I think that should be fairly obvious. The allegations that certain unions are little more than fundraisers for the Democratic party would obviously not work anymore. And so on.
More respectable=more members=more money=more political clout and so on.
Not the issue here
I thought unions were supposed to represent their members. If something that Governer
Sczh Arnie proposes works against the interest of their members, then of course the unions should oppose it. If not... why should they blow their money on something that doesn't effect them or their members?
So?
Wtf?
[qupte]
So we should only weaken who Arnold calls special interest groups?[/quote]
Excuse me? I think that restrictions on donations by all groups is needed. And I don't think that the proposal would weaken the labour movement in the long run.
Er... what? Shall I run through my arguement again, because you don't seem to have taken the trouble to read it.
Not that there are many of those in California (% terms anyway). Have a wild guess why.
Here's a tip; don't post shortly after drinking