A Massive Incumbent Protection Program by Brad Peck

[Twana Blevins]

by Brad Peck @ the Chamber Post

Unions to spend big on the status quo:

    At least two influential unions will spend close to $100 million on the 2010 election, with most of those funds going to protect incumbents. Union officials told The Hill they plan to help endangered members — particularly freshmen — who made politically difficult votes in a year during which an anti-incumbent mood has filled the country. And the number will be even higher since the AFL-CIO declined to give its figures.

    The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) plans to spend in excess of $50 million during the 2010 campaign, part of which will fund “a massive incumbent protection program,” according to Gerry McEntee, president of the union. AFSCME spent roughly $67 million on its political activities in 2008. But the $50 million slated for the 2010 elections is the largest expenditure the union will make in a midterm election, according to union officials. The money will go to help defend the union’s top tier of eight Senate seats and 34 House members.

    The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) plans to spend $44 million in total on its 2010 election program. The union spent $85 million on its 2008 campaign, according to union officials...“In the past, we have not paid as much attention to incumbent protection as we have this year,” said Jon Youngdahl, national political director for the SEIU. “In the past, decisions were made on electoral opportunities and this year decisions are being made on the healthcare reform accountability.”

    A third labor group said it plans to spend big in 2010 but wouldn’t get into specific numbers. Karen Ackerman, the AFL-CIO’s political director, told reporters on Wednesday that the labor federation will be active in 18 states, will campaign in gubernatorial and Senate races and will likely have a role in 60 to 70 House races this election. She declined to give a dollar amount.

No dollar amount, but we know that it is "even more than the $53 million laid out in 2008 to elect President Obama and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate."

Hmmm...where have I heard the phrase incumbent protection before?  Oh right, it was this Elena Kagan quote:

"Campaign finance laws...easily can serve as incumbent-protection devices, insulating current officeholders from challenge and criticism. When such laws apply only to certain speakers or subjects, the danger of illicit motive becomes even greater..."

Indeed it would seem illicit if we were to suddenly see new campaign finance laws proposed that would impose "stifling regulatory pressures" on some speakers and not on others, particularly if the speakers exempted from such pressures historically spent over 90% of their money supporting the party proposing the legislation. Illicit, immoral, cynical, despotic, un-constitutional...so many adjectives, none of them good.

[James Moore]

There was a time when I was a union steward. I never lost a greivance that I filed. However, the unions have outlived their usefulness, and are no longer needed by anyone, except the democraps, and the union higher-ups. Oh yes, I forgot, obammy needs them--boy, does he need them.

[William L. Hart Jr.]

Google; Primary Challenge and Flush For Freedom for your Liberty!
While voting this term and the ones after that, think of pulling the voting lever as that on a giant toilet. Think of the whooshing sound. Think of hundreds of incumbents flushing down the political toilet.
Haaa such a day, I dream!
...to the revolution!
FREEDOM IS NEVER FREE be vigilant and keep fighting for it.
Bill, a 48%er!
MOLON LABE!

[Dan Small]

They can spend all the money they want,it will be useless come election day.
The American People see through "The Money" anymore,and what they see is not good.

[Twana Blevins]

Here is an interesting piece written by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal

Tea Parties vs. Unions in November

Elections this month have enhanced the political clout of two groups widely separated on the political spectrum. The tea party movement stands to play an outsize role in the fall elections now that outsider Rand Paul has swept Kentucky's GOP Senate primary, while unions provided the muscle for Democrats to win a key special election in Pennsylvania.

Dr. Paul's victory comes just after Utah Sen. Bob Bennett was denied a place on the primary ballot by a GOP state convention dominated by tea party activists. In Kentucky, Dr. Paul beat a GOP establishment candidate by calling for spending restraint and an end to "Bailout Nation" policies. A new Rasmussen poll shows him leading his Democratic opponent by 25 points. Tea party-backed candidates also won key House primaries in Pennsylvania and Arkansas this week.

Union protestors march in Washington, May 17.

Democrats, fearful of the grass-roots enthusiasm that candidates such as Dr. Paul are able to generate, immediately accused him of being an elitist for holding his victory party at a country club. They also slammed him for suggesting physicians like him deserve to earn "a comfortable living" while supporting an end to farm subsidies.

Liberal attacks on the tea party have flipped completely. Largely gone are dismissals that they are rednecks and rubes. After a New York Times survey found tea partiers are generally better educated and wealthier than the general public, they are now attacked as aloof and out of touch with the concerns of average voters.

The criticism will only mount because tea party activists represent an injection of fresh blood and enthusiasm that threatens Democratic incumbents. They certainly expand the GOP voting base: A March Gallup poll found that 43% were registered independents and 8% declared themselves Democrats.

The rise of the tea party makes Democrats even more dependent on organized labor. In this week's Pennsylvania special election for the late Jack Murtha's seat, the AFL-CIO alone sent out 80,000 mailers on behalf of Democrat Mark Critz, along with 100,000 robocalls.

In Arkansas, unions showed their clout by forcing Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln into a June runoff with labor-backed Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. Unions decided to make an example of her after she opposed the "card check" bill that limits the use of secret ballots in union elections. Unions, especially the Service Employees International Union, spent more than $3 million against her.

In contrast to the tea party, there has been far too little scrutiny of the SEIU, whose membership of government and health-care workers is the fastest-growing of any union in the country. Andy Stern, the just retired head of the SEIU, was found to be the most frequent guest at the Obama White House last year, stopping by 22 times between January and September, more than all congressional leaders and cabinet members.

The SEIU's close ties to the discredited group Acorn have largely been ignored. The same is true for the violence perpetrated by some of its members.

Last August in St. Louis, tea party supporter Kenneth Gladney was set upon by SEIU members during a town-hall meeting on health care. They were apparently angry that an African-American was supporting the tea party and hurled the "n" word at him while beating him to the point where he required hospitalization. St. Louis County officials waited until November to press assault charges against two SEIU members. Four others were charged with interfering with police during the incident. All six have pleaded not guilty.

This week, Nina Easton of Fortune magazine reported on an incident in her Washington, D.C., neighborhood in which 500 screaming, placard-waving SEIU members and allies surrounded the home of Greg Baer, deputy general counsel at Bank of America, to protest bank foreclosures.

"Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise, and it worked—even on the police," reported Ms. Easton, a neighbor of Mr. Baer. The protestors finally left, only to descend on the nearby home of Peter Scher, a J.P. Morgan Chase executive. "It appears we've crossed into a new era: the politics of personal intimidation," Ms. Easton concludes.

You can expect friction between tea party activists and union members in coming months. Last month, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka gave a speech at Harvard in which he warned that anger at a sour economy was being transformed into dangerous "hatred" by the forces on the right.

At a time of heightened passions such as this election season, anyone who jumps proper political guardrails must be called on any excesses. As tea party members and unions vie for political supremacy this fall, it will be important for the media to scrutinize both and make sure their coverage is accurate and complete. So far the tea party—the new kids on the political block—have gotten far more attention than their union counterparts.

Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.

[Wiccanwolf]

If the people are fed up with a scumbag politician, the unions can wast all of their money and the person will still lose. I agree the unions need to be busted up because they no longer look out for the worker, but what the worker can get for them.

[Denis Parton]

The really insidious part of this is that they recieved this money from the TARP. That money was never spent as intended, and they kept it as a trillion dollar slush fund to pay back their supporters. Now it can be used to retain power and corrupt the system even further. If anyone has a doubt about this- you should check into it. Try to find where it was originally spent, and when some of that money was returned it was put into the slush fund-not retired from publis debt.