Mr. Obama's Union Money
One of the best political friends Barack Obama has is the Service Employees International Union, the politically powerful union that has pledged to spend $75 million to get Mr. Obama and other Democrats elected.
When it comes to Democratic politics, there is no more potent player than the S.E.I.U., which has 1.9 million members across the country and a willingness to knock on doors, pour money into television ads and go flat out for its chosen candidate.
Their chosen candidate is Mr. Obama, who has benefited handsomely from their efforts in his primary battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wherever Mr. Obama has campaigned, the S.E.I.U has been there – forming almost a shadow campaign on his behalf. Mr. Obama may have vastly out-raised and out-spent all other candidates in this election. But even having the biggest campaign war chest of his own has not stopped the S.E.I.U. from adding its own considerable resources to support Mr. Obama’s election effort.
The S.E.I.U. is just one of many independent groups that are active in this election year. Many are unions. Others are nonprofit groups, like the conservative Club for Growth. Still others are so-called 527 groups, like the liberal MoveOn.org. But, by any measure, the S.E.I.U. is the biggest, the richest and the boldest.
To date, the union has spent $9.7 million supporting Mr. Obama – the largest amount spent by any outside group on any candidate. The next largest amount is the $2.3 million spent by the American Federation of State Local and Municipal Employees to support Mrs. Clinton. In addition, the S.E.I.U. has also spent $1.5 million in efforts attacking Mr. McCain. And, the union’s leadership has been loud in its calls for Mrs. Clinton to exit the race and cede the party’s nomination to Mr. Obama.
Federal election rules prevent the union from coordinating its efforts with the Obama campaign. But, when voters see television ads sponsored by the S.E.I.U., it’s hard to tell the difference between an official Obama ad and one paid for by the union.
The union also has more to offer than money. It has foot soldiers. In the recent Oregon primary, for instance, the union said it made 150,000 phone calls, knocked on 22,000 doors, sent out 200,000 pieces of mail and lead a massive get-out-the-vote drive headed by 500 union volunteers. In Indiana, where Mr. Obama lost to Mrs. Clinton, it led a similar effort. A television ad there called “New Building” focused on money being spent to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq, rather than that of the United States, and pointed out that Mr. Obama opposed the war.
One central campaign theme for Mr. Obama has been his denunciations of special interest money and his refusal to take money from lobbyists. In fact, during the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Obama went out of his way to criticize independent groups that had been supporting John Edwards.
But, when it comes to the S.E.I.U., which has its own political agenda in Washington, Mr. Obama has been silent. And many voters, especially those not schooled in the nuances of campaign finance rules, may not notice the difference when watching a television ad paid for by the Obama campaign versus one paid for by the union.
When it comes to Democratic politics, there is no more potent player than the S.E.I.U., which has 1.9 million members across the country and a willingness to knock on doors, pour money into television ads and go flat out for its chosen candidate.
Their chosen candidate is Mr. Obama, who has benefited handsomely from their efforts in his primary battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wherever Mr. Obama has campaigned, the S.E.I.U has been there – forming almost a shadow campaign on his behalf. Mr. Obama may have vastly out-raised and out-spent all other candidates in this election. But even having the biggest campaign war chest of his own has not stopped the S.E.I.U. from adding its own considerable resources to support Mr. Obama’s election effort.
The S.E.I.U. is just one of many independent groups that are active in this election year. Many are unions. Others are nonprofit groups, like the conservative Club for Growth. Still others are so-called 527 groups, like the liberal MoveOn.org. But, by any measure, the S.E.I.U. is the biggest, the richest and the boldest.
To date, the union has spent $9.7 million supporting Mr. Obama – the largest amount spent by any outside group on any candidate. The next largest amount is the $2.3 million spent by the American Federation of State Local and Municipal Employees to support Mrs. Clinton. In addition, the S.E.I.U. has also spent $1.5 million in efforts attacking Mr. McCain. And, the union’s leadership has been loud in its calls for Mrs. Clinton to exit the race and cede the party’s nomination to Mr. Obama.
Federal election rules prevent the union from coordinating its efforts with the Obama campaign. But, when voters see television ads sponsored by the S.E.I.U., it’s hard to tell the difference between an official Obama ad and one paid for by the union.
The union also has more to offer than money. It has foot soldiers. In the recent Oregon primary, for instance, the union said it made 150,000 phone calls, knocked on 22,000 doors, sent out 200,000 pieces of mail and lead a massive get-out-the-vote drive headed by 500 union volunteers. In Indiana, where Mr. Obama lost to Mrs. Clinton, it led a similar effort. A television ad there called “New Building” focused on money being spent to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq, rather than that of the United States, and pointed out that Mr. Obama opposed the war.
One central campaign theme for Mr. Obama has been his denunciations of special interest money and his refusal to take money from lobbyists. In fact, during the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Obama went out of his way to criticize independent groups that had been supporting John Edwards.
But, when it comes to the S.E.I.U., which has its own political agenda in Washington, Mr. Obama has been silent. And many voters, especially those not schooled in the nuances of campaign finance rules, may not notice the difference when watching a television ad paid for by the Obama campaign versus one paid for by the union.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home