 Would you believe taxpayer money taken from government workers’ paychecks was
sent to MSNBC host Al Sharpton? It was.
AFSCME donated $126,500 to Sharpton’s National Action Network, one of many
examples of AFSCME spending member dues on polarizing “progressive” causes.
In the government union’s 2014 report the U.S. Department of Labor, AFSCME
disclosed $64,585,115 in “Political Activities and Lobbying” spending. The union
also reported more than $1 million in donations to political nonprofits —
including Sharpton’s — as “Contributions, Gifts and Grants.”
Not all members share AFSCME’s priorities, as demonstrated since 2011 in
Wisconsin, where Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s Act 10 empowered public
employees to leave the union.
Photo credit: MacIver Institute
Photo credit: MacIver Institute
MacIver Institute Communications Director Nick Novak
Act 10 “gave government workers a choice,” Nick Novak, spokesman for Wisconsin’s
free-market MacIver Institute, said in an email to Watchdog.
“Most public employees now have the ability to leave their union if they don’t
feel they are getting a value from it. AFSCME has lost 25,000 members in
Wisconsin alone — nearly 70 percent of its membership,” Novak said.
“Government unions have become more and more political, and they have been able
to do it on the backs of the taxpayers,” he added.
“If a public employee wants to leave a union because they disagree with its
political activities, they now have the ability to do so in Wisconsin.”
Before Act 10, Wisconsin was among the states where government workers opting
out of AFSCME membership could be forced to pay AFSCME “agency fees” as a
condition of employment.
Unions aren’t permitted to use agency fees on politics, but the ability to
collect forced fees lets unions spend more member dues on politics. AFSCME did
not respond to questions from Watchdog about how the union’s spending decisions
are made and communicated to members.
Because AFSCME takes its revenue from government workers, the union’s funding of
Democrat politicians and political activist groups amounts to indirect support
from taxpayers.
[to top of second column] |
 Taxpayer spending fuels AFSCME lobbying for more taxpayer
spending. Dues taken from 1,337,126 members and mandatory agency
fees taken from 125,255 nonmembers make the government union a
powerful advocate of bigger government.
Sharpton and AFSCME officials are far from the only beneficiaries
of this system.
AFSCME made a dozen political expenditures of $1 million or more
last year, plus 16 political expenditures of $500,000-$999,000 and
27 of $250,000-$499,000.
The union’s direct campaign contributions and super PAC expenditures
helped Democrats in Wisconsin, Illinois, Florida and elsewhere.
AFSCME’s largest donation of 2014 was a $4,275,000 contribution to
the Democratic Governors Association.
The vast campaign spending AFSCME reported to both the Department of
Labor and the Federal Election Commission was overshadowed by tens
of millions of dollars in contributions to leftist advocacy groups.
Americans United for Change, whose mission is “to amplify the
progressive message,” received $1 million from AFSCME last year
according to AFSCME’s Department of Labor filing.
AFSCME gave America Votes, “the central coordination hub of the
progressive community,” $629,250 plus an additional $500,000 for the
nonprofit’s “state engagement initiative.”
AFSCME contributed $1.7 million to Working America, union coalition
AFL-CIO’s community organizing group. AFSCME gave environmentalist
group League of Conservation Voters $500,000, and paid abortion
advocacy group Planned Parenthood Action Fund $400,000.
Illegal immigrant advocacy group National Council of La Raza
received $255,000 from AFSCME. Progressive activist networks
ProgressNow and USAction received $250,000 and $130,000,
respectively.
AFSCME paid $100,000 each to Citizens for Tax Justice, Jobs With
Justice, Center for American Progress and CAP’s activist arm. The
union also made contributions of $50,000 each to union think tank
Economic Policy Institute and activist group Sixteen Thirty Fund.
[This
article courtesy of
Watchdog.]
Click here to respond to the editor about this article |
