Labor Money and the Dems

[William S. Lear]

On Monday, May 3, 1999 at 17:42:48 (-0400) Nathan Newman writes:
>...
>The fact is that for most politicians, pissing off the AFL-CIO matters a
>hell of a lot more for their survival than pissing off either their party
>leadership or Bill Clinton.  Whether the AFL-CIO is getting their money's
>worth is a different debate, but party leadership has a lot less financial
>leverage over Dems than the labor movement.

According to the same site, business PAC contributions to the Dems was
far beyond that given by labor unions (56% higher).  That given to
Repubs was 250% higher.  This counts neither soft money, which I
believe comes overwhelmingly from business interests, nor donations
in-kind, again lopsidedly from business --- and if memory serves, soft
money is usually a far larger quantity than PAC money.

Finally, to equate the "labor movement" with the AFL-CIO is quite a
leap.  The extent to which the big unions have been co-opted by
business needs a bit of a mention as well, along with the general
distance of the leadership structure from the average worker.

Bill