Is Sanders Hypocritical about Super PACs and the Citizens United Decision?

[LittlePinky82]

I wish Dollar General was union. I worked in their distribution center, and actually lost my job because my FMLA paperwork was somehow lost somewhere over it going from the hospital, to the third-party company that handles medical leave, and Dollar General, and because my paper work wasn't there, because they didn't have anything on file, my leave was not approved and I lost my job. Fortunately, the state did rule my termination was wrongful, and I got a phat unemployment check out of it.

Yeah it would be nice if more places could have unions. My father's job, he works for the fed with it, and they can't unionize. If they do they can get fired. I think people should at least have the choice to do so. I'm glad you got justice with what happened since it was their fault.

 

[esmith]

Yeah it would be nice if more places could have unions. My father's job, he works for the fed with it, and they can't unionize. If they do they can get fired. I think people should at least have the choice to do so. I'm glad you got justice with what happened since it was their fault.

I feel for those that do not work in a right-to-work state since they have no choice if it is a union shop.....they have to join or not work..
However we seem to be getting off-topic. And no I don't want to discuss unions

 

[LittlePinky82]

I feel for those that do not work in a right-to-work state since they have no choice if it is a union shop.....they have to join or not work..
However we seem to be getting off-topic. And no I don't want to discuss unions

That's cool. And don't get me started on right to work lol. We'd be here all day. I really despise right to work let's just say.

As far as the issue of unions in a not right to work state here you go-

http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm

<The Supreme Court, in Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), a lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation, ruled that objecting nonmembers cannot be required to pay union dues. The most that nonmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer. >

< Beck makes clear that nonmembers required to pay union fees as a condition of employment have a right under the NLRA to object and obtain a reduction of their compulsory payments so that they do not include union expenses for purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment >


So, basically, it would be like paying a lawyer who would argue for you over your contract if you think about it like that. You'd benefit from their labor even if you are not part of the union but you're an employee.

< If you work primarily in a Right to Work state, except on certain federal property, you not only have the right to refrain from becoming a union member, you cannot be required to pay dues or an agency fee to the union unless you choose to join the union. Employees who work on federal property may or may not be protected by their state's Right to Work law, depending on specific circumstances. >

<
What rights do employees in non-Right to Work states have?
Certain rights of employees not covered by a state Right to Work law have been established by U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Employees can choose whether or not to join a union and union members may resign their union membership. Nonmembers can only be required to pay for their proportionate part of the union's proven bargaining costs. They may not be compelled to pay any fees until the costs have been stated and explained and can challenge the costs as provided by the union. Employees whose sincere religious beliefs prevent them from joining or paying any money to the union also have special rights. >

Same source- http://www.nrtw.org/b/rtw_faq.htm

I don't want to get on the topic either, since this isn't the time or place, but just wanted to correct you about that issue since you seem to be misinformed legally. The link I'm sourcing has a lot more ,and other legal sources, if you wish to go further into it. Thought you might be interested in knowing that. This seems to be a pro- right to work organization a good bit anti union but their sources and information seems fine. I used what they quoted with the SC and they have citation for it.

Here's a Huffington post article that also used them as a source and the person doing the article is a labor journalist who is arguing in favor for unions. Even though I disagree with them and their stance on unions their information about things legally is fine and they have a lot of good information there from what I've seen. I thought you might appreciate that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/23/right-to-work-laws_n_6737130.html

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I feel for those that do not work in a right-to-work state since they have no choice if it is a union shop.....they have to join or not work..

And with a union comes all the union benefits, such as having someone who has your back to help you get the protections, wages, and benefits you deserve. They give power and a voice to workers. It's easy to understand why those on the right often times dislike and even hate unions. They are a thorn in the side to those who want us to just shut up and be happy with the table scraps we're tossed.

 

[LittlePinky82]

And with a union comes all the union benefits, such as having someone who has your back to help you get the protections, wages, and benefits you deserve. They give power and a voice to workers. It's easy to understand why those on the right often times dislike and even hate unions. They are a thorn in the side to those who want us to just shut up and be happy with the table scraps we're tossed.

Even if people aren't in the union they still benefit from the bargaining that happens. Better employment, better hours, better benefits. So, I agree with people having to pay fee's in regard to that since the worker is getting something in return even if they're not in the union and that's how it should be too (workers looking out for each other). People should have a choice to join or not (since sometimes there are religious and other issue reasons for not joining) but if you're going to benefit from someone else's work they deserve to be paid for their labor too. And employee's deserve to be able to petition and to work together whether they're just a group of people working together or an organization like a union. I think we're getting off topic though if you want to start a new thread or something.

 

[metis]

Provide those sources.

It doesn't matter what a donor wants if the elected official is not corrupt.

So you're afraid that the National Nurses United are going to influence Sanders in some way, if he is elected.

That might happen. That's why he should denounce them and their activities, rather than thanking them.

I guess you know that because disclosure laws are working.

I'm really not interested in playing games with this. And I never made any comment about the nurses, btw.

 

[metis]

BTW, you might want to read this assessment of CU from the Harvard Gazette: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/02/experts-assess-impact-of-citizens-united/

Here's part of that article:

Few recent Supreme Court cases have received as much attention — and drawn as much ire — as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions. To proponents of campaign finance reform, Citizens United had the detrimental effect of inundating an already-broken campaign finance system with corporate influence. At an event sponsored by the Harvard Law School (HLS) American Constitution Society on Tuesday, HLS Professor Lawrence Lessig, author of “Republic Lost,” and Jeff Clements, author of “Corporations Are Not People,” reviewed the impact that Citizens United has had on the political process.

Clements said that the court’s decision exacerbates two problems that the American political and electoral system had already been facing — the large amount of campaign spending and the growing influence of corporate power on the political process. Clements said that both problems need to be fixed in order to restore democracy but that, rather than addressing these problems, the Citizens United decision instead requires that the American people fundamentally reframe their notion of corporations...

Although some legal observers regard the decision as simply a bad day on the court, Clements said that Citizens United actually represents the culmination of a steady creation of a corporate rights doctrine that is radical in terms of American jurisprudence. He provided a history of the idea of corporate personhood and corporate speech, which began only in the 1970s under Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Lessig added that the system that has resulted is one in which elected officials must spend 30 to 50 percent of their time fundraising, and thus make decisions based not on what is best for their constituents, but on what their super PACS and other major donors want to see.

“We have a corrupt government, yet one that is perfectly legal,” said Lessig. “We’ve allowed a government to evolve in which Congress isn’t dependent on people alone, but is instead increasingly dependent on its funders. As you bend to the green, that corrupts the government.”

As a result, he said, members of Congress develop a sixth sense as to what will raise money, which has led them to bend government away from what the people want government to do and toward what their funders what government to do. To fix the problem, we need to produce a system where the funders and the people are one and the same. The solution, Lessig said, is a multipronged approach that includes a constitutional amendment explicitly stating that corporations are not people, as well as a movement to publicly fund elections and provide Congress with the power to limit independent expenditures.

 

[Druac]

Nobody said Sanders was stupid...he knows the rules in the game he is playing and how to survive among the greed and narcissism of Washington...he IS a career politician, after all.

 

[Underhill]

Who is right about what?

I haven't seen where Sanders has ever mentioned the advantages of super PACS and the Citizens United decision. He only takes advantage of these advantages without speaking about it.

So he is supposed to announce that he is going to use the fishy system he is trying to stop? Brilliant political strategist you are.

Sanders has said he is against super pacs. He is right to do so. But he is trying to get elected in a system that includes them, where he would be at a distinct disadvantage if he didn't use them.

 

[Underhill]

Considering that someone so unlikely is doing so well, I'll
wager that he knows what he's doing regarding campaigning.
Perhaps he avoids some issues because commentary could
adversely affect his eventual campaign against the Republican.

I think he is trying to avoid smearing Clinton too roughly as he wants her supporters in his corner.

