[normajean777]

There Is Really Only One Special Interest Group | Power Line

So can we really say that special interests to both parties are equal?

[Ridley's Own]

There's some serious distortion going on in that graph. Open Secrets itself (where the information is supposedly gleaned from) puts Business at a 15 to 1 ratio over Labor in 2008.

Business-Labor-Ideology Split in PAC & Individual Donations to Candidates and Parties | OpenSecrets

Edit: I see where the distortion comes in. The original graph separates industries into individual sectors, and leaves Labor as one big lump. If you compare the TOTAL amount of Business political donations to Labor, you wind up with a 15 to 1 ratio. A non-distorted graph (comparing Labor to Business Sectors) would have each individual union's contribution rather than "Unions."

[adamwagg]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

There's some serious distortion going on in that graph. Open Secrets itself (where the information is supposedly gleaned from) puts Business at a 15 to 1 ratio over Labor in 2008.

Business-Labor-Ideology Split in PAC & Individual Donations to Candidates and Parties | OpenSecrets

Edit: I see where the distortion comes in. The original graph separates industries into individual sectors, and leaves Labor as one big lump. If you compare the TOTAL amount of Business political donations to Labor, you wind up with a 15 to 1 ratio. A non-distorted graph (comparing Labor to Business Sectors) would have each individual union's contribution rather than "Unions."

Yeah that was my first thought when looking at that graph. You could do that the other way too, have a massive industry spike versus all these teeny tiny little separate union figures.

To be honest when I see people dodgy up graphs (the blog author i mean not the opening post) like that to make an unfair conclusion I tend to start to ignore all their points, cause it often shows an ideological bent that looks for any data to support their conclusions rather than make conclusions from the data. I mean we all do that to a degree, but to do it by using dodgy representations of data suggests an extreme case to me.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

There's some serious distortion going on in that graph. Open Secrets itself (where the information is supposedly gleaned from) puts Business at a 15 to 1 ratio over Labor in 2008.

Business-Labor-Ideology Split in PAC & Individual Donations to Candidates and Parties | OpenSecrets

Edit: I see where the distortion comes in. The original graph separates industries into individual sectors, and leaves Labor as one big lump. If you compare the TOTAL amount of Business political donations to Labor, you wind up with a 15 to 1 ratio. A non-distorted graph (comparing Labor to Business Sectors) would have each individual union's contribution rather than "Unions."

Well your right it is a bit sneaky to lump them here.

Two things however:

As that page you posted notes, it includes all individual contributions as business ones (unless the individual was unemployed I guess), so that really doesn't seem to measure anything.

The other thing is that if there are more business contributions that this chart is choosing not to show (sure it can't show every sector I suppose), we can extrapolate that the remaining business contributions are roughly evenly split between the two parties as it shows of the presented sectors. The unions however are giving solely to democrats regardless of which parties their members would like any donations to go to.


That's the part that gets me. In the province that I live in we have tons of powerful unions. We are very resource based, and the labor unions control all trades in that area. Yet on the other side, we by and large vote for a conservative government (for the past 30 years). So why should unions here be able to give to the leftist party that has 2 seats out of 83?

[JerryLove]

I've lived my life in the 5th most populus state in the US.

I've never been in a union.
I've never had a union that would potentially cover me at my worksite (I have no idea if the building janitors were unionized).

I've never been approached by a union; nor aksed for contributions.

I am, however, asked about once a quarter, to contribute to my company's political action committee. They (and some of the businesses around here) are regularly telling me which politician to give my money to and which law to lobby for / against.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I've lived my life in the 5th most populus state in the US.

I've never been in a union.
I've never had a union that would potentially cover me at my worksite (I have no idea if the building janitors were unionized).

I've never been approached by a union; nor aksed for contributions.

I am, however, asked about once a quarter, to contribute to my company's political action committee. They (and some of the businesses around here) are regularly telling me which politician to give my money to and which law to lobby for / against.

So your company forces you to donate to their political favorites? Because that's exactly the case with unions basically.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

So your company forces you to donate to their political favorites? Because that's exactly the case with unions basically.

One of us is obviously confused.

I was of the understanding that this conversation was about the amount of money given by special interest groups: In particular, comparing union donations to corporate donations.

There seems to be a legit sub conversation about "directed individual donations" brought up.

The former is clearly best covered by simple numbers. Ridley has already covered that ground.
The latter is about whether "individual" donations are truely individual: and which camp to place those in. Since I have experience with solicitations for that, I shared my (admittedly antecdotal) experience.

