There have been two events in recent weeks that have bearing on the issue of political activity by unions in two very different ways. The first is the passage of Oregon ballot measures 66 & 67. The second is the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding federal campaign contributions. The eight point victory of 66 & 67 state wide and the even wider margin of victory of nearly 2 to 1 in Multnomah county was due in large part to a very active and coordinated effort by area unions. AFSCME is proud to have taken a leading role in this effort. The passage of these measures and the benefits they bring not only by saving jobs but also by avoiding cuts to vital state services illustrates quite clearly the need to continue this type of work.

This campaign was won by the hard work of people who volunteered their time to phone bank and canvass. We were able to counter the sometimes misleading information spread by the opposition by sending our message out through media buys of commercial time.  All of this is expensive and requires a great deal of fund raising. This brings us to the next event I want to bring to your attention.

The Supreme Court ruling on corporate contributions was in regards to a law suit about corporate funds being spent in federal elections and  whether restrictions on this funding amounted to a violation of free speech. The Supreme Court found that the restrictions that were challenged in the suit were indeed a violation of free speech. This ruling confers onto corporations and unions the same free speech rights as individuals and is sweeping in its scope of how money will flow into politics.  This would appear on the surface to be an equal win for both unions and corporations. However, if you look deeper you will find that unions are at a distinct disadvantage. This ruling endangers the ability of unions and individuals across the nation to be take an equal part in the political process.

Unions are limited in what funds they can use for political purposes. We can only use money that has been contributed directly to union political action committees such as AFSCME PEOPLE, and are prohibited by law to use member dues. There currently is no such restriction on corporate spending. CEOs are not obligated to ask board members or employees their approval to spend vast amounts of money for political purposes. The monetary advantage of large multibillion dollar corporations compared to unions is staggering even without the funding restrictions I have detailed.

Just contrast these two figures:  During the first nine months of 2009, five of the largest banks that received federal aid — Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley — together set aside about $90 billion for compensation. The AFL-CIO and its unions spent an estimated $200 million in the 2008 election cycle.

This ruling will make it possible for businesses like Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Exxon Mobil and many others to flood the airwaves with attack ads against any measure, law or candidate it deems a threat to their interests. All other voices will be drowned out in the tsunami of corporate billions. Our only counter to this is our numbers. As a union we must increase the number of members who contribute to the PEOPLE fund. This is the only way we have to attempt to mitigate the financial advantage of corporations. You can do your part to help us continue to fight for working families and individuals across this country. If you do not already contribute to PEOPLE start today. If you already give, get involved, volunteer, or ask a co-worker to contribute or volunteer. If we all join together we can fight this new threat to the voice of hard working men and women everywhere and stop the corporate takeover of our political process.

In Solidarity,

Michael Stewart, Local 328

PEOPLE in Action Chair