Julie Nelson 
ADVERTISEMENT
Most Read on APEsphere
Most Commented on APEsphere
Blogs we like
Resources
EFCA finally introduced, after millions spent lobbying
Add this link to:
Related Links
- Sonia Sotomayor: For empathy, read ethics News
- The Bravest Brands News
- The CSR Industry’s Lost Cause News
- Where's the Love? News
- G20 governments stage coup to topple business News
- Don't Want to Drill, Baby, Drill? You're a Racist! News
- Greening the stimulus News
- Business Lobby Aims to Put End to Unions News
- Major US banks see writing on the regulatory wall News
- Microsoft: too big to breathe News
Report Abuse:
So that we can keep the site friendly, legal and on-topic, please click the Report Abuse button if this story breaks the APEsphere Code.
Added by
madameape on 11 Mar 2009
From: www.opensecrets.org
|
| Image courtesy Joye~ via Flickr |
Senator Harkin introduced the Employee Free Choice Act in Congress yesterday, one of the most anticipated, debated, and heavily lobbied bills in recent memory.
Capitol Eye has a good breakdown on just how the many millions spent by both pro-business and pro-labor groups were actually spent:
"* In the 2008 election cycle, labor unions spent no small amount ($80 million) on independent broadcast advertising, mail and internal advocacy to help elect or defeat specific federal candidates. For the most part, labor's strategy appears to have at least helped. All of the top 10 congressional candidates that unions spent money to oppose lost. Of the top 10 congressional candidates that labor spent money to support, only incumbent Rep. Donald Cazayoux, a Louisiana Democrat, lost, and the Minnesota Senate contest hasn't been settled between Democrat Al Franken (labor's choice) and Republican Norm Coleman (backed by business).
* Business groups took a different route, relying on direct campaign contributions and lobbying instead of independent spending. Business PACs not only gave nearly five times more in campaign contributions than labor PACs did in the last election cycle ($365.1 million versus $77.9 million, including contributions to leadership PACs) they are backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $144.4 million on lobbying efforts in the 2007-2008 election cycle, or more than $400,000 for every day Congress was in session. By contrast, the entire labor sector spent less than $84 million on lobbying efforts during those two years.
* In the 2008 presidential race, the labor sector spent at least $45.3 million on independent expenditures and communications costs toward getting President Obama elected and $6.6 million to defeat his opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Individuals working for pro-business groups gave Obama just $23,700 for his presidential bid, one-twentieth of what union employees gave the president.
* Members of Congress who voted in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007, when the bill wasn't passed, had collected 10 times more on average from union PACs during their careers ($862,065) than those who didn't ($86,538), and those who opposed the bill had collected more on average from business PACs ($2.5 million), than those who supported the legislation ($1.7 million)."
Capitol Eye has a good breakdown on just how the many millions spent by both pro-business and pro-labor groups were actually spent:
"* In the 2008 election cycle, labor unions spent no small amount ($80 million) on independent broadcast advertising, mail and internal advocacy to help elect or defeat specific federal candidates. For the most part, labor's strategy appears to have at least helped. All of the top 10 congressional candidates that unions spent money to oppose lost. Of the top 10 congressional candidates that labor spent money to support, only incumbent Rep. Donald Cazayoux, a Louisiana Democrat, lost, and the Minnesota Senate contest hasn't been settled between Democrat Al Franken (labor's choice) and Republican Norm Coleman (backed by business).
* Business groups took a different route, relying on direct campaign contributions and lobbying instead of independent spending. Business PACs not only gave nearly five times more in campaign contributions than labor PACs did in the last election cycle ($365.1 million versus $77.9 million, including contributions to leadership PACs) they are backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $144.4 million on lobbying efforts in the 2007-2008 election cycle, or more than $400,000 for every day Congress was in session. By contrast, the entire labor sector spent less than $84 million on lobbying efforts during those two years.
* In the 2008 presidential race, the labor sector spent at least $45.3 million on independent expenditures and communications costs toward getting President Obama elected and $6.6 million to defeat his opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Individuals working for pro-business groups gave Obama just $23,700 for his presidential bid, one-twentieth of what union employees gave the president.
* Members of Congress who voted in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007, when the bill wasn't passed, had collected 10 times more on average from union PACs during their careers ($862,065) than those who didn't ($86,538), and those who opposed the bill had collected more on average from business PACs ($2.5 million), than those who supported the legislation ($1.7 million)."
Comments
Add a comment