N.J. Gov. Chris Christie issues order curbing political donations by unions

N.J. Gov. Chris Christie issues order curbing political donations by unions

Here is the same story, different URL:

N.J. Gov. Chris Christie issues order curbing political donations by unions

Excellent! That is great news.

TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie began his term today by testing the limits of his power, issuing an executive order curbing political donations by labor unions that Democrats and union leaders insisted would not withstand legal challenges.

Boo-hoo-hoo say Democrats and union leaders.

But his Executive Order No. 7 — broadening campaign finance rules to limit donations by labor unions that have state contracts — drew immediate objections from Democrats. Organized labor, a traditional Democratic constituency, worked feverishly against Christie during the campaign. [...]

“This will cut the legs out of Democratic fundraising. It will not go unchallenged and it will not stand,” said Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), a prolific fundraiser. “It’s clearly an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights of working men and women of New Jersey.”

Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), a prolific fundraiser.

When is he up for re-election???

Bob Master, a spokesman for the largest state workers union, the Communications Workers of America, also called the order “unconstitutional.”

“I don’t know what his motivation is. It seems to me to be way, way over the top,” Master said. “I just don’t see how it withstands legal muster.”

Christie said he was simply bringing unions in line with other “business entities,” such as law and engineering firms that have state contracts worth more than $17,500. Those businesses are barred from donating more than $300 to statewide campaigns, but freer to give in local races.

“It’s been unfair to the state of New Jersey to have one set of people who do business with the state be able to continue to contribute to campaigns, while another group of people can’t,” Christie said. “The idea of pay-to-play (reform) is to level the playing field.”

Adding unions to the pay-to-play restrictions was praised by the Election Law Enforcement Commission, the state’s campaign finance watchdog agency. “We’re very much in favor of strong pay-to-play laws,” said Jeffrey Brindle, executive director of ELEC.

Unions are businesses and IMHO, they should be illegal. What is the difference between “collective bargaining” and price fixing? How is it that the public schools do not run afoul of anti-monopoly laws? When public money goes to people, then to unions, then in the pockets of politicians spending the pubic money… how is that not racketeering?

Christie ROCKS!

What on earth do the last two paragraphs have to do with the story? Looks to me like gratuitous Republican-bashing.

But environmentalists said Christie — under the guise of promoting business growth and eliminating “red tape” — could harm preservation efforts across the state.

“They’re very dangerous when it comes to environmental protection,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club.

What media bias?

At the same time… I’m not exactly what you would call a “fan” of McCain-Feingold.

Supreme Court decimates McCain-Feingold campaign finance law; Update: Citizens United reacts to victory

Many of you may remember a scathing documentary by Citizens United about Hillary Clinton from 2007. I blogged about it at the time here.

The film became the center of a huge legal battle over the free-speech-stifling McCain-Feingold campaign finance scheme.

Parts of the law were struck down by the Supreme Court when the Wisconsin Right to Life group challeged advertising provisions in 2007.

Today, the law took an even bigger hit as a majority sided with Citizens United:

In a stunning reversal of the nation’s federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.

Siding with filmmakers of “Hillary: The Movie,” who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

Ah… They can “directly spend.” Is that the same as bribing Democrats making campaign donations directly to politician campaigns?

http://wp.me/pFZU8-39

Posted By Oldhardhead