The Massive Scope Of The AFL-CIO's Political Program

Remember: all of this -- almost all of this -- goes to help Democrats.

Later today, the AFL-CIO will announce that its executive board approved a $53 million budget for its 2008 political program, the largest ever sum for a political cycle.

AFL-CIO political director Karen Ackerman will oversee the deployment of more than 200,000 volunteers to 23 priority states, including Ohio, pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Five house seats in "union-dense" districts and six Senate seats will be targeted.

In Ohio, where union households comprised 28% of the vote in 2006, the AFl-CIO plans to reach out to more than 1.4 million voters.

The labor federation will partner with other groups and use reams of consumer data to market precise political messages neighborhood-by-neighborhood.

"Our members are building an army to make more calls, knock on more doors and turn out more voters than ever,” said AFSCME President and AFL-CIO Political Committee Chair Gerald McEntee. “We're going for the Trifecta: the House, the Senate, and the White House.”

In total, the AFL-CIO unions will spend about $200 million on Election 08 efforts, according to AFl-CIO estimates.

Virtually all of that money will be used to help Democrats.

Republicans have nothing like the AFL-CIO. And for the first presidential cycle in recent memory, the Democratic Party institutions will have a financial edge.

And there's more: next week, the Change To Win labor federation will meet to sketch out its political program. One CTW union -- the SEIU -- plans to spend in excess of $30M by itself.

Comments

I wonder how many voters the Democrats lose with all this union support? I mean the vast percentage of U.S. voters are not a member of any union.

Posted by Fever | September 21, 2007 4:53 PM

I saw first hand some of the work last cycle that Working America did, and I came away less than impressed. They're spending this much money, and getting a fraction of what Repulicans get out of their money. Microtargeting is far more effective; AFL-CIO outreach is completely and wholly ineffective and a waste of money.

They should have put that money into research over the past four years on the market and what voters will support, and given that to the nominee they support. Or something more sophisticated. Or else once again they and otherswill spend a ton of money with little results and wonder what happened. Knocking on someone's door and asking them to vote a month before the election does nothing.

Posted by John | September 21, 2007 6:15 PM

You are letting a technicality allow you to make a GOP paranoia point that is, at any appropriate level of abstraction, absurd: "Republicans have nothing like the AFL-CIO."

Putting aside (unnecessarily) the role of fundamentally conservative corporations like Fox, GE, etc... trade association (c)6 spending, as well as all sorts of spending by corporations to influence their employees' political behavior, is ignored.

Additionally, as anyone who has walked by Heritage or Cato knows... corporate giving to think tanks obviously way outweighs what unions can muster from an unfortunately declining share of a work force.

And it is thus not surprising that we exist in a cycle whereby increasing shares of economic growth go to profit, unions decline... and Ambinder is writing as if union political spending is a Goliath?

This aqpproach accepts GOP frames on what political spending is to be discussed by the media and what is not/

Posted by Jeff H | September 22, 2007 10:28 AM

Fever, your question is based on a faulty premise, which is that not being in a union means you're hostile to unions. Having union support isn't really a negative because by and large people are favorably inclined towards them.

Posted by SDM | September 22, 2007 2:32 PM

Yeah, maybe that GOP idea of aligning themselves always and everywhere with owners and management, and against workers, actually has a downside, huh?

Democrats get donations from both corporations and unions because, representing broad interests, they're able to appeal to people across class lines, and on both sides of the business table. The GOP abandons one entire side of the electorate, pitting itself with organized management interests against organized workers' interests, in the hopes of reaping more money and wedge-issuing itself into support from the right-wing base. This is similar to the way racial dynamics play out: the GOP continues to largely write off the black and hispanic votes, hoping to win stronger support from white males by playing up racially polarizing issues. The Democrats, meanwhile, continue to appeal broadly across demographic lines.

