How Much Will This Victory Cost the GOP Down the Line is the Key Question –
We shall now see whether that was wise thinking or fool-heartiness, because Wisconsin came up with a majority rule solution for the impasse that bypasses the budget process, by severing the collective bargaining rules change from the rest of the budget.
“To pass this the way they did — without 20 senators — is to say that it has no fiscal effect,” said Senator Timothy Cullen. “It’s admitting that this is simply to destroy public unions.”
That is, of course, political rhetoric. But once again, this process has a key bearing on California. Right now, the Governor of California, Jerry Brown, has failed to meet his original budget deadline day without reaching agreement on a budget deal.
Kevin Yamamura of the Sacramento Bee is reporting this morning that, “A splinter group of five Senate Republicans is negotiating with the Democratic governor. It remains to be seen whether they can strike a compromise.”
There is a consequence to this missed deadline, as it makes it unlikely that the state will be able to hold a special election for the tax extensions on June 7.
There are a few options at this point. The Governor maintains he needs a two-thirds vote to put tax extensions on the ballot. However, some Republicans do not agree and think he could put it on the ballot on a majority vote.
That would be a more risky approach, but as in Wisconsin, it might become necessary. The other option is that they could have an all-cuts budget and find an additional $11.2 billion in cuts. That is clearly not the way the Democrats want to go, but perhaps they might find cuts that Republicans really do not like and pass those.
The question for Wisconsin at this point will be not only was the action legal, but what will the fallout be? Will public employees shutdown the state? Will they mount a recall campaign next January against Governor Walker?
It would be hard to imagine they could sustain the level of anger and energy necessary to mount a recall campaign ten months in the future, but you never know.
I think Nate Silver, writing in the New York Times this morning, pretty much hits the nail on the head for the most likely consequence.
Nate Silver begins by quoting a Republican Strategist, who on Twitter compared the actions by Wisconsin Republicans to strip collective bargaining provisions from Governor Scott Walker’s budget proposal, and vote on them separately, to actions by the Democratic State Senators to pass a portion of the health care bill during budget reconciliation, therefore bypassing the possibility of a filibuster.
“If only there were precedent for the upper chamber monkeying around with the fiscal part of a bill to bypass the need for supermajority,” the Republican strategist Patrick Ruffini noted on Twitter last night.
As Mr. Silver points out however, Democrats paid a steep price for passing their health care bill. He goes through some calculations, but arrives at the conclusion, that the health care bill was a factor in the magnitude of Democratic defeats last November.
He writes, “The quality of polling on the Wisconsin dispute has not been terrific. But there’s a general consensus — including in some polls sponsored by conservative groups — that the Republican position was unpopular, probably about as unpopular as the Democrats’ position on health care. And the most unpopular part of their position — limiting collective bargaining rights — was the one that Republicans passed last night.”
And he adds, “Nor is the bill likely to become any more popular given the circumstances under which it passed.”
He acknowledges some hypocrisy in Democratic claims that Wisconsin Republicans used trickery to pass the bill.
But the fact of the matter is the average person, the non-ideological person, who will decide the next round of elections, is likely to have a bad taste in their mouth not just for the bill itself, according to polls, but also for the means by which it was passed.
Mr. Silver goes on to point out that there may well be some efforts to recall Republican Senators and one thing to bear in mind is that most of Wisconsin, outside of the Madison and Milwaukee areas, are evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, a prospect that puts Senators at more risk than they might be in a state like California where the districts are very well-defined.
The bigger issue, of course, is what will happen nationally.
Mr. Silver goes through some more gyrations, but arrives at, “Republicans will have no particular counterweight to this; the Wisconsin dispute has motivated the Democratic base more so than theirs.”
He argues that the pro-union groups dropped modestly in their voting in the last election, but I think there is a far bigger factor that is at play here and that is these groups not only come out to vote, they come out and work.
One reason the Republicans won handily last election is that their people were motivated not just to vote but to organize and mobilize others to do so, while the Democrats stayed home.
In short, this action has probably done more to mobilize the Democratic base than anything Obama or any other Democratic leader could have done.
So Governor Walker has won this round, but I think this is a victory so costly that in a year it will feel just as bitter as a stinging defeat.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]That is of course political rhetoric. [/i]
I suspect you wouldn’t feel that way if you were a WI union member, knowing your leadership will be the first fired (“laid off”).
