Diana Furchtgott-Roth: Stop campaign funds from public-sector unions
Diana Furchtgott-Roth | Washington Examiner
November 4, 2010
With the close of the 2010 election campaign, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees reached a new spending record, pouring $87 million into this congressional election.
AFSCME’s $87 million is greater than the campaign spending by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($75 million) and American Crossroads ($65 million). Other public-sector unions, such as the Service Employees International Union ($44 million) and the National Education Association ($40 million) also ratcheted up their campaign spending.
AFSCME President Gerald McEntee is proud of his union’s track record. Quoted in the Wall Street Journal, he declared, “We’re spending big. And we’re damn happy it’s big. And our members are damn happy it’s big — it’s their money.”
There’s nothing wrong with private people and organizations, including private unions, spending money on political campaigns as long as institutional sources are disclosed and individual contributors to the organizations are agreeable. Under the Supreme Court’s Beck decision, union members have a right to ask for a refund of the portion of their dues used for political purposes.
But AFSCME members are government employees. Their salaries are paid by the taxpayers. A portion of their salaries goes to union dues.
It is entirely appropriate for these dues to be used to seek better workplace conditions, to facilitate employer-employee dispute resolution, to offer a form of “insurance” for employees in difficult personal situations who need financial help.
In contrast, it is inappropriate for public-employee unions to spend dues money on political contributions, even though they now do it lawfully. When government employees favor one candidate for public office over another, and the disfavored candidate wins, this creates a poisoned atmosphere and an awkward situation in the workplace.
Read more @ Washington Examiner.
