Other than that, I'd like anyone on the list to mention a top priority bill backed or opposed by Labor where a majority of Dems in Congress did not support the union side of the issue?
Folks endlessly repeat themselves as if repeating something without evidence makes it true, but every pro-union bill that comes up for a vote gets the overwhelming support of Dems. With a few defecting rightwing Dems and filibusters in the Senate, the bills don't usually get passed, but not having the votes is not the same thing as voting against labor. And without Dem filibusters and yes, even Clinton, vetos, truly hideously anti-labor bills would have passed at the crest of the Gingrich wave of power.
As for the "scandal" there is none- I think most campaign finance laws are crap and designed to gut collective power by giving only individual rich people power at the expense of coordination by collective groups like unions. All these stupid rules against "coordination" of campaigns and so on only hurt groups too large to meet quietly for drinks at the Ritz or at their club to plot their strategy.
Nathan Newman nathan at newman.org http://www.nathannewman.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gregory Geboski" <ggeboski at hotmail.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 9:35 AM Subject: RE: AFL Had Veto Power on DNC Campaign Spending 1996
<< They want it secret because it's so embarrassing, what they gave and how little they get in return.>>
No, that's what they *should* be embarrassed about.
I'm sure the embarrassment is exactly as the article implies. This is probably a prelude to a campaign finance "scandal" that will direct press attention away from actual Repug policy, per a pattern that should be obvious by now. Expect the Repugs to yell that these constitute illegal in-kind campaign contributions (as, in fact, they may). Expect the Dems to allow labor to twist in the wind if the Dems are given a break. Expect more labor leaders to have the threat of indictment hanging over their heads. It's a win-win for the Repugs, who screw the Dems or the AFL-CIO or both. And if it blows away, well, there go a few days when people aren't talking about absentee ballot manipulation in Florida or giveaways to Big Business.
Do the federal campaign finance laws have a five- or seven-year statute of limitations? Because if it's five, then the witching hour is coming up, and the Repugs may be getting their licks in because they've been "informally" appraised that some shit is coming down (probably tied back to the 1996 Teamster election).
----Original Message Follows---- From: "Max Sawicky" <sawicky at bellatlantic.net> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Subject: RE: AFL Had Veto Power on DNC Campaign Spending 1996 Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 00:23:21 -0400
too bad they didn't choose to exert any influence over POLICY!!!!!!!!
They want it secret because it's so embarrassing, what they gave and how little they get in return.
mbs
Documents that Democrats want kept secret detail coordinated political work with unions Source: AP Published: 7/19/01 Author: Larry Margasak
WASHINGTON (AP) Documents that the Democratic Party and unions have sued to keep secret reveal a campaign strategy in which labor and party officials served side-by-side on committees that directed the Democrats' election activities in each state.
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp