Apologies for the late response to this post, but I'm also a public union member (MAPE 0301) as a state employee and I disagree with Tony that limiting PAC contributions would drown out union voices or that it's somehow wrong to suggest that elected officials should recuse themselves from votes involving organizations they've allowed themselves to become beholden to. Admittedly, I used to be of a similar mindset to Tony in that I thought it was good enough to say a candidate can take money from a "good" PAC but not a "bad" PAC. David Shove did a good job a few days ago of explaining why that's not good enough.
There are plenty of ways for unions to represent themselves either to advocate for "legitimate union aims" or to fight those who seek to undermine unions without throwing PAC money at municipal elected officials. And while I am a union member, at the same time, I'm also a Minneapolis resident and voter and it's pretty easy for me to see that those can come into conflict from time to time. When that happens, I want the elected official who's supposed to be representing me to actually represent my interests and the interests of my fellow Minneapolis residents (or at least listen to them) and not the narrow special-interests of some PAC or other, whether it be a union PAC or Faegre & Benson's Govt Fund or whatever. One need only look at the Police Federation for an example. If I have to choose between the candidate who tries to get ahead by promising the city employee living in Maple Grove a bigger raise vs. the candidate whose priority is the taxpayers of Minneapolis, who should I choose? If I have to choose between the candidate who is beholden to the Minneapolis Police Relief Association and the candidate who recognizes that they've been getting away with their "13th check" shenanigans for long enough, who should I choose? And as for the comment that "unions tend to support those who support us" - I would encourage folks to take another look at Sonja Dahl's post earlier today. Sometimes, I'm not so sure the union PAC leaders actually realize who they're getting into bed with. Mark Snyder Windom Park On 12/8/05 6:44 AM, "TONY SCALLON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Many on the Issues lists forget who are some of the larger PACS. The unions > through their COPE committees are one of the largest contributors to campaigns > including many of the City Council races. Efforts to ban or restrict or force > voluntary recusals will restrict the way many of us union members effectively > contribute to politics. > > The Unions contribute directly to the campaign and also campaign separately > for the candidates just as the two Park Interest Groups. Unions have always > been a mainstay of liberalism from workers rights to civil rights. Many of > the Unions are public employee unions such as mine (Teachers Unions). In > effect our voices would be drowned out in the so called reform. Elected > officials would be forced or pressured not to support legitimate union aims. > And Yes we tend to support those who support us. > > I know of no way to separate out Union PACS from other PACS. > > Tony Scallon > Howe Neighborhood. REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
