Shadowbosses: Government Unions Control America and Rob Taxpayers Blind

by Mallory Factor

  6 David R. Obey (D-WI) Retired Congressman (1969–2011) currently working for Gephardt’s lobbying firm; Chairman of Appropriations Committee (1994–95; 2007–11) $2,250,550

  7 Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) House Minority Leader (2011–Present); Former Speaker of the House (2007–11) $2,240,800

  8 Martin Frost (D-TX) Retired Congressman (1979–2005); Former President of progressive Super PAC America Votes (2007–08); Former Democrat Caucus Chair (1999–2003) $2,220,509

  9 Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) Congressman (1993–Present); Anti-NAFTA and other free trade initiatives $2,210,720

  10 Sander Levin (D-MI) Ranking Democrat on House Ways and Means Committee (2011–Present); Former Chair of Ways and Means (2010–11) $2,200,543

  The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more. All donations took place during the 1989–2010 election cycle as released by the Federal Election Commission.

  Courtesy: Center for Responsive Politics

  Notice anything? First, there are no Republicans. But by now, this probably doesn’t surprise you.

  Second, many of these members of Congress hold or held leadership positions in Congress or served on important committees. As minority whip, Representative Steny Hoyer can wrangle far more votes for pro-labor legislation than an ordinary member can deliver. In fact, Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and Richard Gephardt all have held multiple positions in the Democrat leadership of Congress.

  Dick Gephardt was such a friend of labor as Speaker of the House that he clocks in at number 2, even though he hasn’t served in Congress since 2005. But since leaving Congress, he is no longer bound by the golden handcuffs of Big Labor. Shadowbossed no longer, Gephardt now advises Boeing on labor conflicts and is a consultant to both the pro-business Chamber of Commerce and the most hated investment bank in America—Goldman Sachs.51 Not only that, he recently brought number 6 labor lapdog David Obey into his lobbying firm. We can’t wait to see what corporate interests House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, number 7 on our list, champions when she leaves the House!

  Neil Abercrombie, now governor of Hawaii and number 3 on our list, is not only a friend of labor, he was a personal friend to President Obama’s parents when he studied with them at the University of Hawaii and personally vouched for President Obama being born in the state of Hawaii.52

  If you were expecting even higher contributions from unions, it is because these amounts are only the direct campaign contributions, made through labor union PACs—and that’s only the tip of the political spending iceberg. The much greater contributions are the soft money political support—get-out-the-vote, mailings, advertising, phone banks, and super PAC political activity. Being a union-supported candidate is a great deal for these politicians; in return for carrying water for the union, you receive union support in the forms of money, organization, and troops of volunteers.

  Union-Government Partnership

  The union-government partnership works beautifully for both the unions and the politicians. Labor experts Daniel DiSalvo and Fred Siegel explain, “The result is a nefarious cycle: Politicians agree to generous government worker contracts; those workers then pay higher union dues a portion of which are funneled back into those same politicians’ campaign war chests.”53 At its core, it is just that simple.

  But if this sounds like an exaggerated conspiracy to you, consider this example of how the union-government partnership worked in practice in Washington State.

  In Washington in 2002, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) invested significant dollars and used their political machine to support Democrat candidates for the legislature. In return, the Democrat-controlled legislature gave AFSCME what it was looking for—laws that gave unions the chance to win lucrative collective bargaining agreements over more workers.54 Within three years of focusing their efforts in Washington State, AFSCME’s membership in Washington had doubled, as did the fees the union collected there.

  And the cycle continued. AFSCME supported the Democrat candidate for governor, Christine Gregoire, in 2004. After the election, it initially looked like she lost her race, but with $250,000 in cash contributions to the Washington Democrat Party, a recount was held. Gregoire was declared the winner by 129 votes—even though Republicans claimed to have found at least 489 felons who voted unlawfully in the election.55 The Republicans challenged the election, but lost in court.56

  Once Gregoire entered office, she “negotiated contracts with the unions that resulted in double-digit salary increases, some exceeding 25 percent, for thousands of state employees,” explained DiSalvo and Siegel.57 An advisor to Gregoire’s 2004 opponent complained that the union’s support of Democrat candidates created “a perfect machine to generate millions of dollars for her reelection” achieved at “taxpayer expense.”58

  In 2008, Gregoire was reelected. The Gregoire-union partnership was going great for both parties. But then the financial crisis hit, and Gregoire made the outrageous suggestion that state workers’ pay raises be put on hold to address the ballooning state deficit. She was promptly sued by the unions for unfair labor practices and breach of contract. Perhaps not surprisingly, she did not seek a third term as governor.59

  While the unions are hard on their opponents, they are great to their friends. We can see how politicians who support the unions’ agenda are paid back for their loyalty by looking at congressional supporters of the card check legislation in 2007. Card check, a top union legislative priority, eliminates the requirement of a secret-ballot election for certifying a union and makes it easier for unions to organize new workers. Congressmen who voted in favor of card check in 2007 “collected 10 times more on average from union PACs during their careers ($862,065) than those who didn’t ($86,538).”60 And remember, those are only the hard dollar PAC contributions to candidates, not the much larger soft dollar support—the super PAC spending, advertising, political organizing support, and get-out-the-vote efforts that unions have bestowed on card check supporters. The unions haven’t been able to collect enough votes to get the legislation enacted yet, but they are still working hard on it.

