12/30/07

Nurses fed up with strikes, move to decertify

Registered nurses at Fremont-Rideout Health Group staged two strikes following months of failed contract negotiations with the administration of Rideout Memorial Hospital in Marysville and Fremont Medical Center in Yuba City.

Both strikes were called by the California Nurses Association union in the name of better patient safety and nurse-floating policies, cost of living increases and uniform benefits for all nurses.

Fremont-Rideout Health Group administrators said they are willing to negotiate and offered a 5.5 percent raise for the first year and a 5 percent raise for the second year of a two-year contract. The administration said it will address language over patient care and state-mandated nurse to patient ratios.

In July, a majority of the eligible nurses voted 90 percent in favor of a strike. More than 200 nurses participated in the August strike.

A one-day strike took place in August and a two-day strike occurred in mid-October. The second strike coincided with a walkout at 12 Bay Area hospitals in the Sutter Health Group.

Three months later, a group of nurses at the Feather River Surgery Center opted to withdraw from union representation. A subsequent hospital-wide registration drive was held to collect signatures to decertify the union.

The decertifying election is awaiting decisions from the National Labor Relations Board. The contract is still under negotiation. Both parties hope to sit down during the first week of 2008.

(appeal-democrat.com)

Upcoming Casino War battle explained

The voters of California are being asked to vote, once again, on Indian gaming. But unlike the prior two elections, the question is not whether tribes can have casinos. Rather, it is whether a few tribes may more than double their existing operations, creating some of the largest casinos in the world.

The political players have also changed.

California voters first approved tribal gaming at the general election on November 3, 1998. Proposition 5 was an initiative written and funded by the state's tribes. Almost all the money raised by the opposition came from Nevada casinos. Prop. 5 was approved by 62.4% of the state's voters after a $100 million campaign, the most expensive initiative campaign in American history.

But on August 23, 1999, the California Supreme Court issued a 6-1 decision, declaring Prop. 5 invalid. Citing my 1986 book, GAMBLING AND THE LAW for the definition of a "casino," the Court held Prop. 5 violated the State Constitutional prohibition on casinos.

A federal court had ruled that the existing tribal casinos had to be closed, unless there were valid compacts in place. So, the tribes quickly worked out a deal with Gov. Gray Davis, the leaders of the State Legislature and the unions to put a new issue on the ballot. Prop. 1A would amend the State Constitution, creating an exception for tribes to the Constitutional ban on casinos. Nevada gaming companies knew they would just be wasting their money trying to fight this one at the ballot box. So, in March, 2000, Californians voted, again, overwhelmingly in favor of tribal casinos.

Last fall, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unexpectedly announced, immediately before the Legislature recessed for the November elections, that he had signed new compacts with five tribes. The tribes- the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians- all operate casinos with up to 2,000 slot machines, earning $200 million to $425 million, or more, each. These new compacts allowed the tribes to add up to 5,500 additional slot machines, in return for sharing up to 25% of gaming revenue with the state.

So, if a tribe wanted, it could open a casino with 7,500 slot machines and an unlimited number of table games, twice as large as the largest casino in Las Vegas.

It was a brilliant political move. Schwarzenegger, a Republican up for reelection, forced the Democrats, who controlled the State Legislature, to decide who they would alienate: the politically powerful tribes or the party's traditional allies, the state's unions. For these compacts did not contain provisions the unions wanted that would allow casino workers to easily organize.

The unions and other opponents also claimed the compacts did not provide enough regulation. But legislators could not amend the compacts; they could only vote them up or down.

The Democrats punted. They put off the vote on approving these compacts until after the elections, on the grounds that they could not decide this important issue in only a few days.

It didn't work- the tribes saw this as siding with the unions. They gave millions of dollars to Republican candidates, including Schwarzenegger. The Governor was reelected by such a large majority that I cannot even remember his Democratic opponent's name.

After the election, the State Senate quickly approved the compacts. But they were held up in the State Assembly for months.

The major stumbling block remained the unions. Under the compacts, casino workers can only organize through an election. Union leaders point to some incidents in which employers have interfered with these elections. This is, of course, illegal. But it can stall the creation of a union for years. Union leaders want casino employees to merely sign cards to form a union.

The issue of whether these compacts provide for adequate regulation arises from the fact that they were signed before a recent decision, that knocked out the National Indian Gaming Commission's power to make regulations over Class III gaming. In January 1999, the NIGC promulgated regulations setting out minimum internal control standards ("MICS") for Class II and Class III operations. These were more than 70 pages long and covered everything from how the games were played, casino security, internal controls, credit operation, internal and external audits, etc., down to how many employees must be involved in emptying coin buckets from slot machines.

Although the MICS were followed by nearly everyone for seven years, there was a small problem: the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act clearly gives the NIGC only the power to regulate Class II gaming.

The Colorado River Indian Tribes challenged the NIGC's authority to issue MICS. In an important decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia held that, "While surely well-intentioned, the NIGC has overstepped it bounds."

So, opponents of these compacts argued to the Democratic leaders of the California Assembly that federal regulation over Class III casinos was now gone, and the compacts did not provide for adequate state regulation to take its place.

At the end of June 2007, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D.-Los Angeles) announced that a side deal had been worked out with four of the five tribes (all except San Manuel). The tribes agreed their casinos could be audited by the state. They also promised to cooperate with state garnishment of employees' wages for back child and spousal support, and to set up safeguards to protect problem gamblers and minors.

There was never much doubt that the State Legislature would eventually approve the compacts. The state's share will eventually be more than $500 million a year.

Politically, the deal shows how much power the casino tribes have won in California. The side agreement did not even give lip service to protecting workers' rights to organize as the unions wanted.

Nunez and other leaders sidestepped the question of whether these side agreements are legally enforceable. They are called "government to government memoranda of agreement." State legislators voted on them along with the untouched compacts. But they are not part of the compacts.

On July 27, 2007, the leading casino workers' union, UNITE HERE, and two of the state's largest racetracks, Hollywood Park and Bay Meadows, filed papers with the state attorney general's office seeking a February 5, 2008 vote on these compacts. The groups will have to gather 443,971 valid signatures of registered voters by October 10, to qualify. Since California allows signature gatherers to be paid, it will cost only about $1 million to get this on the ballot.

Then the real battle begins.

Individual tribes in California have been known to write checks for $20 million to defeat voter initiatives they do not like. But there may be rich gaming tribes on both sides of this campaign. The four tribes who would benefit from these compacts have some very powerful tribal casinos as their direct competitors. The Pala Tribe and the United Auburn Tribe have already agreed to put up $500,000 each, which means the signature gathering is a done deal.

Also on February 5, 2008, Democrats in California will be asked to choose their candidate for President.

My guess is that more money will be spent on ads for and against the casino initiative.

(pokerpages.com)

Only union lobbyists would be allowed

Democrat John Edwards pledged Saturday to ban lobbyists from jobs in his administration if he is elected.

He said people who have lobbied for a foreign government or on behalf of a corporation will not be allowed to work in his White House. That would rule out a talent pool of Democrats with Capitol Hill or Clinton White House experience, many of whom are lobbying while their party is in exile from the White House. A new president must fill thousands of jobs in the White House and the Cabinet agencies.

Asked about cutting off this expertise, including groups that champion the same causes he does such as pro-labor groups, Edwards acknowledged he will have to make some judgments.

"But, what my view is that anybody who has been lobbying on behalf of big corporations are a part of the problem. Because corporate greed is what is at the heart and the soul of what's stealing the future of our children and what's killing the middle class of this country."

Edwards has made fighting against greedy corporations, federal lobbyists and special interests a central message to his campaign. "This is a continuation of my belief that we need to reduce the influence of these special interests and lobbyists, which I have believed the entire time I have been in public life," he told reporters after the event.

Also on Saturday, Edwards insisted he has not taken any money from special interests as the Obama campaign complained about big spending by outside groups friendly to Edwards.

"His campaign simply exploited the biggest loophole in the campaign finance system in order to get public matching funds while arranging through allies to benefit from a 527. That's how they avoided the spending limits that are a condition of the public matching funds," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement.

Plouffe said the outside spending allows Edwards to stay within the limits required by public financing "while still spending all he needed to spend in Iowa."

His memo was prompted by disclosure of a $495,000 donation from philanthropist Rachel Mellon to a 527 group called the Alliance for a New America that is running ads in Iowa in support of Edwards' campaign. The nonprofit 527 groups can legally carry out some political activity but have come under scrutiny by the Federal Election Commission for their advertising during past presidential campaigns.
ad_icon

An FEC report showed the donation came from Oak Spring Farms LLC, the corporate entity that holds Mellon's fortune. Mellon is the 97-year-old widow of Paul Mellon, the son of industrialist Andrew Mellon.

She also contributed the maximum $4,600 allowed to Edwards' campaign earlier this year. The lawyer who serves as director of the investment fund, Oak Springs Farm LLC, also has contributed the maximum $4,600 allowed to Edwards' campaign.

Edwards dismissed the Obama camp's criticism of outside spending.

"I'm very proud of my record now, almost 10 years now ... unlike other candidates including Sen. Obama, I've never take money from a Washington lobbyist, never taken money from a PAC."

He added: "If Senator Obama and his campaign want to focus on negative attacks they can do that, but that is not what I'm going to do."

The Alliance for a New America is a newly created organization headed by former Edwards adviser Nick Baldick. It has received most of its support from labor groups, many of them locals belonging to the Service Employees International Union. The alliance is spending about $600,000 on radio ads and about $750,000 on television ads in Iowa supporting Edwards.

Such groups are not allowed to coordinate their efforts with a political campaign. Edwards aides have said there has been no such coordination, and Edwards himself has called on the 527 to stop its activities.

"I'm proud to have the support of labor unions. Unless I'm mistaken what they are doing is just positive support for my campaign. But, I've said 527s should be outlawed, I stand by that," he added.

(washingtonpost.com)

Rape lies could imperil Gov.'s Labor Dept. nomination

The Oregon State Bar issued a letter Friday afternoon rejecting formal misconduct complaints against Gov. Ted Kulongoski.

In essence, the ruling stops the bar's investigation into whether Kulongoski lied when he said he knew nothing about former Gov. Neil Goldschmidt's sexual abuse of a 14-year-old girl while Goldschmidt was Portland mayor in the 1970s.

