How Stimulus Turns Into Influence

(You really ought to read this through. It is an interesting insight into how government growth means government control- in a way you night not expect.)

Our congress just passed an approximately $800 billion “stimulus” package, on partisan lines. Out of 535 in congress, THREE Republican RINO’s voted for his package. Wait. What sounds dirty. Well, it is… but not that kind of dirty.

These packages are always dirty, to levels we can’t imagine at first glance.

Let’s take a look at some little known facts, and a recent development- largely under-reported at this time.

For the Presidential campaign, Obama raised approximately $500 million dollars. Of that, he received about $114 million from Unions, specifically the SEIU and AFL-CIO. What kind of influence can contributing 20% of the total Presidential coffer bring you? Hmmmm…

As you know, the bank bailout (TARP) passed last October cost about $700 billion. Of that, about $78 billion was wasted. But it is now becoming clear that the “cost” of doing business with Washington might have other strings attached. Obama is apparently toying with other “controls” on the businesses, some of which make sense on the surface, but really are not much more than an attempt to show there is a new sheriff in town. The actual effect will be mostly symbolic. Excepting possibly one, insidious, arm twisting effect…

Political strings can hang you- Anna Burger

With any money from Washington comes some strings attached. But should it reach to the level of controlling political “speech” in the form of lobbying?

Anna Burger is the Secretary-Treasurer of the SEIU, and Chair of the Change to Win foundation. Change to Win represents seven Union affiliates:

• International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)
• Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA)
• Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
• United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (UBC)
• United Farm Workers of America (UFW)
• United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW)
• UNITE HERE

She has had audience with Barack Obama, and has been present at White House bill signings and events, right at the President’s side. Suffice it to say, she has a lot of clout when it comes to Union representation.

Add to this one amazing fact, and maybe I will have more of your attention: she was one of 16 people assigned to the President’s economic advisory board for the recently passed stimulus bill. One of 16 people in the United States that Obama just couldn’t do without, when it came to stimulating the economy. One would think this board would be filled with experts in finances, whether that be markets, banking, economics, etc… Indispensable advice, needed to “save” the nation—  

— and Obama found it imperative to have on this board two representatives from the Union ranks. The other was Martin Trumka (of the AFL-CIO).

How will these people affect the distribution of monies from the current stimulus? For that, let’s look at how they are attempting to affect the TARP recipients, as it relates to congress and political speech, influence.

Hush Money

In a nutshell, what Anna Burger and the Unions are currently attempting to do is tell those who are accepting TARP money that they must shut their mouths when it comes to the Card Check bill, which those on the left have renamed the “Employee Free Choice Act”. Pretty words to fool the sheeple.

Burger is upset because some banks who have received monies from the TARP are lobbying against the EFCA (Card Check), and Burger figures this is their (Union’s) opportunity to get some leverage over the banking lobby’s political influence by exercising their own (Union’s) influence over congress.

Burger recently fired off an “across the bow” letter to Steve Bartlett, the Financial Services Roundtable President and CEO, warning them “cease and desist” any lobbying efforts against Card Check, and additionally, to revoke the membership of any bailout recipient that is engaged in “similar partisan political activity”.

Excerpts from the letter:

The Roundtable’s partisan political priorities are especially disturbing given that your members have so far received the lion’s share of federal bailout funds. According to current data on your website, Roundtable members account for 78 percent of the $256 billion in capital injections so far approved for financial services firms under TARP. In addition to providing the Roundtable with substantial membership dues, TARP recipients are also major contributors to your PAC.

After a January 27th Huffington Post story described the Bank of America call, five good government groups called on Congress to investigate whether the bank or other large bailout recipients have used taxpayers dollars to send “large contributions” to any political organizations. Their request follows a Senate bill recently introduced by Senators Feinstein and Snowe that would prohibit any bailout recipient from using such funds for lobbying expenditures or political contributions. As Senator Feinstein said in originally proposing this Act, “Federal dollars were not intended to be used for lobbying, and it would be unconscionable for these companies to misuse taxpayer dollars in this way.”

Any private use of taxpayer funds to influence the political process, whether by individual TARP recipients or the industry association they fund, raises serious questions. But partisan political activity by the Roundtable and its members with respect to Employee Free Choice crosses the line and constitutes an indefensible abuse of taxpayer money. It violates the intent of Congress, conflicts with Obama Administration policies prohibiting government contractors from using federal funds to oppose union organizing and throws a body blow to the working men and women who are paying for the bailout and whose economic security has already been ravaged by the excesses of your members.

It is time that Financial Services Roundtable and its members stop using taxpayer money to pay Congressional lobbyists and raise money for political candidates in order to deny workers a fair opportunity to organize free from employer interference and start fixing the nation’s financial system. I look forward to your response.

As you can see, the money comes, potentially, with some strings. 

I agree in principle with the comment that it is unethical for a bank to use TARP money for lobbying, with a few exceptions:

1. As long as the bank is fluid and able to move monies, how would one know what monies went where? Could they not just “lobby” with non-tarp moniesand then use TARP monies for “business”?
2. Should we not consider that lobbying IS part of a normal business expense?
3. I would never support ANY bill which essentially made a private entity a “government contractor” simply because it took aid from the Government. Could we not extend that to those who have student loans? Wouldn’t that now apply to everyone who receives aid on their mortgage now? How about GM, or Chrysler? Are they, too, now “government contractors”? 

As a side note, Burger and Change to Win supported the blanket amnesty for illegals, as initially proposed by the Senate Judiciary Committee in March of 2008.

Additionally, Timothy Geithner is going to likely propose a – are you ready? $2, $3, maybe $4 TRILLION dollar additional “TARP 2″. How much more “influence”, or limit of same, will that put over the recipients?

Government is buying the country. And with it comes strings which control the political future…

Be Sociable, Share!

•