Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court clamping down on unions' political fundraising (top donors to the D party)
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-clamping-down-on-unions-political-fundraising-20120621,0,6066157.story?track=rss
By Alana Semuels
June 21, 2012, 4:52 p.m.
The Supreme Court is putting increasing limits on unions abilities to raise political funds at the same time it is freeing corporations' ability to spend. Thats the argument being made by some academics after a Supreme Court decision Thursday that requires that nonmembers opt in to contribute to public employee union political fundraising, rather than opt out if they don't want to give.
The court clings to the trope that the unions' political spending is somehow extraneous to the core services provided by the union to the represented employees. But political spending is perhaps even more important to unions than it is to corporations, wrote Matt Bodie, a law professor at Saint Louis University, on a prominent law blog.
Political spending by corporations pays off big time, according to a study released by the Manhattan Institute earlier this week. Corporate political spending usually leads to lower taxes and more favorable legislation, the study found. So, Bodie argues, why shouldnt unions have the same rights to spend as the corporations that often serve as their antagonists?
Courts recognize the interest of corporations in protecting themselves in the political arena, and I think they need to extend the notion to unions, he said. If unions are going to be representing people, part of their duty is protecting the unions' rights and by extension, the employees rights.
FULL story at link.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 1589 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court clamping down on unions' political fundraising (top donors to the D party) (Original Post)
Omaha Steve
Jun 2012
OP
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)1. The fascism pie is nearly finished baking.
malaise
(269,365 posts)7. Pretty muchbut remember they are always defeated n/t
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)2. Can't the unions just incorporate as an LLC?
Omaha Steve
(99,896 posts)3. Nope
Unions can only work within the NLRB rules and regulations.
https://www.nlrb.gov/
I'm in a public union, so state law dictates what my union can and can't do.
OS
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)6. Okay. That's really fucked up. Corporations are "people" but unions aren't.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a USSC that actually does what it is INTENDED to do?
Bellerophon
(50 posts)4. this ruling
Was the result of a union that rasoed the amount that was being deducted for political uses without the prior consent of thlse who had to pay.
As a union member myself I don't see anything wrong with the opt in way rasong money for political use.
Not all unions use member money for political uses anyways. Mine doesn't.