Government Employee Union Campaign Contributions

According to <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023033395045755664817617902…; target="”_blank”">an
article in today's <i>Wall Street Journal</i></a>, business organizations are arguing
that government employee unions have a conflict of interest that should
prevent them from supporting candidates for office. "Public-sector
unions have a guaranteed source of revenue—you and me as taxpayers,"
the executive director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Workforce
Freedom Initiative is quoted as saying. The argument is that union dues
come from government employees' salaries, which come from taxes.<br>
<br>

A spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME) is quoted as saying that, according to this logic,
"the government is funding the movie industry every time AFSCME members
go out to the movies."<br>
<br>
Well, not quite, but it's ridiculous for an organization full of
government contractors, who spend taxpayer money on their dues, to make
this argument. What everyone is missing here is that governments are
organizations that represent and manage our communities, and that
everyone involved in our communities could be considered to have this
sort of conflict of interest, because they pay taxes, get tax money,
and are or may be involved in government activities, directly or
indirectly.<br>
<br>
A more serious argument is that local government employee unions
endorse and give money to candidates who are or may become their
members' boss. This can cause two problems. One is that such a union
can influence the selection of those with whom it
negotiates employment contracts. This can cloud the labor
negotiation process, making it look like any concession to the union is
the granting of a return favor.<br>
<br>
Two, a powerful mayor or council chair can effectively require unions
to provide election support, with the implied threat of layoffs or
tougher negotiations.<br>
<br>
This is a very difficult area of government ethics. For one thing,
there is an important difference between a particular government
contractor and a group of employees. No one is arguing that local
business organizations should stay out of politics, and yet they too
represent individual members who benefit directly or indirectly from
local government. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, there are ethics laws that limit
or prohibit campaign contributions from individual government
contractors. And yet there are few limits or prohibitions on campaign contributions from
individual government employees, although there are some limits and prohibitions on
their involvement in political campaigns.<br>
<br>
Singly, government employees
do not give enough to exert serious influence on elected officials, but
elected officials can pressure government employees into paying up.
This is a very common situation, usually done tacitly. I'm sure many
local government employees and commission members would be happy if they were
prohibited from making individual campaign contributions to local candidates. Maybe it
would be best if only groups of employees and businesses could make
contributions to those they work and negotiate with.<br>
<br>
Government employee unions differ from business organizations in
that unions negotiate directly with local governments, while business
organizations only lobby them. On the other hand, business
organizations consist of far wealthier members, whose funds, singly and
combined, are far greater than local unions'. In other words, many local
elected officials are dependent on business support and, outside of
many cities, local politicians tend to be more beholden to businesses than to
government employees.<br>
<br>
This is a very difficult problem to work through, especially since the
two sides tend to focus on the other side's part of the problem, and
deny their own or defend it constitutionally. There are similarities
and differences, and there are true conflicts, apparent conflicts,
mostly tacit pay-to-play, and too much influence given to those with
the largest funds.<br>
<br>
The best solution to the problem is public campaign
financing at the local level, which makes contributions smaller and
less important, and either prohibits or greatly limits union, corporate,
and union and corporate PAC contributions. But this still allows independent expenditures, which corporate interests have successfully fought to allow, even as they oppose such expenditures from unions.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---