talkpolitics | Lawless

Entry tags:

Lawless

As I was saying:

Republican Wisconsin State Senator Scott Fitzgerald on what Walker’s union busting is REALLY all about:

If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the union, Obama is going to have a much more difficult time winning this election and winning the state of Wisconsin.

Democratic Representative Peter Barca, as the Joint Conference of Committee rams through the bill stripping public sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights:

This is a violation of law. This is not just a rule. This is the law.

This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.

This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.

I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.

The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.

They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.

And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.

I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.

But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.

Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

why would republicans be against raising money? they're more likely against organized extortion.

They're not against raising money in general. They're against Democrats raising money for Democratic candidates.

so union money belongs to the democrats? do you understand how any non-democrat union member would probably would find that offensive?

and isn't it a conflict of interest if/when public sector employees donate to the political candidates they'll be negotiating against?

d: so union money belongs to the democrats? do you understand how any non-democrat union member would probably would find that offensive?

I doubt most union Republicans would be offended by the observation that the unions as organizations tend to support Democratic candidates.

d: and isn't it a conflict of interest if/when public sector employees donate to the political candidates they'll be negotiating against?

No. Do you think public sector employees should be barred from making political donations?

Do you think public sector employees should be barred from making political donations?

It does seem to present a conflict of interest...

Perhapse they should be barred.

Then again I tend to view the 1st ammendment as an "all or nothing deal" so if we barr them we have to bar everyone. Alternately, if we are going to allow unions to make contributions, why not corperations, or the independently wealthy?

sw: Alternately, if we are going to allow unions to make contributions, why not corperations, or the independently wealthy?

You don't think corporations or the independently wealthy make political donations?

Oh, they do.

Out of curiosity what was your stance on "Citizens United vs. The FEC"?

sw: Alternately, if we are going to allow unions to make contributions, why not corperations, or the independently wealthy?
PFT: You don't think corporations or the independently wealthy make political donations?

Then why did you frame it as a hypothetical?

sw: what was your stance on "Citizens United vs. The FEC"?

I think it's a serious blow to the integrity of our political process, which is already far too heavily influenced by wealthy private institutions with resources few actual citizens groups can match.

I think you misread the hypothetical.

If we barr Private Individuals/Institutions from making political donations, we would also have to barr Unions from doing the same. Likewise, If we barr unions from making donations corperations would also have to be barred.

A "conflict of interests" can be argued in either case.

The case was not about barring direct contributions. It was about a law involving direct communications that involved both corporations and non-profits (including unions.)

So what are we arguing about?

The decision struck down those laws which limited the ability of Corporations -- which are likely to have far greater resources and cash reserves than nonprofits or citizens groups -- to bankroll campaign ads. It puts those parties which either do not accept corporate donations, or are unlikely to receive them, at a distinct disadvantage.

The decision struck down those laws which limited the ability of Corporations -- which are likely to have far greater resources and cash reserves than nonprofits or citizens groups -- to bankroll campaign ads.

You do realise that in the eyes of the law that The Red-Cross, AFLCIO, NRA, and ACLU, are all corperations right?

Yes. You do realize that most of these organizations cannot compare with actual for- profit corporations when it comes to resources, cash, and clout, right?

Aside from the issue of scale what's the difference?

Oh dear. You really don't want reality horning in on this discussion, do you? That's like saying about an elephant and a mouse, "aside from the issue of scale, what's the difference?"

The difference is that private corporations have far greater resources and reserves for influencing elections.

(no subject)

sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com - 2011-03-23 19:34 (UTC) - Expand

if i belonged to a union - and i have several times in the past - i'd find it objectionable if/when they donate to -any- candidates.

public sector employees cand donate their own money to whomever they want. the public sector union however is a different matter.

d: If i belonged to a union - and i have several times in the past - i'd find it objectionable if/when they donate to -any- candidates.

Do you find it objectionable when your employer donates to candidates?

d: public sector employees cand donate their own money to whomever they want. the public sector union however is a different matter.

Why?

Do you find it objectionable when your employer donates to candidates?

no, he can do whatever he wants with -his- money.

d: public sector employees cand donate their own money to whomever they want. the public sector union however is a different matter.

Why?

i already covered this.

Paft: Do you find it objectionable when your employer donates to candidates?
d: no, he can do whatever he wants with -his- money.

Union dues paid to the union aren't the union's money?

d: public sector employees cand donate their own money to whomever they want. the public sector union however is a different matter.
paft: Why?
d: i already covered this.

Where?

Union dues paid to the union aren't the union's money?

do you think union dues should be spent to endorse political candidates? is that -really- the purpose of a union? i'd be more likely to approve them being spent on hookers and beer than on political influence.

d: i already covered this.

Where?

in the thread. do you need a citation?

d: do you think union dues should be spent to endorse political candidates? is that -really- the purpose of a union?

When those political candidates are voting on issues that pertain to things like the right to collective bargaining and other labor issues, yes.

d:in the thread. do you need a citation?

Yes.

Wait, are you saying unions = democrats?

Maybe it's just unions money = Democrats' money.

No more than I'm saying blacks=Democrats. But the fact remains that, like black voters, unions tend to support Democratic candidates.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only