I know while watching one debate I here him say I don't have a PAC. I'd have to go back and look at comments before I agreed or disagreed with you on other implications.
of course it's mandatory. and being founded in 2009 doesn't mean much. they just combined a bunch of nurses unions. Founded in December 2009, NNU brought together the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, United American Nurses, and Massachusetts Nurses Association.
national nurses organizing committee has mandatory dues. http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...on-slu-hospital-nurses-look-to-eliminate.html
There is a difference of opinion that's going to cloud all this anyway. I think unions can be good and even necessary things. Some of you think they're by definition bad things. You hear that unions are supporting someone and see it as a strike against them. I see it as a positive sign.
I heard Bernie's campaign manager saying something to the effect of, If they want to make a comparison, I will take comparing contributions from Nurses to taking contributions from Wall Street all day long.
so donating money to people who control your pay seems fair to you? you seem to have a problem with politicians taking money from corporations. I hardly see the distinction. actually i'd say this is far far worse in the case of public unions or in this case unions who's members are largely paid by public funds.
I've worked some shitty jobs where I wouldn't have minded union representation. Maybe you haven't, judging by your question. What is the difference between giving money to your union versus getting underpaid by your employer? You have more of a say with your union. Your union is motivated to make sure you are taken care of, so you can keep contributing. Your employer is motivated to maximize their own profits. Like I said, we have a difference of opinion. I think the difference between hundreds of thousands of nurses and a handful of wall street types is obvious.
I worked for a race track. I had mandatory union dues. It sucked balls. if you feel you are underpaid by your employer. leave. which btw is what I did at the race track because despite union representation they paid their employees like shit. how naïve are you? the union is solely motivated for the betterment of the workers? my lord. there are hundreds of thousands of people working for these wall street firms?
no. but you aren't forced to then spend your money on the republican candidate to help them get reelected. I bet you'd have a problem with that.
I get that angle and it certainly loosens the seals of my argument. I've thought about that. My personal conclusion was that it doesn't blow the lid off the argument because: 1) Ready for Hillary was a SuperPAC created for her and raised millions. That is her PAC. Bernie doesn't have one like that. 2) Priorities USA Action while started for Obama is now aimed at Hillary. It has no real policy objective that ties all its donors together - it is just a PAC to fund Hillary. It might also give to other non-Presidential candidates. Not sure. I don't know of a PAC like that funding Bernie. 3) The Nurses Union PAC has maintained a focus on expanded Medicaid and workers rights through multiple elections. They believe Bernie embodies that and they are putting money toward his campaign because of that. They are different than Priorties USA Action in the sense that the organization they represent and their donor base is consistent between cycles and has a cohesive focus. That is what PACs were meant to be in my opinion. It is hard to call that kind of PAC Bernie's PAC. Just as it would be hard to call similar PACs that are funding Clinton Hillary's PACs.
No. Bernie's big problem is individual (as in a person) giving tens of millions through a PAC to sway an election. Even if forced, the Nurse's money is a collection of individuals, which he states he is proud is his base. Small individual donors. That's why the distinction is important to him. My point is that I don't find the distinction technically wrong.
