The SEIUnionization of Public Employees of North Carolina or How Gov. Perdue‟s Executive Order 45 is the First Step to Collective Bargaining for State Employees

by johndavis, January 28, 2010

“[Executive Order 45] means that we can discuss the terms and conditions of our employment.”1 –Dana Cope, Executive Director, SEANC (SEIU Local 2008), Jan. 25, 2010 The State of the Union Money in North Carolina Politics In last Sunday‟s News and Observer, the editorial page carried a misleading op-ed piece written by Gene Nichol, a
[More...]

“[Executive Order 45] means that we can discuss the terms and conditions of our employment.”1
–Dana Cope, Executive Director, SEANC (SEIU Local 2008), Jan. 25, 2010

The State of the Union Money in North Carolina Politics

In last Sunday‟s News and Observer, the editorial page carried a misleading op-ed piece written by Gene Nichol, a law Professor at UNC-Chapel Hill. Professor Nichol was spitting mad about last week‟s US Supreme Court decision that gave unlimited independent political free speech rights to corporations and unions. “I find no words to convey adequate outrage over Friday’s US Supreme Court decision, in the Citizens United case, to radically untether corporate spending in our electoral politics,” fumed Professor Nichol, “It is bizarrely anti-democratic.”2

Why misleading? If Professor Nichol had taken the time to read the decision before regurgitating his sanctimonious ire, he would have discovered that the ruling applies to both corporations and unions. Yet, not once in his editorial, titled Supreme corporations, did Professor Nichol include “unions” as he decried the corrupting influence of money. The Citizens United case can be found on the US Supreme Court‟s web site.3 The phrase “corporations and unions” appears 26 times in the opinion. Everything corporations can now do, so can unions.

While Nichol assails corporate political spending, he fails to mention that unions contributed over $5 million in 2008 to North Carolina politicians; 98% of their money going to Democrats.

Unrestrained Spending by Public Employee Unions

Perhaps the reason Professor Nichol, a public employee, overlooks big union money in North Carolina politics is because almost all of the union money comes from public employee unions. Of the $5,032,908 spent by unions in 2008 on North Carolina candidates, $4,532,540 was spent by public employee unions and their affiliated unions. Here are the facts:4

  • SEANC (State Employees Assn. of NC) contributed $243,706 to NC candidates
  • Democratic candidates received $218,956 of SEANC money, or 90%
  • Republican candidates received $24,750 of SEANC money, or 10%
  • SEANC is Local #2008, affiliated with SEIU (Service Employees Int‟l Union)
  • SEIU invested $1,810,566 in NC candidates in 2008
  • Democrats enjoyed $1,760,556 of SEIU‟s money, or 97%; Republicans 3%
  • SEIU gave the North Carolina Democratic Party over $1 million
  • NCAE (NC Association of Educators) contributed $265,330 to 200 NC candidates
  • Democratic candidates received $245,980 of NCAE money, or 93%
  • NEA (National Education Association) invested $2,212,936 in NC candidates
  • 100% of NEA‟s $2,212,936 went to help Democrats; Republicans 0%
  • NEA ran a $1.7 million independent expenditure campaign for Bev Perdue

Additional union funds invested in 2008 and conveniently overlooked by Professor Nichol:

  • United Auto Workers union gave the North Carolina Democratic Party over $100,000
  • DRIVE, the Teamsters union, contributed $361,617 to NC Democrats
  • IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) gave $36,500 to Democrats
  • UFCE (United Food and Commercial Workers) contributed over $100,000 to the Democratic Party of North Carolina

UNC law Professor Gene Nichol writes, “A system of government in which those who seek certain policies are allowed to spend unrestrained sums on behalf of those who make the policies can be called many things. „Democratic‟ and „fair‟ are not among them.” Why is Nichol only including corporate “unrestrained sums?” What‟s “fair” about excluding unions?

If UNC law Professor Gene Nichol would go to the website, www.opensecrets.org, and do a search on the largest political independent expenditure groups, he would discover that SEIU is #1 on the list of the Top 100 all-time biggest spenders.5 In 2008, SEIU spent $85 million to influence the outcome of elections, and was rewarded by President Obama with support for the Employee Free Choice Act legislation and top White House jobs including political director, and positions on the National Labor Relations Board and the president‟s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.6

In 2006, SEIU spent $635,000 in North Carolina elections on TV and radio ads, mailings, opinion polls, and Get-Out-The-Vote phone banks – more than ANY BUSINESS PAC in NC. SEIU also contributed more than 10% of the total budget of FairJudges.net to run ads statewide for NC Supreme Court candidates in 2006. In 2004, SEIU spent $650,000 just on NC legislative races.
Perhaps it was just an oversight. Surely Professor Nichol intended to include unions among those who have rendered our system of government undemocratic and unfair because of their unrestrained spending. And surely he intended to include the UNC-Chapel Hill PAC.

According to Democracy North Carolina, the state’s leading campaign finance watchdog, “A group of UNC-Chapel Hill boosters called Citizens for Higher Education gave $479,000 to legislative candidates during the 2008 election, more money than any other PAC.”7 Oh well, just another one of Nichols‟ inadvertent exclusions from those who have rendered our system of government undemocratic and unfair because of their unrestrained spending.

Governor Bev Perdue‟s Executive Order #45

On May 3, 2008, the State Employees Association of North Carolina (SEANC) voted to officially affiliate with Service Employees International Union (SEIU). SEANC is now known as SEIU Local 2008, and is the South‟s leading state employee association with its 55,000 members.

During the 2008 election cycle, SEANC and SEIU invested $2,054,271 in North Carolina politics. They, along with fellow public employee unions NEA and the NCAE, invested $1,846,219 to help Beverly Perdue win the governor‟s race in 2008.

Last Friday, Governor Perdue signed Executive Order #45, a move characterized by The Insider on Tuesday this way: “Gov. Beverly Perdue has issued an executive order that pushes state employees a little closer to collective bargaining rights.”8 Dana Cope, Executive Director of SEANC, SEIU Local 2008, sees it similarly. “[Executive Order 45] means that we can discuss the terms and conditions of our employment.”9

UNC law Professor Gene Nichol writes, “A system of government in which those who seek certain policies are allowed to spend unrestrained sums on behalf of those who make the policies can be called many things. „Democratic‟ and „fair‟ are not among them.” Like it or not, as of last Friday’s US Supreme Court decision, in the Citizens United case, unrestrained independent expenditures by corporations and unions is the law.

UNC law Professor Gene Nichols‟ diatribe in last Sunday‟s News and Observer described untethered corporate spending in our electoral politics as, “bizarrely anti-democratic.” He said that he could not find words to adequately convey his outrage. Not including unions in his op-ed piece is bizarrely anti-accurate. Perhaps the next time he needs to try to find words that adequately interpret the law.

References

  1. http://www.seanc.org/news/homepagenews.aspx
  2. http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columnists_blogs/other_views/story/299567.html
  3. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
  4. Union contributions and independent expenditures database provided by Civitas Institute
  5. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/indexp.php
  6. The Wall Street Journal, SEIU Campaign Spending Pays Political Dividends, May 16, 2009
  7. Democracy North Carolina, Press Release: Friday, June 26, 2009; Special-Interest PACs Guard Tax Loopholes
  8. http://www.governor.state.nc.us/NewsItems/ExecutiveOrderDetail.aspx?newsItemID=884
  9. http://www.seanc.org/news/homepagenews.aspx

Supreme Court: Business Has Unlimited Political Free Speech Rights – NC 527s Obsolete; Political Parties Weakened; Trade Groups Will Flex New Political Muscle

by johndavis, January 25, 2010

“They’re the men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam. Tortured for refusing to confess what John Kerry accused them of … of being war criminals. With nothing to gain for themselves, they have come forward to talk about the John Kerry they know.”1 Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth, TV ad excerpt, September
[More...]

“They’re the men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam. Tortured for refusing to confess what John Kerry accused them of … of being war criminals. With nothing to gain for themselves, they have come forward to talk about the John Kerry they know.”1 Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth, TV ad excerpt, September 2004

Below you will find a memo written by Patton Boggs, one of the leading campaign finance law firms in America, summarizing the implications of the new U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down on January 20, 2010, freeing corporations from campaign spending limits on independent expenditure advertising. Here are some of the highlights:

  • Before last week’s ruling, corporate funds could not be used to fund independent ads that expressly called for the election or defeat of a political candidate. Now they can.
  • Before the ruling, corporate funds could not be used to fund independent issue advocacy ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of the general election. Now they can.

Example: The famous Swift Boat Veterans ads never called for the election of George Bush or the defeat of John Kerry. Those ads merely disclosed questions about John Kerry’s war record. Corporations could have helped fund those ads up to 30 days before the primary and 60 days before the general election. However, as those ads were developed after the Democratic National Convention in 2004 and run only in September and October, within the 60 days before the general election, none of the $26 million raised to fund the ads was from corporate funds. Today, corporate money CAN be used to pay for the Swift Boat Veterans type ads all the way up to Election Day, and, you CAN call for the election or defeat of a candidate.

