With the close of the 2010 election campaign, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees reached a new spending record, pouring $87 million into this congressional election.
AFSCME’s $87 million is greater than the campaign spending by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($75 million) and American Crossroads ($65 million). Other public-sector unions, such as the Service Employees International Union ($44 million) and the National Education Association ($40 million) also ratcheted up their campaign spending.
AFSCME President Gerald McEntee is proud of his union’s track record. Quoted in the Wall Street Journal, he declared, “We’re spending big. And we’re damn happy it’s big. And our members are damn happy it’s big — it’s their money.”
There’s nothing wrong with private people and organizations, including private unions, spending money on political campaigns as long as institutional sources are disclosed and individual contributors to the organizations are agreeable. Under the Supreme Court’s Beck decision, union members have a right to ask for a refund of the portion of their dues used for political purposes.
But AFSCME members are government employees. Their salaries are paid by the taxpayers. A portion of their salaries goes to union dues.
It is entirely appropriate for these dues to be used to seek better workplace conditions, to facilitate employer-employee dispute resolution, to offer a form of “insurance” for employees in difficult personal situations who need financial help.
In contrast, it is inappropriate for public-employee unions to spend dues money on political contributions, even though they now do it lawfully. When government employees favor one candidate for public office over another, and the disfavored candidate wins, this creates a poisoned atmosphere and an awkward situation in the workplace.
Public officials are chosen, either directly or indirectly, through popular elections, and the government employee should be indifferent as to the outcome of the election.
For this reason, public-employee unions should be barred from supporting candidates for public office.
Government workers can always make individual contributions of time and money to candidates as private citizens, as well as contributing privately to other political groups, such as American Crossroads and MoveOn.org.
People give up certain freedoms when they have the privilege of working for the government. The military is not allowed to unionize. Federal and many state employees are not allowed to strike or negotiate for wages.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized the problem of dueling incentives back in 1937. In a letter to Luther Steward, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, he wrote that “meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.”
In the 2010 election cycle, AFSCME donated 99.5 percent of contributions to Democrats; the National Education Association donated 96 percent; and the American Federation of Teachers donated 99.7 percent, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
These dues are being funneled to Democratic politicians who promise to raise workers’ salaries higher and hire more public sector workers — even though Labor Department data show that compensation for federal and state workers is higher than for private-sector workers.
Government workers have access to elected officials during negotiations to set wages and benefits, and can hold the promise of campaign contributions over these politicians during negotiations.
That means higher compensation for government workers, higher taxes, and higher budget deficits. The taxes go from the electorate to government paychecks to union dues — then to more campaign contributions.
Moreover, AFSCME contributions do not just come from state and local taxpayers. Roughly $160 billion of federal stimulus funds went to save jobs of state and local workers.
AFSCME’s $87 million campaign contributions ill serve the taxpayer, the country, and the process of government. Government employees can contribute privately to campaigns — but they should not fund elections through public-sector unions.
Examiner Columnist Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