The complaints were made by conservative radio host Lars Larson and Newberg resident James Johnson after the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training opened an investigation of similar allegations against Multnomah County Sheriff Bernie Giusto. Giusto was the Oregon State Police bodyguard and driver for Goldschmidt when he was governor.

The complaints stem from statements by a former Goldschmidt speech writer, Fred Leonhardt, that he told Kulongoski about the sex abuse during a party in 1994, while Kulongoski was Oregon attorney general. In an affidavit filed in the Giusto investigation, Leonhardt said he also discussed the matter with Kulongoski on several other occasions.

Kulongoski said he never heard of the illicit relationship until Goldschmidt admitted it just before news reports in May 2004. The bar's inquiry was an attempt to sort out the contradictory statements.

Chris Mullmann, the bar's assistant general counsel, issued Friday's ruling. He found insufficient evidence of professional misconduct by Kulongoski to proceed with an investigation.

"Mr. Leonhardt and Gov. Kulongoski have differing recollections of events that occurred more than a decade ago," Mullmann wrote. "I find that both Mr. Leonhardt and Gov. Kulongoski are credible in their recollections."

Mullmann said the conflicting testimony by two equally credible witnesses "does not constitute sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that misconduct may have occurred warranting further investigation by the bar."

Kulongoski declined to comment on the ruling.

His spokeswoman, Patty Wentz, said, "The letter is very clear, and there's not much to add to it."

Larson and Johnson have until Jan. 11 to have the ruling reviewed by the bar's general counsel, whose decision is final. Larson said he will appeal the decision.

"To come to the conclusion that you have two stories that contradict each other -- but that they are both credible -- is absurd," Larson said. "They don't want to look into this any deeper. The thing that they should do if they found that both stories have credibility is they should go on to find out what the truth is."

Leonhardt said he's disappointed but not surprised by the ruling.

"I think the fix has been in on the Goldschmidt coverup from the beginning," he said.

Leonhardt said he was amazed that the bar, the professional group that licenses and investigates attorneys, did not interview him.

"They never called me," he said. "I could have told them about other conversations I've had with the governor about this crime."

Leonhardt said the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training asked him to take a polygraph exam to bolster his statements and he passed it.

But Mullmann, in his letter, said the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled polygraph evidence inadmissible in legal proceedings, so he gives little weight to it.

Leonhardt said there's a Catch-22 aspect to the bar's ruling.

"The bar says it can't go on without hard evidence, but the only way it can get hard evidence is to investigate," he said.

(oregonlive.com)

Curbing non-union labor in N.Y.

Attempts to negotiate a labor agreement under which construction unions would be paid prevailing wages will be made if the owners of Empire Merchants decide to expand their Kingston (NY) facility rather than move out of town, according to a company representative and a union official.

That declaration contradicts earlier statements by city officials and other company representatives that Empire Merchants, formerly Colony Liquor and Wine Distributors, could not expand in Kingston unless the company was exempted from an Ulster County Industrial Development Agency policy that requires prevailing wages be paid to construction workers.

Sam Fratto, assistant business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 363, showed the Freeman a letter from Harold Hoffman, a lawyer representing Empire Merchants, that says Empire is willing to enter into a "project labor agreement" if it decides to remain in Kingston and expand its warehouse on Flatbush Avenue.

Fratto said he received the letter from Hoffman after writing to Lloyd Sobel and Sal Geneva, two other partners in Empire Merchants.

"I can assure you that if we decide to expand in Kingston, we will sit down with you and other trade unions to attempt to work out a project labor agreement as described in your letter," Hoffman wrote.

Hoffman's letter also stated that he was "sorry that there has obviously been miscommunication between the unions and Empire Merchants."

Hoffman said no decision would be made by the company about the location of the warehouse until mid-January. The company initially announced plans to expand the Flatbush Avenue site and add 100 jobs to the 200 already there, but it later said it was considering moving the entire operation to Selkirk, in Albany County.

Fratto said Hoffman's letter suggests there still is ample time for Empire and construction unions to work out an agreement. But the letter also indicates the company still may wind up leaving Kingston, Hoffman said.

On Dec. 5, the Ulster County Industrial Development Agency's board of directors decided to amend its policy on requiring companies to pay prevailing wages to construction workers, essentially exempting Empire Merchants from the rule. Empire asked the IDA for the waiver but also said it needs the tax incentives provided through the agency.

Fratto, for his part, had tried to negotiate a deal with the IDA and Empire's owners that would have reduced the amount of prevailing-wage workers at the site as a way to cut costs, but that proposal was not supported.

"I am happy that this set of owners will attempt to negotiate a project labor agreement, but the problem I have now is the fact that the IDA amended a policy and they didn't have to," Fratto said. "The time constraint didn't exist, and the amendment of the labor policy is going to affect every project that comes before them for years to come."

March Gallagher, chairwoman of the IDA board, said on Friday that the board acted based on information it had that Empire needed to get a decision on the prevailing wage matter at the Dec. 5 meeting.

Gallagher said the board did what it needed to do to compete with the Selkirk proposal. Now, she said, she hopes a project labor agreement can be worked out and that Empire stays put.