Continue reading »

A Checkers Player in a Nation of Chess Players or How Obama’s Hubris Cost Him Kennedy’s Seat and May Destroy His Reform Legacy

by johndavis, January 22, 2010

“Governments at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often, bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities.”1 — U.S. Senator Barack Obama, 2006 Hu-bris (hyoo’bris) n. Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance. In his
[More...]

“Governments at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often, bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities.”1 — U.S. Senator Barack Obama, 2006

Hu-bris (hyoo’bris) n. Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance.

In his book, The Audacity to Win, President Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe writes about Obama’s “significant self-confidence.” What Plouffe calls significant self-confidence is also hubris, excessive pride or arrogance; the trait most responsible for Obama’s failed first year.

The year was 2003. Plouffe was meeting with Obama in Chicago for the first time to talk about his 2004 race for U.S. Senate. He was trying to persuade Obama of the importance of allowing campaign professionals to run the campaign. “You just have to let go and trust,” Plouffe told him. “I understand that intellectually,” said Obama, “but this is my life and career. And I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it.”2

Continue reading »

The Audacity of Hoping Halley’s Comet Will Return in 2010 or Why Barack Obama’s 2008 Victory in North Carolina Will Not Drive This Year’s Races

by johndavis, January 14, 2010

Politics, Rain Dances and Comets Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of political races, just like timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance … or the return of a comet. President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign for the White House reminds me of Halley’s Comet: a spectacular
[More...]

Politics, Rain Dances and Comets

Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of political races, just like timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance … or the return of a comet.

President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign for the White House reminds me of Halley’s Comet: a spectacular event, brilliant and inspiring, that comes along once every 76 years. Using his skills honed as an inner city community organizer in Chicago, he won the race with 7 million more popular votes than any candidate in the history of presidential politics, raising a staggering $782 million, and employing 6,000 staffers who managed an all-volunteer army of 13 million.

David Plouffe, President Obama’s campaign manager, revealed the campaign secrets in his book The Audacity to Win, published last month. He proudly tells the story of how their rag tag militia defeated the dream teams of both the Democratic and Republican parties with a once-in-a-lifetime-candidate, a single powerful message, and a web site used to organize and communicate with staff and volunteers … and raise money like it had never been raised before.

In September 2008 alone, the Obama campaign raised $150 million; $100 million of that had been raised online as a result of 10 fund-raising e-mails. “There were times when we were raising $250,000, $300,000, even $500,000 an hour.”1 Why did that matter here in North Carolina? “Every additional dime was being funneled into battleground states,” said Plouffe.

Halley’s Comet: a spectacular event, brilliant and inspiring, returns in 2061. That’s about when we will likely see another candidacy like that of Barack Obama in 2008. As to 2010, read on.

Throwing Long

Obama insisted on three things at the outset of his campaign. One was that he alone would establish the message and that it would not be negotiable; two, that his campaign would win with a grassroots organization targeting unconventional voters; three, that they would have the courage to take risks, a campaign quality that David Plouffe describes as “throwing long.”

The message from day one was change. “Change versus a broken status quo; people versus the special interests; a politics that would lift people and the country up; and a president who would not forget the middle-class.”2 The campaign strategy from day one was to gain the advantage over Hillary Clinton and her high-roller backed campaign of Manifest Destiny with a grassroots ground game funded by small contributors. It worked in Iowa; the first major electoral event of the presidential nominating process. Clinton snubbed Iowa while the Obama staff and volunteers pulled off an upset victory by getting their supporters to leave their homes on a frigid, February day and go to a caucus meeting to cast a vote for Obama.

Throughout the primary, the Obama campaign defied conventional wisdom by targeting those least likely to vote like younger white voters, independents, newly registered African-American voters, and African-American voters who had voted sporadically in the past. They invested heavily in early turnout of these non-habitual voters with radio ads and Internet ads pushing early voting; they sent e-mail and text messages to tens of thousands of North Carolinians urging early voting, called tens of thousands more and sent volunteers door-to-door to urge early voting.

Traces of the Strategic Design

On May 6, 2008, Primary Election Day exit polling here in North Carolina was so conclusive that the moment the polls closed the national networks declared Obama the winner over Clinton. Plouffe recalls the 14-point blowout in his book this way: “As the returns came in, we could see the traces of our strategy’s design: by registering over 100,000 new voters, producing strong turnout among African-Americans and young voters, and winning college-educated whites thanks to our stand against the gas tax, we made ourselves unbeatable in North Carolina.”3

The unconventional strategy of targeting atypical voters in unlikely places like North Carolina continued throughout the fall. Obama knew he could not defeat a Republican presidential nominee in the Old North State with TV ads, no matter how much money he spent. His only hope was a massive ground game, registering and turning out non-traditional voters.

