Comments on: Citizens United and Those Dastardly Labor Unions

By: Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:27:52 +0000

James, are you stating that the rules governing voluntary PAC contributions have changed or are you asking if they have?

I don't see how this ruling would change any requirements that union spending on campaigns come from funds voluntarily approved for that use by the individual union members, if such rules exist in each state. Congress has been clamoring to impose stockholder approval requirements on corporate campaign spending in response to Citizens United, which would likely be constitutional. And if it is, I don't see how a similar rule for labor unions would suddenly be unconstitutional under CU.

Of course, I could be wrong--I'm not an election law expert by any stretch of the imagination--but that's my gut reaction to your concern.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:27:00 +0000

James, are you stating that the rules governing voluntary PAC contributions have changed or are you asking if they have?

I don’t see how this ruling would change any requirements that union spending on campaigns come from funds voluntarily approved for that use by the individual union members, if such rules exist in each state. Congress has been clamoring to impose stockholder approval requirements on corporate campaign spending in response to Citizens United, which would likely be constitutional. And if it is, I don’t see how a similar rule for labor unions would suddenly be unconstitutional under CU.

Of course, I could be wrong–I’m not an election law expert by any stretch of the imagination–but that’s my gut reaction to your concern.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:27:00 +0000

James, are you stating that the rules governing voluntary PAC contributions have changed or are you asking if they have?

Of course, I could be wrong–I’m not an election law expert by any stretch of the imagination–but that’s my gut reaction to your concern.

By: James

James — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:53:21 +0000

The protections that were afforded dissenting union members prior to Citizens United highlights one, not insignificant, distinction between the corporation and the union that you fail to mention. This may not seem like a big issue to most, but to union members who don’t want to want to support their union’s political agenda without reprisal, this may change everything. Before CU, there was at least a legal framework for requiring that contributions to union PACs by members be voluntary, knowing and (theoretically at least) made without fear that declining would cost you your job or membership or some other reprisal. Wage deductions for PAC contributions required express written consent. Where are these protections now? Is it still true that PAC contributions must not be made with funds that were required as a condition of union membership. Unions can raise membership dues or require some fee whenever they want to fund their political activities, essentially compelling PAC contributions. As for shareholders in a corp, the concerns aren’t the same as a union member. Shareholders just care about stock value and return. And if the corporations political activities are increasing value, their interests are served. If they’re not, the shareholder is free to sell and buy another company’s stock. If share value goes up, but the corporation is engaging in political activity the shareholder disagrees with, there are always other good stocks out there. It’s not that onerous for shareholders. A dissenting union member though, by contrast, is stuck and a lot more is on the line.

By: James

James — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:53:00 +0000

By: James

James — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:53:00 +0000

By: Aaron Ross Powell

Aaron Ross Powell — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:39:52 +0000

Nate, I think your point is valid but depends greatly on how abstractly we look at unions and corporations. At the VERY abstract level, both are organizations meant to advance the interests of their members. For a union, this means advocating higher salaries, better benefits, more job security, etc. A corporation wants to earn money for its stockholders. How each does that is ultimately unimportant for that bottom line. A corporation can earn profit by selling a better product — or through rent seeking. A union can get better job security by negotiating labor contracts — or by lobbying for protective tariffs. I'd argue, therefore, that unions and corporations (and by “corporation,” I mean only those that are profit seeking, and not non-profits like the ACLU — which are also covered by this ruling) are rather indistinguishable in this sense.

By: Aaron Ross Powell

Aaron Ross Powell — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:39:00 +0000

By: Aaron Ross Powell

Aaron Ross Powell — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:39:00 +0000

Nate, I think your point is valid but depends greatly on how abstractly we look at unions and corporations. At the VERY abstract level, both are organizations meant to advance the interests of their members. For a union, this means advocating higher salaries, better benefits, more job security, etc. A corporation wants to earn money for its stockholders. How each does that is ultimately unimportant for that bottom line. A corporation can earn profit by selling a better product — or through rent seeking. A union can get better job security by negotiating labor contracts — or by lobbying for protective tariffs. I’d argue, therefore, that unions and corporations (and by “corporation,” I mean only those that are profit seeking, and not non-profits like the ACLU — which are also covered by this ruling) are rather indistinguishable in this sense.

By: Nate

Nate — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:35:06 +0000

Aaron, I think a distinction can be made between labor unions and corporations. The former is explicitly an advocacy organization, people join it to take advantage of its collective power in both the workplace and in politics (although I concede that whether a union actually represents its member is an open question). A corporation, on the other hand, is a singularly commercial entity; the money it takes in is not explicitly earmarked for political or advocacy purposes.

But I will say, you're spot on your overall point about endemic hypocrisy in American politics.