Pay for Play: Conserv. Group offers to sell endorsement to FedEx then flips

[Chicken Little]

From Politico:

Conservative group offers to sell endorsement for $2M

By MIKE ALLEN | 7/17/09 5:07 AM EDT

The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group's endorsement in a bitter legislative dispute, then flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.

For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: "Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU's Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU's board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)"

The conservative group's remarkable demand — black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as "pay for play" — was contained in a private letter to FedEx , which was provided to POLITICO.

The letter exposes the practice by some political interest groups of taking stands not for reasons of pure principle, as their members and supporters might assume, but also in part because a sponsor is paying big money.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25072.html#ixzz0LWi6MrME

Sorry to interrupt the important discussion about mommy jeans, but lobbyists are busy selling access to our government and we should care about this.

ACU offered to support FedEx's desire to limit labor union expansion...for $2 million cash American.  When FedEx rebuffed them, they flipped sides...and everybody's favorite conservative buddy, Grover Norquist, is among the ACU members that signed off on the flip.  Ugly stuff.

[cannon_fodder]

If verified, the group lost any and all credibility.  I hope the members are appalled.  They aren't taking a stance on issues, they are selling political support.

[Conan71]

You guys are making it sound like this is the only group in Washington doing this.  Have a cup of coffee and wake the love up.  The lobbyists have been in control of DC for the last 20 years, not the Democrats or Republicans or the liberals or conservatives.

[USRufnex]

Well there is precedent here......

3rd Columnist On Bush Payroll
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/26/politics/main669432.shtml

Pundit Armstrong Williams settles case over promoting education reforms
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-20-williams_x.htm

[Red Arrow]

The ratio of principle vs. economics with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (members make Boeing 777s) will be interesting if Smith (FedEx) cancels a multibillion $ order for 777s based on the outcome of the legislation. See George Will's piece on today's TW editorial page. 

[USRufnex]

George Will is your typical anti-union conservative elitist....
There are two sides to every story, sometimes more than two.
A story you won't see in the TW....

FedEx's Anti-Union Drive
FedEx tries to tap taxpayer resentment by portraying proposed labor law changes as a "bailout" for rival UPS
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009068_154641.htm

Here are the details: The legislation seeks to remove a distinction between how UPS and FedEx Express must deal with employees. Because FedEx was originally founded as an airline, FedEx Express workers are currently subject to the Railway Labor Act (RLA), a law passed in 1926 to prevent disruptions to national air and train traffic. Though many FedEx Express workers don't have a direct relationship with the operation or maintenance of the air fleet, they are still covered by the RLA. That law carries a difficult path to unionization that requires a national vote by every worker at a company, and doesn't allow for organizing at a local, terminal-by-terminal level. Since the late 1990s, UPS and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have pushed to change this classification.

The provision in the current bill would remove FedEx Express drivers from the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act, and put them under the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA covers most private-sector workers in the U.S., including delivery drivers, truck mechanics, and workers at sorting facilities both at UPS and at FedEx Ground, a sister unit of FedEx Express. "FedEx has managed to use the RLA to keep workers from organizing," says Jim Berard, a spokesman for the House Transportation Committee. "This bill puts FedEx on the same footing as UPS." The Teamsters union is pushing for the bill as a way to create what it calls a level playing field for workers at the two companies.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yes, the idea that a conservative organization should ask FedEx to give them millions of dollars for their support is NEWS.

Of course, if a liberal organization like MoveOn.org ever tried those kinds of tactics, the same usual suspects on this forum would be HOWLING IN PROTEST!

And Fox News would be on the story like flies on XXXX.

[Conan71]

UPS can't afford another strike.  Fortunately for UPS, Fedex was just barely getting into ground transportation during the strike 6-7 years ago, otherwise UPS would just be another epitaph in the U.S. corporate graveyard.

Funny how the wealth re-distribution types never snipe about over-paid union employees or the leeches that live off union dues.

[Red Arrow]

Ruf

Yep, George Will is an anti-union conservative.  Elitist, maybe.  I consider him balance for Maureen Dowd, Georgie Ann Geyer (sp?) and others like them.  Fortunately we don't have to put up with too many in the TW.

You and I have different opinions about the benefits of Unions.  No sense in re-hashing that here.

George Will also explained the difference between the NLRA and RLA.  He also noted that FedEx supported UPS's 1993 effort to have its workers moved to RLA.  FedEx Pilots are Union.  Smith (FedEx) "says that the pay and benefits for its drivers are, on average, higher than those of UPS drivers, and that new FedEx drivers must only wait three months to be eligible for benefits whereas UPS drivers must wait a year."

OK, where's the benefit to the FedEx drivers to unionize into different locals all over the country?  Lower wages?  Wait longer for benefits?  The probability of making your employer even more unprofitable in a recession?  Dealing with dozens(?) of locals for a nationwide system has to be a major headache.  The benefit to Unionize FedEx drivers into the NLRA vs. the RLA is for UPS, not the FedEx workers.  If FedEx is such a terrible place to work, the drivers would be able to get enough support for a national level union.

A conservative (or any persuasion) organization asking for $ to support a position in a similar manner is indeed news.

If a liberal organization were to try that they should get the usual protests, here, FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC,......  Just the same as any conservative group will get clobbered by the Big Three networks.  All this brings up the reason for my post.  IF FedEx cancels the order with Boeing, will the Machinists at Boeing stand by their support for UPS or will they vote with their wallet?  What coverage other than FOX would you expect to hear if they vote their wallets?  You can probably guess what coverage I would expect. (Guess low.)

[USRufnex]

UPS can't afford another strike.  Fortunately for UPS, Fedex was just barely getting into ground transportation during the strike 6-7 years ago, otherwise UPS would just be another epitaph in the U.S. corporate graveyard.

Funny how the wealth re-distribution types never snipe about over-paid union employees or the leeches that live off union dues.

UPS is a good company....

Funny how conservatives never mention fairness in regards to organized labor-- who can organize, who can't and who relies on antiquated laws from the 20s (FedEx) to give them an unfair advantage over a union shop (UPS)... that's what this is about....

Wealth re-distribution?

Yeah, that's what Reagan did in the 80s when he raised my taxes and froze minimum wage for a decade...... and what Bush did by freezing minimum wage for a decade and no longer taxing dividends or the kind of wealth that doesn't actually involve work to acquire...

See, I don't get my flat tax panties in a wad when people who made half the money I make aren't paying the same percentage of income tax I pay....

Guess what?  I like non-union WalMart... I work for a non-union shop... I prefer it that way... I was forced to join a grocery store union (AFL-CIO) in Indiana.... but some unions have their place...

But this isn't about that..... this is about fairness in the ability to organize or not to organize.... and about the actions of a conservative group to whore out their influence to the highest bidder....

Go figure.

[Conan71]

UPS is a good company....

Funny how conservatives never mention fairness in regards to organized labor-- who can organize, who can't and who relies on antiquated laws from the 20s (FedEx) to give them an unfair advantage over a union shop (UPS)... that's what this is about....

Wealth re-distribution?

Yeah, that's what Reagan did in the 80s when he raised my taxes and froze minimum wage for a decade...... and what Bush did by freezing minimum wage for a decade and no longer taxing dividends or the kind of wealth that doesn't actually involve work to acquire...

See, I don't get my flat tax panties in a wad when people who made half the money I make aren't paying the same percentage of income tax I pay....

Guess what?  I like non-union WalMart... I work for a non-union shop... I prefer it that way... I was forced to join a grocery store union (AFL-CIO) in Indiana.... but some unions have their place...

But this isn't about that..... this is about fairness in the ability to organize or not to organize.... and about the actions of a conservative group to whore out their influence to the highest bidder....

Go figure.

So Ruf, I guess it would stand to reason you'd be equally upset about a liberal group to whore out it's influence to the highest bidder or for liberal Congressmen and Senators to whore out their votes to their most influential campaign contributors?

[Red Arrow]

UPS is a good company....

Yeah, that's what Reagan did in the 80s when he raised my taxes and froze minimum wage for a decade......

My taxes went up during the Reagan era too but Reagan didn't raise them. My employer did by increasing my salary.  Darn the bad luck.

[guido911]

So Ruf, I guess it would stand to reason you'd be equally upset about a liberal group to whore out it's influence to the highest bidder or for liberal Congressmen and Senators to whore out their votes to their most influential campaign contributors?

Of course Ruf would not be upset. Dems/libs corruption (or whoring out influence) does not count.

[USRufnex]

Hmmm.  Republican chattering class at play.... let me get this right.... Rush Limbaugh has opinions, but Michael Moore is... gasp.... propaganda.

Back to the premise of this thread.... so, has Moveon.org engaged in this kind of pay-for play, too?....... if so, can you post a link, please?   

[USRufnex]

My taxes went up during the Reagan era too but Reagan didn't raise them. My employer did by increasing my salary.  Darn the bad luck.

I was in college full time on scholarship working part-time retail jobs at or near minimum wage...... guess that just makes me lazy.

Darn the bad luck.

[Red Arrow]

I was in college full time on scholarship working part-time retail jobs at or near minimum wage...... guess that just makes me lazy.

Darn the bad luck.

Every time I look at the tax rates from that era, I do not see an increase.  You must have had some deductions that you lost.  FWIW, I never called you lazy.