  Purple People Eaters

  The Big Daddy of the union-government partnership is the highly political SEIU, whose members wear purple T-shirts at rallies to identify themselves. The SEIU’s former president Andy Stern “said, ‘we believe in the power of persuasion, and if that doesn’t work, we believe in the persuasion of power,’ ” according to political strategist Pat Caddell. The persuasion of power describes the SEIU’s electioneering strategy, too. Caddell added, “Those guys are thugs, the SEIU.”61 He may call them thugs, but then they would be thugs with an awfully big checkbook.

  SEIU is part of America Votes (AV), a coalition of labor unions and leftist organizations formed by a former SEIU official. America Votes was established as an umbrella organization to coordinate the get-out-the-vote effort among leftist organizations and labor unions and prevent duplication of effort. The organization claims to have built a “permanent advocacy and campaign infrastructure” for Progressive issues.62 Other America Votes members included the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN), the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the AFT, and the NEA. America Votes is just another organization that is part of the so-called Shadow Democrat Party, the coalition of labor unions, Hollywood, big donors, and leftist organizations that have been called the power behind the Democrat Party.63

  The SEIU is just one union, but it conducts a huge amount of political activity. During the 2008 election season, the SEIU contacted approximately 4.5 million voters directly, especially in the top ten battleground states—many of which went for Obama by slim margins. According to the union, 88 percent of SEIU activities were person-to-person contact, comprising 40 percent of all voter contact in Indiana and 20 percent in Virginia, “exceeding even that of the campaigns and party committees.”64

  As the SEIU gloats, “From the top of the ticket on down, SEIU members helped win 82 pe
rcent of the critical races and ballot measures we targeted. Most importantly, Barack Obama won 17 of the 20 states that SEIU targeted.”65 The SEIU’s impact in the Obama campaign perfectly illustrates how important union political support can be to candidates willing to fully embrace the unions’ agenda.

  Union Bad Boys

  In alleged intimidation campaigns against companies (discussed in chapter 2) and even against other unions, the SEIU seems to be trying to stake out its claim to title of “bad boys” of the union movement. In April 2008, the SEIU allegedly came to bust up a labor union conference at which a rival union official was scheduled to speak and caught a lot of criticism even from labor movement leaders. John Sweeney, the President of the AFL-CIO, called the incident a “violent attack orchestrated by SEIU at the Labor Notes conference in Detroit,” and chided that “No union should understand the corrosive effect of violence better than SEIU.”66 Hundreds of SEIU representatives came by the busload allegedly for the purpose of intimidating rank-and-file members of other unions at “progressive union gathering.” These SEIU representatives allegedly stormed into the conference and precipitated a heated scuffle with conference goers, which resulted in at least one person going to the hospital.67

  The reason for the fight? A rival union official that was battling the SEIU to organize a group of hospital workers in Ohio was scheduled to speak at the conference. In other words, a fight over organizing workers and new union dues seems to have precipitated the SEIU’s alleged violence and intimidation tactics. The rival official head called the SEIU “the new poster child for bad union behavior” and said that “compared with the corrupt Teamsters of old, the ‘S.E.I.U. makes them look like choirboys,’ ” according to the New York Times.68

  Michelle Malkin covered the story and wrote, “Team Obama and the Democrats—who together received more than $60 million in SEIU independent expenditure funds—remain mum about SEIU thuggery.”69 Malkin reminds us: “Obama, after all, promised the SEIU on the campaign trail: ‘We look after each other!’ ” And they certainly do.

  Unions are Anti-Gun

  Union money doesn’t just push forward pro-labor politicians—it advances liberal politicians that may take many views that are out of step with the views of the rest of America. Consider gun owners’ rights.

  While many union members all across our nation support gun owners’ rights and the National Rifle Association—union members are even on the NRA’s board—union money flows exclusively to anti–Second Amendment candidates and groups.70 The contrast between union members’ views on guns and union officials’ views on guns is so extreme that the unions developed special advertising to persuade pro-gun union members to support the union’s political candidates—specifically, Barack Obama. One union ad to union members read, “Barack Obama won’t take away your gun; but John McCain will take away your union.”71

  Of course, it was a little hard to get some pro-gun union members into the Obama camp after Obama had proclaimed during his campaign in small Pennsylvania towns, “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”72 Many pro-gun union members may have identified more with these small-town Pennsylvanians than with President Obama, which may explain why 39 percent of union households voted for John McCain while their unions endorsed Obama.73

  Not surprisingly, Obama is fulfilling the dreams of the anti-gun crowd; he’s advocated gun control and appointed numerous anti-gun federal judges. And he has more planned for a second term. He recently told an anti-gun activist, “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”74

  The AFL-CIO has staked out a series of anti-gun positions on legislation.75 The teachers unions are also opposed to gun ownership; they explain their anti-gun positions in terms of curbing school violence. But the AFT, for example, is a member of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence—a group that goes much further than fighting gun violence, instead focusing on wholesale banning of manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, ownership, and possession of handguns.

