I think the real "story behind the story" would be to find out how individual union member's voting patterns across the same elections balances out. I doubt seriously 94% of these same union members pulled the lever for democrats. It is wrong for unions to shakedown "dues" from every single member, and to then donate it in a "non-representative" distribution for a strong handed political agenda that goes against the core values of a significant percentage of their members.

 

I would think such an expose would be a guaranteed Pulitzer Prize for any journalist intrepid enough to connect the dots and reveal the little men pulling the levers behind the curtain. :thumb:

 

They'd be the greatest journalist ever, because there is almost zero chance of getting through all those layers of bureaucracy to those people. And once you got close, your life would be in danger.

 

And on your first paragraph, I don't necessarily disagree, but that same thing could be said for any corporation.

They'd be the greatest journalist ever, because there is almost zero chance of getting through all those layers of bureaucracy to those people. And once you got close, your life would be in danger.

 

And on your first paragraph, I don't necessarily disagree, but that same thing could be said for any corporation.

 

How so? The corporations listed seem balanced to me. I'd be real surprised if any one corporation used stockholders funds to contribute to one particular cause very heavily as that's just not good business. Now, personal donations from executives is another matter which of course does not equate to using union dues.

How so? The corporations listed seem balanced to me.

 

 

I think he's saying that if you polled the individuals who worked for the corporations, that their support may differ from the party their company donates to.

I think he's saying that if you polled the individuals who worked for the corporations, that their support may differ from the party their company donates to.

 

I know, I'm saying that's probably not the case when you look at how the company's split their dollars. It's usually pretty even as they cover all their bases. Now individual company's might be different but overall I'm betting it's a wash.

I think he's saying that if you polled the individuals who worked for the corporations, that their support may differ from the party their company donates to.

 

The political voice of the corporation is not meant to reflect the people who work for the corporations. It is meant to reflect the voice of the owners of the corporation - i.e. stockholders, if publicly held.

 

The reason people are stockholders is because they want that corporation to generate wealth for them. Owners (stockholders) have entrusted the board to authorize lobbying that is required to change the change laws, regulations, etc. that will increase the wealth building capability of a corporation.

 

And as government grows and puts out more and more regulation and laws on business activity the businesses must become better at getting their view and their issues heard through effective (and expensive) lobbying.

I guess I just don't get what this proves. I mean, it's a wash....but what does that have to do with his criticism?

His claim that the decision will open the floodgates to big corporate special interests is hogwash. Look at the chart, this stuff has been going on for a long, long time and the ruling isn't going to change anything. The split, as coldweatherfan showed, is 55.31% D and 43.50% R. That's over the last 20 years. I'd venture to say if you went back 40 years, it would be similar. The action of the SCOTUS isn't going to change this at all. It was simply exaggeration on his part.

His claim that the decision will open the floodgates to big corporate special interests is hogwash. Look at the chart, this stuff has been going on for a long, long time and the ruling isn't going to change anything. The split, as coldweatherfan showed, is 55.31% D and 43.50% R. That's over the last 20 years. I'd venture to say if you went back 40 years, it would be similar. The action of the SCOTUS isn't going to change this at all. It was simply exaggeration on his part.

Your research does however illustrate why the Bamster looks like a Cirque du Soleil contortionist in his gyrations to appease unions... :thumb:

Your research does however illustrate why the Bamster looks like a Cirque du Soleil contortionist in his gyrations to appease unions... :thumb:

Indeed it does. :lol: