For Wisconsin’s Democratic state senators, it’s simply bad business to offend labor unions.
Thirteen of the fourteen have received generous contributions from unions over the years; their cumulative donations range from $5,750 to $113,603. And anything less than, well, fleeing the state in order to prevent Gov. Scott Walker’s public-union-busting bill from passing could threaten those vital cash flows.
Advertisement
“Judging from the reaction, the emotion you see on the capitol square, [Walker’s legislation] is obviously something labor unions care deeply about,” says Brett Healy, president of the MacIver Institute, a Wisconsin-based free-market think tank. “I suspect when they’re communicating with these individual senators, they’re making it quite clear what they would like to see happen and what they would like to not see happen.”
If the unions are communicating, the senators are likely listening attentively: Those union donations constitute a significant chunk of their campaign funds, according to the data compiled by Wisconsin Democracy Campaign..
The outlier here is Sen. Tim Cullen (15th district), who has taken less than a dollar from PACs or political committees of any kind. But with him excluded, labor unions are responsible for a large percentage of these senators’ contributions from political-action committees (PACs) and political committees (which together constitute 25 percent of the donations to these senators tracked by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign). Aside from Cullen, Sen. Jim Holperin (12th district) had the lowest proportion of union-funded contributions from PACs or political committees: 24 percent.
Sen. Spencer Coggs (6th district) topped the list with 73 percent. And of the 13 Democrats in the state senate who accepted labor-union funds, ten received a third or more of their PAC or political-committee donations from unions. Five have collected over half of such donations from unions.
And that’s only looking at money directly given to the candidates. Unions also spent heavily on independent initiatives, for example television ads. The Wisconsin Education Association Council’s PAC spent nearly $1.6 million supporting state-level Democratic candidates during the 2010 election cycle. Other unions also spent in support of Democratic candidates, although in smaller amounts: $45,000 ($65,000 total, with the remainder supporting a Republican candidate) from the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, $13,000 from the International Union of Operating Engineers, and a little over $9,000 from Madison Teachers Inc.
Other organizations, while not directly affiliated with unions, have made it clear that they strenuously oppose the proposed limits on collective bargaining for some public employees. Advancing Wisconsin, a progressive interest group that spent nearly $560,000 in support of Democratic candidates in the past election, asked its Facebook fans earlier this month to sign up “to volunteer against Walker’s attempt to take away public employee rights!”
Building a Stronger Wisconsin, whose PAC spent $42,000 in the 2010 cycle, all in opposition to GOP candidates, commissioned and released a poll this month that showed two-thirds of Wisconsin voters opposed Governor Walker’s proposal to eliminate some collective-bargaining rights. And the group made it clear that they opposed Walker’s initiative in the press release accompanying the poll: “Building a Stronger Wisconsin is releasing the poll results today so that legislators and the governor are clear about how Wisconsinites across the state feel about this proposal as they debate and still have a chance to change it to reflect the will of the people,” the group’s executive director, Randy Nash, was quoted as saying.
Sharing those sentiments is another organization, Citizen Action of Wisconsin, which spent $27,000 during the 2010 elections in support of Democratic candidates. Citizen Action callsWalker’s collective-bargaining proposal a “radical attack on the middle class.”
The absent Democratic senators are preventing Wisconsin from launching initiatives that will help close a budget shortfall. But they are ensuring that their own campaign coffers will be well stocked during the next election.
Democratic Senators took money from unions, and????????
"The absent Democratic senators are preventing Wisconsin from launching initiatives that will help close a budget shortfall. But they are ensuring that their own campaign coffers will be well stocked during the next election."
Like Republicans didn't do the same thing during the Health Care debate. Also, Walker argues that these moves will close the shortfall, but it is not an established fact. There are reports that this could end up costing the state as much as 46 million dollars.
I fail to see the purpose of this essay, other than unions contribute to Democratic senators, and those senators support unions and take their contributions.
There are reports that Elvis is alive. The purpose of the essay is to point out just how dependent Democrats are on unions. This year, in particular, they were swept from office. The reasons are interesting.
"Democratic Senators took money from unions, and????????"
and the unions took the money from the public employees, and they took the money from the government, and the gov't took the money from the taxpayer.
That is what is abominable about this situation. PEU's are a tool for forcing taxpayers to fund the Democratic party, not for protecting the "little guy" against "the man."
"and the unions took the money from the public employees, and they took the money from the government, and the gov't took the money from the taxpayer."
You do know that people who work for the government and are in a union are also taxpayers, right? You don't magically become a non-taxpayer when you join a union.
And your charge about funding the Democratic party would be a little more interesting if Walker didn't exempt public employees and unions that supported his campaign.
