Opposing Public Sector Union Conflicts — Out of Context
Robert Wechsler
It's nice to see conflicts of interest being opposed by political party
leaders, but not when they're taken out of context. The opposition this week
has been limited to public sector unions. The conflict involves
public sector unions making contributions to candidates who will be in
a position to deal with union compensation.
Here's how the chair of the Cache County (WI) Republican Party put it, according to an article in today's Cache Valley Daily:
What's interesting is that it has been primarily Republicans who have opposed restrictions on making campaign contributions, on First Amendment free speech grounds. But when it comes to public sector unions, as opposed to contractors and developers, or even non-unionized government employees, who are big givers to local candidates, it's a different story.
Good government supporters generally support the public financing of elections, which would prevent sizeable donations from anyone or any entity, including public sector unions. Republicans generally oppose public financing. Short of public financing, good government supporters generally support contribution bans or limits for those doing business with government, which would include companies and unions, although some Democrats try to except unions. Republicans generally oppose bans and limits, as well.
So the conflict of interest issue being raised this week is disingenuous at best. If they really want to get rid of conflicts of interest surrounding campaign contributions, Republicans are welcome to join good government supporters and push for public financing, or at least contribution limits and bans, while opposing recent court cases that are making these options unworkable. Or is it that corporations are people, but unions aren't?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Here's how the chair of the Cache County (WI) Republican Party put it, according to an article in today's Cache Valley Daily:
-
It's an inherent conflict of interest. When you have unions that come
in and elect people, who then directly influence or determine their
salary, their benefits, their bargaining rights and everything else and
they then pay money to the unions and the unions pay to get those
people elected that will give them money. It's always a problem.
What's interesting is that it has been primarily Republicans who have opposed restrictions on making campaign contributions, on First Amendment free speech grounds. But when it comes to public sector unions, as opposed to contractors and developers, or even non-unionized government employees, who are big givers to local candidates, it's a different story.
Good government supporters generally support the public financing of elections, which would prevent sizeable donations from anyone or any entity, including public sector unions. Republicans generally oppose public financing. Short of public financing, good government supporters generally support contribution bans or limits for those doing business with government, which would include companies and unions, although some Democrats try to except unions. Republicans generally oppose bans and limits, as well.
So the conflict of interest issue being raised this week is disingenuous at best. If they really want to get rid of conflicts of interest surrounding campaign contributions, Republicans are welcome to join good government supporters and push for public financing, or at least contribution limits and bans, while opposing recent court cases that are making these options unworkable. Or is it that corporations are people, but unions aren't?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---