Should Corporations & Unions Be Allowed to "Influence" (Buy) Elections?

[dsandreas 0]

In Reply To
I think it's absolutely adorable the way the author and some of the posters here include "Unions" into this argument as if they have anywhere near the same financial clout to purchase political ads as corporations do.

You don't think unions purchase political ads?

Of course they do. However, I don't think they have the money to saturate the marketplace of ideas the way corporations can. They simply do not have that kind of money at their disposal.

reply

You have got to be joking. The unions spend a fortune on political activism....much of it is not necessarily cash. All the SEIU members showing up at town halls...the unions paid for their food, lodging, the buses, etc. "They simply do not have that kind of money"...get your head out of the sand.

"Every day, millions of union members have money taken from their paychecks to support some union presidents' political agenda. In 1996, Rutgers economics professor Leo Troy estimated that union political expenditures totaled about $500 million in each election cycle. More recently, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research estimated that total union political expenditures reached $925 million in the 2004 cycle. Over time, this has added up: According to The Center for Responsive Politics, eight of the top ten all-time political contributors are labor unions."

http://www.unionfacts.com/articles/unionPolitics.cfm

[quade 4]

And now, look up how much money is spent by corporations.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bolas 5]

Quote

You have got to be joking. The unions spend a fortune on political activism....much of it is not necessarily cash.

Like using extremely large numbers of people to go door to door to get them to vote for Obama?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And now, look up how much money is spent by corporations.

Unions ARE corporations.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

And now, look up how much money is spent by corporations.

Unions ARE corporations.

pssst....context and intent are everything...

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And now, look up how much money is spent by corporations.

Unions ARE corporations.

pssst....context and intent are everything...

Right. The idea that unions are corporations seems to be lost. Unions are out there to make more money, become larger, increase market share, etc. They even hate each other!

The only difference between unions and other corps is that unions are exempt from many rules.

I prefer not to attach some context to unions that makes them more or different than they really are. When they make so much money the mob moves in, it's a good idea of the numbers.

Edited to add: unions are like Dave Chappele's "Clayton Bigsby" character. Ultra-white power guy. He's also black but doesn't realize it because he's blind.

Unions bitching about corpora(ions are Clayton Bigsby railing on blacks.

Yeah - context is important. Take off the white sheets and the context becomes plain. They are what they despise.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,009]

>Unions are out there to make more money . . .

That's one purpose; to make more money for their members. They are also there to get them better benefits - more time off, stronger OSHA regulations, better health care coverage etc. Unions that do a poor job at this get voted out or wither to nothing; unions that do a good job are heavily supported.

[Niki1 1]

Quote

Quote

How do you prevent Ford, Boeing et al from buying as many senators as they need to ensure that happens?

You don't. You can't.

Of course, a good way would be to perhaps repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. The one that changed the system where senators are elected by the state legislators to one where Senators are popularly elected. Perhaps if we can keep the Senate out of campiagning we could have a system where the money isn't put in quite so much because they don't have to worry so much about campaign funds.

The 17th Amendment really caused some serious problems far in excess of the problems it allevaitaed.

While we're at it, repeal the 16th Amendment.

Let the House deal with popular elections.

Outstanding idea!! How do we get a movement like that started? I'll sign up right now. I'll send money (as soon as I get a job.) Would the Senate have to vote on this? Or would they all have to recuse themselves?

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[mnealtx 0]

Unfortunately, it has as much chance of passing as a term limits bill, would.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Unfortunately, it has as much chance of passing as a term limits bill, would.

The California experiment in term limits has been a disaster for the people of California. We now have a body of elected officials that don't know how to get anything done. They aren't around long enough to figure out how to work the system to accomplish anything, thus the partisan gridlock in Sacramento. The pompous pinheads on both sides bloviate for their local constituents and do nothing useful. That is a major part of why the state is AFU, bigtime. Electing as governor an actor with no background in public policy is the other major part of why the state is AFU. The governator is a completely worthless POS.

The moronic requirement for a two thirds majority to pass a state budget gives all the power to the lunatuc fringe, better known as the Republicans party.

Term limits are a VERY BAD idea.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Term limits are a VERY BAD idea.

I understand your point, but I disagree - it is EXACTLY political careerism that got us into this mess and resulted in a 'system' that has to be 'worked' by politicians.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Unions are out there to make more money . . .

That's one purpose; to make more money for their members. They are also there to get them better benefits - more time off, stronger OSHA regulations, better health care coverage etc. Unions that do a poor job at this get voted out or wither to nothing; unions that do a good job are heavily supported.

Yes. Much like any company's job is to ensure better service for its customers. Check out the heavy support that Costco receives from its members. It provides a service.

Unions make money by getting more customers, er, "members." Considering that laws have mostly made unions worthless. Thus, unions shouldn't be interested in things like healthcare for everyone - healthcare used to be something unions could negotiate for its members.

This means that the unions are up to something else. A unified healthcare system means that there is a far bigger source of income for unions in one group.

So, just like bill has pointed out, corporations seek laws that will benefit them. Unions could easily land 5 million people and union dues to match.

Thus helping to control the cost of healthcare by skimming their bit off the top.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Term limits are a VERY BAD idea.

I understand your point, but I disagree - it is EXACTLY political careerism that got us into this mess and resulted in a 'system' that has to be 'worked' by politicians.

There are positives and negatives. In a sense, term limits INCREASED the power of special interests. This is because newbies neither know anybody or how to build coalitions. They also don't know how to draft legislation.

This means that the lobbyists introduce them around. And the lobbyists draft legislation. And the lobbyists build coalitions.

Because of this, there is happiness with the status quo of gerrymandered districts, etc. The GOP is happy with being in the minority. The Dems are happy running things. And nobody gets anything done, except to spend more and more money.

"Why think of the future? I won't be here in 20 years."

There are significant issues with term limits.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,009]

>Much like any company's job is to ensure better service for its customers.

No, it's actually quite different. Providing service for customers is one way to make a profit, which is pretty much their only goal. If companies could make more money by mistreating their customers (and some can) then they will do that - and be rewarded for doing so by their shareholders.

Unions are inherently different because the people who determine whether they survive or wither do so using criteria other than profit. If union leadership gets them a minimal raise but a huge increase in benefits and ten more days off a year, they may well like that, and the union leaders will be re-elected. That makes them inherently different in terms of goals than a publicly owned company.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>Unions are out there to make more money . . .

That's one purpose; to make more money for their members. They are also there to get them better benefits - more time off, stronger OSHA regulations, better health care coverage etc. Unions that do a poor job at this get voted out or wither to nothing; unions that do a good job are heavily supported.

Except in states where you have to be in the union to do a particular job...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Providing service for customers is one way to make a profit, which is pretty much their only goal. If companies could make more money by mistreating their customers (and some can) then they will do that - and be rewarded for doing so by their shareholders.

Yes. They give their customers less for more and they face problems - unless they have slick advertising.


[Reply]Unions are inherently different because the people who determine whether they survive or wither do so using criteria other than profit.

[Niki1 1]

To compare and contast corporations and unions could be another thread that would rival the DB Cooper thread in "History and Trivea."

For the purpose of this thread, they are the same typw of non-voting entities, albeit on the opposite side of most issues, that should not have been granted "personhood". Letting these entities that can't vote shout down people who can vote is like giving North Koreas views on nuclear disarmament equal wieght with the US State Dept.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?