Supreme Court unleashes corporate spending, clamps down on Union spending

More one sided decisions that hurt the little guy and hands more power to those who already control everything.....besides the potential for change at the polls. Their biggest enemy is one man/one vote.


Uhhh... idiot.. this is actually PROTECTING the little guy
Yeah...how? By allowing big business and their wealthy elite to make unlimited contributions and tying the hands of labor.

It does not tie labors hands it requires them to ensure their members agree with the spending.
 
More one sided decisions that hurt the little guy and hands more power to those who already control everything.....besides the potential for change at the polls. Their biggest enemy is one man/one vote.


Uhhh... idiot.. this is actually PROTECTING the little guy
Yeah...how? By allowing big business and their wealthy elite to make unlimited contributions and tying the hands of labor.

As I read the ruling, SCOTUS did not limit labor's contributions. If you pay dues to a labor union, as a member, you are giving them your express permission to use those dues in a manner that would further your employment - including direct political contributions and "lobbying the electorate". In this case, non-members fees - which "prevent them from free-riding on the union’s efforts" are not the same as union dues. A previous ruling in Hudson, 475 U. S. 292, 302–311, gave non-members a chance to opt out of special increases for political purposes citing the 1st Amendment's Free Speech clause. Since the union did NOT represent the non-members, they certainly do have the right to opt not to pay for the union's free speech. SCOTUS also ruled that the "pay it now and we'll give it back later" ploy this union tried was equally wrong.

All that is just to say that nowhere in 567 US 10-1121 does the court ever curtail the union's right to spend dues for political purposes. In fact, unions are only limited by the amount of DUES or contributions they collect.

There's an interesting passage in the article cited by the OP.
Paul Secunda, a law professor at Marquette, says that shareholders don’t always agree with the political causes corporations spend their money on. But they can’t opt out because they have decided that the corporations’ leaders will make decisions that are, at the end of the day, good for the business. In the same way, union leaders make decisions that are in the interest of workers, even if those workers are not union members, Secunda argues.

Where this fails, logically, is that the shareholder has options if he fails to agree with corporate policies. He can either seek to oust the current policy maker on mismanagement grounds, or he can sell his shares and move on. On the other hand, union members can't dismiss their leadership so easily, and membership in the union is a condition to their employment.

He does acknowledge in the next paragraph:
“We are now in an environment where its easier for corporations to raise money for political lobbying than it is for unions,” Secunda said. “But in spending, corporations and unions are treated alike, have the right under the 1st Amendment to express their views without government interference.”

So whose fault is it that corporations have so much more to spend on political issues than unions? Unions don't have the right to steal money from non-members to use in their war chests.
 
More one sided decisions that hurt the little guy and hands more power to those who already control everything.....besides the potential for change at the polls. Their biggest enemy is one man/one vote.

Do not refer to union members as "the little guy"...Union members for the most part are very well paid people who do not have to worry about much at all.

So says the batshit crazy guy...they don't have to worry much? Turn the fucking channel....they may be better paid thanking non-union folks....but it's not so much that they don't have to worry. That's your bias...not reality.

Organized Labor is the ONLY entity that lobbies for workers...and you are so fucking stupid that you want to take that away and hand it over to your masters....like a cat that drops a dead mouse at the feet of the homeowner.

It's people like you that are the reason private sector wages suck, why the legislation passed to let jobs leave the country, and allow big business to hide their money away into tax haven countries.....then have the gall...to sit here and repeat the "unions......BAAAAD" bullshit.
 
Why do right wingers who keep screaming for "freedom" feel we should be owned by corporations? Isn't that the opposite of being "free"?
 
More one sided decisions that hurt the little guy and hands more power to those who already control everything.....besides the potential for change at the polls. Their biggest enemy is one man/one vote.


Uhhh... idiot.. this is actually PROTECTING the little guy
Yeah...how? By allowing big business and their wealthy elite to make unlimited contributions and tying the hands of labor.
Corporations don't vote, unions don't vote, individuals vote.
I'm sure you cast your vote based upon whom you think best represents your interests, not upon whom had the largest monetary contributions.
 

Forum List

Back
Top