If the GOP wants to neutralize Democratic union support, perhaps it should take some positions that might be palatable to unions, just as the Democrats take positions that are palatable to business.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 23, 2007 4:00 AM

brooksfoe,

You're right. Maybe the Republicans should come out in favor of the secret ballot for union elections, hoping all the while that Democrats will favor a non-secret system designed to allow powerful forces to intimidate workers into voting a certain way....

Oh, yeah.

Posted by DWPittelli | September 23, 2007 7:39 AM

"Union member" is just one vector in a voter's life. There are few union people - outside of union leadership - who are that mono maniacal. Go ahead and ask that Catholic union guy what he thinks of abortion on demand for teens without parental notification.

Posted by Max | September 23, 2007 7:43 AM

The one union official quoted, and head of the AFL-CIO political committee, is also head of the bureaucracy workers' union. Kind of shows. No way they'd ever support a Republican.

Posted by Auspex | September 23, 2007 7:57 AM

Jeff says...

"...corporate giving to think tanks obviously way outweighs what unions can muster from an unfortunately declining share of a work force."

You don't really expect to make up such a 'fact' and not be challenged do you? First, it is a conveniently abstract comparison: does a corporation that funds the libertarian Cato Institute do anything but promote libertarian ideas? What specific candidates does Cato support by recruiting phone canvassers? Well, none, actually: so you are conveniently making up 'truths' that serve only our own interests.

Second, unions practice mandatory confiscation of "dues" that go to political causes that many of their members find objectionable. You are Ok with forcing Union members to fund projects against their interests because you agree with the cause: again a 'morality' based strictly on your own interests.

Where is the parallel in your argument about "conservative corporations?" When I worked for AT&T we were most aggresively courted (by the company) for contributions to United Way to show our corporate philanthropic spirit. We were lobbied politically only when legislation that directly affected our interest was at hand. But I guess it was "illegitimate" for us to want to have a say in laws that would directly affect our ability to provide for ourselves. Only "workers" - that is, of course, the union leadership and their cheerleaders - have the legitimacy to appeal to their elected leaders. This isn't a 'fact' or a 'morality' you are making up this time: it is a rank appeal to conspiracy theory dressed in the language of an appeal to the comman man.

Posted by Wildmonk | September 23, 2007 8:21 AM

Democrats tax their own voters in the form of union dues. That's all that's happening. Republicans have to actually try to earn donations, but in the past few years they've abandoned the base for corporate donation. And those corporate donations will all go to Democrats once they take power. Big business loves big government.

Ron Paul!

Posted by Matt | September 23, 2007 8:24 AM

Jeff, and others are out-of-focus about this article. The article speaks to the money-spending by the unions. it does not speak to actual voting. I cannot lay my hands on the report i read recently, however the gist of it was that union members vote about 1/3rd because of union dictates, 1/3rd their own minds, and 1/3rd (at least) don't vote at all.

Unions are mostly an anachronism in today's workplace, and the very unionization of Northern States has grown the Southern states such as Florida where right-to-work is built into our constitution.

The simple fact of union/Democrat efforts to bring forward an "open vote" when considering membersh union is mind-boggling, and the mental gymnastics used to get around constitutional privledge is just as astounding! This effort has probably (among non-union folks) generated as many non-Democrat votes as will the union dollars.

Duke

Posted by Duke DeLand | September 23, 2007 9:01 AM

The AFL-CIO also takes in millions from other unions, such as the CA State Employees Assoc. When they instituted "fair share" fees in the late 80s, a bunch of us sued, and discovery revealed that large chunks of our "fees" were actually transferred to AFL-CIO's pocket. I'm sure it wasn't for union-related expenses, ahem. It was for political action.

We won the lawsuit BTW and the court changed our fair share to 3% of the prior amount. IOW 3% was all that was used for employee representation.

