Clay Putnam, CGCS said: Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: So Dennis and Clay, are you saying it's ok for some rich guy to give money to a political party trying to curry favor for their benefit but not the unions? Or for businesses to donate money or not unions, which is essentially a business?
I'm not a big union fan, but if there is support for them and people want to belong that's fine. But to treat a union differently just because they will support one party, that would not be fair unless you treat all contributors the same regardless of the party they support. (Actually if I remember correctly the police and fire unions backed Walker during the election in 2010.......I wonder if that is why they were not affected or not forced to follow the same rules as the other unions?)
If businesses treated people with respect and allowed them to share in the fruits of their labor (and I don't even mean profit sharing or salaries, there are plenty of other ways to show appreciation) , unions would have never taken off in the first place.
Are you guys encouraging us to go back to the early 1900's?
Quite honestly I'm disgusted with the amount of money being spent on politics on both sides. Why not donate that money to medical research, providing meals to the poor, supplementing education, a much better use for that money.
Mel
Mel,
Apparently I'm a failure at communicating because you're hearing exactly what I'm not saying.
Let's try this a different way - I am in no way suggesting unions should be treated differently than anyone or anything else, as it relates to campaign donations. You suggested unions are deprived of giving donations due to a lesser number of unions members. I then said that unions are a quasi-super PAC. Any person, union member or non-union member, can contribute to the "unions guy". A smaller union does not preclude non-union members from contributing to the union's choice of a candidate. Therefore the union is not at a disadvantage. How that translates into going back to 1900 is above my pay grade.
My mistake Clay, trying to lump your and Dennis's comments in the same post. Dennis commented on the unfair money advantage the unions had. I kind of like your analogy except, unless non-union members donate to the unions money to use for their political contributions, the unions are basically disclosing who is supporting their super pac as you call it. The mostly conservative super pacs do not. Heck even Steven Colbert revealed who contributed to his super pac.
As for the early 1900's comment, I was referring to how big business treated employees, in general, they held all the advantages. Also back then there was probably no middle class or how we think of one now. Seems to a degree we are trying to move back in that direction when busting up the unions. I honestly don't think the unions have the power they did for a couple of reasons, the mob isn't probably as involved, and the federal government has put in work rules such as 40 hour weeks, minimum wage, safety rules/OSHA, and other agencies that can help protect the workers from being taken advantage of, so really what ever the unions ask for is gravy for them, that is just an opinion. And also they don't really hold a lot of political clout compared to some of these conservative groups, so I don't know what the big deal is going after the unions so hard. I would think union leaders and members are smart enough to see the big picture. They did here in Springfield and worked together for the betterment of all, (I know starting to sound like a broken record, but it seems not everyone gets my point that things can get accomplished working together.)
I could go on and talk about what I think unions have done to help us in the middle class with benefits and wages, but I would be just spouting some theories since I haven't really studied or investigated what I think they are.
But the main fact still doesn't change, there is too much money in politics, and I just can't believe we don't do something good with it....Does any side that contributes millions of dollars really get that big of an advantage if policies go their way? I guess that is above my pay grade to see that. Maybe we ought to bring back the tax rates from the 50's, I bet we could get our infrastructure problems solved. (hey which one of these smilies is the tongue in cheek one?)
Mel