Here at NewsBusters, we've documented Ed Schultz's heroic if unsuccessful struggles with the English language. Guess we've got to add math to the subjects where Schultz requires some serious remedial work . . .
On his MSNBC show this evening, Schultz asserted that corporations donate 1000 times more money to political campaigns than unions do. Or as Ed said, in his inimitably muddled manner,: "unions contribute 1/10th of 1% of their money that corporations put into campaigns. Now think about that: 1/10th of 1%. You got the corporate money over here; you got the organized labor money over here."
How off is Ed? The National Review's Rich Lowry has documented that in the last election cycle, three unions alone kicked in $170 million to Dem coffers. So corporations would have had to contribute . . . $170 BILLION to match Ed's alleged 1000:1 pace just for those contributions, ignoring the donations that all other unions made!
View video after the jump.
Here's the transcript,. Perhaps NB readers might like to contribute to the Send Ed To Math Summer School Fund.
ED SCHULTZ: Well Republicans, you see, they love to LIE about the political influence that organized labor has in this country. Now, as an information consumer, in this commentary tonight, I want you to capture this one thing, if nothing else. Unions contribute 1/10th of 1% of their money that corporations put into campaigns. Now think about that: 1/10th of 1%. You've got the corporate money over here; you got the organized-labor money over here.
Let's put it in terms of the worker. How would you feel if a person was doing the same exact job in your workplace, and he or she is earning 99.9% more money than you? Would you go to the boss and say hey, can we get some fairness here. this is the disparity when it comes to funding campaigns. And oh by the way, that was before the Supreme Court ruling.
Note: Ed can't even be internally consistent. He twice suggests that union donations are only 1/10th of 1% of corporate donations. That would make corporate donations 1000x larger. But his illustration of someone making 99.9% more would only amount to a bit less than twice as much. So Ed's only off by a factor of about 500.
