AFSCME Flushes Another $8 Million

By August 21, 2006Labor Unions

We’ve written before about how AFSCME, the big public employee union, keeps flushing its members’ money down the political rathole in increasingly bigger chunks. This money, of course, is often used to support candidates and causes with which their members don’t agree. However, more typically, people — including AFSCME members, presumably — just don’t want their money used for political purposes, period.

Now comes the news that AFSCME has gone itself one better in its unabashed partisanship, committing at least half or more of the $17 million that a new group is raising to fight “aggressive GOP efforts to redraw political boundaries.” Wow. So now they’re in the re-districting game — a step above just lighting a match to money on races and initiatives.

Maybe one day their members will get sick enough of it all to ask for their money back, to which they are entitled under the law.

Join the discussion 2 Comments

  • Pat Cleary says:

    Good Q: We spend ZERO on elections, don’t have a PAC, still believe politics is about people, not money. Through the Prosperity Project (www.nam.org/p2), our members participate and put information (God forbid) out to their employees. In union shops, they tend to vote for the pro-business candidate. Surveys show the employer is considered far more credible than the union. We give them the info — unvarnished — and they take it from there. It’s that simple.

    As you’ll see below, we’re having a little problem with our spam filter, but would welcome any discussion – unlike the AFL-CIO blog, which doesn’t even accept comment, Comrade. A Soviet-style blog. Pravda on the Internet. Whaddaya think of that?

    Thanks for writing,

    Pat Cleary

  • Questioner says:

    Pat:

    How much does NAM spend along with the Chamber and the BRT on elections? I’ll wager it’s more than the unions.

    Since this isn’t a real blog (does anyone ever comment or do you just limit all input?) I won’t expect any good discussion on this.