It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The spin from the left on the morning after their disastrous Wisconsin recall election failure is that Governor Scott Walker (R-WI), who walked away with the election, did so because he spent oodles of money.
Politico’s takeaway: “Money shouts.” “Walker wins one for the plutocrats,” trumpeted Joan Walsh of Salon.com. “Outspent 7-1, Democrats couldn’t beat Scott Walker with a strong ground game.” Media Matters’ favorite Washington Post columnist, Greg Sargent, cited the Citizens United decision allowing corporate political spending no less than five times in his recap of the election – despite the fact that not one dollar spent in Wisconsin would have been illegal before Citizens United. The Post’s Chris Cillizza said, “Being outspent 10-1 (or worse) is never a recipe for success in a race. Democrats cried foul over Walker’s exploitation of a loophole that allowed him to collect unlimited contributions prior to the official announcement of the recall in late March.” Daily Kos said that with Walker’s spending edge, “It shouldn’t even be close.”
This is false.
Overall, over $63.5 million was spent on the recall effort by various parties. Walker spent about $30 million; Barrett spent about $4 million. Most of the money spent by Walker came from out-of-state sources – The Republican Governors Association spent about $4 million, almost all from out-of-state; the Kochs gave $1 million; the Chamber of Commerce gave $500,000. On the surface, then, it appears that Walker had a tremendous cash advantage.
Not so fast. As it turns out, labor unions spent an additional $21 million on the recall election. When it came to state senate recall elections back in September 2011, Democrats outspent Republicans $23.4 million to $20.5 million.
In terms of strict numbers, Walker spent some $30 million; Barrett and the unions spent $25 million. That’s not a 7-to-1 differential. And when you add in unions’ inherent advantage in ground game, you’re talking about a better-than-even split for Barrett.
And his campaign, fueled by an spending advantage of more than 7 to 1 over his Democratic opponent, provides a blueprint for elected officials considering a rollback of public employee bargaining rights elsewhere, like Iowa and Minnesota.
Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
So it's 'liberal media bias' that they reported factual on both Walkers spending and the Dems?
Critical thought fail.
Originally posted by LDragonFire
Union money was money from in the state, most of what Walker received was from out of state. Coming to your state soon.. Outside money will influence your states choice.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by brice
Respectfully, I disagree. The improvement to WI economy is telling, as is the number of people who opted out of the union. Why should someone be FORCED without any say to be a part of a union?
Unions time has come and gone, but there is still a need for them. They are dinosaurs that must evolve. Rather than being funded by the workers and only for the workers unions should evolve into a 3rd part entity paid for by both. This will help remove the Us and Them mentality we have and encourage fairness, rather than a take all we can mentality.
Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by brice
Problem with unions is the unions themselves. They exist do to due's And that money being spent on maintaining the union workforce and political donations? I for one do not like the idea of money I am paying to my union going to political donations for someone I won't vote for. So much for my choice on how my money is spent, it is also telling how union dues collected dropped in WI. Other people thinking the same way? I will admit that is only part of the drop off, the rest being people wanting more of their money in their pockets.