Walker’s victory will be short-lived. He will be on the losing side of a court ruling striking down the statute, and have to watch as the three targeted Republican Senators are recalled. Two actions we’re familiar with here in California.
Don’t misread that comment, I take this issue very seriously, but not the political arguments.
It’s funny that the 14 cowardly fleeing Democrats should now cry foul, they have been told to be there for two weeks and chose to hide. Might this backfire on the GOP? Possibly, but I say there are many more sensible people in Wisconsin who will see how this helps the state and local municipalities and will appreciate it down the road. David, you failed to mention that there’s already a movement afoot to recall 6 Wisconsin Democrat Senators.
Gov. Wilson is a true American hero.
“David, you failed to mention that there’s already a movement afoot to recall 6 Wisconsin Democrat Senators.”
Good thing you did then. It will fail. The Democrat’s movement to recall may not fail.
“Gov. Wilson is a true American hero. “
To 30% of his own state.
I’m not sure Wilson is a hero, time shall tell. But to insinuate that he is not a hero because he has only minority support, is not a compelling argument. The foresight to do what is in the best interest of your community even when the majority do not share the vision, that’s pretty heroic. Again, I’m not saying such is the case with Wilson. I’m merely taking philosophical issue with DG’s last sentence.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Perhaps my favorite quote.
DT: “But to insinuate that he is not a hero because he has only minority support, is not a compelling argument.”
You are correct, but the fact stands right now that he’s a hero to 30% of the people. He is a villain to a lot of people as well. Using your logic, my response should have, “Governor Walker is a villain.” In any case, time will tell, as you suggest. My inclination however is that in time, he will be a footnote in history, nothing more or less.
I dislike having my own logic turned on me.
Best news I have heard all day! 🙂
DTB
…and you are honest enough to own both your conviction and your feelings. I appreciate both yours and David’s positions.
There is one thing that wasn’t mentioned here- that the democrats didn’t behave well – they shut down democracy because they knew they wouldn’t get their way on the vote. The republicans maneuver was in response to the democratic one – and if anything was unethical or illegal, it was the jumping states. So what are the democrats trying to say here? That they will only play ball if they win on the vote? forgive me, but that is TYRANNY BY THE MINORITY. and UNDEMOCRATIC.
Poll by Wisconsin Public Research Institute, March 6, 2011:
[quote]Slightly more than half (53 percent) of the respondents have a somewhat or strongly unfavorable opinion of Walker while 43 percent have a somewhat or strongly favorable opinion of him.
….
Almost two-thirds of respondents (65 percent) say he should compromise with Democrats and public employee unions while one-third (33 percent) say he should stand strong no matter how long protests last.
….
Independents overwhelmingly want the governor to compromise with 68 percent believing he should do so and 29 percent thinking he should stand strong.
[url]http://www.wpri.org/polls/March2011/poll0311.html[/url]
[/quote]
DG [i]In any case, time will tell, as you suggest. My inclination however is that in time, he will be a footnote in history, nothing more or less. [/i]
DG is probably right, for a couple of reasons: few state governors, unless they go on to bigger stages, are ever much more than a footnote over the course of 25 or 50 years. Secondly, what Governor Walker is attempting isn’t groundbreaking. Governor Daniels of Indiana, successfully accomplished essentially the same thing as Governor Walker a couple of years ago. He stripped collective bargaining efforts for public employees by executive order instead of through legislative action. Like Walker, his approval ratings declined initially, but his recovered a few months later, and now have soared. Daniels is well liked by the majority of his constituents in IN, and is sought after as a presidential candidate.
“Governor Daniels of Indiana, successfully accomplished essentially the same thing as Governor Walker a couple of years ago. He stripped collective bargaining efforts for public employees by executive order instead of through legislative action. Like Walker, his approval ratings declined initially, but his recovered a few months later, and now have soared. Daniels is well liked by the majority of his constituents in IN, and is sought after as a presidential candidate.”
Adam, thank you, you just made the case for Gov. Walker’s approval ratings going up after the initial fallout. Maybe that’s what you were trying to do in a sarcastic way.
Wisconsin, unlike California where the Democrats have a permanent majority in our legislature, is a state which goes back and forth betwen the two parties.