Responding to Fratto's concerns, Gallagher said the amending the prevailing wage policy does not preclude the IDA from mandating it for other projects. She said the board agreed to the waiver for Empire because members wanted to keep the company in Ulster County.

Lance Matteson, president of the Ulster County Development Corp., said the Empire Merchants situation is fluid as proposal and counterproposals are made. He also said that if Fratto is successful in obtaining a project labor agreement and keeping Empire in Kingston, "my hat will be off to Sam Fratto."

"If that can be accomplished, everybody would gain," Matteson said. "I think that all this shows that this community is fighting for jobs for Ulster County in different ways. ... It shows that the community wants these jobs and will fight for them."

Neither Gallagher nor Matteson had seen Hoffman's letter to Fratto. They were told of its content by a reporter.

(dailyfreeman.com)

Union thug defends union-only agreements

As a resident of Broome County (NY) and a taxpayer, I ask myself, will a PLA (project labor agreement) save me tax dollars? Will it put local labor to work? Will it keep money in the county? I believe the answers are yes.

The Press & Sun-Bulletin has for the last month been covering the Harvey Justice Building PLA. Many articles have been written; most, if not all, have told only one side of the story. Why haven't the Binghamton-Oneonta Building Trades been given an opportunity to express their concerns? I know Guest Viewpoints and letters to the editor have been written, but nothing was printed.

PLAs are designed for specific projects to give owners a unique opportunity to anticipate and avoid potential problems that add to the cost of projects. In 1997, then-Gov. George Pataki issued an executive order reaffirming the utility of PLAs and encouraging their use in New York state. Was he wrong?

The PLA on the Harvey Justice Building will provide work to the local labor force and ensure an on-time and within-budget project.

- James Collins, Business Manager, IBEW Local 325, Binghamton

(pressconnects.com)

Strike Price

Next week, Jay Leno, David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, Jon Stewart and a host of others will resume their programs without support from their striking writers. We guess this means we'll finally learn the answer to how many comedians it takes to screw in a Dick Cheney joke.

The deal the late-night comics struck with the unionized writers sounds like a bizarre Letterman routine. The hosts agreed to abide by rules that prohibit them from writing anything. If they physically write something, that makes them scabs. But it's OK if they just show up and ad lib their way into the New Year. We can't wait.

But what if it turns out that Jay Leno and Jon Stewart performing without a net are actually funnier than their writers after eight hours of toil? This would tend to undermine the leverage that the guild thought it was gaining with the walkout.

Restive union members are keeping their skills exercised. East Coast Guild President Michael Winship said the union is ready to negotiate even as the other side takes off on "holiday jaunts to Vail or Aspen or wherever it is moguls mogul." There was no laugh-track to cue reporters, always a tough audience, that a punchline had been delivered. Meanwhile, classic collections of the old Johnny Carson and Jack Paar shows are just a mouseclick away.

(wsj.com)

Car dealership strike enters month 3

The door to the service garage at Valley Ford in Hazelwood (MO) tells customers to honk for service, but since Nov. 1, the dealership's union workers have asked passing motorists to honk for a different reason: support for their strike.

Eighteen members of International Association of Machinists District 9 Local Lodge 777 and 10 members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 618 walked out after the dealership and unions failed to reach agreement on separate labor contracts.

Nearly two months into the strike, workers continue to picket the dealership. But many have begun to apply for other work.

"(The strike) has split the family up," said Bill Lewis, 44, of Maplewood, referring to the group of co-workers. Lewis, who has spent 14 years with Valley Ford, said this would be a sad end to his time with this group.

"To us, it's a no-win situation," he said. "Even if (Valley Ford) did negotiate now, it would be hard to go back and work for them."

Frank Sprich, president of Valley Ford, declined requests for comment.

While agreements are still possible, workers were discouraged when bargaining was not completed in the fall when most unionized dealerships renewed expiring labor contracts. Workers said they were surprised when Valley Ford rejected terms that were the same offered at other unionized dealerships.

"The workers were willing to take what had been established in the marketplace and the company came to the table with a different mind-set," said Tony Rippeto, business representative for IAM District 9. The IAM represents mechanics and other service department employees.

Rippeto said Valley Ford's proposal included concessions in excess of $8 per hour in compensation, which included the loss of their pension plan and increased employee health benefits costs.

Last week, the dealership held its first negotiations since the strike began, meeting only with Teamsters representatives, but no progress was made, said Tom Cole, a trustee and business agent for the local Teamsters. The union represents porters and parts department employees.

Most of these workers have withstood past strikes, most recently in 2004, when about 1,300 service workers went on a 76-day strike against dealerships. That strike was led by the Machinists, with Teamsters refusing to cross picket lines.

But some workers doubt a resolution will come this time, in part, because of a change in Valley Ford's negotiating strategy.

For more than 30 years, most local dealers banded together and negotiated as a single group, called a signatory group. This year, the signatory group that negotiated with Machinists dissolved, freeing dealers to bargain with their own workers.

Once the Machinists group dissolved, Valley Ford chose to negotiate all its labor contracts, leaving the signatory group that bargained with Teamsters.

Some workers think that move was made with purpose.

"They're trying to bust the union," said Jerry Vaughan, 60, while walking the picket line early in the strike.

Vaughan has been a service technician at Valley Ford since 1987, though he accepted his first job there in 1967. But he doubts Valley Ford will be his last employer.

As general manager of Absolute Perfect Touch Limousine service in Hazelwood, Jeff Ellefson has had his vehicles serviced at Valley Ford for eight years. He is not crossing the picket line, but said he might next month because other Ford dealerships are so far away.

"I told my mechanic from day one, 'I'm not going to cross the line right now,'" he said. "But you might ask me in 60 days and it might be different."

(stltoday.com))

Socialist celeb endorses SEIU-backed Dem

After the 2004 election, former U.S. Sen. John Edwards devoted himself to building relationships with the nation's labor unions. While that effort has paid off with some labor support for his 2008 presidential bid, Edwards also picked up another important endorsement during that time.

Actor Danny Glover toured the country with Edwards last year during a campaign to organize service workers. He said he came away from that tour convinced that Edwards is the best candidate to fight for the disadvantaged.

"What I was really impressed with was his ability to listen to their story and to talk with them from a framework in which he was committed to working with them and bettering their wages and working conditions," Glover said in a telephone interview in between campaign stops in Las Vegas on Saturday.

"Fighting on behalf of working people and the disadvantaged, that's the legacy of the Democratic Party. We'll only get back to that by an intense dialogue of ideas around the critical issues. I believe John Edwards represents the values of those past presidents."

Battle of the Chucks

Democrats aren't the only ones with celebrity endorsements.

Two Republican presidential candidates have some big-gun Chucks behind them.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee last month unleashed a humorous television ad in Iowa featuring martial arts master Chuck Norris.

"My plan to secure the border? Two words: Chuck Norris," Huckabee said into the camera.

"Mike's a principled, authentic conservative," Norris said.

How does that stack up to the other Chuck, retired Air Gen. Chuck Yeager, the first man to break the speed barrier

sixty years ago?

Yeager has been joining Republican Duncan Hunter on the campaign trail. The families of the two men have been friends for decades.

Yeager's daughter Sharon owns the Right Stuff Ranch near Fallon.

While Norris made a name for himself with his fists, Yeager, 84, was known as one of the most skilled fighter pilots in World War II.

"When I was 6 years old, I could shoot the heads off of squirrels and rabbits," he said during a Reno campaign stop last week. "It was a source of food for the dinner table."

Iowa or bust?

Several presidential candidates have said their campaign likely will be over if they don't win or place higher than expected in Thursday's Iowa Caucus. But not Republican Duncan Hunter.

Hunter has pretty much written off Iowa, saying that you need to have money, a commodity he has little of, to compete there.

Instead, he said he's concentrating on states he thinks reflects his political beliefs, which include Nevada and Wyoming.

Unbeknownst to many, Wyoming has the second Republican nominating contest in the nation on Saturday.

Odds and ends

In his quest to be the candidate with the most field offices in the state, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama opened up an 11th Nevada outpost. The Incline Village office opened last week.

The campaign will be holding open houses in each of its offices across the state from now until the Iowa Caucus on Thursday.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton will launch the first Nevada-specific television ad on Monday. The ad, a slightly altered version of an ad running in South Carolina, features Nevada landscapes, the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump and Nevadans Clinton met while campaigning in the state.

(news.rgj.com)

Accounting for union coordination in Iowa

The Obama campaign today released a memo hitting Clinton and Edwards parts for an influx of support from outside groups into Iowa. The only one not benefiting is Obama, as he’s largely been going it alone.

”These latest revelations make it clear why Edwards was able to announce that he could accept public funds while still spending all he needed to spend in Iowa,” Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe writes. “His campaign simply exploited the biggest loophole in the campaign finance system in order to get public matching funds while arranging through allies to benefit from a 527. That’s how they avoided the spending limits that are a condition of the public matching funds.”

On Clinton, Plouffe denounces an anti-Obama AFSCME mailer. Notably, a pro-Edwards 527, funded largely by local SEIUs, is up with positive ads in Iowa for Edwards. AFSCME and the American Federation of Teachers have been out with mailers for Clinton. Clinton has not shied away from interest groups’ money, even defending them as real people at this summer’s YearlyKos convention. Edwards has campaigned hard on a platform against Washington interest group money, and has had to balance denouncing the 527 and embracing the support of the SEIU.

These are groups Obama lobbied, and they ultimately chose Edwards and Clinton. How would Obama have handled the situation differently if these groups had endorsed him?

Here’s the full memo:

TO: Interested Parties

FR: David Plouffe, Campaign Manager, Obama for America

RE: Flood of Washington Money In Iowa

DA: December 29, 2007


Heading into the final stretch before the Iowa caucuses, millions of dollars in third party spending are pouring into the state in an unprecedented attempt to benefit the campaigns of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. For Clinton, AFSCME, EMILY’s List and the AFT have spent over $2.6 million to assist her campaign – even as AFSCME attacks Obama for a position on health care mandates that they themselves have. The groups supporting Edwards have spent over $2 million including efforts organized by one “independent” organization run by one of Edwards’ highest-ranking political aides which newspapers reported today received a questionable 11th-hour donation of $495,000 just days ago.

We have both the financial and organizational resources to compete aggressively in all four early states and through February 5th. However, there is no doubt that the size of the spending and its underhanded nature deserve further scrutiny.

