Wisconsin Schadenfreude

[Jefpainthorse]

The union did. But along broad lines that other guy (name escapes me) was though to have a broader base.

I know the perception is in OKLAHOMA that Unions are made out of money... but Election Politics are funded by PACS and donations to PAC funds are outside the dues paid to a Union. A Union cannot donate from it's general funds... and they cannot compel members to donated to PACS.

having done union business for a while... running a local hall is about as regulated a business as you can get. Our Federal audit for a little 500 member local typically took a week to do... and we rarely had over $25,000 bucks in the bank.

I was always proud of the fact we did invest money for the local.... we owned a lot of stock in Florida Power in Light- after all it's good to invest in the people who are paying your members...

 

[Jefpainthorse]

Then why didn't the union support Barrett?

Not to mention... the "UNION" makes up less than 15% of the whole population of American voters. I'd assume in Wisconsin that percentage is similar.

That 48% is really closer to 38% supporting 10% if you break it down Union membership vs other folks... and in WI I'd bet a small percentage of Walkers votes came from members of one union or another who vote Republican (yea we do sometimes... I do).

Lot's of the people on this board only know what Fox News says....

 

[Glocktogo]

Pretty much.

The loophole is that state donation limits ($10,000 in WI) do not apply for incumbents facing recall elections. Barrett, however, did face these restrictions. CBS News reports that Scott Walker got $500,000 from one wealthy individual alone; that's about 12.5% of ALL the money that Barrett got in total.*

In our country, where apparently money = speech, the law basically gagged Barrett and gave Walker a bullhorn.


*Cue RABBLE RABBLE LIEBERAL MEDIA RABBLE RABBLE

EDIT: I don't actually know if this was a loophole or an intentional effect of the law. I'm not sure which is worse.

If correct, I'd concede that it is a significant hurdle to a challenger. I haven't decided for myself whether it is or isn't a good thing that recall elections have tighter restrictions than regular elections.

 

[LightningCrash]

Not to mention... the "UNION" makes up less than 15% of the whole population of American voters. I'd assume in Wisconsin that percentage is similar.

That 48% is really closer to 38% supporting 10% if you break it down Union membership vs other folks... and in WI I'd bet a small percentage of Walkers votes came from members of one union or another who vote Republican (yea we do sometimes... I do).

Lot's of the people on this board only know what Fox News says....

from what i've seen it's not 15% of voters, but 15% of workers.

if unions could compel members to contribute to the PACs, Barrett would have been a lot better off.
obviously they didn't want to contribute voluntarily.

 

[Mr.357Sig]

from what i've seen it's not 15% of voters, but 15% of workers.

if unions could compel members to contribute to the PACs, Barrett would have been a lot better off.
obviously they didn't want to contribute voluntarily.

You think union members should be "compelled" to contribute to the PACs? Wow. Very generous of you.

 

[Hobbes]

You think union members should be "compelled" to contribute to the PACs? Wow. Very generous of you.

LOL, how did you get that from what he posted?

_____________________________________________________________________________

• $510,000 to Walker from Diane Hendricks, Wisconsin's richest businesswoman and a member of Charles and David Koch's million-dollar donor club

• $490,000 to Walker from Bob Perry, a Houston homebuilder who with his wife has spent more than $8 million on the 2012 elections

• $260,000 to Walker from David Humphreys, a member of the Kochs' million-dollar donor club

• $250,000 to Walker from former Amway CEO Dick DeVos of Michigan, a member of the Kochs' million-dollar donor club

• $250,000 to Walker from Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who with his wife has spent more than $25 million on the 2012 elections

• $100,000 to Walker from Wyoming investor Foster Friess, a member of the Kochs' million-dollar donor club

• $100,000 to Walker from New York billionaire Louis Bacon, a media-shy hedge-fund trader

• $100,000 to Walker from Dallas oil and gas billionaire Trevor Rees-Jones

• $6.5 million on ads spent by Americans for Prosperity, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and the anti-labor Center for Union Facts

• $4 million on ads spent by the Republican Governors Association's Right Direction Wisconsin PAC; only about $7,000 was raised in-state. The RGA got $1 million from David Koch in February. It's also received $500,000 from the US Chamber of Commerce


How many union members have to pony up $100 each to match that?

 

[Hobbes]

But wait, there's more:

Since September of 2010 the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has been detailing an ongoing "John Doe" criminal investigation involving Scott Walker's former staff and associates. The wide-ranging investigation has included allegations of campaign finance malfeasance, embezzlement of funds from a veteran's charity, bid-rigging and even child enticement. As of June 2012, it has netted 15 felony indictments and four people are awaiting trial. John Doe investigations are secret proceedings, before a single judge, where witnesses can be subpoenaed and compelled to testify under oath about potential criminal matters, but are prohibited from speaking publicly about the case. The scope and targets of these investigations are unclear as a result of these gag rules.
Linky

 

[poopgiggle]

If correct, I'd concede that it is a significant hurdle to a challenger. I haven't decided for myself whether it is or isn't a good thing that recall elections have tighter restrictions than regular elections.

I haven't heard the reasoning behind removing donation restrictions during recall elections, but I can't think of a reason that it would be a good idea. I REALLY can't think of a reason to restrict challengers but not restrict incumbents.

 

[Jefpainthorse]

You think union members should be "compelled" to contribute to the PACs? Wow. Very generous of you.

PAC funds are regulated by federal law.
I know I'm explaining this to some rabid union=commie people but PAC laws allow freedom.... Not many members would be happy if somehow they were forced to finance a candidate they did not agree with.
Our PAC would fund republicans who understood our business some times,

 

[EFsDad]

LOL, how did you get that from what he posted?

____________________________________________________________________________

How many union members have to pony up $100 each to match that?

124,600 ? I guess union members can't do math?