Thanks to the reader who passed this gem along. This week the IRS revoked the tax exempt status of 275,000 organizations, after those organizations failed to file the proper paperwork. Well, it appears a number of liberal special interest group chapters in Colorado didn't file their paperwork and have lost their status as a result.
- American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Orgs (AFL-CIO)
- American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
- American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
- Colorado Association of Public Employees (CAPE)
Nice going, union operatives.
for raising taxes on the largest special interest organizations in the state! Who have done nothing but spread lies and deceit among the voting public through various non-transparent political groups, distorted fair elections, and as a result have run our state into the ground.
These so-called former “nonprofits” have hidden behind that title for too long, and lets face it, the only reason any of you “labor leaders” exist is gain power and influence only to sell out your fellow workers for cushy jobs as board members so you can suck more power and influence from the CORPORATE tit!
So then, who operates Colorado Peak Politics? What are their motives? Where does their funding come from?
this is a conservative BLOG you moron, the First Amendment “authorizes” their motives, and as far a funding is concerned, it doesn’t take much to start one. YOU can start one too! Call it http://www.UnionThugWhoLovesReaganWhenItSuitsMyGoal.com
… That the previous commenter was condemning “non-transparent political groups” in a comment on a blog operated by a “non-transparent political group.”
I didn’t miss the point…underwear wearing basement dwellers probably run this blog with no connection to anything but a brain, time on their hands, and some free rent and internet access courtesy of mom and dad. I was the one who condemned “non-transparent political groups” in Colorado they are known as “Nonprofit run 527’s” typically HEAVILY financed by unions, 4 millionaires, and a sprinkling of large CORPORATIONS. But that is mostly speculative since there ISN’T any transparency.
Man…do I need to talk slower or something? Idiot.
Do you support comprehensive campaign finance reform to make all political spending completely transparent?
Let’s try again:
If it were really true that labor outspends the corporatist lobbies on electionss, then why won’t you agree to crack down on all 527 spending? If you’re really against it as you claim, why not agree to ban it all, or at least make it completely transparent? Richard Trumka (AFL-CIO president) has stated very clearly that he would support a ban on all political spending by labor if corporate political spending were also banned. Zero them both out. Do you or do you not support that proposal? If labor outspends the corporatist lobbies as you claim, you should be willing to support that proposal, right?
Trumka has taken that position because Citizens United forced his hand, that is the ONLY way unions can try to keep pace and maintain an even playing field with corporations. But the flaw in that argument is unions should in NO WAY be compared to corporations, since only corporations grow, sustain, innovates, creates, and maintains stability to our economy. A corporate entity should be protected under the same rights as an individual.
However, I am all for 100% transparency, unlimited resources, and un-capped spending, as long as it is transparent. IDEAS not LABOR will ALWAYS WIN!!!
You realize you just contradicted your corporatist ally Paintitred, right? He/she is claiming in this same thread that the pro-labor lobby is much more powerful and influential than the corporatist lobbies. But you’re admitting here that the opposite is true.
since Citizens United left the last election up in the air as far as who could spend what how and what were the legal ramifications (leaving corporations skiddish)…I would say that you are being a little disingenuous…paintitred was correct in his analysis of the 2010 election cycle, non-transparent unions outspent innovative corporations.
I am HOPING the future will be more favorable to innovative, economically driven, private corporations versus status-quo, individually driven, union thugs. But that is only a HOPE at this point. Let’s hope the stranglehold unions have over elections in this country will stop.
or
?
You posted these contradictory claims only minutes apart.
Are unions desperately trying to keep pace with corporatist political power, or do unions have a “stranglehold over elections in this country”? How can you assert both claims simultaneously with a straight face?
The comments aren’t related. One says Trumpka would support ending union spending if private sector spending ended to. The other says unions are killing America’s economy.
What the hell does AFSCME represent its workers on? Paper cuts? Carpel tunnel? Restless leg syndrome (while trying to nap on the job)? What?
Read it again. He didn’t say “unions are killing America’s economy.” He said “Let’s hope the stranglehold unions have over elections in this country will stop.” Where do you see the word “economy” in there? He said “election,” not “economy.” (Either way it’s an utterly false statement, of course. Unions made America strong and prosperous, but they now have far less influence over electoral politics than the corporatist lobbies do.)
I did. There still is no contradiction between the two. For years corporations couldn’t donate, now they can, Trumpka doesn’t like it, now he wants it all banned. What is the contradiction?
Unions have done great things for America, especially Detroit, New York, the Left Coast. God Bless them, every one of them.