Besides, he doesn't have to smear her. The republicans take care of that for him.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think he is trying to avoid smearing Clinton too roughly as he wants her supporters in his corner.
Besides, he doesn't have to smear her. The republicans take care of that for him.

That sounds about right.
But if anything, I think the Pubs are being overly kind to Hillary.

 

[Underhill]

That sounds about right.
But if anything, I think the Pubs are being overly kind to Hillary.

If they are that is only because they are too busy worrying about each other.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Are people really upset that he is against Super PACs from massive corporations with the intent to buy him and control him while in office but seem to equate this with a Nurse's Union paying money without any actual connection to him? Its still small funds being raised by individual people. No massive corporation is bringing tons of money out of their pocket for a vested interest. They "raised" money from small donors.

 

[Nous]

The Court did not create any new system about money and speech. Someone has pay for you being able to speak your message here.

Yes it did. As its been pointed out under CU this union committee is now considered a pac where it was not considered a pac in 2009 when they were created.

What was "this union committee" in 2009?

Obviously no one is forcing National Nurses United to have a super PAC. If they don't like having a super PAC, or don't like it being pointed out that they have a super PAC, all they have to do is get out of the business.

 

[Nous]

What I would prefer is that he cease with his hypocrisy where he he happily enjoys and encourages the fruits that he condemns other candidates for partaking of.

I would also like for him to stop misleading the burger-flippers whose vote he's trying to get by telling them that he's going to nominate a justice for the Supreme Court who will "overturn" Citizens United as "one of their first decisions."

It's not hypocrisy.

You are free to remain blind to his hypocrisy in which he claims that super PACs control candidates and that spending by super PACs "undermines" the "foundation of American democracy," then thanks the super PAC that buys TV ads on his behalf, and refers to the organization as "one of the sponsors" of his campaign. Given that the New York Times has pointed out this "inconsistency" in Sanders' actions and rhetoric, it might be a good opportunity for Sanders and his blind supporters to open their eyes.

Except in cases of landslides, Presidential elections are decided by a tiny number of fence-sitters in a few "battleground states." If Sanders were to secure the Democratic nomination, I suspect it is highly unlikely that they will be so blind about what he says vs. what he does, nor about his promise to nominate someone to the Supreme Court who will "overturn" Citizens United as "one of their first decisions."

Get real.

 

[Nous]

Sanders has said he is against super pacs.

Then, in order to avoid hypocrisy, he should renounce the super PACs that are purchasing support for him, rather than thanking them by names and calling them "sponsors" of his campaign.

 

[Nous]

Few recent Supreme Court cases have received as much attention — and drawn as much ire — as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Especially candidates who encourage super PACs to "sponsor" their campaigns should stop whining about this decision. The independent campaign expenditures of corporate and union super PACs are here to stay until and unless a Constitutional amendment outlaws them. No one seems to be making a serious effort toward such an amendment.

 

[Underhill]

Then, in order to avoid hypocrisy, he should renounce the super PACs that are purchasing support for him, rather than thanking them by names and calling them "sponsors" of his campaign.

Thus reducing his chances of winning and actually fixing a broken system. Good plan.

 

[metis]

Especially candidates who encourage super PACs to "sponsor" their campaigns should stop whining about this decision. The independent campaign expenditures of corporate and union super PACs are here to stay until and unless a Constitutional amendment outlaws them. No one seems to be making a serious effort toward such an amendment.

Because there's not a snowball's chance in hell one could get it through Congress. Instead, there's more of a chance that a later court will decide that the SCOTUS decisions previous to CU were right to begin with and that the CU was a highly partisan decision that should never have been.

 

[Nous]

Because there's not a snowball's chance in hell one could get it through Congress. Instead, there's more of a chance that a later court will decide that the SCOTUS decisions previous to CU were right to begin with and that the CU was a highly partisan decision that should never have been.

As i already noted, a large problem with the law struck down in Citizens United was how to define the difference between "media" corporations and all others. Is RF a "media" corporation? Why should New York Times be allowed to engage in "electioneering communications" prior to primaries and general elections? Are not the electioneering communications of "media" corporations just as influential as those of other corporations and unions?