Unions Can’t Compete With Corporate Campaign Cash

Unions Can’t Compete With Corporate Campaign Cash

Unions Can’t Compete With Corporate Campaign Cash

Some union leaders think that the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC — which essentially takes the limits off campaign spending — will give them the same flexibility and freedom to influence the process as it does corporations. What are the leaders of the labor federation thinking?

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Some union leaders think that the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC — which essentially takes the limits off campaign spending — will give them the same flexibility and freedom to influence the process as it does corporations.

These are the same union leaders who imagined that electing Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress would lead to the rapid enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act and meaningful labor-law reform.

The AFL-CIO actually filed a brief in the Citizens United case that urged removal of reasonable restraints on campaign spending.

Indeed, an attorney who prepared the amicus brief for the AFL-CIO agreed at one point to participate in a conference call discussing the case, along with representatives of the conservative Heritage Foundation and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. (The AFL lawyer later decided not to participate in the call, although lawyers associated with the Democratic National Committee and the ACLU went ahead and joined it.)

What are the leaders of the labor federation thinking?

Perhaps they imagine that, with spending limits removed, organized labor will be able to buy enough television time to reward their political friends and punish their political enemies.

It’s a sweet fantasy. But the reality is that corporations will be buying so much more television time when it matters — in the run-up to key elections — that the voices of working Americans will drowned out with the same regularity that they are on Capitol Hill — where, it should be noted, overwhelming Democratic majorities have yet to deliver on even the most basic demands of the labor movement.

To think otherwise is to neglect the reality that one corporation — Goldman Sachs — spends more annually to pay just its top employees than the combined assets of all the nation’s major unions.

University of Wisconsin communications professor Lew Friedland points out that the nation’s four largest banks would have to allocate a mere one-tenth of one percent of their assets–$6 billion–to counter a campaign in which the whole of the U.S. labor movement spent all of its assets.

The bottom line is that a union leader who supports the Citizens United ruling is like a steer who talks up a steak restaurant because they’re both in the same business.

Organized labor ought to be siding clearly and unequivocally with the forces of democracy in the struggle to establish a political process in which all voices can be heard, and in which elections are about ideas and issues rather than fund raising and attacks ads.

A few unions "get it."

The California Nurses Association and National Nurses United, the nation’s largest nurses union, have accurately identified the Citizens United decision as a "disastrous ruling for American workers and American democracy."

"The healthcare debate of the last year has provided a sobering reminder of the already pervasive influence of giant pharmaceutical and insurance corporations. The last thing our democracy and political system needs is even more spending and political sway by the wealthiest interests in this country," says Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, the 150,000-member labor organization.

The notion that the Citizens United ruling might somehow make it easier for organized labor to influence the political process is "ludicrous," says DeMoro.

"Equating what unions and working people could spend on campaigns would be like comparing a toy boat to an aircraft carrier," she explains. "Corporate influence peddling in politics already distorts and prevents our democracy and political system (from functioning)."

"Opening the floodgates to unlimited spending is a dangerous prescription for candidates who will be even more beholden to the biggest corporate spenders," argues DeMoro. "The likely result would be more dominance of healthcare policy by insurance and drug giants and less public oversight of our air, water, food, and workplaces that is needed to protect consumers and workers."

That is the message that all of organized labor should be delivering.

Can we count on you?

In the coming election, the fate of our democracy and fundamental civil rights are on the ballot. The conservative architects of Project 2025 are scheming to institutionalize Donald Trump’s authoritarian vision across all levels of government if he should win.

We’ve already seen events that fill us with both dread and cautious optimism—throughout it all, The Nation has been a bulwark against misinformation and an advocate for bold, principled perspectives. Our dedicated writers have sat down with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders for interviews, unpacked the shallow right-wing populist appeals of J.D. Vance, and debated the pathway for a Democratic victory in November.

Stories like these and the one you just read are vital at this critical juncture in our country’s history. Now more than ever, we need clear-eyed and deeply reported independent journalism to make sense of the headlines and sort fact from fiction. Donate today and join our 160-year legacy of speaking truth to power and uplifting the voices of grassroots advocates.

Throughout 2024 and what is likely the defining election of our lifetimes, we need your support to continue publishing the insightful journalism you rely on.

Thank you,
The Editors of The Nation

Ad Policy
x