Presidential campaigns – contributions, unions, 527…

Here is a link that should answer your questions

http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.shtml

To help you understand part of your question . . . unions do have a lot of political power (although not as much as they once did), but so do business interest. Also, no union member has to vote the way the union leadership wants them to vote.

Also, did you want a list of powerful individual unions, such as the United Auto Workers and the National Education Association? Most unions belong to the umbrella group of the AFL-CIO, but there are many unions which have left that organization. There is also the Teamsters.

A quick Google search showed hundreds of unions; some that I’m aware of as being large and powerful include:

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Service Employees International
State, County and Municipal Employees
United Steelworkers
American Federation of Teachers
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
United Auto Workers
. . . and many, many more.

In some states union endorsement is very important; particularly in the northeast and certain parts of the Midwest (these are the traditionally heavily industrialized areas of the US). Unions typically endorse Democratic candidates (the question during the primaries is which Democratic candidate).

The next part is trickier to explain. In some elections one of the candidate is a “shoo-in” (generally this is the incumbent) and will win by a wide margin; in other elections the results are very close (say, 51% to 49%). In those elections were one candidate has a huge lead, it doesn’t matter much what anyone does (in other words, the candidate is so popular it’s hard to “knock them off the hill”). In the close elections is where it gets tricky.

Say Bill Smith, a Democrat, and Fred Jones, a Republican, are running for the US Senate. Each will have a number of groups that support their endorsed candidate. Smith will probably get the support of unions, civil rights organizations, the anti-gun lobby, the “Pro-Choice” lobby, environmental groups and whose who think the government should “do more”, etc., while Jones will get the support of business interests, professional groups, the pro-gun lobby, the “Pro-Life groups, and whose who think “the less government, the better”, etc. After the elections the groups who supported the winning candidate will claim that it was their influence which made all the difference in the election (especially if the election was close). Well, yes . . . and no. Most of these groups have an equal powerful opposing group. If a candidate gets the union vote (and financial backing), it also means he probably didn’t get the backing of business groups and their ability to contribute heavily. So while having the support of, say, the unions can be very important, the net effect of their (or other) support is really less than claimed. Of course, all of this varies by location, personality of the candidates, tradition, and a host of other factors.

That is a really simplified version of things, of course. I hope I didn’t confuse you more than help you.

ac

527

527's exist in a grey area. This new non-profit designation just was developed before the last presidential election. They are not allowed to endorse, like 501C4's and Polical Action Committees. But they are allowed to be partisan and support certain issues. 501c3's can support issues, but they are not allowed to mention candidates or political parties. 527's are allowed to say which candidates are good on which issues they support. There is some grey areas regarding what constitutes endorsement and what does not. This is because the 527 designation is new. Donations to 527's are not tax deductable. Only donations to 501c3's are. I have worked with all 4 non profit types.

Steve W said:

Hi,

Alleycat - Thanks. This is very useful. Just one last thing, please - what kind of things do the big unions expect in return for their support? (Say, the industrial ones you mentioned. Which states would they be?)

Click to expand...

Once you could have taken a map of the US and divided it into four quadrants (by drawing a vertical and horizontal line in about the middle of the country) and the upper right quadrant (the Northeast and parts of the Midwest) would have been heavily unionized while the rest of the country was less so. That was the most industrialized area of the country and that was where unions were most powerful, although in certain industries in other areas of the country (coal mining, textiles) unions were also important.

It is still like that to some extent but less so now because of the change from a manufacturing economy to a service/technology economy (GM was once the largest company in the country, now Microsoft is). There has also been a steady decline in union membership since World War II. Some states where unions are still major players include New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Of course, unions exist and are still powerful all over the country in some areas of the economy.

Some of the things unions want from a candidate they endorse are:

-Laws that protect the union itself (some states are more "friendly" to unions that other states). For example, my own state, Tennessee, is a "right to work" state -- you don't have to belong to a union even if a union represents the workers in whatever business you work for. In some states you more or less have to join the union if you want a job working for certain companies.

-Restrictions on the dumping of foreign goods (by tariffs), or other unfair trade practices.

-Deterrents to companies moving their operations overseas.

-Protection of pension plans (a big news items these days).

-Higher minimum wage laws.

-Legal requirements on how companies deal with unions, such as bargaining in good faith, what happens during a strike, mediation, legal requirements making it more difficult for a company to fire a union employee, etc.

-Benefits (by law) for their memberships . . . things such as more holidays, protected days off (the Family Leave Act), etc.

-And in the case of some unions (notably The Teamsters), the promise that they will not use their office to go after the union's involvement in organized crime or other shady practices.