John Edwards
John Edwards, who is running in large part on a recently adopted campaign platform of taking on the big corporate interests in Washington, is relying on a former aide to run an unregulated 527 operating outside campaign finance limits to support his candidacy. Even as he was decrying such influence last week, his former campaign manager was spending $750,000 on television ads in Iowa. If Edwards can’t stand up to his own former aides how can stand up to the special interests in Washington?

Nick Baldick, who ran his campaign in 2004 and was on the campaign’s payroll as recently as June, is now running Alliance for a New America. The Alliance for a New America has spent $1.5 million to help Edwards in Iowa, while the group Working for Working Americans, funded by the Carpenters Union, has spent more than $500,000 supporting Edwards, bringing the total spent on his behalf in Iowa to $2 million.

In their most recent financial disclosure, the Alliance for New America revealed that they had raised $495,000 from Oak Springs Farms, LLC. Oak Springs is funded through the assets of Rachel Mellon, who is 97-years old. According to the available records, which go back to 1980, she has never donated to a political candidate until a contribution was made in her name to John Edwards this year. Mellon's involvement in the decision to donate to the Edwards campaign is unknown. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Alexander Forger, who has power for attorney for Mrs. Mellon, is a major supporter of John Edwards’ candidacy. Crain's Business Journal reported in February that Forger and "a group of prominent New York lawyers" hosted a fund-raiser for Edwards at Essex House -- the Central Park South address where his office is located. Forger has also personally donated $4,600 to Edwards' campaign, according to FEC records. This is not the first time Forger has used Oak Springs Farms to support Edwards; in 2006, he made a $250,000 contribution to Edwards’ One America 527 group.

While Edwards has said he doesn’t want this group to run ads, he has not called his former employee and friend and asked him not run these ads. And according to the New York Times, this group was started after consultations with Edwards’ campaign manager and other senior members of the campaign.

These latest revelations make it clear why Edwards was able to announce that he could accept public funds while still spending all he needed to spend in Iowa. His campaign simply exploited the biggest loophole in the campaign finance system in order to get public matching funds while arranging through allies to benefit from a 527. That’s how they avoided the spending limits that are a condition of the public matching funds.

When John Edwards applied for matching funds, he agreed to spending limits in return for the public money he is now receiving. But at that time, the Edwards campaign was actively involved in discussions about the establishment of an “independent” 527 effort, to be conducted outside the federal financing requirements. Members of the SEIU, which is funding the 527 that has spent the vast majority of the money in IA on his behalf, described consultations with senior Edwards staff and a visit to the campaign in Iowa, all intended to assure that the project delivered “the specific sort of support they’d [the Edwards campaign] like to see from us.”

Within weeks, the Alliance for a New America, a 527 group organized just to boost Edwards' last-minute media spending in Iowa, came into existence. The group portrays itself as an issue advertising group, able to operate outside the legal restrictions of the federal campaign finance laws. Its goal is to help Edwards, who is specifically promoted in its advertising. Consistent with the close coordination envisioned by the planners, key individuals involved in this organization and steering its activities are close associates of the Edwards campaign.

Hillary Clinton
Of all of the candidates and interests groups participating in this campaign, the American Federal State County Municipal union (AFSCME) is running perhaps the most negative and misleading campaign. To date, they have spent $1.3 million on radio ads and direct mail – with over $300,000 spent on negative ads targeting Obama – and are reportedly readying a negative television campaign against Obama.

The ads have mischaracterized Obama’s universal health care plan. AFSCME has attacked Obama’s plan for not including an individual mandate, when it is the official position of AFSCME to oppose an individual mandate. The President of AFSCME testified at a Congressional hearing in 2006 that “we are concerned with the direction reform efforts have taken in some states. For example, the Massachusetts reform model attempts to achieve near universal coverage through the use of individual mandates.”

Clinton also has benefitted by spending from Emily’s List and the AFT, who have spent $485,777.43 and $799,618.59 respectively on her behalf.

This unprecedented level of outside spending could impact the outcome in Iowa and New Hampshire, and we believe voters in these states deserve to know exactly how much is being spent, where it’s coming from, and who’s benefiting.
TOTALS
CLINTON
AFSCME: $1,333,456.96 (includes $309,545.60 explicitly against Obama)
AFT: $799,618.59
Emily’s List: $485,777.43
Total: $2,618,852.98

EDWARDS
Working for Working Americans/Carpenters: $526,440.76
Alliance for a New America (SEIU): $1,530,411.77 (this includes $769,000 that has not formally posted)
Democratic Courage: $20,410.00
Total: $2,077,262.53

(firstread.msnbc.msn.com)

Unions, Dems handcuffed at wrists, ankles

Democrat John Edwards insisted Saturday he has not taken any money from special interests as the Obama campaign complained about big spending by outside groups friendly to Edwards.

"His campaign simply exploited the biggest loophole in the campaign finance system in order to get public matching funds while arranging through allies to benefit from a 527. That's how they avoided the spending limits that are a condition of the public matching funds," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement.

Plouffe said the outside spending allows Edwards to stay within the limits required by public financing "while still spending all he needed to spend in Iowa."

