Dues should go to support the interest of the union members and his/her fellow employees on work-related matters, not so that the union can put its collective membership support behind a political candidate. A union can "suggest" who its membership should support because it is believed that that candidate supports the interest of the membership. But in the end it is the vote by the union members whether they should support that candidate as a whole, not an arbitrary decision made by the union on behalf of its members. As such, I would not support any union who uses membership dues arbitrarily to put financial support behind a candidate no matter which party.
Now, if the Union members hold a vote and the majority agrees to it, that's a different story. Same goes for corporations with either their Board of Directors or the entirety of their employee compliment. But you don't do it arbitrarily and you must have full disclosure which should include identifying the ownership and the Board membership. Same goes for unions, i.e., Union President, Board, etc.
It's about full disclosure and fairness. I see neither in this W Spann/Restore Our American matter.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 08-05-11 at 01:08 PM.
jan 21: Obama Picks Jeffrey Immelt, GE CEO, To Run New Jobs-Focused Panel As GE Sends Jobs Overseas, Pays Little In TaxesThe head of GE's tax team, Mr. Samuels, met with Representative Charles B. Rangel, then chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which would decide the fate of the tax break. As he sat with the committee’s staff members outside Mr. Rangel’s office, Mr. Samuels dropped to his knee and pretended to beg for the provision to be extended — a flourish made in jest, he said through a spokeswoman.
That day, Mr. Rangel reversed his opposition to the tax break, according to other Democrats on the committee.
The following month, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Immelt stood together at St. Nicholas Park in Harlem as G.E. announced that its foundation had awarded $30 million to New York City schools, including $11 million to benefit various schools in Mr. Rangel’s district. Joel I. Klein, then the schools chancellor, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who presided, said it was the largest gift ever to the city’s schools.
A) politicians would spend more time doing their jobs instead of hustling campaign contributions.
B) they would be less prone to sell us out for said contributions.
There are states that do this now. And from what I remember, they like it that way.
You act like I like that millions upon millions go into campaigns. I do not. I don't like many things our rights allow us to do, but as I said, it's better than the alternative.
I've answered this MANY times. You are discussing two different things. If Obama, Romney or any candidate recieves a donation and they refuse to disclose where it came from, that would be illegal and actions should be taken.As I've said a few times now, I have no problem with an individual or a corporation making a campaign contribution to anyone or any party as long as there is full disclosure. That's NOT what we're getting with this W Spann/Restore Our America/Mitt Romney issue. Still, to answer the unasked question yet again, if President Obama's campaign committee either in 2008 or for 2012 accepts donations from questionable sources and they either refuse to reveal who the true source was or provide refunds, then I'd press the issue just as hard. But neither yourself or anyone else has been able to provide concrete evidence that such has ever happened. All you've provided were links to articles where such was questioned but his campaign responded appropriately, i.e., full disclosure or refunds. I don't see that ahppening here.
Just so we can start making tally's, how many more times will I have to answer this before it's not asked again?