[Jodokast96]

You don't get it. UFCW E-Activist Network:

It doesn't get any clearer than that. They aren't asking that you contribute over here or over there, because this group or that group shares a common interest or goal. They are asking for money, directly, for them to contribute. So don't try to say I'm twisting anything. It's a PAC with the union name, run and controlled by the union, soliciting money from union members, so the union can contribute to the politician or party of their choosing, in the name of the union, legally.

Some more:

http://www.teamster.org/content/about-drive

http://www.afscme.org/legislation-politics/24472.cfm
"Federal election law and some state laws prohibit using dues for campaign contributions and other political activities. AFSCME PEOPLE enables our union to be strong politically"

---

Last edited by Jodokast96; 08-03-2010 at 06:45 AM.

[GeneV]

You don't get it. UFCW E-Activist Network:

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Union: Give us your money to give to the politicians.

I get that completely. I represent business interests who do the same thing and head the government affairs committee of a business group. No one disputes that unions and corporations do a lot to affect elections. Both promote PACs (whose funds, by law, cannot be part of the funds of the organization).

However, it is not the subject of the exemption to the Disclose Act. That is what this thread is about. The exemption would have had little effect on unions. The distinction between the organization and its PAC makes all the difference when it comes to this act.

PACs would still be under the same disclosure requirements.

[jeffkrol]

You don't get it. UFCW E-Activist Network:

It doesn't get any clearer than that. They aren't asking that you contribute over here or over there, because this group or that group shares a common interest or goal. They are asking for money, directly, for them to contribute. So don't try to say I'm twisting anything. It's PAC with the union, run and controlled by the union, soliciting money from union members, so the union can contribute to the politician or party of their choosing, in the name of the union, legally.

I get that completely. I represent business interests who do the same thing and head their government affairs committee. No one disputes that unions and corporations do a lot to affect elections. Both promote PACs (whose funds, by law, cannot be part of the funds of the organization).

However, it is not the subject of the exemption to the Disclose Act. That is what this thread is about. The exemption would have had little effect on unions.PACs would still be under the same disclosure requirements.

So we both sit and argue who has more cancer??????

"It is very disappointing that a minority of senators decided to block the Senate from even considering this bill to increase transparency and disclosure in elections," Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), long a champion of campaign finance reforms, said in a statement. "While the bill is not perfect, it was our best chance to provide voters with adequate information about exactly who is behind the onslaught of political ads they can expect to see this fall."

Yet Republicans believe they will be able to brandish their opposition to the DISCLOSE Act to win over voters in November.

On the Senate floor today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) decried the DISCLOSE Act as "117 pages of stealth negotiations in which Democrats pick winners and losers, either through outright prohibitions or restrictions so complex that they end up achieving the same result" and as an example of Democratic "overreach."

mitchmcconnell.jpg"The supporters of this bill say it's about transparency. To that, I say it's transparent all right. It's a transparent effort to rig the fall elections," said McConnell,

Republicans Thwart New Campaign Finance Disclosure Rules As DISCLOSE Act Fails Procedural Vote in Senate - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

Ahh the squeaky wheel of McConnell......

[GeneV]

Union and corporate PACs have been under disclosure requrements for years. That was not changed by the Disclose Act, nor was it changed by the exemption.

We got here by two posters suggesting that the exemption was placed in the bill for unions as well as the NRA. It definitely was not. It does not really help the unions. That's my point. The rest is a trip down a rabbit trail based upon twisting my specific comment beyond the point.

If we want to talk about money as a cancer on the political system, that is an entirely different proposition.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 08-03-2010 at 07:27 AM.

[Jodokast96]

But that has changed for them, as it has for the corporations.

From Seacapt's link:

"The bill was written to close the vacuum created last January by the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision that struck down decades-old law barring corporations and unions from directly supporting campaigns."

[GeneV]

But that has changed for them, as it has for the corporations.

From Seacapt's link:

"The bill was written to close the vacuum created last January by the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision that struck down decades-old law barring corporations and unions from directly supporting campaigns."

OK, this is the last time I'm going to try this. This thread is about the exemption for the NRA. The "NRA" amendment exempts organizations that have over 500,000 members, are over 10 years old, have a presence in all 50 states and whose revenue from corporations and unions is less than 15 percent. Unions don't fit that exemption. Unions rely upon dues, rather than donations, anyway. However, FWIW, unions did not support this bill.

[jeffkrol]

I was going to stop.. but just one more