Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 21, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Benghazi Fiasco
  • Gosnell Trial
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Alex Fitzsimmons's blog
  • The Obama Scandal the Big Three Networks Aren't Telling You About
  • WashPost 'Express' Tabloid Cover Laments: How Can Obama 'Break from the Storm' of Scandals?
  • It Gets Worse: WashPost Reports Obama DOJ Also Spied on James Rosen of Fox News
  • Crowley to Obama Advisor: 'Why Didn't the President Just Say, Yeah, Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack?'
  • CBS's Sharyl Attkisson Says Team Obama 'Perfected' Delaying Info Release And Has 'Quit Talking to Me Altogether'
  • Fareed Zakaria Howler: 'Obama’s World View is Rooted in American Exceptionalism'
  • Video: Brent Bozell Cautions Media Will Quickly Revert to Defending Obama, Attacking GOP Over Scandals
  • Bozell Column: 'Progress' Gets Canceled

Dylan Ratigan vs Tim Carney: How Much Does Big Labor Spend on Political Campaigns?

By Alex Fitzsimmons | August 15, 2011 | 18:14

A  A
Alex Fitzsimmons's picture

On the August 15 "Dylan Ratigan Show," MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan and the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney sparred over the extent to which Big Labor impacts the political process relative to other industries.

Ratigan, who has made a career out of bemoaning the influence that the energy, banking, health care, defense, telecom, and agriculture sectors exert on politics, omitted organized labor from his exhaustive (exhausting?) list. After Carney pointed out that labor unions collectively direct more campaign contributions to political candidates than any other industry in the country, Ratigan sternly corrected him: "That's not right. You can't invent facts...that's a great distortion of facts to make it look like labor controls the government."

So who's right?

According to Duquesne University professor Anthony Davies' chart, posted by Big Government last month, Big Labor has contributed to more political candidates and political parties from 1989 to 2009 than all "Top-100" special interest groups combined.

The study shows that during that time, labor unions have donated twice as much money to political candidates and parties as the telecommunications, insurance, pharmaceuticals, and real estate industries combined.

Honing in on more recent spending reveals that while Big Labor expenditures vary by election cycle, the top unions are always formidable forces.

Open Secrets data shows that while the Chamber of Commerce, a pro-business lobby, spent the most money among non-party committees, nearly $33 million, during the 2010 cycle, the top three labor unions combined to outspend the Chamber: the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent almost $16 million, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) spent $13 million, and the National Education Association (NEA) spent $10 million, for a grand total of $39 million.

Data from the 2008 cycle paints an even more promising picture for Carney's case: the SEIU spent the most money, $42 million, and the AFSCME spent the second most, nearly $20 million. Meanwhile, the Chamber of Commerce spent about $16.5 million. Overall, spending by non-party liberal groups outpaced non-party conservative groups by $159 million to $120 million, respectively.

While no one doubts the influence of pro-business groups, Carney seemed to be on solid footing by insisting that Ratigan add Big Labor to his list of influence-peddling bogeymen.

A transcript of the relevant portions of the segment can be found below:

MSNBC
Dylan Ratigan Show
August 15, 2011

4:23 p.m. Eastern

IMOGEN LLOYD WEBBER: Can I just ask a question here? Have politicians and people in this country gone more to the left or more to the right? Reagan, for instance, raised taxes 11 times.

DYLAN RATIGAN: Can I tell you why I think that's the wrong question? Because all of our politicians – all of the Democrats in this country, all the Republicans in this country, pretty much everybody that's there – gets all of their money for all of their political campaigns from banking, health care, energy, defense, communications, and agri-business.

TIM CARNEY, Washington Examiner: You left out labor.

RATIGAN: Labor I'll put –

CARNEY: Number one contributor to politics in the last –

RATIGAN: That's not right. You can't invent facts. 40 percent of all political donations come from finance, insurance, and real estate. I'll show you the numbers afterwards, I don't want to get drawn into a hole.

CARNEY: Of the top 10, 5 are labor.

RATIGAN: I understand that and that's a great distortion of facts to make it look like labor controls the government. But the fact is –

CARNEY: I'm not saying they control it, but if you're going to list the biggest givers you have to list labor.

RATIGAN: Just give me one second. So is it a matter of left or right or is it a matter that all the politicians have been bought by industries that profit at the extraction of America?