Carwin: You could compare this scenario to the health care debate if the Republicans had fled the country. But of course they didn't.
The point is that the Dem Senators are pouting and hiding, vacationing on our money, instead of doing their job like rational adults. People wonder how they can be so cowardly, so blatantly cavalier about the democratic process and the constitution they swore to uphold.
This article displays the answer. They are risking that people may be angry enough to vote against them next time, but for some Senators that vote is a long way off. They also have to know that their antics will make campaign attack ads easy.
But when weighed against unions pulling their support, even working against them (we have no idea what messages they were surreptitiously sent) those other fears pale.
The reality is the unions run the Democrats, and thereby half the time, our country.
Does anyone else find the fact that they headed to Illinois, where the Chicago machine is most powerful, just too obvious?
The unions are not forcing you to support them. Paying taxes in Wisconsin is a matter of choice. You have the choice to leave the state. That is what the smart money is doing RE all the high tax blue states. This will likely ensure that the blue states get bluer, as the public employees aren't going anywhere, they know a bird nest on the ground when they see one. I support Gov Walker's efforts, but I wouldn't invest a penny in WI, they are only one wind change away from being right back to a Peoples' Republic. I imagine most businesses are thinking the same.
"Carwin: You could compare this scenario to the health care debate if the Republicans had fled the country. But of course they didn't."
Your making flight from Wisconsin the main criteria of comparison. Point is that Republicans went apocalyptic over Health Care, and they did this on the behest of Health Care providers who contributed money to their campaigns. They did it on behest of the Chamber of Commerce that funds elections, etc. Republicans took a stand on an issue because-among other things-it raised a lot of money for them. Also, Republicans used the filibuster time and time again so that Obama could not push his agenda through. An agenda that he campaigned on, just like Walker.
As for the "this is my tax dollars" argument: people's taxes fund things that they don't like all the time. I didn't want my tax dollars going to the Iraq War, but they did. Voters don't get a line-item veto when it comes to how their tax dollars are spent. If your taxes fund a senator who leaves the state, vote them out of office. Unless there are state rules that say state representatives cannot leave the state when a quorum is needed, then they are not breaking an laws. Seems to me someone needs to revise the quorum rules.
Ms. Trinko: You say, "The absent Democratic senators are preventing Wisconsin from launching initiatives that will help close a budget shortfall." Has anyone started a recall initiative on any of the absent senators? If I am correct, the Wisconsin Senate needs only one more senator to be present for a quorum. How about targeting senator(s) who had the narrowest winning margins? That might get them scurrying back in a hurry, or risk losing their seat(s).
Want to bet that these 14 haven't at some point in their term of service helped to ensure the unions got whatever they wanted? Of course there was no quid pro quo, that would be illegal.
You tell a nice story. Too bad it's blatantly false.
Health Care providers and insurance companies did not overwhelmingly support republicans. On the contrary, these providers were bought off as part of the design of Obamacare.
Carwin, anyone old enough to vote knows that politicians get elected because they have the funds to run a successful campaign. Name for me one who doesn't have any benefactors to whom he looks favorably. That is the way the game is played, like it or not. It doesn't mean corruption necessarily. Work hard on a candidate's campaign at the local level and chances are he'll return your phone call before that of a stranger. It doesn't mean the politician will vote in favor of his friends all the time. It doesn't mean the friend pulls his strings like a puppet, although far too many on both sides have appeared to do so.
The point of the article is not to say "Repubs good, Dems bad". No defensiveness needed. It is to show the huge amount of money the unions are responsible for with all but one Senator. 25% or more is huge. But if those facts were made public and the Dem Sens hadn't run away, few would have paid them notice.
What these Senators are pulling is a notable deal. They are subverting the Constitution, not working for their paycheck, possibly causing layoffs, allowing the majority party to do whatever non fiscal business they want on their own. This last point alone is a slap in the face to every voter who voted for that pol.
It takes something Significant to cause these people to act so brazenly. An entity who is in control of one-quarter of your take home pay is Significant. Left unsaid are the thuggish tactics many of these Significants easily employ among them, one might imagine, promises to destroy a career.
I think it is a good thing for our Republic that, if this mess had to happen, the light of truth and reality now shines on the "possible" corruption.
"You do know that people who work for the government and are in a union are also taxpayers, right? You don't magically become a non-taxpayer when you join a union."
Not when you join a union, but when you become a public employee you are effectively not a taxpayer anymore because when a public employee is involved there will always be a net decrease in the amount of money in the coffers. The employee is always going to be paid more than what they are taxed; so there really is no point in making a public employee pay taxes.
Follow
