SEIU Pours Money Into Texas and Ohio To Help Obama

According to independent expenditure notices filed with the Federal Election Commission, the Service Employees International Union plans to spend more than $700,000 over the next week to help Barack Obama in Texas and Ohio.

Additionally, the union's powerful local 1199, based in New York, will spend nearly $200,000 more to pay the salaries of SEIU members who will volunteer on Obama's behalf.

Local 1199's federal PAC is spending $75,000 to pay salaries and per diems of its members who're working for Obama in Texas. 1199 is sending $106,600 worth of employees to Ohio.

The SEIU's Committee on Political Education (COPE) filed notice yesterday that it would spent approximately $300,000 on door-to-door canvassing and $400,000 on direct mail in Ohio.

On Friday, the union's federal political action fund gave notice it would spend $200,000 on phone banking and $50,000 on voter persuasion.

Comments

Go union brothers and sisters...

Posted by Ann | February 25, 2008 1:07 PM

That's funny, I seem to recall Obama protesting mightily against unions expending funds on Edwards's behalf in Iowa. Am I completely making that up?

It's not that I think Marc is a Clinton shill -- rather, I think he's far too credulous of his campaign sources, to the detriment of campaigns where he has no good sources -- but that he shows so little interest in providing context or critical analysis. It seems like such a waste in a forum like this -- kinda like the NYT hiring a unimaginative hack as one of the token conservative voices on the op-ed page.

Also, I found this sentence amusing:

Additionally, the union's powerful local 1199, based in New York, will spend nearly $200,000 more to pay the salaries of SEIU members who will volunteer on Obama's behalf.

"Volunteering," eh?

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 1:18 PM

This is how endorsements matter, Kudos SEIU and other unions!

Posted by S in MN | February 25, 2008 1:25 PM

Posted by Ann, TO Ann,,Obama said he doesnt except federal funds, get your facts straight. I am so happy to see people comming together for a common cause..Go OBAMA.

Posted by Michael | February 25, 2008 1:40 PM

Obama criticized the Edwards union connection because an Edwards campaign advisor left to join a union groups channeling funds into campaign ads for Edwards. The campaign was thus tied to the 527 group, something that goes against campaign finance regulations. The unions supporting Obama are not run by former Obama campaign staffers, and are attempting to advance their political agendas. A different situation.

Also, this contrasts with the 527 recentl set up to help the Clinton campaign: a newly formed organization that is an attempt to get around individual donor restrictions. People maxed out on donating to her campaign can funnel money into the 527 instead, effectively overriding FEC restrictions.

Posted by marla | February 25, 2008 2:00 PM

marla, I sincerely thank you for that explanation.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 2:04 PM

@marla:

what abt the 527s that are helping obama the same way? votehope? how much did oprah funnel into that cali 527 since she had already maxed out her individual contribution? how about moveon.org? how about that as his 520? how much did the full page ad in the usa today cost?

why is it fair for obama to do whatever it takes to get elected, yet it isnt okay for hillary to utilize the same groups?

you cant have it both ways.

Posted by divabunny | February 25, 2008 2:54 PM

Jeff, its refreshing to see you actually call Obama on this bit of hypocrisy. Marla, the situation may be different but the principles are the same. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Obama is committed to the notion that groups not subject to campaign finance laws (ie. anyone who isn't a candidate) should not run advertising during campaigns.

If anybody remembers there was a group running ads for McCain for about ten seconds last year. McCain issued a condemnation of the practice and said it goes against his belief in campaign finance reform. They soon stopped running the ads.

The fact is that if Obama wanted these ads to stop they would stop in a second.

I guess Obama believes campaign finance restrictions should apply to everyone except himself. He's even used legal measures to go after the group doing something similiar for HRC.

Bottom line is that when it counted McCain stuck to his principles and disavowed this type of advertising. McCain also kept his pledge to stay in the public financing system for the general.

Obama, on the other hand, strikes out on both counts.

Posted by Jesse | February 25, 2008 2:56 PM

Jesse, I don't much like to see hypocrisy anywhere. I support Obama at this point (though I didn't vote for him, not that it even matters since I've been "disenfranchised," LOL) but I don't know whether there's a meaningful distinction between his stance in Iowa and his stance now. And frankly, I'd like to see Marc go into that question rather than simply posting the numbers.