  On the gun issue and many others, government employee unions don’t care about the opinions of their members. Of the twenty congressional politicians most supported by labor union money in 2010, fourteen received a D or an F rating from the NRA, which the NRA reserves for politicians with spectacularly bad congressional voting records on Second Amendment issues. The unions are full-scale behind the anti-gun agenda, especially when the anti-gun politicians happen to be the Democrats that can best guarantee them their cash flow.

  On the gun issue and many others, government employee unions don’t care about the opinions of their members. Of the twenty congressional politicians most supported by labor union money in 2010, fourteen received a D or an F rating from the NRA, which the NRA reserves for politicians with spectacularly bad congressional voting records on Second Amendment issues.

  It makes good political sense for government employee unions to support their leftist allies, but it’s also clear that when unions spend to get their favored politicians elected, they undercut the beliefs of their own membership at the same time. And for the rest of us, even if you don’t mind the growth of government and goodies that pro-union politicians deliver to government employee unions, you may mind how these same politicians vote on issues of importance to you personally.

  Conclusion

  The financial disclosure of government employee unions is intentionally difficult to penetrate and unenlightening. Even if union members knew where their dues money was going, they have almost no rights to ask that their dues not go for political spending. Unions can even force members to pay for additional spending through assessments beyond even their regular dues. Forced dues make this crony system of political spending on Democrat politicians and leftist causes possible, leaving the taxpayer unrepresented in the halls of power.

  The game of monetary musical chairs continues on a daily basis. When the music stops, the only people left without chairs are the taxpayers, who have to foot the bill for the growth of government. The people sitting in the chairs are the people who really matter in the Democrat Party—the Shadowbosses, liberal organizations, the Democrat Party officials and the candidates themselves—all funded on the backs of American workers and taxpayers.

  As we have seen, the chief goal of the Shadowbosses when it comes to national politics is keeping their political allies—almost always Democrats—in office. The unions have many friends, but they have never had a better ally in the White House than President Obama. As you’ll see next, the unions paid up to get Obama into the White House, and President Obama paid them back many times over once he took the reins of power.

  Chapter 3 Summary Points

  Despite limited annual financial disclosure to the Department of Labor, unions keep their finances largely hidden and impenetrable from outsiders and even from their own members.

  Unions (at the national, state, and local levels combined) collect an estimated $14 billion in dues alone every year, and more than half of this income comes from government workers. That’s more revenues than 65 percent of the Fortune 500 companies, giving unions huge money to invest in politics.

  Labor unions spent well over $1.2 billion during the midterm 2010 election cycle.

  Unions are a major part of the vast “Shadow Democrat Party,” the political machine that has been called the power behind Democrat election success.

  Sixty-eight percent of registered voters are concerned that government employee unions have too much influence over the politicians that pass laws and negotiate with them.

  Unions also give “charity” dollars to leftist causes to create allies for their own agenda.

  When unions elect friendly liberal politicians to office, they get more pro-union votes but they also get more leftist votes on a variety of issues, like gun control, which conflict with the beliefs o
f many union members.

  Unions reward politicians who help them, and they punish politicians who oppose them.

  CHAPTER 4

  Union-Label President

  THE Shadowbosses largely run our political system. They pull the strings. But in 2008, they had the chance of a union lifetime: the opportunity to place a full-blown union advocate in the White House. One of their very own. A man who’d worked in Big Labor, drank the Big Labor Kool-Aid, and battled for Big Labor.

  His name was Barack Obama.

  Barack Obama is the most union-connected president in the history of the country, a partner of and true believer in the labor movement. From card check to closed-door meetings in which health-care policy was run past former Service Employees International Union (SEIU) president Andy Stern and other Shadowbosses, union connections define Obama’s presidency. He has stacked his staff and advisors with Chicago cronies—almost all of whom also have union connections. And the unions are betting that a second Obama term will bring them an even bigger payoff. After all, with a lame duck president who isn’t worried about reelection, the sky’s the limit.

  The President doesn’t mince words when it comes to his support of labor unions. And the unions support President Obama right back. The unions reportedly spent from $300 to $450 million to elect Obama in 2008, and it seems to have been well worth their investment.1 For the unions, Obama’s presidency is an opportunity for a partner in the White House and “change” that doesn’t come around too often.

  In 2007, Obama spoke to the SEIU. “I’ve got a history with this union,” he said. “When I was a young organizer, I had just moved to Chicago. I started with working with SEIU Local 880, home health-care workers, to make sure that they were registered to vote.” He continued, “I will judge my first term as president based on the fact of whether we have delivered the kind of health care that every American deserves and that our system can afford. And I’m not going to be able to do it on my own, so I hope that the SEIU will partner in that process.”2 The SEIU and every other government employee union have been more than happy to partner with the President in working toward a new “progressive” America that both the President and the unions believe in.