WEBBER: Is that the fundamental question? I don't know –

RATIGAN: In other words, when we indulge the question – I wonder if we're Democrat, I wonder if we're Republican, I wonder about the Yankees or I wonder about the Red Sox – the problem is they're all bought.

--Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Unions
  • Campaign Financing
  • 2008 Congressional
  • 2010 Congressional
  • Congress
  • Economy
  • Dylan Ratigan
  • Tim Carney
  • Dylan Ratigan
  • MSNBC
  • Alex Fitzsimmons's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

I would rather get my news

Submitted by Maideneer on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 6:25pm.

I would rather get my news update from Dylan McKay than from Dylan Ratigan. This hateful "newsman" has a screw loose in several places.

  • Login to post comments

Dylan maybe you two are both right?

Submitted by okiehawk44 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 6:33pm.

Maybe it's time to completely rework how we pay for this country's expenses -- let's get rid of all (that's right all) tax incentives and exemptions so that you're taxed on what you buy (including your $26 million apartment in NYC or your $125 thousand dollar home in Fargo ND) not for how much you earn. Everyone in America should pay something for the privilege of living in America and for the defense of this country. Everyone means EVERYONE.

Those now unemployed -- IRS employees and most lobbyists -- can be the first in line at Obama's new Department of Jobs.

  • Login to post comments

Question

Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 6:33pm.

How many people does "big labor" represent in comparison to the special interest groups?

  • Login to post comments

???

Submitted by KornKing on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:52pm.

"big labor" is not a "special interest" group?

  • Login to post comments

Big labor

Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:01pm.

Represents 35+ million American workers. Kind of a big "special interest" group.

  • Login to post comments

Does not change the fact

Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:07pm.

It is still a special interest group.

  • Login to post comments

Are you playing obtuse?

Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:11pm.

A special interest group with 35,000,000 members would very likely donate more money to a campaign than 100 special interest groups that represent 10,0000 members. Duh.

  • Login to post comments

What the hell does membership have to do with it?

Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:20pm.

The term "special interest" would refer to the narrow focus of the group on one or two "special interests".

At least we know Ted here doesn't "play" obtuse.

"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
  • Login to post comments

Thank you

Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:26pm.

And the idiot has the gall to end with duh? Ted has lost a few steps during exile.

  • Login to post comments

Reading intolerant I see

Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:39pm.

"The study shows that during that time, labor unions have donated twice as much money to political candidates and parties as the telecommunications, insurance, pharmaceuticals, and real estate industries combined."
Labor Unions = 35,000,000 members
Telecom =
Insurance =
Pharmaceuticals =
Real Estate =

Fill in the number for each of these lobbying groups with the number of individuals to benefit from their lobbying goals. Doesn't come to 35,000,000.

Boo-yah!

  • Login to post comments

AND

Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:43pm.

That has what to do with your ignorance of what constitutes a special interest group ?

  • Login to post comments

Yeah, by his thinking

Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:42pm.

AARP is not a special interest group either.

"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
  • Login to post comments

The Bureau of Labor Statistics seems to disagree

Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:53pm.

with the contention that "35 Million" are represented by "Big Labor".

The following quote is from their release on January 21, 2011.  "In 2010, 7.6 million public sector employees belonged to a union, compared with 7.1 million union workers in the private sector. The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers (6.9 percent)".  The page that covers this is here.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

What's that Ted, er, Jack?

Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 3:30pm.

I missed your reply on the disparity between your claimed membership in "Big Labor" of 35 million, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures which show a whole lot less. 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

Pretty bad math, huh?

Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 5:00pm.

I used the statistic from the dept of labor that 11.9% of workers belonged to a union. 35 million was based on our population of 300,000,000 rather than using the population of our workforce. It doesn't change the argument, larger special interest groups will put more money into favorable politicians than smaller groups.

  • Login to post comments

Yeah, that was close, as in

Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:20pm.

we were talking about the same workforce, but that's it. 

And, we're not even addressing the point made, that if the unions had spent the money they confiscate from their members on their pension funds, they wouldn't be crying about "unfunded" pensions and card check. 

And, fudging the figures by about 21 million does change the argument, because now, no one takes your point about "larger special interest groups" seriously, except you, perhaps.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

It wasn't your math jm

Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:47pm.

It was your reading intolerance.

  • Login to post comments

Union Money

Submitted by LoosMoose on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 6:56pm.

