This isn't really a diary, it's really a question about outside spending in the 2010 election. I regularly argue politics on a blog that is full of the most right wing and extreme people you'd ever want (or not want) to meet. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment because I prefer to spend time arguing with people who disagree with me than I would commenting on diaries here where the vast majority of people agree with me. Don't get me wrong, I read from top to bottom here several times a day, and this is where I get a good amount of the ammunition I need to try and keep these ass hats honest. That's how it occurred to me that this is the place where I might be able to get a little help.
The wingers on this blog are absolutely orgasmic about what Walker is doing in Wisconsin. From the way these guys are acting, it's clear that Walker will go down in history as one of the great right wing heros. In the back and fourth about outside spending on elections the comment was made:
"BULL SHAT!!!"
"Public unions gave more in the last elections than anyone else."
So I, remembering what I'd seen on MSNBC's "The Last Word" and on Maddow, I pulled out these nifty graphics from Open Secrets dot org."
Sorry the right side of the table is cut off. I tried editing it but I'm a newbie when it comes to posting graphics. The real meat is there. You can look at all the information on this topic at open secrets.
Anyhow, this is what they came back with from the WSJ.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.
The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.
"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs. If Republicans running under the banner of limited government win in November, they aren't likely to support extending such aid to states.
Newly elected conservatives will also likely push to clip the political power of public-sector unions. For years, conservatives have argued such unions have an outsize influence in picking the elected officials who are, in effect, their bosses, putting them in a strong position to push for more jobs, and thus more political clout.
So, what am I missing? Is open secrets all wet? If you look at total outside spending in the bar graph, it shows total outside spending by liberal groups to be around $95 million. However, the WSJ article states that the AFSCME on their own spent $87.5 million. Can anyone tell me why the discrepancy? Somehow I think that someone has to be cooking the numbers, but I have not been able to figure out who. My gut tells me that the numbers from the WSJ are the ones that are cooked, but that might be my liberal bias rearing it's head. Can ANYONE help me on this?
The note under the table of spending by outside group says that the group's 527 spending is not included. The part of the table that is cut off shows that AFSCME does have a 527, but I can't find the amounts attributable to them. Anything I can dredge up doesn't even come close to adding up to $87.5 million.