ForumGarden

Let's get serious for a moment.

Do you think unions and other Political Action Committees (PACS) should have the right to spend their members money collectively to support a candidate or promote a cause that benefits them at the expense of others?

The issue is not preventing people from expressing their views or trying to educate politicians on an issue of importance to them, but rather trying to buy support from politicians who are first and foremost focused on getting elected or re-elected quite often at the expense of the common good and thus subject to financial influence.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;870487 wrote: Let's get serious for a moment.

Do you think unions and other Political Action Committees (PACS) should have the right to spend their members money collectively to support a candidate or promote a cause that benefits them at the expense of others?

The issue is not preventing people from expressing their views or trying to educate politicians on an issue of importance to them, but rather trying to buy support from politicians who are first and foremost focused on getting elected or re-elected quite often at the expense of the common good and thus subject to financial influence.


It is a Union's function to get the best deal possible for its members - if that involves using its clout, financial or otherwise, to ensure the election of the candidate most sympathetic to the Union's aims then that action lies within its remit.

Such an action would generally be put to the members before being implemented anyway.

Bryn Mawr;870500 wrote: It is a Union's function to get the best deal possible for its members - if that involves using its clout, financial or otherwise, to ensure the election of the candidate most sympathetic to the Union's aims then that action lies within its remit.



Such an action would generally be put to the members before being implemented anyway.


Generally not!!!!!!!!



http://facethestate.com/articles/unions ... paign-cash





http://www.nrtw.org/d/illegalpac.htm



It is unlawful for a labor union to take money from your paycheck for contributions to a federal PAC or for the federal PAC to accept such contributions without your written authorization. Recently, the Federal Election Commission has audited some well-known national union PACs to see if they had written authorizations from employees for the contributions the PACs were receiving. The results were astonishing. One national union PAC, according to the FEC audit, could not produce written authorizations for 93% of PAC contributions the FEC examined. Another national union PAC was unable to show authorizations for at least 67% of the contributions the FEC examined. This suggests a widespread problem: union PACs are making political contributions to federal candidates with employees' money taken without their written authorizations.

The real point is that money corrupts or at least causes biased decision making. In the corporate world it's called incentive pay and we all know the consequences of that, you incent people to do something with a lot of money at the end, they will generally do it.

When it comes to PACs it is simply money given to a politician with the expectation of a returned favor at some point.

If unions or any other group want to make their point with a member of Congress, to lobby for a point of view so be it, that's why we call it a democracy, but.....

that is something very different than making your point with a check.

I used to do that, we would have a check for a Congressman from a PAC and to give it to him we would have to walk out of the building and step into the street because it is illegal to give the PAC money on on Federal property.

One has to wonder if it is so ok to do why you have to be in the street to do it.

BTS;870643 wrote: Generally not!!!!!!!!



http://facethestate.com/articles/unions ... paign-cash





http://www.nrtw.org/d/illegalpac.htm



It is unlawful for a labor union to take money from your paycheck for contributions to a federal PAC or for the federal PAC to accept such contributions without your written authorization. Recently, the Federal Election Commission has audited some well-known national union PACs to see if they had written authorizations from employees for the contributions the PACs were receiving. The results were astonishing. One national union PAC, according to the FEC audit, could not produce written authorizations for 93% of PAC contributions the FEC examined. Another national union PAC was unable to show authorizations for at least 67% of the contributions the FEC examined. This suggests a widespread problem: union PACs are making political contributions to federal candidates with employees' money taken without their written authorizations.


That just shows how very different Unions are in your country - what I have described is exactly how they operate over here.

ETA All donations to a candidate (over a very low threshold), from whatever source, have to be registered and declared