Tuesday, December 16, 2008

UAW Gave $1 Million+ to Pro-Bailout Congressmen; Media Focus on Anti-Bailout Interests

.
Over the past month, accusations have been flying against several Southern senators who oppose a $14 billion bailout for the beleaguered big three automakers and support the the alternative of Chapter 11 bankruptcy. These senators, critics say, are representing the interests of foreign automakers that donate heavily to their campaigns.

But what has been largely ignored is the other side of the equation - the influence of the United Auto Workers (UAW) on the members of Congress that voted for the bailout.

According to campaign finance data from the Center for Responsive Politics Web site OpenSecrets.org, when broken down by how members of Congress voted, for the 2008 election cycle the UAW gave more than eight times as much in campaign cash to members that voted for the bailout than those that voted against it -- $1.14 million to proponents versus just $136,500 that voted against it.



As Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., pointed out last week - much of the force behind the push for the bailout can be attributed to the UAW - for fear that Chapter 11 bankruptcy would spell the end of their influence.

"The primary driver behind this is the unions, because bankruptcy allows the auto companies to basically restructure all their contracts in a way that a bankruptcy judge says will make them sustainable," DeMint said. "And if they do that, then essentially the unions lose all their leverage. It's the unions that have brought them to the brink. So definitely, I think the reason they want a political solution and a car czar is because a car czar can protect the unions through this whole process at the expense of the taxpayer."

Despite this data showing the UAW has overwhelmingly gave to bailout proponents versus its opponents, the media have largely ignored the union and has attacked bailout opponents for representing the interests of foreign automakers with manufacturing facilities in the United States.

[our 'investigative journalists' at their finest]

READ MORE

No comments: