Thread: Dictator Arnold
View Single Post
Old 06-27-2005, 08:03 PM   #5
scaeagles
I LIKE!
 
scaeagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,819
scaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of cool
Actually, I don't think it would completely stop unions from political contributions. There are ways to use accounting tricks to nullify any effect.

Let's say that 80% of a union is OK with contributions to the democrat party. This particular union has a membership of 10,000 people, and each of those pays $100 annually (granted, not a realistic example), giving the union 1,000,000 in funds.

They have 250,000 budgeted for political contributions, or 25% of their take, which comes to $25 from each member. If only 80% of the union is OK with that contribution, they simply use accounting to change the political contribution of each member willing to support that cause to $31.25, still arriving at 250,000. I don't see any such legislation making any difference.
scaeagles is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote