During the Iowa caucuses, while their money flowed to Howard
Dean and Dick Gephardt, union members cast their votes for John
Kerry and John Edwards.
Why the paradox? Government unions and service unions like the
Service Employees International Union backed Dean. Industrial
unions like the Teamsters backed Gephardt. Neither candidate was
favored by the rank and file, but that mattered little to the union
elite. All that mattered was that union members’ dues money was
there for the taking, so the top brass spent it any way they saw
fit.
Most news media focused on the split between the different
factions of organized labor. But the real story in Iowa was that 51
percent of the union vote went to Kerry and Edwards, while
union-boss favorites Dean and Gephardt garnered only 41 percent,
according to the Edison/Mitofskey Iowa Exit Poll. So much for the
belief that “labor” is synonymous with “union official.”
Union money poured into Iowa from all over the country. Yet
members nationwide had no idea how much of their dues was spent on
Dean and Gephardt. That’s because the financial disclosure forms
that unions are required to file with the Department of Labor,
called LM-2 forms, require no information as to how much is spent
on politicking.
A revised version of LM-2 forms that do require such information
was supposed to take effect January 1. But it only took a Big
Labor-friendly judge — U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler — to
delay their implementation for a year, while union lawyers push to
revoke the new forms altogether.
In Iowa, no workers were forced to fund the unions’ political
operations, thanks to that state’s Right to Work law, which
guarantees that no person can be compelled to join a union or pay
union dues as a condition of employment.
But who paid for the more than 800 organizers brought into Iowa
by the “Alliance for Economic Justice,” a coalition of major
industrial unions, all of whom endorsed Gephardt? The Alliance is
not a political action committee, which can only be supported with
voluntary contributions, but rather an “issue advocacy group,”
whose organizers worked for Gephardt in Iowa. The group presumably
(since disclosure forms are nonexistent) gets its money from the
general funds of its member unions. And much of that money is
derived from the forced union dues of employees in the 28 states
that lack Right to Work laws.
And who paid for the Alliance’s Iowa director, Brett Voorhies,
to work on the Iowa caucus campaign? Most likely, it was
rank-and-file members of the steelworkers union.
Voorhies was identified in the press as the legislative and
political director of the United Steelworkers of America. And
according to the Labor Department, “Brett A. Voorhies” is
identified as a “technician” at the Steelworkers’ national
headquarters in Pittsburgh. So its members — voluntary and
involuntarily — are apparently paying Voorhies for his political
expertise. The same likely holds true for Chuck Rocha, Gephardt’s
former labor coordinator. Described in press reports as the
Steelworkers’ political director, “Charles Rocha” is identified by
the Labor Department as a “section head” at the union’s Pittsburgh
headquarters.
Unfortunately, those who access the Steelworkers’ LM-2 form have
no idea how much in staff salaries was spent in Iowa and will be
spent during the rest of this year’s campaign, since the current
forms do not require disclosure of unions’ political spending.
The new disclosure forms will likely be upheld. But begging
Judge Kessler to suspend the forms in this election year amounted
to an admission by the union elites. They don’t want to explain to
their forced-dues captives — who don’t follow them in lock step to
the voting booth — how much they’re paying for union politics in
2004.