No union has ever spent any of my income on lobbying.
No union has ever asked me to spend any of my money on lobying.

Most every company I have worked for has spent money on lobbying.
Most companies I have worked for have asked me to spend my money on lobbying via their PAC.

I've worked for a number of fortune 50 companies.
I work in a very populus state.

It seems likely, lacking any contrary examples, that my experience will be similar to at least a large percentage of workers in the US.

Are you talking about what I'm talking about? Because I don't see the relationship between my comment and yours.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

One of us is obviously confused.

I was of the understanding that this conversation was about the amount of money given by special interest groups: In particular, comparing union donations to corporate donations.

There seems to be a legit sub conversation about "directed individual donations" brought up.

The former is clearly best covered by simple numbers. Ridley has already covered that ground.
The latter is about whether "individual" donations are truely individual: and which camp to place those in. Since I have experience with solicitations for that, I shared my (admittedly antecdotal) experience.

No union has ever spent any of my income on lobbying.
No union has ever asked me to spend any of my money on lobying.

Most every company I have worked for has spent money on lobbying.
Most companies I have worked for have asked me to spend my money on lobbying via their PAC.

I've worked for a number of fortune 50 companies.
I work in a very populus state.

It seems likely, lacking any contrary examples, that my experience will be similar to at least a large percentage of workers in the US.

Are you talking about what I'm talking about? Because I don't see the relationship between my comment and yours.

I guess I'm trying to address the sheer amount of money that unions donate, in comparison, to corporations, and that it is overwhelmingly one sided, unlike corporate donations. I said that unions force their employees in essence to donate to the democrat party, your response is that you are ASKED to donate to certain politicians that your company favor. You never suggested that they force you to donate, or that they even try to make it all one sided contributions.

[adamwagg]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I guess I'm trying to address the sheer amount of money that unions donate, in comparison, to corporations, and that it is overwhelmingly one sided, unlike corporate donations. I said that unions force their employees in essence to donate to the democrat party, your response is that you are ASKED to donate to certain politicians that your company favor. You never suggested that they force you to donate, or that they even try to make it all one sided contributions.

You can, in Australia, tick a box in your union fees that says 'Don't count your membership towards ALP support'. I'm not entirely sure what this means financial wise, but they do they to allow the opt-out.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I guess I'm trying to address the sheer amount of money that unions donate, in comparison, to corporations, and that it is overwhelmingly one sided,

Your concern is that unions donate one fifteenth (about 6%) the amount that busineses do?

unlike corporate donations. I said that unions force their employees in essence to donate to the democrat party, your response is that you are ASKED to donate to certain politicians that your company favor. You never suggested that they force you to donate, or that they even try to make it all one sided contributions.

So unions pay out of dues and corporations pay out of income.

I suppose you could say that corporations force their customers to donate.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Your concern is that unions donate one fifteenth (about 6%) the amount that busineses do?

So unions pay out of dues and corporations pay out of income.

I suppose you could say that corporations force their customers to donate.

Originally Posted by normajean777

Well your right it is a bit sneaky to lump them here.

Two things however:

As that page you posted notes, it includes all individual contributions as business ones (unless the individual was unemployed I guess), so that really doesn't seem to measure anything.

The other thing is that if there are more business contributions that this chart is choosing not to show (sure it can't show every sector I suppose), we can extrapolate that the remaining business contributions are roughly evenly split between the two parties as it shows of the presented sectors. The unions however are giving solely to democrats regardless of which parties their members would like any donations to go to.

One fifteen the amounts that business and all individuals across the USA I suppose. And sure if you really want to say that, yes.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

One fifteen the amounts that business and all individuals across the USA I suppose. And sure if you really want to say that, yes.

Well. If 6% is too much, what percentage would be appropriate?

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Well. If 6% is too much, what percentage would be appropriate?

I wouldn't care if there was an Aussie style opt out as adam mentioned above.

BTW its worth noting that if all other donations are split eveningly like the original chart suggests, then 6% could put the democrats over the edge. With 100 million in total cash, this would mean that republicans receive 47 million, and the dems, 53. It may not seem like a huge difference, but it easily could be.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

BTW its worth noting that if all other donations are split eveningly like the original chart suggests, then 6% could put the democrats over the edge. With 100 million in total cash, this would mean that republicans receive 47 million, and the dems, 53. It may not seem like a huge difference, but it easily could be.

Or the non-union contributions (which are 1500% larger) could give a cash advantage to the right.

Not that small cash disparities seem terribly signifigant in a campaign (large ones do).