Mitt Romney: Teachers Unions' Contributions To Political Campaigns Should Be Limited

reply to post by Grimpachi

You try and put the tumbscrews to the big money to make it play fair, and all its going to do is move out of the country. That's the problem now, you're in a catch 22 where all the cards are in their hands.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I like you’re thinking. You should check this thread out we have an ongoing debate about changing the entire campain system and that is one of the issues we are discussing. I would love your input.

ats

reply to post by Grimpachi


This is so typical of the Republican mindset.

1. Elections funded by wealthy corporations are fine, but elections funded by unions is wrong!
2. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and FOX shouldn't be subject to "The Fairness Doctrine", but the "liberal media" should be held to a standard that includes reporting both sides of an issue.
3. Voter ID is great and doesn't suppress the vote, but reporting accurate election poll numbers is cheating, and suppressing the vote!
4. Massachusetts healthcare is great! But national healthcare is an abomination!
5. The wealthy can pay lower taxes and hide their money around the world, but the middle class has to pay their fair share.

:shk: It goes on and on and on...

I'm not suggesting that the Democratic party doesn't have its own share of hypocrisy, but this is the most blatant and obvious hypocrisy I've ever seen.

As of the end of August.

Below is a tally of the money raised and spent through July by the presidential candidates, the national party committees and the primary “super PACs” whose sole purpose is to support a candidate. Contribution and spending totals do not include money raised or held by each candidate’s “victory fund,” a joint fund-raising committee that will distribute funds to the campaigns and party committees. In addition to these committees, nonprofit groups that do not have to file with the Federal Election Commission and other super PACs have spent at least $65 million more on television advertising, almost all of it against President Obama or in support of Mitt Romney.

Barack Obama +
Democratic Party +
Priorities USA Action Super PAC

Raised $690.1m Spent $615.6m

Mitt Romney +
Republican Party +
Restore Our Future Super PAC

Raised $633.0m Spent $530.7m

The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates

Not a huge amount of difference in the grand scheme of things.

Hopefully both side will raise fairly equal amounts. If spending MILLIONS has the same result as spending THOUSANDS, both sides of the isle will be more inclined towards Campaign Finance Reform.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Taxpayer funded campaigns. I've always thought this was the only fair way handle the process and would allow for the least chance of corrupting the process. Pool everyone's tax money together and divide it equally among the candidates; sounds kind of Socialist....but I like it.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Romney should just come out and say it. He only believes that rich people should have rights and that they should have absolute control over everything.

These damn peasants are getting in his way and he doesn't like it.

Only if the corporate contributions are limeted as well.
Now that is a complete sentence now.

Once again the Romney campaign exposes more of the right's scams.

Corporations are people, but teachers are.................what? Greedy moochers who do nothing but contribute to the national debt?
It is official. Anyone who supports Mitt Romney, and who isn't incredibly wealthy, is insane.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yes...Public Financing of elections...Everyone that gets the nomination of thier party gets a fixed amount to spend as they please...Airwaves or Youtube...billboards or lawnsigns...and if they want to expand thier reach beyond what that money affords them, they have to convince the public to volounteer.

It would be a drop in the bucket compared to other expenditures...and a small price to pay for taking our country back.

It would also pay for itself 100 times over in the amount of loop-holes, corporate subsidies and special tax breaks that would evaporate as a result of our Pols no longer being directly for sale,

Union contributions should be banned altogether as long as union dues are compulsory.

Everyday people are threatened with termination for not paying extortion just to keep their jobs.

Then the leaders of the extortion racket use that money to fund things counter to the individuals own beliefs.

Imagine if the teachers unions were die-hard republicans taking all the money of the liberal teachers under duress then propping up Romneys campaign with the money.

It happens everyday where union dues are compulsory.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I don't mind paying my compulsory union dues [SAG/AFTRA] because my union has my best interest in mind where as the corporate production companies want to exploit my education, my hard work, dedication to my craft and only pay me what THEY think I'm worth to maximize their bottom line at my expense.

Without my union, I would have no health insurance, no recourse if hurt on the job, no legal representation, and basically be at the mercy of the production companies and their bean counters.

America needs more unions. In unity there is strength.

The corporations, the GOP, want to bust the unions because they want to be in complete control of the people that actually put their lives on the line and do the work.

As a teacher, I'm always surprised at the misconceptions about teacher unions.

Let me assure you, my school can fire my butt for lots of things....including poor performance on my part. I have tenure but it only protects me in case positions are lost. That's it.

But the union I belong to does a lot of good for teachers AND students. That's the thing people sometimes forget. Generally speaking, if it benefits the teachers, it benefits the students.

For example. My union managed to keep the student-teacher ratio the same size this year. The government was wanting to raise the number of students allowed in the classroom...bigger classes, in other words.

That's a win for teachers, obviously; it doesn't increase our work load. But its a win for the students as well, because reduced class size is proportionately tied to student performance.

I wouldn't specify just Teacher's Unions. I would expand it to all Public Sector Unions. If your union can make a donation to anybody who has a say in contract negotiations then that should be illegal.

reply to post by JIMC5499


What about corporations?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
If your union can make a donation to anybody who has a say in contract negotiations then that should be illegal.

If a corporation can make a donation to any politician, who can then make legislation to favor the corporation, it should be illegal, too. But the GOP thinks otherwise. If corporations are people, then Unions are people, too!

All money should be removed from politics.

2nd line.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I don't care about corporations. I also don't care about any other type of union other than Public Sector Unions. I live in a small town. Our School Board sucks, but we can't vote them out of office, because the Teacher's Union makes large contributions to the current members. These members then give the Union what ever it wants. It works the same way with our City Council and the Police and Firefighter's unions.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
This really makes me mad. Has he forgoten teachers are people.

It makes me wonder if this guy is human.

Teachers pay and benefits are set by the winning politicians. State and federal.

There clearly IS a conflict of interest in public unions !

they will back the candidate who gives them the best deal from the public coffers.
Are you trying to be "Naieve" or whut?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

This is so typical of the Republican mindset.

1. Elections funded by wealthy corporations are fine, but elections funded by unions is wrong!
2. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and FOX shouldn't be subject to "The Fairness Doctrine", but the "liberal media" should be held to a standard that includes reporting both sides of an issue.
3. Voter ID is great and doesn't suppress the vote, but reporting accurate election poll numbers is cheating, and suppressing the vote!
4. Massachusetts healthcare is great! But national healthcare is an abomination!
5. The wealthy can pay lower taxes and hide their money around the world, but the middle class has to pay their fair share.

:shk: It goes on and on and on...

I'm not suggesting that the Democratic party doesn't have its own share of hypocrisy, but this is the most blatant and obvious hypocrisy I've ever seen.

So I guess public unions should buy politicians? Come Contract "negotiations" the union sits on both sides of the table(labor AND(paid for) Management)?

Brilliant....

reply to post by 46ACE

Originally posted by 46ACE
So I guess public unions should buy politicians?

No. Not in my opinion.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the GOP. They want the corporation (who typically don't vote Democratic) to be able to contribute as "people", but when it comes to other organizations (that typically don't vote Republican) they want to stifle the same right to free speech!

If they are going to allow corporations to "speak" with their wallets, they should allow unions to as well.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


A Union is a corporation.