Court split over dues for unions.

I'm not dodging anything. You said one thing and then when I challenged it you changed the subject. I agree with you that unions, but not corporations, can use payroll deductions for political purposes. If you weren't trying to say that contribution rules for unions and corporations are different, then you need to brush up on your communication skills.

barfo

 

Of course you are right here about the potential tyranny of the majority. Using a portion of union dues for political purposes isn't exactly what that phrase implies, however.

If you keep SMH-ing so much, your head is going to fall off.

barfo

 

I understood him perfectly, based on the context of the comment. Within the same post, preceding the line you quoted, he said, "Campaign donations should be opt in. Opt out is an impediment to exercising your political rights." Clearly, he was talking about and concerned with an individuals' contributions to an organization.

Inability to apply context on your part does not equate to communication failure on his part. (SMH...)

 

In that case, the line I quoted was kind of silly. What would the proposal be? That corporations can collect dues from employees to use for political donations? Or that unions can't make political donations at all since they have no source of funds other than dues?

SMH.

barfo

 

I did no such thing. Others who read YOUR post came to the same conclusion I did.

Imagine if Hobby Lobby deducted money for political purposes from employee paychecks. You'd whine about it good.

However, if union members or Hobby Lobby employees want to voluntarily pool their money for political purposes, that's legit under the 1st amendment, but not by your idea of campaign finance reform (better known as assault on the 1st amendment).

 

It is tyranny of the majority and outright theft.

The number of my SMH posts is related to the mind numbing content of many of your posts.

 

They do. They use money for political purposes instead of paying it to their employees. Same thing, different mechanism.

barfo

 

There is no payroll deduction. The company might spend money customers pay for their products. A corporation spends on behalf of its shareholders at its own expense. If you don't like what the corporation does, boycott them or don't buy their stock.

Another SMH post. Seriously.

 

Right, that's what I meant by "different mechanism".

Right, that's what I meant by "different mechanism".

Uh, ok. Thanks for the tip.

Likewise, I'm sure.

barfo

 

Quid pro quo. Something else unions can do that corporations cannot.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-essential-politics-20160329-story.html

"Raise the minimum wage because we did (and will) take from unwilling employee paychecks to help get you elected."

 

Right, corporations cannot obtain quid pro quos from politicians. Because nothing that politicians do affects corporations, and the corporations seek nothing in return for their contributions, unlike unions. Corporations give out of the goodness of their hearts, because, after all, corporations are people. Unlike unions.

barfo

 

It would be bribery if a CEO wrote the legislation and appeared with the governor when he announces and signs the law. That is, if the CEO's corporation donated massive amounts of $$$ to the governor's campaign.

 

Federal employee union announces endorsement of … Donald Trump

:MARIS61:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/31/federal-employee-union-announces-endorsement-of-donald-trump/

 

Or, that union employees have the option to contribute--separate from their union dues--funds to the union for political activity, and unions are restricted to only those funds with regard to political spending.

That doesn't really seem all that unreasonable, does it?

 

Yeah, actually it does seem unreasonable.

If you want to take that decision away from union leadership, why not take other decisions away?

For instance, if the union wants to hire a new secretary, those who are opposed to secretaries, or that particular secretary, should be able to opt out.

If the union wants to buy a paperclip, only the paper-clip loving union members should have to contribute.

What's special about decisions on political contributions?

Here's the equivalent for corporations. The corporation wants to donate $X to political action. They have to give their shareholders the option of taking their share of that money in cash or allowing the company to donate it.

I'd be fine with that - it would reduce political contributions from both unions and corporations to near-zero.

barfo

 

That's really a poor comparison, because the corporation has earned whatever money it uses, whereas unions receive their money through contribution. The government recognizes the difference by affording unions tax exempt status.

Comparing G&A expenses to political expenditures is also a very poor comparison.

You're off your game today. I expect better from you.

 

Whatever money they earn belongs to the stockholders, by definition.
If I'm a stockholder I don't want them donating to X. So they shouldn't be able to donate my share to X. Right?
That's the principle here, isn't it? Nobody should be able to donate "my share" of money to a candidate I don't agree with?

Yeah, I wasn't saying unions and corporations are equivalent.

And I think that's just an assertion with no argument to back it up.

Same to ya, and twice on Sunday!!

barfo