Also, Underground never said they were a man, are you being a sexist?
Let’s hope the stranglehold unions have (historically had) over elections in this country will stop, now that the Citizens United decision has forced Trumpka to change the argument, (STARVING) to keep his unions on the same playing field.
the real epitome of “evil capitalist greed-mongerer”? He’s the only one I see making his 6-figure income off the backs of the working man. For shame…
that pro-labor spending exceeds corporatist spending in our electoral process? Hint: Not even close.
Who was the biggest outside spender in the 2010 elections?
The AFSCME, who spent $87 million. By comparison, the biggest “corporatist” spender, the US Chamber of Commerce, spent $75 million. The three biggest public sector unions spent over $171 million on the elections.
http://www.americanthinker.com…
Facts, are you friend, Mucus.
to distort the data with cherrypicking and false framing. That argument is akin to claiming that a baseball team in last place in the league is really in first place because if it has the league’s individual home run leader on its roster. The fact is that total corporate political spending dwarfs that of labor.
By the way, hate to break it to you, but “American Thinker” isn’t for smart people, as its name suggests. It’s for people who are easily manipulated into parroting fallacious corporatist propaganda against their own best interests and the best interests of the American people as a whole. Notice how that “American Thinker” propaganda doesn’t broach a comparison between total corporate spending vs. total labor spending? Wonder why that is. Hmm.
Fine, complain about American Thinker. But you can’t attack opensecrets.org which shows liberals/Democrats get by FAR the most amount of financial outside support in campaigns.
http://www.opensecrets.org/org…
10 of the top 12 PACs are listed as strong or solidly Democrat. The other two are listed as “on the fence.”
Oh, and those 10 groups are pretty much ALL labor groups.
Somehow I don’t think you’ll respond. There’s not much you could say, except “I was wrong.”
Colorado Peak Politics isn’t run by a “conservative” 527 political group? If you were to find out that that’s the case, would you condemn Colorado Peak Politics?
with a long, well documented history of domestic non-transparent, political 527 “activity” in the state of Colorado are the democrats. Period. Until that changes, with equal amounts of documentation and independently verifiable reporting AND subsequent spending, will my opinion change. I don’t disagree that there has been a ton of outside Colorado 527 interests who have played in national races in Colorado, but to say that this blog is part of some domestic (since they talk about Colorado issues and angles) “vast right-wing 527 conspiracy” in Colorado is lunacy. Take off the tin-foil hat. It’s just some people with an opinion and a blog who want to be relevant in a mainstream media market DOMINATED by liberal special interests.
Just like the people who run ColoradoPols, Colorado Independent, Colorado Ethics Watch, ProgressNow, and MoveOn feel the opposite. This is one little conservative blog in an OCEAN of democrat/union funded non-transparent “527 financed operations”
whereas all the groups mentioned above ALL have well documented ties to democrat/union 527 activity. Peak Pols…ZERO!
since clearly I’m late to the game here…churches don’t operate small-donor PACs, contribute to 527s, endorse candidates, recruit volunteers, and so on. But other than that the local Baptist church is a lot like AFL-CIO.
But what is your a point?
Would you agree that the “700 Club” and the multitudes of similar right-wing religious/political groups should not be allowed tax exempt status?
whether churches should be or not. Of course they should, but why would you compare unions to churches in political terms? Churches are not fundraising mechanisms for political parties or candidates. So why should Peak have included them?
For instance, Unitarians are pretty far from “right-wing,” but they also don’t raise funds or recruit volunteers for candidates or parties. I still don’t see how churches are akin to unions
that CPP was cherrypicking a tiny, non-representative sample to try to fabricate an appearance that “liberals” had just suffered some sort of disproportionate setback among the list of more than 5,000 groups in Colorado and 275,000 nationally.
the headline at Colorado Peak Politics would be: “God punishes San Fransisco for coddling homosexuals!”
political blogs usually only talk about POLITICS, since unions are the only well documented political group on the list that spend non-transparent political money to influence elections, AND lost their nonprofit status, THAT is the story…
but only because that explanation for “cherry-picking” makes too much sense.
Well then, care to also talk about the poorly documented political groups on the list?
unions are the only groups on the list that actively engage in politics and this is a political website. Just a guess. Unless “The Denver Fiddle-Steppers,” bowling leagues or 4-H clubs have candidate training and recruiting or maybe even a PAC? Could you look into that for us?
And the most likely headline if the West Coast fell into the ocean would be: “A good day for America”
Wrong. You apparently haven’t seen the list.
Apparently I have seen the list, how else would I know the “Fiddle-steppers” are on it?
Did you find out if they have PACs, small donor committees or 527s like I asked? Or are you just making sweeping and stereotypical generalizations based on what you think their leanings are?
you’re applauding the IRS raising taxes on 275,000 American organizations?
There were over 5,000 Colorado organizations on the list, and you cherrypicked a handful to try to pretend that it was only “liberal” groups who had lost their status. Was it only an oversight that you failed to list all the “conservative” groups on the list? How about the huge number of religious and philanthropic groups on the list — do you think it’s amusing that they all lost their tax-exempt status?
By the way, what do you have against organized labor anyway? Do you disagree with Ronald Reagan’s belief that collective bargaining = freedom?
Ergo, Colorado Peak Politics is a bunch of un-American freakin’ commies! … Guess that explains all the red.
Reagan was talking about private sector unions, not paper pusher unions. But thanks for quoting the Gipper out of context when it suits your needs.
Public employees get to vote in their negotiating partners. Private sector employees don’t. Nor do they have the job protections that public employees get.
Besides, I’m with Chris Christie — the more vigorous and open collective bargaining there is, the better for everyone. But vigorous and open are not two words that describe the kind of collective bargaining public unions have engaged in for the last couple decades.
Reagan was actually talking about the communist regime in Poland, where there was no distinction between public and private sector. … And that communist regime is amazingly similar to what the American right wing of today wants to turn the USA into: a melding of big government with big business, with no accountability to the people and only a sham semblance of the democracy our Founders created for us.
The equivalent with Poland is the private sector because Poland wasn’t a democracy. Voters didn’t get to chose who ran their government and negotiated with the workers, much like a corporation, so the better equivalent is private sector unions, not public unions.
And yes, that is exactly what the right wing is trying to do — meld big government with big business. Thanks for clarifying that.
What’s that saying? Liberals understand everyone except for those that don’t understand them?
that the tyrannical Polish communist regime was a lot like a corporation?:
Does that mean you’ll join the fight to turn back the tide of transnational mega-corporations taking control of American government? Will you join our movement to save American democracy from the scourge of corporate fascism? … Are you on the side of freedom and good government, or on the side of tyranny and corporate fascism?
I said a company is like Poland’s old communist only insofar in that the workers don’t get to choose their negotiating partners. So don’t put words in my mouth.
I’m on the side of the free market, not tyrannical governments. Think of the biggest “mega-corporations” and compare them to the worst government. There is no comparison, ergo corporations are a safer place to vest power than governments. I’ll take Google over Kim Jong Il any day.
Have fun in Pyongyang!
He is one of the handful of squareheads who make up the regular posters on the most leftist site in Colorado. The posters there consider the Colorado Pols crowd to be corporate collaborators.
What is a “paper pusher union”? Is that an expression of disdain for white-collar workers? Should a white-collar worker be less entitled to collective bargaining rights than a blue-collar worker? And what about public works employees — for instance, the guys who operate backhoes and other heavy equipment — are those guys “paper pushers”?
How was that Reagan quote out of context as you claim? It was presented with a fairly lengthy video excerpt of the speech. Would you like a link to the entire speech? I deliberately chose an excerpt so that readers here wouldn’t have to spend a lot of time getting to the point. When you quote from speeches, do you routinely post a transcript of the entire speech? That doesn’t seem very efficient.
Since you seem to be expressing some support for private-sector unions, and you state that private-sector unions have disproportionately less power nowadays than public-sector unions, would you support restoring the bargaining power that private-sector unions have lost over the past few decades?
Reagan was speaking about the rights of workers in a communist dictatorship, not America. Did you see him give the same speech in the US about American unions? He didn’t because he used to run a union and knows all about them.
I said “paper pusher” unions tongue in cheek to refer to government bureaucrat unions. Sorry you couldn’t sense the sarcasm.
What bargaining power have unions lost over the years? A loss of membership? Should we force people to join unions to help there?
Actually, I’d be for right to work legislation, where people aren’t forced by law to donate to unions and get to vote in a secret ballot whether they want to form a union or not. You know — democracy.
enthusiastically supported the Meyers Milias Brown Act and signed it into law in 1968? … Three guesses …
the Reagan speech in that video was a Labor Day speech. It was an overt homage to all labor unions, equating the Solidarity movement in Poland with the American traditions of democracy and collective bargaining rights.
Here’s another excerpt from that same speech:
Does that really sound to you like he was disavowing his previous service as president of the Screen Actors Guild, or his association with George Meany (the long-serving AFL-CIO president)?