His memo was prompted by disclosure of a $495,000 donation from philanthropist Rachel Mellon to a 527 group called the Alliance for a New America that is running ads in Iowa in support of Edwards' campaign. The nonprofit 527 groups can legally carry out some political activity but have come under scrutiny by the Federal Election Commission for their advertising during past presidential campaigns.

An FEC report showed the donation came from Oak Spring Farms LLC, the corporate entity that holds Mellon's fortune. Mellon is the 97-year-old widow of Paul Mellon, the son of industrialist Andrew Mellon.

She also contributed the maximum $4,600 allowed to Edwards' campaign earlier this year. The lawyer who serves as director of the investment fund, Oak Springs Farm LLC, also has contributed the maximum $4,600 allowed to Edwards' campaign.

Last month at a town hall meeting in Bow, N.H., Edwards referenced the Mellon family as part of the Gilded Age interests and used it as an example of how he'll fight back against special interests if he's elected.

Edwards said "back in the period where, you know, the Rockefellers and the Mellons and the Carnegies, all these people, owned most of America or a big chunk of America and they used their money and power to dominate what was happening in the government and to dominate what was happening in the economy."

On Saturday, Edwards had dropped the Mellons from his remarks.

"You remember before Franklin Roosevelt was president, America was mostly owned by a few families. Rockefellers, etc.," he said. When asked about dropping the Mellon family from the statement, he said it wasn't on purpose.

"I wish I were that skillful. There was nothing intentional about that," he said. "What I've said about the past I still believe. I believe very strongly that what FDR did ... was transformational for this country, and I think we need a president who will stand up to these people."

Edwards dismissed the Obama camp's criticism of outside spending.

"I'm very proud of my record now, almost 10 years now ... unlike other candidates including Sen. Obama, I've never take money from a Washington lobbyist, never taken money from a PAC." He added: "If Sen. Obama and his campaign want to focus on negative attacks they can do that, but that is not what I'm going to do."

The Alliance for a New America is a newly created organization headed by former Edwards adviser Nick Baldick. It has received most of its support from labor groups, many of them locals belonging to the Service Employees International Union. The alliance is spending about $600,000 on radio ads and about $750,000 on television ads in Iowa supporting Edwards.

Edwards is also getting support from another 527 group — Working for Working Americans — that is financed by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and is running television ads supporting Edwards in Iowa.

Such groups are not allowed to coordinate their efforts with a political campaign. Edwards aides have said there has been no such coordination, and Edwards himself has called on the 527 to stop its activities.

"I'm proud to have the support of labor unions. Unless I'm mistaken what they are doing is just positive support for my campaign. But, I've said 527s should be outlawed, I stand by that," he added.

(iht.com)

SEIU, Governator make others pay

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger formally filed an initiative Friday that would finance their plan for a $14.4-billion expansion of healthcare to most Californians, in part by almost doubling the state tax on cigarettes to $1.75 a pack.

The afternoon submission to the state attorney general's office sets the stage for what is expected to be a costly and contentious battle pitting the two state leaders and their allies against some powerful opponents. Potential adversaries include state business groups, the tobacco industry, drug companies and Blue Cross, California's largest insurer.

"Taking on Big Tobacco and the private insurance industry is going to be a difficult challenge," Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) said in a statement. "But this is the most effective way to fund the reform we need to fix California's broken healthcare system."

The plan, which needs approval from the state Senate, would provide medical coverage starting in 2010 to 3.6 million people in California, including 800,000 children, who don't have insurance now, backers say.

The proposed cigarette tax, which would be instituted in mid-2009, is one of the taxes and fees that would help pay for the plan. It is higher than the $1.50-a-pack surcharge that the state leaders had previously announced in connection with the bill, ABX 1 1, which was approved by the Assembly on Dec. 17. But it is a middle ground between the $1.50 Schwarzenegger had wanted and the $2-per-pack tax preferred by Nuñez.

The state's current cigarette tax is 87 cents a pack.

"We oppose the cigarette tax increase," Bill Phelps, a spokesman for Virginia-based Philip Morris USA, said Friday. "In expanding programs, we don't think it makes sense to fund it with a declining revenue source. Cigarette sales have been declining for many years."

He said he would not speculate on whether the company would get involved in fighting the California initiative.

Organized labor is split on the plan. One of the influential unions that supports it, the Service Employees International Union, is expected to take a lead role in collecting signatures to put the initiative on next November's ballot and in persuading voters to approve it.

A committee to raise money and to work on gathering the nearly 700,000 required signatures to get the measure on the ballot is to be announced next week. Beth Capell, a lobbyist for SEIU based in Sacramento, said that though the opposition may bring a lot of money to the initiative fight, it would not be an insurmountable obstacle.

"You don't actually have to match the opposition in order to win," she said. "You have to have enough to make your case to the voters."

One complication, politically, is that the voters are being asked to approve new taxes that would do nothing to resolve the state's projected $14-billion budget deficit for the coming fiscal year.

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) has cited the plan's effect on state finances as a serious concern. If the Senate passed the legislation with significant changes, that could require the initiative to be rewritten.

In addition, some observers have questioned the viability of the state proposal in light of a U.S. District Court ruling Wednesday that said a similar plan in San Francisco conflicted with federal law. An appeal of that decision is expected, and advocates of the state plan say they don't think it will keep them from moving forward.