Here is only a small sample.... be sure to read the last line....

BY KEITH BENMAN
kbenman@nwitimes.com
219.933.3326 | Sunday, August 31, 2008

Labor union's have lavished big bucks on the presidential campaign of Barack Obama since January of 2007 and only a piddling amount on the campaign of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.

On the eve of Labor Day, a Times analysis of Federal Election Commission data shows Obama scooped up $8.1 million from union political action committees through July 2008 while McCain garnered just $54,100 from organized labor and employee PACs so far in this presidential election cycle.

The all-or-nothing bet unions are placing on Obama repeats the strategy of heavily backing Democratic candidate John Kerry in the 2004 election.

"There is that huge split because there is a huge split in what Obama and McCain represent," said Tom Balanoff, President of Chicago-based Service Employees Union Local 1. "Barack Obama understands the needs of working families."

During and immediately after the primary season, SEIU political action committees were by far the largest organizational contributors to the Obama campaign, dropping a combined $7.26 million in his campaign war chest.

Of all the political action committee donations made to the Obama campaign, 89.3 percent were from unions. Of all the political action committee donations made to the McCain campaign, just 2.9 percent came from unions and employee PACs.

I had a nightmare that Keith Olberman was run over by a bus,.......  and lived.
  • Login to post comments

It's not just the actual

Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 7:25pm.

It's not just the actual dollars from Big Labor but their unpaid manpower hustling for the democraps that RATigan doesn't figure into the equation. Business people may give, but they don't get time off from their job to thugify the populace as union members do to force people to vote for their socialist allies in the democrap party.

  • Login to post comments

Blinded Once More

Submitted by desert3030 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 7:57pm.

Tell a Lib the truth and you throw them off their game and they....become mad. Make certain everyday you tell at least one Lib, or more... the truth and ruin their day.

Dylan the hardcase.....unions OWN Obama lock, stock and barrel.

Desert3030
  • Login to post comments

payback

Submitted by LoosMoose on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:21am.

The first "stimulus" package was essentially a payback to the unions, go back and look where the largest amount of money was spent, it was back to the unions. Give Obama credit where the facts are, he raised more money than any candidate for any office in history. The office was for sale.

I had a nightmare that Keith Olberman was run over by a bus,.......  and lived.
  • Login to post comments

Why was Ratigan so obviously blindsided?

Submitted by CT on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 10:44pm.

A little investigative reporting may be in order to uncover the cause of Dylan's myopia when it comes to union political contributions. He was caught out in the open he obviously didn't know the numbers, what's up with that?

The Obamination must go!
  • Login to post comments

It's more than just the money...

Submitted by AMR1960 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 1:12am.

Has anyone quantified in dollar terms; the value of the forced labor, that unions impose upon their membership in campaigns for their liberal beneficiaries?

 

_____________________ 

Long Live...THE REPUBLIC !

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • DOJ targeted more Fox News reporters than Rosen (Twitchy)
  • WashPost vs. WashPost on IRS probe (Ed Morrissey)
  • Media too prone to fall sway to Obama's referrent power (Salena Zito)
  • Five reasons to keep government out of Internet governance (Eli Dourado)
  • Is asking about what you pray for inappropriate for IRS? IRS commish not sure (Say Anything)
  • Another fed court invalidates Obama's NRLB recess appointments (Politico)
  • Former SecState Hillary Clinton's record leaves much to be desired (Kondracke)
  • Sen. Boxer is lying about impact of budget cuts on Benghazi security (WashPost)
  • Left-wing actor Cusack attacks Obama, Holder over AP scandal (Twitchy)
  • Dopey Chicago gun laws prevent museum from displaying unloaded WW2 relic (Fox News)
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
David Limbaugh's picture
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh Column: Partisan Obama Culture Spawned a More Abusive IRS
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: An Honest Examination of Race
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

ObamaCare's a Real Pain in the Neck
more cartoons
  • Morning Joe Meteorologist: Tornado Averted 'By The Grace of Whatever'
  • Bowling for Dollars....to Pay for Baby Deaths
  • Leno: It’s Gotten So Bad for Obama Fox News Changed Its Slogan to ‘See, I Told You So!’
  • Romney: ‘I’m Not a Fan of the President’
  • The Guardian Glamorizes New ‘Assault on Wall Street’ Movie as Justice
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use