Skip to main content

bratwurst on a grill
The Wall Street Journal has a giant scoop: If you count all the resources that unions put into issues advocacy, promoting and lobbying for good legislation, and state and local elections as political spending, then unions spend much more on politics than is reflected in their Federal Election Commission filings.

Unions have to disclose just about everything they spend money on to the Department of Labor, and the Wall Street Journal uses that information. It's a blunt tool, though, that includes, as reporters Tom McGinty and Brody Mullins note, "bratwursts to feed Wisconsin workers protesting at the state capitol last year" as well as direct contributions to candidates. More significantly than bratwursts, every dollar unions spent campaigning for the Affordable Care Act is counted in this analysis, as is money spent pushing to strengthen workplace safety protections and just about everything else unions do that could in any way influence policy at any level.

As the Wall Street Journal acknowledges, corporations don't face the same reporting requirements, so we simply cannot know how much they spend on equivalent activities:

Comparisons with corporate political spending aren't easy to make. Some corporate political spending, such as donations to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's political wing, doesn't need to be disclosed. What does have to be disclosed can't be found in a single database or two, as is the case with unions.
If you want to compare union and corporate political spending, then, a key question is whether there's any reason to believe that union political spending on things not included in the kinds of disclosure that businesses also must file is proportionally greater than business spending on those things. Because the disclosures that both businesses and unions file show that corporate interests spend a lot more than unions on lobbying as well as elections. So if business interests' undisclosed political expenditures are in the same proportion to the disclosed ones—as union political expenditures disclosed through Department of Labor filings are to ones businesses also disclose—then unions are still vastly outspent.

Now, there's an argument to be made, as Hamilton Nolan does make it, that, regardless of how their political spending stacks up to corporate spending, union resources should be shifted toward organizing more workers rather than politics. But that's why it's important to understand that much of the "political" spending included in this analysis is for things like preventing Ohio's anti-union Senate Bill 5 from becoming law, or preventing anti-union legislation, successfully or not, in states like New Hampshire and Indiana. In these cases, political spending is basically a precondition for organizing any workers. Unions are in a bitch of a double bind. If they don't spend on politics, Republicans are more likely to be elected who will pass any law they can think of to make union organizing illegal or impossible. But the more resources they spend on things other than organizing workers, the fewer workers they will organize.

That, however, is hardly the Wall Street Journal's concern. And the direct answer to the political attack on unions set up by the WSJ's reporting here is simply that this is a conversation we can have when businesses disclose anywhere near as much about their political and issues advocacy spending as unions do, and give shareholders as much input into those expenditures as union members have.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:20 PM PDT.

Also republished by In Support of Labor and Unions and Daily Kos.


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site