Besides the tobacco tax, the state plan's other revenue sources include a fee on employers ranging from 1% to 6.5% of their payroll, depending on the size of the payroll. The money would go into a new California Health Care Trust Fund to help those who cannot afford it buy insurance. Companies that spend the required amount on healthcare for their employees would be eligible to receive credit on their taxes for the fees they pay to the state. New fees would be levied on hospitals.

The initiative specifies that the money deposited into the healthcare fund cannot be touched by the state for other purposes. It also details a process by which some of the new programs would be suspended if the revenue sources ran short and state lawmakers failed to come up with a solution.

Because the legislation may cause some children to be cut off from healthcare funded by county or city programs in a gradual transition to the state program, the initiative also stipulates that a $25-million loan will be taken from the state's general fund to bridge the gap.

(latimes.com)

Non-voters block SEIU dues reform

An effort to rescind "fair share" fees in the largest state workers' union failed when less than half of the eligible voters mailed in ballots, the Public Employment Relations Board reported today.

PERB general counsel division chief Les Chisolm said the agency that was governing the election received only 17,699 ballots from the 44,187 eligible voters in the unit of Service Employees International Union Local 1000, where some members were trying to eliminate the fees paid by nonunion employees.

State law requires that half of the eligible voters in the unit approve the rescission. Because less than half of the Unit One members returned ballots, PERB declined to even count them, Chisholm said.

SEIU 1000 President Jim Hard said the union welcomed the results. "I feel like we can now focus on this huge and growing state budget deficit and our contract negotiations that are coming up quickly," Hard said. Contracts expire next year for the union, which represents 87,000 state workers.

Representatives of the effort to rescind the "fair share" fees could not be reached for comment early this afternoon. The fees are paid by employees who are represented by the union in bargaining talks but who have declined to join the organization.

(sacbee.com)

SEIU buys political influence in Baltimore

A fund created to pay for Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon's inaugural ceremony this month received nearly $730,000 in contributions, according to a list of donors released yesterday by the mayor's office.

Several of the region's best-known contractors, unions and service companies - from Whiting-Turner Contracting to Constellation Energy - made large contributions to the fund, a practice that is far less regulated than traditional political giving.

Dixon aides said creating a nonprofit to oversee the finances of her inauguration - a common approach for elected officials - was necessary so that no taxpayer money would be spent on the event. The administration voluntarily released a list of donors after receiving requests from The Sun.

"The committee is set up because city government isn't going to pay for inauguration expenses," said Sterling Clifford, a Dixon spokesman. "It's better to use private donations if you can to fund that sort of event rather than [using] city resources."

Dixon was sworn in as mayor Dec. 4 at Morgan State University. About 3,000 people attended a sold-out ball later that evening at the Baltimore Convention Center. Other events - including a small parade - were held throughout the week to honor seniors, families and city workers.

To offset the cost of those events, organizers charged $50 apiece for ball tickets. A nonprofit was created to accept the money and a private Democratic fundraiser and consultant, Rice Consulting, was used to solicit sponsorship-level donations and handle the logistics of the event.

Heeding the call for financial support were companies such as Whiting-Turner and P. Flanigan & Sons, which each wrote a $25,000 check, according to the information provided by the mayor's office. Both companies are large contractors that do business with the city.

One of the region's most politically active unions, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, also gave $25,000. The union was one of Dixon's key supporters as she ran for election last summer. Ebs Burnough, the union's political director, said giving to the fund is just another sign of support.

"More than anything, we truly believe that she's the right person to move this city forward," Burnough said. "We believe in Mayor Dixon and we have faith in her."

Constellation Energy, Washington Gas and a company affiliated with the team that is developing the west-side "superblock" project gave $15,000 each. Capt. Stephan G. Fugate, president of the fire officers union and an occasional critic of Dixon, gave $500 on behalf of the union.

"She is the mayor," Fugate said, adding that his members voted to give. "We have the ability to support her and her agenda moving forward. We didn't support her in the election process, but the elections are over, and now she's the mayor."

In all, the committee raised about $730,000, which includes the $50 tickets purchased for the ball. That is significantly more than many of her opponents raised in the 8 1/2 months leading up to the Democratic primary. Dixon raised nearly $1.8 million between January and the September primary, according to state records.

Watchdog groups such as Common Cause Maryland have questioned the use of inaugural funds, in part because they allow donors to make contributions without the regulations typically attached to campaign contributions.

For instance, political donors are allowed to give a maximum of $4,000 to a candidate running for office in Maryland. But the inaugural committee, which does not fall under the same guidelines, received 50 contributions over $4,000, including six over $20,000.

Also, political contributions are a matter of public record but donations to an inaugural fund are not necessarily open for inspection. Certain tax forms required of nonprofits are made public, but they take months to be released and generally do not contain the same level of detail as campaign finance reports.

Rachael Rice, president of the consulting firm that oversaw the inaugural effort, said she believes almost all of the money raised will be spent on inauguration expenses. Any remaining balance, she said, might be donated to charity or held for the next inauguration if Dixon runs for election in 2011 and wins.

(baltimoresun.com)

Unions organize people

Related Posts with Thumbnails