Bottom line is that when it counted McCain stuck to his principles and disavowed this type of advertising. McCain also kept his pledge to stay in the public financing system for the general.

What are your thoughts on his attempt to withdraw from public financing in the primary? My understanding is that he committed to the public financing system, pledged the guaranteed funds as collateral, and unilaterally declared that he was withdrawing from the public financing system -- an assertion that the FEC has rejected.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 3:14 PM

Salutations,

I desire to be an informed voter; thus, I subscribed to this form.

Posted by Derek C. Foster | February 25, 2008 3:24 PM

Obama is a phony progressive and Nader is the best and here is why:

Over the past few months, we’ve heard a lot of rhetoric about change, hope, courage and experience from Barack Obama and John McCain.

But what about the facts on the ground?

Take a moment to test your civics knowledge in this election year.

Of the following Presidential candidates – Ralph Nader, Barak Obama and John McCain – which one supports a single payer, Canadian style, free choice, Medicare for all health care system?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one supports solar energy and would take nuclear power off the table?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would cut the huge bloated wasteful military budget?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would reverse U.S. Middle East policy in Israel/Palestine, Iraq and Iran?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would launch an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has consistently supported the Palestinian right to nationhood and peaceful settlement?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama has flip-flopped and has now been bought off by the Israel lobby)

Who has never been in cahoots with the likes of Exelon corp. or Rezko?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has spent his entire life working for the common people like you and me and has written books to advance the rights of consumers?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama wrote his books about himself while Nader was looking out for us.)

Who has been direct about proclaiming that Bush is a war criminal?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which candidate has opposed all wars, every time?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama supports bombing Pakistan and war against Afghanistan)

Some claim that having a racial minority as president would send a positive message to the world. So which candidate would be best suited to address the troubed areas in the world?

Answer: Once again, Ralph Nader, an Arab-American
(Who better to quell the anti-American sentiment in Arab world than an Arab-American)

Can you guess the others?

What's off the table for Ralph?

The empty rhetoric.

The empty gesture.

The empty politics.

What’s on the table?

Taking these issues seriously – all the way to action.

Challenging the corporate domination of our democracy.

Organizing young and old alike, 1,000 in every Congressional district in the country, half a million strong, to take back the country from the corporations.

If Obama or McCain and their parties had seriously and effectively addressed these and other necessities vital to the American people, there would be no need for Ralph Nader to run for President.

Ralph Nader would be happily out of business.

But we’ve waited so very long – and still – not a blip on the political radar screen on any of these issues.

So in this pivotal election year, ask yourself this fundamental question:

Which side are you on?

The corporate criminals, the big banks, Wall Street, the credit card companies, the nuclear power industry, the war profiteers, the agribusiness giants, the health insurance industry, the polluters, the drug companies, the unionbusters, Big Oil, the corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans?

Or with people fighting back?

Vote Nader!

Posted by Jamie | February 25, 2008 3:32 PM

Which Candidate has not even the slightest chance of winning the Presidency and only serves to play the part of spoiler?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Posted by Andrew S | February 25, 2008 4:15 PM

Jesse, I'm sure you hate hypocrisy as much as I do. Any response to my question on McCain's primary funding tactics?

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 9:50 PM

Dem hopefuls won tax breaks for contributors--USA Today
How do you silence both Obama and Clinton ? Ask them both to comment about this. What they both say and what they're doing is the same old same old routine.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-25-tax-breaks_N.htm?csp=34

Posted by TGood | February 26, 2008 4:22 AM

By the way, this union endorsement of Obama is for one reason--a large number of their "members" are illegal aliens, which Obama totally supports.

You haven't seen wide open immigration headed this way until Obama takes over. If people think the schools, hospitals and social services are crowded now, you haven't seen anything until he gets his amnesty and increased "immigration" policy going.

Americans are going to end up making the same low wages as those in sweatshops before the unions came along and before the unions turned traitors to the very Americans who often died while helping organize them.

Anybody that applauds unions fighting for illegal aliens and a presidential candidate helping them has to have a desire to see this country lose it's sovereignty. That's where we're almost now.

Posted by TGood | February 26, 2008 4:28 AM