By Benny Morris (Author), Roger Owen (Editor), Edmund Burke (Editor), Michael C. Hudson (Editor), Walid Kazziha (Editor), Rashid Khalidi (Editor), Serif Mardin (Editor)
Bill Halter (wearing tie) will be Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s opponent in a Democratic primary runoff for the U.S. Senate.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln helped sink the proposed Employee Free Choice Act, which would have made labor organizing much easier. Now the Democrat is headed to a primary runoff against Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, thanks in part to a massive multimillion-dollar campaign effort by the AFL-CIO and the SEIU that paid off for the unions in Tuesday’s primary.
Lincoln is seeking a third term in the U.S. Senate.
Even if Lincoln wins the primary runoff, she faces a tough fight in the general election. The labor movement, by targeting Lincoln and other imperiled Democratic incumbents who opposed the Employee Free Choice Act and health care reform, has really been showing its teeth. —PZS
Washington Post:
Working America started eight weeks ago with six organizers. At its peak, the group sent 45 paid workers a day to knock on doors, Holmes said. In all, the group spoke to about 90,000 people in 27 towns and sent 1.75 million pieces of pro-Halter mail.
A pairing of the Service Employees International Union and the Communications Workers of America reached an additional 85,400 prospective voters who agreed to discuss the Senate campaign, said Jon Youngdahl, SEIU national political director.
SEIU, which has only 1,000 members in the state, spent more than $1.5 million, including a $1 million television buy, Youngdahl said. The national AFL-CIO spent $3 million or more on Halter’s behalf, spokesman Eddie Vale said.
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
By Hester, September 8, 2011 at 6:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Stands back from the kbyeoard in amazement! Thanks!
Each official candidate’s campaign should be financed from the public purse in a manner that creates a level playing field in each riding in a fixed and equitable manner. Any candidate who “cheats” by any means - using his/her own money, accepting under-the-table in-kind support, etc. - should immediately be disqualified from the contest.
HOW the allotted money is spent should be up to the candidate. HOW MUCH is allotted should be up to the voters in each riding.
When unions or any other organization or individual with vested interest in the outcome of an election pours millions of dollars into a candidate’s campaign war chest - I CALL IT BRIBERY. I do not believe anyone would do such a thing “on principle” or to support what the candidate “stands for.” I believe they most certainly will expect, demand and receive, “favors” for such contributions in future. It’s BUYING THE CANDIDATE and it should be considered and treated as a felony crime.
Those found guilty of authorizing such expenditures should be sentenced to 1,000 hours of unpaid service in the campaign of any party they DIDN’T try to buy.
By Hester, September 8, 2011 at 6:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Stands back from the kbyeoard in amazement! Thanks!
Report thisBy RAE, May 20, 2010 at 8:05 am Link to this comment
I fully agree with PatrickHenry on this.
Each official candidate’s campaign should be financed from the public purse in a manner that creates a level playing field in each riding in a fixed and equitable manner. Any candidate who “cheats” by any means - using his/her own money, accepting under-the-table in-kind support, etc. - should immediately be disqualified from the contest.
HOW the allotted money is spent should be up to the candidate. HOW MUCH is allotted should be up to the voters in each riding.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, May 19, 2010 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment
Campaign financing in America is the root of the problem we have with our Government.
Report thisBy RAE, May 19, 2010 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment
When unions or any other organization or individual with vested interest in the outcome of an election pours millions of dollars into a candidate’s campaign war chest - I CALL IT BRIBERY. I do not believe anyone would do such a thing “on principle” or to support what the candidate “stands for.” I believe they most certainly will expect, demand and receive, “favors” for such contributions in future. It’s BUYING THE CANDIDATE and it should be considered and treated as a felony crime.
Those found guilty of authorizing such expenditures should be sentenced to 1,000 hours of unpaid service in the campaign of any party they DIDN’T try to buy.
Report this