When the dust settled and the numbers were tallied in North Carolina following the November elections, 967,804 new voters had been registered during the year, with nearly 8 in 10 registering either as Democrats or Unaffiliated, pushing our state to over 6 million registered voters for the first time ever. New African-American voters totaled over 304,708. New voters in the 18 to 24 year-old age group totaled 317,584.

The Obama campaign had 47 headquarters in our state, with over 400 paid staff in the twenty-something age group. These junior operatives were responsible for record early voting totaling 2.6 million (only 984,000 voted early in 2004), more voters than on Election Day. Seven out of 10 of the early voters were either Democrats (51%) or Unaffiliated (19%). African Americans comprised 28% of early voters, as compared to only 19% of the 2004 general election early vote.

Obama won North Carolina by defying conventional wisdom, by using a non-negotiable message of change and a grassroots organization. He won because he was willing to throw long.

The Honeymoon is Over; and You are Not Who I Married!

It has been said that marriage is when two become one, and then they spend the rest of their lives arguing about which one. The biggest difference between the magical Obama “marriage” of 2008 and the post-honeymoon relationship of 2010 is that now, after a year’s worth of leadership, his supporters are beginning to doubt his commitment to promises made at the altar.

The clearest example of a weakening Obama base can be seen in the low turnout of young adults in Virginia and New Jersey last year despite numerous pleas from the president during personal visits. Only 8% of the 18 to 24 year old voters turned out in New Jersey (17% in 2008), with only 10% turning out in Virginia (21% in 2008). Republicans won both governors’ races.

Obama won in 2008 in great part because of young and enthusiastic, anti-war idealists who worked tirelessly registering and turning out other young, enthusiastic, anti-war idealists. When those same voters opened their laptops yesterday to read the news, they were probably astounded by an AP story titled, Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year.4 The article notes that the record amount will be used in Iraq and to expand the unpopular war in Afghanistan, and points out that the request will be a difficult sell to Democratic Party leaders in the Congress. Those young anti-war Obama idealists are less likely to retool for other Democrats in 2010.

The tables are now turned. They are now Obama’s wars; it’s now Obama’s economy. He gets the credit for the good and the bad, and it’s beginning to show in the national polls:

According to the Gallop polling organization January 13, 2010:5

  • Obama’s job approval is 50%, down from a first-year high of 69%
  • Only 40% of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of the economy (lowest ever)
  • Only 37% of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of health care reform (lowest ever)
  • Looking only at the all-important Independent voters, only 31% approve of Obama’s handling of the economy and of health care reform
  • Conservatives outnumber both moderates and liberals for the first time since 2004
  • Fewer than half of Americans call themselves Democrats (a first since 2005)

President Barack Obama’s campaign for the White House was a spectacular event, like Halley’s Comet, brilliant and inspiring, a game-changer in many North Carolina races in 2008. But as to whether it will drive our 2010 elections … ummmmmm, well, Halley’s Comet returns in 2061.

References

  1. The Audacity to Win, by David Plouffe, Campaign Manager for Obama for America, page 327.
  2. The Audacity to Win, page 32.
  3. The Audacity to Win, page 229.
  4. AP, January 13, 2010, by Anne Gearan and Anne Flaherty
  5. Gallup, January 13, 2010. See: www.gallup.com

Key Predictors Foretelling North Carolina’s 2010 Elections: The Republican, the Democrat and the Drowning Man

by ericstroud, January 7, 2010

There was a drowning man, 50 feet from shore. A 50 foot rope lay on the beach. A Republican came along and seeing the man struggling threw him 25 feet of rope and said, “If you’ll swim half way I’ll pull you on in.” A Democrat came along and seeing the man struggling threw him
[More...]

There was a drowning man, 50 feet from shore. A 50 foot rope lay on the beach. A Republican came along and seeing the man struggling threw him 25 feet of rope and said, “If you’ll swim half way I’ll pull you on in.” A Democrat came along and seeing the man struggling threw him 50 feet of rope, then dropped the rope and went off to do another good deed. The man drowned.

As we begin the 2010 election year, all indicators are pointing favorably towards Republicans. We saw in Virginia and New Jersey last year that President Obama’s base is a mile wide and an inch deep. They didn’t vote. Obama’s liberal notions are beginning to raise doubts about his leadership in a nation where 8 out of 10 voters are either conservative or moderate.1 In our state, Democrats are rocked by scandal, a budget crisis and the fall of the Basnight/Rand Empire.

Continue reading »