So anyone who is predicting that at some point down the road this law will be overturned legislatively–assuming it is not struck down by their state courts–is almost certainly correct. When the union-bought-and-paid-for-Democrats are back in control, they will return to the status quo ante on collective bargaining.
That said, I don’t think the current polls (see WDF1 at 8:11 AM) are all that meaningful. I think they reflect less a genuine philosophical belief among Wisconsin voters and taxpayers that they want, for example, AFSCME COUNCIL 24, to be in a position to drive a much better deal for its members against the taxpayer interests, but more of a sense that this hardball move by Gov. Walker has made their state look bad and that, like most humans on most issues, they fear most forms of change. They want this brouhaha at their Capitol to end; and they blame Gov. Walker’s insistence on a radical change in the way things have long been for the noisy upset in Madison.
What I expect will then happen over the next two years is this: Wisconsin voters (assuming their courts don’t overturn that law) will become more accustomed to the change with regard to collective bargaining. Those who don’t have a direct interest in it will more and more accept the new status quo. And the longer amount of time there is a separation from the tumult of the last four weeks, the less anger over this change will be ascribed to Gov. Walker.
If the economy then picks up in Wisconsin in 2011 and 2012, the current Republican majority will likely be retained; and this issue will not serve the interests of the Democrats, even though they now appear to be motivated by it. If the economy tanks or does not pick up, this issue will be one of many held against Walker and the Republicans and a new Democratic majority will be elected.
(Note that in California, with our permanent Democratic majority, no matter what possibly unpopular policies our legislature passes, none is big enough to actually change parties in the Capitol.)
If multiple states and municipalities across the nation reach a fiscal crisis in the next few years due to excessive benefit costs for unionized employees, then Walker could well be seen as a visionary leader who showed the way out of nationwide crisis.
On the other hand, Republicans and Democrats cooperate to close the various looming fiscal problems, by working cooperatively for the benefit of the nation, taking judicious fiscal steps, and putting aside partisanship.
Which do you think is more likely?
dmg: “That action will have to endure a legal battle, as Democrats charge the action was illegal.”
And the Democrats move to leave the state rather than let the matter go to an up or down vote was legal? LOL
dmg: “There are a few options at this point. The Governor maintains he needs a two-thirds vote to put tax extensions on the ballot. However, some Republicans do not agree and think he could put it on the ballot on a majority vote. That would be a more risky approach, but as in Wisconsin, it might become necessary.”
In other words, Brown either has the courage of his convictions or he doesn’t. Thus far, he hasn’t had the courage of his convictions, looking for cover from Republicans and ultimately the voters…
dmg: “The question for Wisconsin at this point will be not only was the action legal, but what will the fallout be? Will public employees shutdown the state? Will they mount a recall campaign next January against Governor Walker?”
Or perhaps voters will realize Walker was correct. There are states who do not have collective bargaining rights for their PEUs, and they seem to be doing just as well if not better than the states that have collective bargaining rights. Democrats got exactly what they deserved when they chose to do the undemocratic thing by leaving the state rather than letting the matter go to an up or down vote. They only have themselves to blame – the Democrats in Wisconsin overplayed their hand…
dmg: “Mr. Silver goes on to point out that there may well be some efforts to recall Republican Senators…”
According to what I read this morning, there is a move afoot to recall both Republicans AND DEMOCRATS in Wisconsin…
dmg: “The bigger issue, of course, is what will happen nationally.”
Idaho passed legislation to end collective bargaining. Many states are following suit…
dmg: “Mr. Silver goes through some more gyrations, but arrives at, “Republicans will have no particular counterweight to this; the Wisconsin dispute has motivated the Democratic base more so than theirs.”
LOL Sounds like left leaning bluster if I ever heard any…
Rifkin: “If the economy then picks up in Wisconsin in 2011 and 2012, the current Republican majority will likely be retained; and this issue will not serve the interests of the Democrats, even though they now appear to be motivated by it. If the economy tanks or does not pick up, this issue will be one of many held against Walker and the Republicans and a new Democratic majority will be elected.”
This is a very astute observation, and one that I think is correct. The proof is in the pudding, as the old adage goes. The only thing that will upset this apple cart is if the unions do something drastic, like calling for strikes, that sort of thing. If unions were to do something like that, I suspect public opinion would not work in their favor…
rusty49 – glad you picked up on my intended “sarcasm”.
