Spending Gap? Media Ignores $21 Million Unions Spent in Wisconsin

story from Breitbart
by Ben Shapiro

Spending Gap? Media Ignores $21 Million Unions Spent in WI
It seems the real story about who spent how much in Wisconsin is coming to light.

The media is shouting about how Republicans outspent the Democrats.

Maybe not as true as they would have you believe.

I wonder why they even apply the theory.


If the Democrats were truly outspent by such a wide margin, wouldn't that indicate a gullible following ?

All that money must have turned around hundreds of thousands of Democrat voters that switched to a Republican candidate ...... right ?


I think the Republican voters already had their minds made up well before the recall elections.
I wonder how many Republicans changed their mind and voted for the Democrat candidate(s) ?


Shapiro / Breitbart say:

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.

Gullible Democrat Voters ?

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.

Gullible Democrat Voters ?

Yeah because they think elections are won by how much money is thrown at them it doesn't have anything to do with what they say or do.

Walker won because of what he did.

reply to post by neo96


The libs just can't get it through their heads....America is sick of their BS and the Union Mafia.

reply to post by xuenchen


Pretty much all you need to see to prove the liberal bias in media. Why report the facts when you can report the spin you want!

Do you people EVER fact check the claims of Breitbart?

A simple google search shows that the 'liberal media' has been consistently reporting on how much Unions are spending in Wisconsin.

Just a FEW examples:

Unions, at Center of Wisconsin Recall Vote, Suffer a New Setback in Its Outcome

www.businessweek.com...

reply to post by stanguilles7


And that has what to do with broadcast news?
ETA: From your own source. You just proved the liberal media bias. This is completely false.

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.

How is $30million vs $25million 7 to 1?
Move on please.

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 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.

Pro Walker spending was $30 million, Democrats/unions spending was $25 million.

Media reported Walker spent 7 times more than his opponents. Truth is it was 1.2 times more.

How is that factual again? When does 1.2:1 = 7:1

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 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.

Really? Since when are NATIONAL unions in state? And I am glad you did not address the fact that the media blatantly lied, since it's impossible to argue the point with a straight face.

A lot of money spent doesn't necessarily equate to many more votes being switched.

Money can still be spent BADLY.

Just ask Mitt Romney, who outspent opponents by MILLIONS of dollars in primary states he later went on to lose.

reply to post by babybunnies


And your reply has absolutely zero to do with the topic. Want to post a reply to the actual topic?

I have to congratulate Mr. Paul Walker on his victory. I am saddened for the people of Wisconsin. As the disparity between rich and poor grows, Unions were the only tool to help maintain some balance where runaway CEO wages are at an all time high in the U.S.



In the graph below one can clearly see the connection on union enrolment to % of middle class.



It is a shame that the U.S. continues to allow their great nation to be pilfered by just a few and fail to realize its happening.
Good luck peoples of the U.S. cause those same people have made it in to government in Canada where we still have a thriving middle class. I don't know for how much longer as union rights are slowly being propagasized (my own word) away by the wealthy.

As with every union bashing thread I have to post these insightful thoughts about unions by influential people (maybe you will recognise some?)


"With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the race, for the developing of character in man, than any other association of men."
Clarence Darrow

"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms is treason. If a man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool. There is no America without labor, and to fleece the one is to rob the other."
Abraham Lincoln

"If capitalism is fair then unionism must be. If men have a right to capitalize their ideas and the resources of their country, then that implies the right of men to capitalize their labor."
Frank Lloyd Wright

"The labor movement means just this: It is the last noble protest of the American people against the power of incorporated wealth."
Wendell Phillips

"The American labor movement has consistently demonstrated its devotion to the public interest. It is, and has been, good for all America. Those who would destroy or further limit the rights of organized labor--those who cripple collective bargaining or prevent organization of the unorganized--do a disservice to the cause of democracy."
John F. Kennedy

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Abraham Lincoln

My friends, it is solidarity of labor we want. We do not want to find fault with each other, but to solidify our forces and say to each other: "We must be together; our masters are joined together and we must do the same thing."
Mother Jones

thank you for reading,
brice

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 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.

Thank you for reading my post Occams, and I appreciate your rebuttal, star for you! Though I do not have any info on anybody opting out of unions (maybe you can provide?), nobody is ever forced to join a union. Unions come about by vote and can be dissolved by a vote (if the the employer was fair (wages, treatment) to begin with would not have found their company in a union setting) There are always comparable jobs in a non union setting, whether its teaching, janitorial or construction. An individual can work in their respective profession or job in a non union setting if they choose.
Union's time is just beginning and the pendulum is going to swing hard the other way as big business are reaping record profits and the middle class are being kick to the curb.
If unions were dinosaur then why does Wisconsin have a minimum wage? These companies that pay minimum wage are really saying if we could pay less we would.
Also review the charts posted, 475 to one pay disparity? So if a worker gets $20.00 per hour a CEO's gets $9500.00 per hour? The need for unions is more prevalent that ever and any upswing to the economy in Wisconsin has nothing to do with the decertification of unions, that's way too soon to tell, wait and see.
brice

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.

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.

.Hi Hanged,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply star for you! If you do not like what the union is doing for you with your contribution, would it not be a prudent choice to go work for someone else or start your own business? The money spent by unions are for lawyers to defend members rights, safety and health. Remember the highest quality products come from union shops. No bridges falling down, no melamine in milk and most of all, few lost loved ones due to industrial accidents and disease.
brice

reply to post by brice


I would have no problem if the money was being spent on upkeep of staff and the reasons you listed. But now they play in politics and that money comes from individuals who may disagree with what a particular politician is selling. And fyi the union at my job was replaced due to embezzelment by the head, so before he was caught how much worker protection was lost?

Yeah, politics is where all our union dues go. AFSCME.

When the local needs to hire an attorney for something do you know what greedy national tells local?

No habla. FU.

Meanwhile they bury us in four-color political ads.

Yeah, I love my union.

The recall? What a frickin' disaster.

reply to post by brice

Apparently you've never heard of a closed shop.

I belonged to one.

It's forced union membership.

They take your money and run.