7 ms·
That goes the other way too, if not more so: The union should stay out of such political matters; especially if they expect their continued funding to be above
by burfog 6y ago
That goes the other way too, if not more so:
The union should stay out of such political matters; especially if they expect their continued funding to be above political reproach.
That funding is a private tax, backed by force of law, imposed on the income of the workers. Via political "donation" a large part of it goes to politicians, ensuring that the politicians continue to allow it. This is deeply corrupt. We have here a money pipeline from the worker's paycheck to the politician, with the union and politician splitting the ill-gotten cut of the paycheck.
- dsr_ 6y agoErr, no. A union is inherently a political entity.
- ahelwer 6y agoSenseless. Money governs access to political power in this country. You would take away nearly the only alternative tool regular working people have to make their voices heard with impact and call it "deeply corrupt" - how do you reason yourself into this place?
- barry-cotter 6y ago> Money governs access to political power in this country. Billionaires who failed to get anywhere in the Democratic primary: Bloomberg, Steyer. Remember, all political campaign funding plus all think tank funding plus all media funding is less than the US spends on almonds each year. Money doesn’t buy political influence in the US, it flows to it. > (in case you’re keeping track: all donations to all candidates, all lobbying, all think tanks, all advocacy organizations, the Washington Post, Vox, Mic, Mashable, Gawker, and Tumblr, combined, are still worth a little bit less than the almond industry. And Musk could buy them all.) https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...
- OpieCunningham 6y agoMoney will only get you so far in your public facing political ambitions if you are politically incompetent (Bloomberg) or devoid of charisma (Steyer). But money got both of them to the stage.
- barry-cotter 6y ago> But money got both of them to the stage. So what? They lost comprehensively. The point of politics isn’t to be heard. It’s to win so you can get what you want done done. If being heard led to political change US politics would be a great deal more libertarian. You don’t just need to be heard you need to persuade people to believe what you believe and to vote for you. Money doesn’t do that. It buys you a bigger megaphone but if no one likes the message they hear from you they won’t vote for you. Then you end up like Bloomberg, having spent a ton of money on a Presidential bid that failed utterly.
- geofft 6y agoI'm not sure Bloomberg failed. He stepped in because he was afraid that Sanders or Warren would win, which would be bad for him personally. He's fine with Biden. Seems like a pretty effective return on investment to me. The point of politics is to get what you want done done. You don't have to win to do that. In fact, if you can achieve your goals without spending four years of your life being president of the US, that sounds so much less stressful.
- jacobush 6y agoBill Gates agrees, he said as much in that famous interview. The current president seems to crave attention, so that’s different. Many other wealthy men of power are happy to influence from behind.
- lioeters 6y ago> you need to persuade people to believe what you believe and to vote for you. Money doesn’t do that. It buys you a bigger megaphone.. A megaphone is a naive and unsuitable analogy. Money buys you the two-party system where the only viable candidates are the ones that have been paid for, that do the bidding of the lobbyists and special interests that actually dictate national policies and run the country. Money buys you the mass media, that surrounds and saturates the public with messages, dis/misinformation and values skewed to suit your agenda. Money buys you the power to shape laws and regulations, so that your industry is.. You get the idea. "Money governs access to political power in this country." As an American, I'm ashamed to learned over the decades how much this statement is true. Didn't you see how money bought the presidency? How else did we end up with utterly corrupt and incompetent (or maliciously competent) politicians running the country?
- koverstreet 6y agoUnions are democratic organizations that exist to advocate on behalf of their members. Of course they should be involved in politics.
- barry-cotter 6y agoCorporations are voluntary organizations that exist for the benefit of their owners and if their owners don’t like their politics they can leave much more easily than any union member can. Of course they should be involved in politics.
- Someone1234 6y agoIf you cap corporation's contributions to the same as each individual member of the union, no problemo.
- barry-cotter 6y agoContributions to unions aren’t capped and don’t need to come from members. If George Soros wants to leave his fortune to the AFL-CIO I doubt they’ll refuse.
- sudosysgen 6y agoUnions are directly elected institutions with general assemblies. That means you can't ever capture a union using money alone. Moreover, unions are legally prevented from contributing to political campaigns, while corporations are allowed to do so. Therefore, the comparison breaks down at every single level, and no useful conclusion can be reached from it.
- barry-cotter 6y agoCorporations, like unions are free to campaign independently. For example the for profit Fox, Breitbart, New York Times and Washington Post Corporations all made their political preferences very clear over the past two years. They each spent a lot of employee time and money supporting their favoured candidate. Or Disney, a for profit corporation, releasing Michael Moore films. They’re political propaganda, just like the garbage Citizens United produced to denounce Hillary. Political speech rights in the US belong to individuals, who do not lose them by coming together in corporate organizations, whatever their form. This is just.
- plushpuffin 6y agoI'm sorry but that is just insane. What about the company employing the workers? What about the owner/CEO/board members of that company? Will they be similarly restricted? The whole point of the union is collective bargaining and providing a united front, and they need to be able to defend their right to exist in the political arena. If they can't make political contributions, it won't be long before they are outlawed. It's not like they wield disproportionate influence, anyway. They are far outspent by the capital class, as evidenced by the gradual erosion of union power and the passage of anti-union laws such as "right to work" in recent decades.