I don’t understand all of the outcry in WI from the national groups, when their response in IN was much more muted. Perhaps the unions are much more threatened today than they were a couple of years ago (remember, two years ago the unions were busy trying to pass card check legislation). I give Walker credit for standing up for what he believes in regardless of the polls (I also give credit to Obama and Pelosi for standing for what they believed in with health care legislation). He and the Republicans may pay a heavy price, or they may not. I’m surprised that there hasn’t been more fallout regarding the 14 Democrats who unethically (at best) and/or illegally (at worst) blocked legal and democratic legislative attempts by the Assembly and the Senate in Wisconsin.
[i]When the union-bought-and-paid-for-Democrats . . .[/i]
As opposed to the industry-bought-and-paid-for-Republicans? Give. Me. A. Break. I’m tired of reading this type of drivel from the conservative side of this argument. As a group you are – as commented on by others – immune to facts unless sanctioned by known conservative outlets across all forms of media. In the reverse: if it doesn’t come from FOX, it isn’t truly news.
Balderdash.
So how goes it conservative fantasy land? It now appears likely there will be a general strike in Wisconsin. So it appears that the WI Three Stooges have, in one single act of colossal stupidity, greatly advanced the goals of the American Labor movement.
UnNeutral: From WSJ 10/22/2010: [quote]The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.
The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats’ hold on Congress.
AFSCME’s campaign push accounts for an estimated 30% of what pro-Democratic groups, including unions, plan to spend on independent campaigns to elect Democrats. It was made possible in part by a 2010 Supreme Court decision that permitted companies and unions to use their own funds to pay for certain political ads. That unleashed a flood of contributions and spawned an array of new outside political organizations, most of which were set up to help elect Republicans.
The political debate over spending by outside groups has focused largely on advertising buys by those Republican-oriented groups. Unions have mostly escaped attention in that debate, in part because they traditionally have spent much of their cash on other kinds of political activities, including get-out-the-vote efforts.
Previously, most labor-sponsored campaign ads had to be funded by volunteer donations. Now, however, AFSCME can pay for ads using annual dues from members, which amount to about $390 per person. AFSCME said it will tap membership dues to pay for $17 million of ads backing Democrats this election. [/quote]
“A Maneuver Kills Collective Bargaining in Wisconsin”
What some call “A Maneuver” others would call “democracy in action”, namely a vote by a duly elected legislature.
What is going on in Wisconsin in the death threats against Republican legislature, the nasty rhetoric against Walker, and the attempt to physically obstruct a vote, is something that we should all agree is unacceptable.
I like a good old fashion burning at the stake !
Jeff and Neutral: [b]“Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”[/b]
Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority opinion in the 2010 case striking down elements of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law.
This says that money=speech. You can’t limit free speech and you can’t limit money…
Money is part of all campaigns and the amounts poured in from all sides continue to grow. Sure money is an issue, but then again, money is not an issue–so says the Supreme Court. I don’t see why one side should point the finger at another in this pissing contest (am I allowed to say that here?).
So AFSCME is spending a gazillion now? So what, they have every right to do so. Oh… sorry there are limits. According the [i]The Christian Science Monitor [/i](soon after the decision)
“The high court decision leaves intact campaign contribution regulations – including laws barring campaign contributions to federal candidates from corporations and unions. It also leaves intact laws barring so-called soft-money contributions to political parties.”
So, as long as everyone plays by these rules this is a non-issue. They have the RIGHT to spend money. And they certainly will.
RICH: [i]”When the union-bought-and-paid-for-Democrats …”[/i]
NOT AT ALL NEUTRAL: [i]”As opposed to the industry-bought-and-paid-for-Republicans?”[/i]
I am not a partisan.
I am a strong believer in publicly financing campaigns and banning all donations to pols running for office. In my view, private campaign financing is corrupt and leads to the expansion of government.
There are some things on which I come down on the left side of the issue, even when the left does not act on its principles*. There are others where I come down on the right. If you read my column you should know that.
As to businesses and business groups in California giving tens of millions of dollars to Republicans, the evidence is just not there. Which company or association of companies would you say is equal to (or worse than) the California Teachers Association, which in the last cycle gave $40 million to Democrats in our state? How about the California Chamber of Commerce? They gave no money at all ([url]http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1008272&session=2009&view=expenditures[/url]) to candidates for office.
