues going to campaigns is simple..Public employees were (in Wisconsin) forced to join the union and yet the money spent on greasing politicians and funding campaigns is spend without consent. Give to a PAC and you do so voluntarily. Here in Washington the same...Too many "deals" made like Gregoire negotiating with the tribes on the heals of their $600,000 donation...stinks to high heaven.
Let the individual (public employee) spend his or her money in politics as they choose. If the progressive message and philosophy is so wonderful then money should be no problem.

Looks like the market reacted favorably to the election...the Dow's up 280. Even Faceplant went up.

How is that different from being an employee of a Corp or a minority shareholder?

What you don't sense is how the impact of that far-away election will affect other states and even your own. The expense of public sector employees' retirement pensions and benefits are becoming the biggest budgetary constraints of cities and counties nationwide. Vallejo, CA declared bankruptcy in part because they were paying for the equivalent of three policemen and fireman for each one actually working. Less money in city budgets = fewer services they can provide. San Diego and San Jose voted to alter pensions to 401K's by a 65 and 70% margin. The San Diego initiative also released them from paying union or "prevailing" wages for contracts awarded to companies doing city work.

Since the ban on collective bargaining in WI, the AFSCME membership there has dropped from 62,818 in February,2010 to 28,745 in March 2011. The teacher's union membership has dropped by 7,000.

Loss of union workers = loss of dues = less money for unions to contribute to politicians they can own.

As a union member going in you know you have to pay dues so nothing was forced on you. Almost always the union will spend those dues to your unions benefit whether that be bribing pro union candidates or whatever. Consider it part of your benefits package whether you think of it positively or negatively. Don't take the job if you don't agree with it. [End quote]

Not forced, so paying dues isnt mandatory? The Bush rule about exempting dues money to opposing candidates was very unpopular. Ive been in two unions. Ask a union rep what they make... Indeed public employee unions donate money to candidates to get in the door and the taxpayers ending up paying for all of it. Taxpayers are forced to pay. Taxpayers are now showing some spine and fiscal sanity.

[ Quote] Shareholders own the Corp. ANY money paid out politically is done so without the approval of minority shareholders. Even if given a vote show me where minority shareholders have ever won a vote against the majority shareholders in a large corp.

That is just flat out wrong. First you assume they completely disagree. Second you assume that only one candidate received money. Third you assume that the minority shareholder (private or public was not on the board of directors.) Anytime a CEO gets the boot, its the board who did it.

This must be a first for stlhead, standing up for any shareholder of a company. If the minority shareholder does not like who the money went to, they are free to sell their shares. (or quit). Unlike you, they may not pout if they dont get their way. If they don't want to be minority shareholders, then they should buy more shares. A minority shareholder is not necessarily prevented from serving on the board. If you own any stock in a company, you are sent a ballot to elect board members. You are able to go to the shareholder meetings if you desire. You may own shares with voting rights. Who the [Bleeeeep!] would know how anyone in any corporation voted. They buy and sell shares, depending on their pay package. Karl Icahn loses all the time. Go hug Karl. To say that minority shareholders always vote against the majority shareholders is pathetic. You have some mental image of the minority in any scenario, being stepped on. There is no connection. I know a minority shareholder of AOL and he was worth several million when he sold and left. Poor guy. The fact he was a republican bother you much, in light of the AOL leanings? Come on, take up for a republican in the minority.

[Quote] As for non-union employees...if there are cuts to pay, cuts to benefits, layoffs, etc and the amount of political donations does not decrease then you paid for it against your will. That was not negotiated going in. You got F'd and there's nothing you can do about it. { Quote]

Rather single minded outlook. IF donations did not go down? Really? What about the light bill? Your outrage is misdirected. The guys who build highways and pipelines, who are not working are not really bitching about their skin in the game. They just want bills passed, so they can go back to work. Since when do political races cost less in an economic downturn? I get where you're coming from. No matter what, the guy who is trying to hold the company together for the future of his own family, is the bad guy. His investment is secondary to the needs of the 99%. Where is the 99% when the doors about to close for good? Some end up with employee owned companies. They still dont make the same as the president of the company. Grow up. People who go back to work on a new job, who think the way you do, have one foot in the grave.

An interesting perspective. The state's public employee union, like most unions, sought better wages, working conditions, health, and retirement benefits for its members. Under average to good economic times, how could one say that is not a good thing? No question that during the present economic conditions adjustments needed to be made to keep the state solvent. That's happening everywhere.

But the voter perspective could be interpreted differently. The voter might see good wages, health and retirement benefits as things he would like to obtain for himself too, if he doesn't have them already. Instead of working toward that desirable outcome, the voter sees public employees with a good thing and rather than want the good thing for himself too, he decides it's better to take it away from them.

Instead of lifting all of society up, let's bring everyone down to the least common denominator. A perfect plan by the Koch brothers and other 0.1%ers.

Considering the Walker campaign spent over $30 Million, with about $22 Million of it coming from right wing organizations outside of the State of Wisconsin, and the Barrett campaign spent $4 Million, with about one million of it coming from left wing organizations outside of the State of Wisconsin, and it's still neck and neck, should be very demonstrative of what the actual result should be.

The fact that it's even close shows how bad the Citizens United ruling by those douchebags on the Supreme Court is for actual democracy...and I mean actual representative government, not the best you can buy that the CU ruling is hoping to get us.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. The Republican robo-call that went out this morning in Wisconsin telling people who signed the petition for the recall didn't need to go to the polls because their vote will already be counted in favor of ditching Walker also shows the kind of disdain that Republicans in Wisconsin have for both democracy and the truth. I hope some folks go to jail for it when the investigation is over.

It would be nice to think President Obama had a balanced budget on his mind, but his most recent proposed budget ( 0 votes for that, by the way) never came within $500 billion of a balance.

It's reassuring to me he's so adept at tracking down and killing al Qaeda commanders while he's simultaneously appearing at fund raisers. That shows his ability to multitask.

It's my fondest wish that he, along with the DOJ, will pursue Azzhole bankers like Corzine, just as soon as people like Corzine are finished bundling for his campaign at $800K a shot.

p.s. Clinton lowered taxes on capital gains and had, with the help of a GOP majority in congress, a balanced budget.