Posted by PJ | September 23, 2007 12:05 PM

I have worked at a union job for many years and freely admit that I make quite a bit more money as a result. We went 5 years without a true raise before the union came in, and we have had a raise every year since. Despite this, I am ashamed that most of my dues are used to help candidates on the loony left. The unions would be much healthier if they used more of the money to support the members, especially in our periodic contract negotiations. We always go into our contract talks with only one guy from the International, and he's an idiot. The company, of course, has a team of labor lawyers to guide them. I suspect, though, that the union leaders are already so stinking rich that they don't really care what we think.

Posted by Mike Kelley | September 23, 2007 12:54 PM

I'm a member of the American Postal Workers' Union, and have been ever since I started working for the USPS, because I believe that being a free-rider is dishonorable. My union has helped get me good pay, benefits and working conditions, and represents me if I have grievances against management.

HOWEVER... My union does NOT speak for me politically. I know that their politics is far left, and I disagree with them on most issues. To me, the most important issues are the War on Islamist Terrorism and immigration. My union, and the Democrat party, are on the wrong side of those issues. Accordingly, they won't get any contributions from me to their PAC, and I'll vote for who I please, not who they recommend.

Posted by Clyde | September 23, 2007 2:21 PM

"Union member" is just one vector in a voter's life. There are few union people - outside of union leadership - who are that mono maniacal. Go ahead and ask that Catholic union guy what he thinks of abortion on demand for teens without parental notification."

Max, those "Catholic union guys" are far fewer than they were back around 1980 or so. Think about it: if you were a 50-year old "Reagan Democrat" back then, today you're most likely . . . dead.

The typical union member today is far less likely to be a socially conservative white ethnic guy working on an assembly line, in a mine, or driving a truck, and far more likely to be a college-educated woman in her fifties in some kind of educational or white-collar government job. A believe me, she has far left views on economic AND social issues.

Posted by sestamibi | September 24, 2007 12:38 AM

This is quite a gift for Democrats. Too bad the 'finance reform' didn't quite do what it was supposed to do, did it?

And yes, I do think the Republican leaders' penchant for supporting big business in the NAFTA/CAFTA agreements, the blurring of those ridiculous national borders that just get in the way of the efficient movement of goods, and the attempt by the Bushies to change the federal system that allows them to get rid of all the civil service workers and replace them with much cheaper contract labour, will hurt the 'Pubs big time, when it ocmes to the next national election.

Posted by beneficial | September 24, 2007 2:23 AM

OK folks dues money CAN'T GO FOR POLITICAL ACTION W/OUT A VOTE OF THE MEMBERS. AFSCME (my union) keeps it seperate with it's totaly vountary PEOPLE program. Also remember that union workers, and our family members are more likely to vote. The numbers arre clear-big biz and big money outspends 'big labor' up to seven to one. What we do is don our union shirts and walk door to door, phone bank, email etc etc. My own mid level group has a very active conservative caucus, we endorse worker friendly GOP also. Unions are now back to lunch box issues. Right to choose and guns are ONLY issues when they hit the contract table, as in removing a benefit or making a peace officer buy thier own weapon for work.

Posted by Joe Davenport | September 24, 2007 4:27 PM

grouseberry unconquerably furious sternoxiphoid octylene spondulics hydrodrome pelamyd
http://www.dezinon.com/ >Dezinon
http://www.gamespot.com/ps/sports/ncaagamebreaker99/

Posted by Trisha James | October 18, 2007 5:11 AM

grouseberry unconquerably furious sternoxiphoid octylene spondulics hydrodrome pelamyd
http://www.angelfire.com/szvtuard/sp4.html >Kenworth Rv Truck
http://www.angelfire.com/szvtuard/ifu.html

Posted by Vincent Albert | November 3, 2007 6:29 AM

unfinical sufferably sternocoracoid waistcoateer chondriosphere tubulose beruffed unprecise
http://www.yarrileess.qld.edu.au/ >Yarrilee State School
http://www.teg.org.uk

Posted by Dinah Parks | December 18, 2007 1:54 AM