One poster said that the American Chemical Association had bought votes with campaign contributions to avoid passage of a ban on plastic grocery bags. She didn’t know that the total amount that industry group gave was $45,500. That is less than the starting compensation for the lowest paid worker in the City of Davis who is full-time and permanent. That is much much less than the hundreds of millions of dollars the California PEUs have been spending here in the last few years.
*An example of this is with Yolo County government. Other than its function of running the jail and policing unincorporated areas, its main function is providing various services which help the poor. I am personally very much in favor of programs which truly improve the lives of the poor. Insofar as they lack mental health care, for example, I want our county to provide them money for treatment. Yet we have 3 liberal Democrats on the Board of Supes–there were 4 before Rexroad won his seat–and as a group it is clear that those Supes have acted on behalf of very highly paid and highly benefitted and highly pensioned program administrators and against the poor when it has come to mental health programs. They have overpaid virtually every Mental Health administrator and secretary and so on with unbelievably generous pensions and other cash out benefits to the point that roughly 80% of the money we spend on Mental Health now goes to the employees of Yolo County, and only 20% is left to benefit the patients. Those ratios were reversed 10 years ago.
It’s similar in every department, where programs for the poor are in large measure not serving the poor, but rather the employees in the Administration of these programs.
And in Davis, where almost everyone elected to the council since 1972 has been some form of liberal Democrat, we have a multi-million dollar “low-income” housing program which benefits a very small percentage of our “low-income” families and provides no relief at all for the rest of the Davis poor, but has enriched those running these scam housing projects and has provided $100,000 and higher paid jobs for City of Davis admins who are needed to run our “low-income” housing program. Were it up to me, I would just give the hundreds of millions of dollars directly to the poor and let them rent whatever housing they can afford with that money. Doing so won’t solve all problems, but at least it will benefit everyone who is short of money for housing.
Robb: Corporations are taxed entities and have a right to representation, union are not tax entities.
Also, private corporations are owned by private individuals and have authority and rights to decide if they will accept unionized labor or not. For example, there are owners that have closed down their businesses after their employees unionized. However, public employee union members are employed by the government which is owned by the people; yet the people are powerless to reject unionization. On top of this, the unions can force new workers to join, force them to pay dues and then use the money for political causes without their consent.
Although it makes for playing nice to compare the two, they are not comparable. Public employee unions corrupt the democratic political process with no checks or balances. You can always stop shopping at Wal-Mart, but how can you boycott monopolized government services?
[i]”I like a good old fashion burning at the stake !”[/i]
We can try, but the damn coward Wisconsin Democrats won’t come back to face their trial.
Labor unions are incorporated, under non-profit status similar to Chamber of Commerce and others.
[url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000501—-000-.html#232111835629954273[/url]
Like the Chamber, they can run issues ads ([url]http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/health-insurers-funded-chamber.php[/url]). What they can really provide is feet on the ground to get out the vote and man phone banks.
Jeff B:
Texas isn’t stealing California jobs, workers or wealth, UCLA study finds
[url]http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-texas-20110310,0,2752558.story[/url]
Neutral wrote: [i]So how goes it conservative fantasy land? It now appears likely there will be a general strike in Wisconsin. So it appears that the WI Three Stooges have, in one single act of colossal stupidity, greatly advanced the goals of the American Labor movement. [/i]
So, it seems that you would be ecstatic about the turn of events in Wisconsin?
This is a double edged knife. I hope the courts find that the Dems that ran and hid “have not standing” to challenge what happened since they abandoned their post and refused to be heard. That would be justice.
Unions are good to protect jobs of those who can be unduly influenced by their bosses and need some protection so the boss can’t just fire them for standing up for what is right. However, the big fat union reps that buy and control politicians, those unions need to go.
The bigger picture is funny how everyone can find fault with the unions, the workers, the Dems or the Reps but no one has is blaming the sorry politicians that have over spent, refused to stay within budget and wasted and put the country and states into the crisis they are in? Instead the politicians have pulled a “rope-a-dope” and got everyone focused on everything but them for doing what that did.
Wonder what people would be saying if all the minority Reps left congress when the Dems were ramming health care down our throats? I bet there would be a entirely different take on those actions.
