You are here
Government Employee Union Campaign Contributions
Friday, October 22nd, 2010
Robert Wechsler
According to an
article in today's Wall Street Journal, business organizations are arguing
that government employee unions have a conflict of interest that should
prevent them from supporting candidates for office. "Public-sector
unions have a guaranteed source of revenue—you and me as taxpayers,"
the executive director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Workforce
Freedom Initiative is quoted as saying. The argument is that union dues
come from government employees' salaries, which come from taxes.
A spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is quoted as saying that, according to this logic, "the government is funding the movie industry every time AFSCME members go out to the movies."
Well, not quite, but it's ridiculous for an organization full of government contractors, who spend taxpayer money on their dues, to make this argument. What everyone is missing here is that governments are organizations that represent and manage our communities, and that everyone involved in our communities could be considered to have this sort of conflict of interest, because they pay taxes, get tax money, and are or may be involved in government activities, directly or indirectly.
A more serious argument is that local government employee unions endorse and give money to candidates who are or may become their members' boss. This can cause two problems. One is that such a union can influence the selection of those with whom it negotiates employment contracts. This can cloud the labor negotiation process, making it look like any concession to the union is the granting of a return favor.
Two, a powerful mayor or council chair can effectively require unions to provide election support, with the implied threat of layoffs or tougher negotiations.
This is a very difficult area of government ethics. For one thing, there is an important difference between a particular government contractor and a group of employees. No one is arguing that local business organizations should stay out of politics, and yet they too represent individual members who benefit directly or indirectly from local government.
On the other hand, there are ethics laws that limit or prohibit campaign contributions from individual government contractors. And yet there are few limits or prohibitions on campaign contributions from individual government employees, although there are some limits and prohibitions on their involvement in political campaigns.
Singly, government employees do not give enough to exert serious influence on elected officials, but elected officials can pressure government employees into paying up. This is a very common situation, usually done tacitly. I'm sure many local government employees and commission members would be happy if they were prohibited from making individual campaign contributions to local candidates. Maybe it would be best if only groups of employees and businesses could make contributions to those they work and negotiate with.
Government employee unions differ from business organizations in that unions negotiate directly with local governments, while business organizations only lobby them. On the other hand, business organizations consist of far wealthier members, whose funds, singly and combined, are far greater than local unions'. In other words, many local elected officials are dependent on business support and, outside of many cities, local politicians tend to be more beholden to businesses than to government employees.
This is a very difficult problem to work through, especially since the two sides tend to focus on the other side's part of the problem, and deny their own or defend it constitutionally. There are similarities and differences, and there are true conflicts, apparent conflicts, mostly tacit pay-to-play, and too much influence given to those with the largest funds.
The best solution to the problem is public campaign financing at the local level, which makes contributions smaller and less important, and either prohibits or greatly limits union, corporate, and union and corporate PAC contributions. But this still allows independent expenditures, which corporate interests have successfully fought to allow, even as they oppose such expenditures from unions.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
A spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is quoted as saying that, according to this logic, "the government is funding the movie industry every time AFSCME members go out to the movies."
Well, not quite, but it's ridiculous for an organization full of government contractors, who spend taxpayer money on their dues, to make this argument. What everyone is missing here is that governments are organizations that represent and manage our communities, and that everyone involved in our communities could be considered to have this sort of conflict of interest, because they pay taxes, get tax money, and are or may be involved in government activities, directly or indirectly.
A more serious argument is that local government employee unions endorse and give money to candidates who are or may become their members' boss. This can cause two problems. One is that such a union can influence the selection of those with whom it negotiates employment contracts. This can cloud the labor negotiation process, making it look like any concession to the union is the granting of a return favor.
Two, a powerful mayor or council chair can effectively require unions to provide election support, with the implied threat of layoffs or tougher negotiations.
This is a very difficult area of government ethics. For one thing, there is an important difference between a particular government contractor and a group of employees. No one is arguing that local business organizations should stay out of politics, and yet they too represent individual members who benefit directly or indirectly from local government.
On the other hand, there are ethics laws that limit or prohibit campaign contributions from individual government contractors. And yet there are few limits or prohibitions on campaign contributions from individual government employees, although there are some limits and prohibitions on their involvement in political campaigns.
Singly, government employees do not give enough to exert serious influence on elected officials, but elected officials can pressure government employees into paying up. This is a very common situation, usually done tacitly. I'm sure many local government employees and commission members would be happy if they were prohibited from making individual campaign contributions to local candidates. Maybe it would be best if only groups of employees and businesses could make contributions to those they work and negotiate with.
Government employee unions differ from business organizations in that unions negotiate directly with local governments, while business organizations only lobby them. On the other hand, business organizations consist of far wealthier members, whose funds, singly and combined, are far greater than local unions'. In other words, many local elected officials are dependent on business support and, outside of many cities, local politicians tend to be more beholden to businesses than to government employees.
This is a very difficult problem to work through, especially since the two sides tend to focus on the other side's part of the problem, and deny their own or defend it constitutionally. There are similarities and differences, and there are true conflicts, apparent conflicts, mostly tacit pay-to-play, and too much influence given to those with the largest funds.
The best solution to the problem is public campaign financing at the local level, which makes contributions smaller and less important, and either prohibits or greatly limits union, corporate, and union and corporate PAC contributions. But this still allows independent expenditures, which corporate interests have successfully fought to allow, even as they oppose such expenditures from unions.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