Jeff – The Supreme Court ruling (whether you agree with it or not) applies to non-profit and for-profit corporations.
Reagan is still the only president in American history to have belonged to a union;, he even served as president AFL-CIO affiliated Screen Actors Guild.
He also called membership in a union an “elemental human right,” while criticizing Soviet-backed crackdowns on Polish organized labor. “By outlawing Solidarity, a free trade organization to which an overwhelming majority of Polish workers and farmers belong, they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights — the right to belong to a free trade union,” he said in a radio address.
Of course, Reagan was far from an entirely pro-labor politician, as evidenced by his firing of federal air traffic controllers in 1981. But the current Republican crusade to strip public workers of their collective bargaining rights contradicts the very policy supported by Reagan when he was a state’s chief executive.
wesley506, your Reagan comments are a bit off the mark. You’re not distinguishing between public and private employment unions in your Reagan comments. Reagan would not have had to strip PEUs of their collective baragaining rights because it’s unlikely he would have granted them such rights to begin with.
[i]”What they can really provide is feet on the ground to get out the vote and man phone banks.”[/i]
Bingo. That is a big deal and the costs are not calculated and included as campaign contributions. If they had been, Brown would have outspent Whitman.
[i]”The Supreme Court ruling (whether you agree with it or not) applies to non-profit and for-profit corporations.”[/i]
Robb: Yes, I did know that. However, I don’t think those in the union fan club screaming about Citizens United care so much about the non-profits. They only see those fat-cat CEOs of the mega-profit industries as controlling the political puppets with campaign contributions… and not the unions.
Actually, one of the reasons that I will not (re)join the Chamber of Commerce, to which I belonged for more than 20 years, is because that brand is so damaged by the political actions of the national Chamber, which is a non-profit. I wouldn’t want my name or money associated with it.
Rifkin: [i]I am not a partisan. [/i]
You are an ‘equal opportunity’ critic that happens to agree with the Republican Party’s platform far more than you have *ever* agreed with the Democrats. And while I can appreciate your reasons – written about extensively in these pages – support for but one segment of medical services delivery does *not* constitute agreement with a ‘liberal’ point of view.
And business has historically gone with the Republicans. Fundraising Totals by Cycle: http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/ptytots.php?cycle=2008
Adam: [i]So, it seems that you would be ecstatic about the turn of events in Wisconsin?[/i]
Yes.
Don Shor: “Actually, one of the reasons that I will not (re)join the Chamber of Commerce, to which I belonged for more than 20 years, is because that brand is so damaged by the political actions of the national Chamber, which is a non-profit. I wouldn’t want my name or money associated with it.”
I would be interested to know why you so dislike the political actions of the nat’l Chamber of Commerce, if you would care to share…
[quote]How Much Will This Victory Cost the GOP Down the Line is the Key Question[/quote]
It won’t hurt them at all. Wisconsin faces a $100 billion budget deficit next year fueled by unfunded mandates (pensions and health insurance. The maneuver you highlight will result in public employees paying 5.8% of their salary toward their pension and 12.6% of their health insurance costs – which, from the average Wisconsin voter’s point of view isn’t unreasonable.
The defeat of organized labor in Wisconsin will be seen by the vast majority of Wisconsin voters as an important victory that is good for Wisconsin. And the Wisconsin GOP will benefit from the provision in the new law that makes union dues voluntary, not mandatory, which will translate into poorer public unions with less money to spend on lobbying and election efforts. All of this will translate into votes for Wisconsin Republicans.
I am not arguing this is a good thing. All I am doing is answering your question re how much will the victory cost the GOP down the line, the answer to which is a resounding “nothing.”
Elaine: this editorial sums up the Chamber issue pretty well: [url]http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/221807/us-chamber-ads-damage-its-brand[/url]
To Don Shor: Thanks for the link. This paragraph at the website you referred me to sums it up nicely – “Traditionally, chambers of commerce did not endorse or attack political candidates. When they do, in inevitably alienates some members and weakens the chamber’s ability to be seen as a representative of all businesses. But many ads in the U.S. Chamber’s current campaign all but shout, “don’t vote for this candidate.”
I had mistakenly been under the impression the nat’l Chamber of Commerce was politically neutral, but alas, like so many other organizations lately, it is not apolitical. It should be, but it is not…